Salut, Alain. Bonne nouvelle année.
Most Americans do not fear our government. A few do, and are viewed by the rest of Americans as paranoid and living in an alternative Tea-party reality. That reality is so bizarre, and the people who advocate it as so bizarre that they do get a lot of publicity and attention. They do have a political impact, especially on the Republican party, where some republican leaders want to rid themselves of the Tea-Party members knowing that association with them will reduce the Republican party to fringe status, and other republican leaders want to embrace the Tea-Party knowing that it may be the last stronghold of the republican party. It is a fascinating trap and I am curious to see how the Republicans (who include some pretty decent and smart people) will work this out. Like people everywhere, most Americans want lower taxes and more government services. They want the government to stop telling them what to do with laws and regulations, but they at the same time want the government to stop others from doing things they disapprove of. As I said, like people everywhere. For myself, I appreciate our government greatly. By and large, it is efficient, economic, responsive, and transparent. Of course, there are many things the government does that I disagree with (especially in foreign affairs), but generally I appreciate and support our government. Generally! Laurent On Dec 31, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > my wife know that school. > it is a Jakarta dowtown secular state school... > the country is muslim, yet there is 6 religion allowed, yet mandatory (you > have to believe in one single god, with a paradise... that is the rule... > whichever it is is your choice, even if like US there are political group > using religion to reach power, and some increasing discrimination against > minorities, nationally or locally) > > until recently when liberalisation inspired by humanrightists develop, the > hijab (woman head scarf, which is much more sexy in indonesia than in saudi > arabia) was forbidden in state school... > > and whatever you can say, it is clear Obama speak more like an evangelist > priest... > A bit shocking for a secular French, but if american love that style, it is > their own freedom... > Our choices since 10 years are criticized by more than 50% of the population, > so we cannot give lessons... ah ah ;-) > > note also that what is evident from France is that US president is very weak > because of the constitution, by design ... parliament rules and is > republican... > > It is clear that US fear their government... > > whether it is good or not is not to be discussed... I just remind facts. > > 2012/12/31 Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> > His own autobiography says that he went to muslim school in Indonesia. You > can't go to muslim school unless you're muslim. > > > > > > Jojo > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "de Bivort Lawrence" <ldebiv...@gmail.com> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:14 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies > > > On what evidence do you base your assertion that President Obama is a Muslim? > > > On Dec 29, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro 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.... > > > > > > >
