Another gambit is to prove that the mother of POTUS was out of the country at the time of his birth. This would give me pause. Conversely, can it be proved that his mother was in the US at the time of his birth?
Such information should be available on the public record. Can this be done? If not, why not? Cheers: Axil On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ** > Axil, court battles have been inititated to force the revelation of > Obama's vault BC, but it has always been dismissed on technicality. > Supposedly, no American citizen can bring a charge against Obma because he > has not been "specifically aggrieved" or hurt by the elevation of an > unqualified POTUS. In other words, unless you can prove that you have been > hurt more than the rest of the people, you have no specific "standing" to > bring a court case. This is how Obama has been able to escape from > justice. It does not hurt that the shadow government demons are also > threatening all those you would try. > > It seems to me that if he is legit and has nothing to hide, he would > simply allow the openning of his vault BC and not spend over 4 million tax > payer dollars to defend it. What is the rational of defending a vault BC? > Why spend all the attorney's efforts and all the money that does not even > belong to him? > > Don't you find that unusual? > > I have said before. The Birther movement will die a quick death and I > will apologize in shame and go away if Obama can do this. > > Fact is, he won't because he can't. He either does not have a vault BC or > his vault BC must indicate he was not born in Hawaii. During that time, > parents and grandparents can register a birth by writing to the > authorities. But the BC thus created would not contain hospital or > doctor's information, or midwife information. That is likely what Obama's > BC is missing. But we will never find out because of the veil of > corruption. > > Axil, I don't care if Obama was releceted with 99% of the popular vote. > The Constitution ought be be stronger that mere popularity. We must be a > nation of laws if we are to survive as a nation. Bullying, ingnoring the > law, and/or "making up the rules as we go" will not cut it. > > > > > > > > Jojo > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:14 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies > > “But how about Obama? Do you think that his Birth Certificate have been > vetted properly and openly? Do you think Obama is a legitimately qualified > president? Can you conclude that he is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen based on > the scanned BC he has put up of the Internet? Cause other than this scanned > BC, there is no other proof he was born in Hawaii.” > > > The supporters of G. W, Bush took their case to court and won. The same > should be done for the supporters of the Birther theory. > > First find the convincing evidence, the smoking gun, that supports their > case, and then take it to the courts. > > It is not productive to appeal to the court of public opinion to advance > their case. > > I suspect an ulterior motive; that efforts in this regard are directed to > fill talk show air time and raise revenue from higher viewer ratings. > > Obama was recently reelected with a majority of 53% of the vote, so it is > an uphill fight to change all those minds and if accomplished…so what. > > > > Cheers: axil > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> ** >> Yes, Axil, I am honest enough to acknowledge that I have been wrong about >> GW Bush. I was a strong supporter of G.W. Bush at that time but have since >> changed my view. His membership in the "Skull and Bones" secret society >> should have tipped me off sooner, but I was preoccupied with partisanship >> at that time. Though I still think that he won Florida. >> >> But how about Obama? Do you think that his Birth Certificate have been >> vetted properly and openly? Do you think Obama is a legitimately qualified >> president? Can you conclude that he is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen based >> on the scanned BC he has put up of the Internet? Cause other than this >> scanned BC, there is no other proof he was born in Hawaii. >> >> I take that back, there could possibly be proof he was born in Hawaii >> that is in his vault BC. But alas, for some unknown inexplicable reason, >> he has blocked access to that. >> >> >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:36 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies >> >> “This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow >> government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces.” >> >> This accusation is categorically true for G. W. Bush. >> >> His election was notorious for a controversy over the awarding of >> Florida's 25 electoral votes, and the subsequent recount process in that >> state, fourth election in U.S. history in which the eventual winner failed >> to win a plurality of the popular vote. Later studies have reached >> conflicting opinions on who would have won the recount if it had been >> allowed to proceed. >> On December 12, the partisan Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 vote that the >> Florida Supreme Court's ruling requiring a statewide recount of ballots was >> unconstitutional, and in a 5–4 vote that the Florida recounts could not be >> completed before a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline, and should therefore >> cease and the previously certified total should hold. >> >> It is my belief that G. W. Bush was not validly elected president of the >> U.S. in contravention of the will of the majority. >> >> Fortunately, all such injustices are remedied by the passage of time and >> a beneficent providence. >> >> >> Cheers: axil >> >> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> No, I am not stating that the "President" is a muslim. I am stating >>> that the Usurper is a muslim. We currently don't have a legitimate >>> president; we have a usurper sitting on the throne. >>> >>> Why doesn't he just come clean? He could do this with a single 2 minute >>> phone call to the Hawaiian authorities to open access to his vault BC. He >>> can quickly end this controversy, establish his legitimacy, kill the >>> Birther movement and start the healing of the nation. He can do all that >>> in 2 minutes, yet he spends over 4 million dollars of Tax payer's money to >>> block access to this vault BC. Why block access to such an innocuous >>> document? WHY indeed? >>> >>> He won't because he can't. This is the pattern of a corrupt leader >>> proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic >>> forces. >>> >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "de Bivort Lawrence" < >>> ldebiv...