Obama Signs Executive Order Barring Release Of His Birth Certificate

page: 4
63
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Cripes, leave this guy alone. Seems to me Obama's working for the US People, to help -- not hurt. Seven months in Office and all I seem to see is...

Decoy




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
That executive order doesn't grant Obama any new rights to restrict access to records. The President already has the right to restrict access to some records up until they have been out of office for 12 years.

In fact, that order is a re-issuance of essentially the same order that Reagan issued in 1989. That order (Reagan's) had been revoked by Bush in 2001, and replaced with one that would make it MORE difficult for someone to gain access to the records of former Presidents. Bush's order gave former Presidents (or the current President) the right to deny access to some of that former President's records, even after the 12 year period in which access to those records can be restricted per Title 44 of U.S. Code.

By revoking that 2001 executive order, and replacing it with essentially the same wording as Reagan's 1989 order, Obama actually made it easier to gain access to some former Presidential records after the 12 year period.

One might interpret that as a jab at Bush, but it wasn't an attempt to give himself more power to hide records. If you read Chapter 22 of Title 44, Reagan's executive order 12667, Bush's executive order 13233, and section 1270 of the NARA regulations, that becomes clear.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rams59lb
Obama Signs Executive Order Barring Release Of His Birth Certificate


False.

Also your title is very misleading.

Aside from the fact that his birth certificate has already been released to the public, you make it seem as if Obama created an executive order specifically regarding the release of his birth certificate. He did not. I also wonder if the people who "sniffed" out this little bit of information actually understand how an executive order works and what it allows. This seems to be in question when they are obviously inferring that now that he is president, Obama can claim executive priviledge on all of his birth documents and spirit them away in the night to an undisclosed location never to be seen again.

Don't pull your hair out in a panic just yet!!!



There are a few things you need to be aware of before you jump on the fear wagon and ride this birth certificate issue through this presidents first term.

First of all, an executive order isn't unquestionable.
A court order can override it should it be found necessary when a president attempts to invoke privilege.

It's that simple, and it has happened before.

This is from a 2007 TIME.com article regarding the former president and his option to claim executive privilege regarding the investigation into the firing of those eight U.S. attorneys.


Generally speaking, executive privilege is the President's right to withhold certain information from Congress, the courts and most anyone else, even in the face of a subpoena. It's a conditional privilege, meaning it can be overridden in some circumstances, such as when the President is the target of a criminal investigation.

That's why President Nixon famously lost his 1974 struggle in the U.S. Supreme Court to keep the Watergate tapes private. The Executive Privilege Showdown


You understand that this means that claiming executive privilege doesn't allow you to do just about anything you want to, right? If the courts find the invocation to be of a questionable nature they can override it. There just has to be a good reason to do so, and since the Supreme Court has already looked at this issue and saw it to be baseless, good luck on trying to make that work out. Anyone wishing to bring this back had better have something tangible, and NO a hard-right bloggers personal opinions aren't worth a damn.

Another thing you may not know is that Obama cannot retroactively claim "executive privilege" on all personal information starting from his birth up until when he was sworn into office.

He wasn't the president when he was in diapers.

He CAN claim privilege to information he gathers or is exposed to AFTER he became president, and yes that could be anything he personally has that he hasn't chosen to reveal. He can try and invoke privileged on those things but in this case, I don't think he needs to.

His birth certificate was already placed online as of June of 2009, and even shown to a few independent investigators for examination. Most of which had concluded it to be authentic, but that is besides the point and not a fact most want to hear.

The main point is that it is in the public domain now, so he can't just snatch it back and claim privilege on it.

This order will allow him to release the information of the previous president without a hassle and at his discretion. He can CHOOSE what it is he wants to reveal or hide what he feels we shouldn't see from the Bush administration. I suspect that was part of the intent behind this EO, and not to hide his birth certificate from a small group of people intent on building a conspiratorial castle out of toothpicks.

This is a bunch of ballyhoo over absolutely nothing and if you take the time to think it through you will see that this isn't the end of your quest for the long-form.

KEEP IN MIND:
The long-form is as legal as the certificate he did reveal.

BOTH are acceptable by law, just not acceptable to some political conspiracy theorists that want more. Legally that beats the conspiracy complaints regarding more information, when they have nothing to show by way of evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii. No Kenya birth certificate, no proof Obamas mother traveled to Kenya while pregnant, and finally no proof of fraud in the documents from the Obama family.

NOTHING...but "hunches" and "assumption" that is.

So first it was the issue of the "certificate of live birth" not being valid...which fell flat, and now it's the dogmatic quest for a long-form.

What is next after people get the long-form?

If I were Obama I wouldn't release it either, because contrary to what people have claimed...it will not end the debate but rather keep it going. Further indulgence can lend more credence to these baseless claims.

According to a federal court, and as high as the Supreme one of this land, so far these allegations have absolutely NO merit.

Do you think Obama has the entire Supreme Court in his pocket too, already?

If you want him out of office, find a better horse because this one is looking a bit winded.

- Lee



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22

By revoking that 2001 executive order, and replacing it with essentially the same wording as Reagan's 1989 order, Obama actually made it easier to gain access to some former Presidential records after the 12 year period.

One might interpret that as a jab at Bush, but it wasn't an attempt to give himself more power to hide records. If you read Chapter 22 of Title 44, Reagan's executive order 12667, Bush's executive order 13233, and section 1270 of the NARA regulations, that becomes clear.




Ah you beat me to it.

Starred.

- Lee



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by fraterormus
I guess I'm not a fanatic because I'm not seeing what the linked article's author is claiming or what others are claiming this Executive Order means.


In 1974 Congress passed the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974 placing the presidential records of Richard Nixon in federal custody to prevent their destruction. The legislative action was intended to reduce secrecy, while allowing historians to perform their responsibilities.

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 expanded such protection of historical records, by mandating that the records of former presidents would automatically become the property of the federal government upon his leaving the Oval Office, and then transferred to the Archivist of the United States, thereafter to be made available to the public after no more than 12 years.

President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12667 on 18 January, 1989 to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of Executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978.

President George W. Bush revoked this Executive Order by issuing Executive Order 13233 on 1 November 2001.

President Barack Obama restored Reagan's Executive Order 12667 with Executive Order 13489 on 21 January 2009. The wording is verbatim with the original Order.


This has nothing to do with a Birth Certificate. This has to do with a President issuing an Order to comply with the will of the Senate, the next President nullifying that Order to claim that doing so would be a threat to National Security, and the then next President after that saying that it is not a matter of National Security and that the Office of the President will comply with the Presidential Records Act of 1978, as former President Reagan had done.

I've read the Executive Order. It has nothing about Birth Certificates or Records of Live Birth. It has nothing to do with such a subject, but is purely a reinstatement of a former Executive Order by a former President to undo a wrong that the former President in between had made in claiming Executive Privilege and the Office of the President need not comply with the Presidential Records Act of 1978.

Methinks that some people are so genuinely obsessed with smearing a person and spreading hysteria that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

If you have issue with a genuine Policy then have at it. Heaven knows there are plenty of other genuine qualms a person could legitimately make against Obama Policy. However, fabricating lies, stating falsehoods, and spreading disinformation is not only pathetically immoral, but it is against the T.O.S. of ATS.

en.wikipedia.org...
 


Mod Edit:IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS.Please review this link



[edit on 19-7-2009 by GAOTU789]


if you read the document you would see that this executive order is for his presidential records. That means EVERYTHING.

(e) ‘‘Presidential records’’ refers to those documentary materials maintained
by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential
records.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Zarathustria
 


.gov website - I dont know if I would call that propoganda.

edocket.access.gpo.gov...



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
did any of you naysayers actually read the document or did you just look for the word birth certificate?

It's right in front of you. Presidential records mean all of his records. Plain and simple. You left wing nazi's can head back to germany now.