@gmail.com> >>> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:40 AM >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies >>> >>> >>> Are you stating that the President is Muslim? >>> >>> >>> On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: >>> >>> Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything >>>> related to previous and current presidents. Anything about this current >>>> president is covered by this order. IF anyone wants to release information >>>> about Obama's BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the corrupt right >>>> henchman) or thru the Presidential counsel; for approval. This is the veil >>>> of corruption surrounding this usurper-in-thief and people like lomax are >>>> gving him a pass. I'm not surprised as lies are OK for Lomax as long as it >>>> helps prop up his illegitimate usurper muslim president. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jojo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" < >>>> a...@lomaxdesign.com> >>>> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>>> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 6:59 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies >>>> >>>> >>>> At 03:50 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Here is the actual Executive Order that Obama issued immediately >>>>>> after he took power. The Media spins this as rescinding a Bush Executive >>>>>> Order 13233. But in fact, it is a new Executive Order to specifically >>>>>> require his approval before release of any information, obstensively >>>>>> because of "Executive Privelege". >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Obstentively? Took me a moment. Ostensibly. >>>>> >>>>> "Release of any information." Sure. "Any information" of what type, >>>>> where located, and by whom? >>>>> >>>>> Now, Lomax, who is lying now. Do I get my apology now? What exactly >>>>>> have you debunked? .... you blatant liar. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, no apology, unless you show that the Executive Order does what you >>>>> claimed. I not only never claimed that this *particular* Exectuive Order >>>>> did not exist, I linked to it and discussed it specifically. >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>> Go Ahead, take you best spin shoot. Let's see what spin and lies >>>>>> you'll come up next. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You've acknowledged all along that what you are doing is spinning. You >>>>> have acknowledged that you say things that aren't true to create a >>>>> dramatic >>>>> image. That's "spin." But I'll give you a fair chance here. >>>>> >>>>> You claimed that this document is an Executive Order which blocks >>>>> access to Obama's vault BC. Below, I quote a bit of what I wrote, to which >>>>> you are responding. I wrote, in more than one way, "If he fails to >>>>> apologize, or point to an actual order doing what he claimed, he is, >>>>> effectively, a liar." >>>>> >>>>> Okay, how does this Order do that? What would cause this document to >>>>> apply to birth records held by Hawaiian state officials? It's all here >>>>> right in front of us, no more research should be necessary. >>>>> >>>>> But, also for the record, I'll say it again: There is no Executive >>>>> Order that blocks public access to the "vault" birth certificate. That >>>>> access is blocked by Hawaiian law on the privacy of records (as is true, I >>>>> think, in all states). Some access to records is blocked by HIPAA, a >>>>> federal law relating to the privacy of medical records, and there are >>>>> other >>>>> laws protecting the privacy of certain records, but no relevant Executive >>>>> Order that does what Jojo claims. >>>>> >>>>> He lied, and he is continuing to lie. But ... his turn. >>>>> >>>>> THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary >>>>>> >>>>>> For Immediate Release January 21, 2009 >>>>>> >>>>>> EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 - - - - - - - >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> (f) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose >>>>>> term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created. >>>>>> >>>>>> (g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's >>>>>> disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security >>>>>> (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the >>>>>> deliberative processes of the executive branch. >>>>>> >>>>>> (h) A "final court order" is a court order from which no appeal may >>>>>> be taken. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 or former Presidents to invoke executive >>>>>> privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. >>>>>> Copies >>>>>> of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the >>>>>> President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General >>>>>> (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). >>>>>> The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the >>>>>> former President or his designated representative. (b) Upon the passage >>>>>> of >>>>>> 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice >>>>>> of >>>>>> intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the >>>>>> records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the >>>>>> Archivist >>>>>> has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former >>>>>> President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President >>>>>> or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with >>>>>> reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter >>>>>> period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section >>>>>> 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the >>>>>> notice. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President. (a) Upon >>>>>> receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the >>>>>> Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for >>>>>> the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall >>>>>> review >>>>>> as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult >>>>>> with >>>>>> each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem >>>>>> appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is >>>>>> justified. >>>>>> >>>>>> (b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the >>>>>> exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and >>>>>> consultation >>>>>> under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that >>>>>> invocation >>>>>> of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified >>>>>> promptly of any such determination. >>>>>> >>>>>> (c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President >>>>>> believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive >>>>>> privilege, >>>>>> the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the >>>>>> President and the Attorney General. >>>>>> >>>>>> (d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the >>>>>> Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the >>>>>> Archivist, >>>>>> and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the >>>>>> specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such >>>>>> notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless >>>>>> directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President. (a) Upon >>>>>> receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, >>>>>> the >>>>>> Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant >>>>>> Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the >>>>>> President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems >>>>>> appropriate concerning the Archivist's determination as to whether to >>>>>> honor >>>>>> the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the >>>>>> Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any >>>>>> determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege >>>>>> shall >>>>>> not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the >>>>>> Archivist's determination with respect to the former President's claim of >>>>>> privilege. >>>>>> >>>>>> (b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this >>>>>> section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the >>>>>> incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final >>>>>> court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former >>>>>> Presidents >>>>>> of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the >>>>>> Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the >>>>>> circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. >>>>>> Copies >>>>>> of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the >>>>>> President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General >>>>>> (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). >>>>>> The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the >>>>>> former President or his designated representative. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be >>>>>> construed to impair or otherwise affect: >>>>>> >>>>>> (i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head >>>>>> thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management >>>>>> and >>>>>> Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals. >>>>>> >>>>>> (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law >>>>>> and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not >>>>>> intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or >>>>>> procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the >>>>>> United >>>>>> States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, >>>>>> or >>>>>> agents, or any other person. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is >>>>>> revoked. >>>>>> >>>>>> BARACK OBAMA >>>>>> >>>>>> THE WHITE HOUSE, January 21, 2009. >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" < >>>>>> a...@lomaxdesign.com> >>>>>> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 5:51 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Conclusion, there is no such Executive Order. It appears that Jojo >>>>>>> Jaro believes birther myths, long after they have been conclusively and >>>>>>> with evidence debunked. If he fails to apologize, or point to an actual >>>>>>> order doing what he claimed, he is, effectively, a liar. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Notice, the above is in reference to what was said below. Jojo doesn't >>>>> actually read what he responds to. It was a reference to an "Executive >>>>> Order to block access" to "vault records," i.e., the Hawaiian vault copy >>>>> of >>>>> the original long form certificate. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>>>> At 02:24 PM 12/26/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At 01:07 AM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Funny thing is, the new governor of Hawaii Ambercrombie - a >>>>>>>>> democrat, strong supporter of Obama, wanted to silence the birther >>>>>>>>> movement >>>>>>>>> once and for all. So, he sought to dig into Obama's vault BC. Guess >>>>>>>>> what? >>>>>>>>> Even he can't penetrate the veil of corruption Obama has put up to >>>>>>>>> block >>>>>>>>> access to his vault records. Why is there an executive order to block >>>>>>>>> access to Obama's vault BC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fascinating. Is there such an Executive Order? That would be quite >>>>>>>> odd. Legally, the President has no authority over Hawaiian officials, >>>>>>>> unless a federal issue could be shown. and this would not qualify. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jojo went on to repeat the Executive Order claim that Obama is >>>>>>> preventing access to the vault certificate. Is that true? Is there an >>>>>>> "Executive Order to block access." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What can be found on this? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> and then I went into detail, with links.... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