Page 3.

Presidential Records
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies
and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent
and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records
by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant
to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) ‘‘Archivist’’ refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.
(b) ‘‘NARA’’ refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.
(c) ‘‘Presidential Records Act’’ refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44
U.S.C. 2201–2207.
(d) ‘‘NARA regulations’’ refers to the NARA regulations implementing
the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.
(e) ‘‘Presidential records’’ refers to those documentary materials maintained
by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential
records.

Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records. (a) When the
Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his
intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the
NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent
and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the
disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive
privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right
of the incumbent

[edit on 20-7-2009 by epete22]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I hope I don't come off as ignorant but how is that presidents have the ability to sign executive orders which at least in some cases aren't even legal in the sense it violates preexisting laws on the books? In this case an executive order prohibiting the release of a birth certificate when there are still questions on it's authenticity is by definition not Constitutional and in my opinion powers not granted from the Congress.

This should be the approach legally in my opinion. The fact that in order to run for president one must prove they were born in the US. The fact that this administration signed an executive order prohibiting the release of his birth certificate is highly questionable. If he has nothing to hide, why go through the trouble? I didn't pay attention to the whole controversy over the birth certificate but this really raises questions. He seems to be afraid of what we might find.

Was there an executive order ever signed prohibiting the release of birth certificates from any past president?

I do not doubt that this battle, legally will end any time soon.

If you want to point fingers and label me I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I didn't vote for either one of those tools. =)


[edit on 20-7-2009 by oconnection]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Cripes, you people must be kidding us. After the Bush/Cheney constablitory do you really think rules apply to the executive branch?

Whitehouse rules and regulations respecting executive actions/in actions are the thing of the past, except for the willingness of the brass to abide by at least some, which I feel Obama's doing.

Decoy

edit: spelling

[edit on 20-7-2009 by Decoy]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Decoy
 


Yea and the Bush administration never did anything shady so it must be ok?
We haven't even opened that can of worms, hardly.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Rams59lb
 


As none of us have ever VOTED for the POTUS in our entire lives. NONE of us are entitled to this information.

To use the DMV argument. When you go to get your drivers license, is the 18 year old in the back of the line entitled to see your proof of eligibility? I dare say no, the 18 year old in the back of the line does not have the authority to question whether or not you are eligible for a drivers license. The same goes here.

As you do not vote for the POTUS but vote for Electors, you have no standing to ask for proof of eligibility.

The people behind this conspiracy forget that it is the Electoral College that actually votes for the POTUS. We the People vote for Electors.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

Article I Section 2

Amendment 14

Amendment 20

The SCOTUS has no legal standing to tell us whether or not Obama is Qualified to be POTUS.

The Electoral College and Congress do.

This case is done. Read up on your constitutional arguments.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Obama has proven that he is an out and out liar about a whole host of things ... so this doesn't surprise me in the least and as for those who make attempts to cover for him ... tsk tsk tsk



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 

Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Note the part where it says failed to qualify. In this case we have the suspicion that he may not be qualified because well we don't have his birth certificate for example.

and....

Under the terms of the United States Constitution, someone who wants to become the President must be a United States citizen who is at least 35 years old. These are the only legal requirements for the position; most citizens have a number of expectations of Presidential candidates which could be considered informal requirements.

Note the requirements to run for president that one must be a citizen. If he is a citizen why not end all this talk and release the record?

Your argument is only valid if proper checks and balances were in fact in place. Essentially a popular person could become president if they have the votes to pass on to the Electoral College? Doesn't that circumvent the requirements to run for President?

At least this seems to be the argument you are bringing up.



[edit on 20-7-2009 by oconnection]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Time for the internet to go down, in 3,2,1.... Years ? Months ?


"They" do not make such mistakes like putting a president with no birth certificate in office, and with the intention to let him finish his term. If that was "their" intention "they" could have made a false birth certificate anytime, years before.

More paranoia is always better, when investigating something must see all the possibilities.

What if Obama was allowed to win to be just a temporary puppet ? Until they decide to tell the people he is not a legal president, (in fact letting the people think they found out themselves), then create some chaos, then gain better control ("For your safety !").


Or it all could be very simple : Obama is not legit, and "they" (the Sith) try to hide it now, it could be just a mistake...






[edit on 20-7-2009 by pai mei]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Rams59lb
 


I think that the title is a little misleading don't you think? When you read the Excutive Order it pertains to certain records- the President and Vice President incumant and new. It does not preclude someone from using and getting a Judge to Order the Release of information from the (a) State.

Court cases are won and lost on the use or misuse of words.

Edit: I cant spel and my gramm'r iz bad.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by ShadowMaster]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
To all the people in here that are alarmed at Oama being born outside of the United States of America, look at all the Dual Citizens that basically run your country from the inside.

Getting upset about some milk on the floor when the vats are spilling their contents onto the ground seems a tad rediculous to me...an outsider.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by PjZ101
 


That is not how are legal system works. I don't have to prove I'm innocent, the accuser has to prove that I am guilty. I thought everyone knew that. If someone came up to me and said empty your pockets, I would probably run, for fear of being robbed.

I'm amazed, but your logic is flawed. In order to prove your theory correct, you must prove to me that you don't have a little girls body hidden in your basement or closet....well because I think you do, so to regain your credibility with me you must prove that you don't or else I will tell everyone that you do.

I tend to get offended when someone accuses me of something when they have no proof. I'm not asking for a picture of me doing the act, but please come up with something better than "I think you did". I don't go around trying to defend every bogus claim about me that there is, if this was the case alot of us would still be defending ourselves from high school rumors.


Did we learn anything today Class????



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by canihavemyvoteback
 


This could be considered an opinion but I was googling "did obama produce his birth certificate".

The first result was Yahoo answers, I'll look into this a bit more but I found this kinda funny.

answers.yahoo.com...


No, he has not. A document simulating a birth certificate was made public, but was not authentic and was not posted by President Elect Obama. Noone has checked to verify his eligibility to be president. My ten year old daughter wonders why we have to prove their eligibility to play little league by providing birth certificates, but noone authenticates the eligibility of presidential candidates. Apparently, she is going to be a Republican since she can realize such an atrocity going on. There is a man that has filed a law suit to bar his taking office until his eligibility is proven, it is currently in the hands of the Supreme Court. He has filed a concurrent suit to have his win not be formally announced (that does not take place until January, when congress officially opens the electoral collage votes and certifies them). We shall see what happens... I will say that I did not vote for Obama. He IS our President Elect, though. I would just have much more respect if I knew that win was fair and not fraudulent, and that he was even eligible. His own grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. His travel history gives clue to the fact that he is not a US citizen (as he travelled to an area that was off limits to Americans years ago-so either he commited fraud then or now).



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by oconnection
 


Ya know I tend to admit when I'm wrong. This site is pretty convincing and I'm [ ] close to retracting my assumptions. The one thing I'm uncertain of is why sign an executive order not to release his birth certificate? I'll inquire which executive order this was and read it for my self.

www.factcheck.org...


It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."




Corsi isn't the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are: * The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal. * It isn't signed. * No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version. * In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters. * The certificate number is blacked out. * The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008. * The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."




The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.


Which executive order are we talking about specifically?

Edit:
Are we talking about this executive order, number 13489? Isn't this counter acting a certain executive order that a certain president altered? Really, if it was this simple for me, I hope I'm missing something here.
en.wikisource.org...



[edit on 20-7-2009 by oconnection]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   
That EO had nothing to do with his birth certificate. Only presidential records... meaning certain government documents.

One need only follow the links in the article to read the actual body of the order.

Claiming it's about his birth certificate is all the author needed to do to get the birthers to buy it.
But, truth be told, reading isn't one of their priorities. Much like Dubya, they seem to look at intellect as a vice instead of a virtue.





top topics
 
63
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join