What? No apology, Sabrina? Just *impatience*? Won't you allow me a few days to let this all settle out before announcing my conclusions? Give various folks a chance to actually examine what's been released? Oh, very well. Since you are soooooo impatient ... here's my answer. Yes, Sabrina, at first blush this does allay my doubts. This would appear to be proof we can trust that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. Satisfied?
Not hardly, but it'll do for a start.
LOL! So President's are above the law? And you are OK with that? Any other laws you think we should allow this president to get an "EXCEPTION" for by simply writing a letter? Hmmmm?
Ahem, and I quote...
-snip-
Like ANTPogo, headscratcher, and others, I rather wish the President had not done this; it does set a bad precedent and could be argued that it is an abuse of power (despite the unusual circumstances behind the request) by those who still dislike the President.
From
this post of mine
But Obama clearly did ruin Lakin's career. All Lakin wanted to see is the document that was just released. And apparently it was so simple to make that happen. A simple letter and taa daa … in a few days a certified copy was available for release to the public. And that would have spared Lakin and saved the cost of all the lawyers hired by Lakin, Obama and the government (paid for by the taxpayers) in that case. One … letter. But instead Obama let this otherwise exemplary military officer (who was only expressing the doubt that some 40% of the American public had at the time but who, because he might have to put his life on the line for this President, wanted real assurance) have his life (and his family's life) ruined. It will be very curious to see what happens now to him. I think Obama owes him a pardon. It would be the decent thing to do.
No, he did not. Former LTC Lakin made his own decision to disobey orders based on a faulty interpretation of who issues deployment orders. His orders came down from the Department of Defense and his duly appointed chain of command, NOT President Obama. President Obama did not owe this man anything regarding his orders because President Obama did not GIVE the order to have Lakin deploy. Therefore, it was a nonissue. That Lakin did not see it that way based on a flawed and LEGALLY DETERMINED TO BE FAULTY interpretation of who issues orders is NOT President Obama's fault. Lakin's lawyers, IIRC, even said his interpretation was wrong. Why then should the President in any way validate this man's disregard for his fellow soldiers? You do realize that when he refused to deploy, he created a serious situation for the doctor who had to scramble to deploy in an extremely short time to be Lakin's replacement, right? Where's your sympathy for that doctor, and his family? The decent thing to do would be for Lakin to admit flat out that he was wrong and apologize to that family and his fellow officer for creating a quite possibly devastating situation for them.
Speaking from the military perspective (which, you will recall, I am well qualified to do), what Lakin did was a cop-out. He decided he didn't want to deploy, for whatever reason, and went around looking for a possible excuse. That he latched onto the wrong one is his fault and no one else's.
Arggggh! A *demand* from a poster who made two
bogus claims and then she failed to back them up when challenged by me? Well, I've now answered your question, Sabrina. Yes, was my response. So now it's your turn. Show us where you got the claim that the Supreme Court had ruled Obama met all the Constitutional requirements for President. Can you do it or not? If the answer is yes, then do it. Show us ONE source for the definition of "certified copy" that your side of this debate has been using. Can you do it or not? If the answer is yes, then do it. "No qualifications of the answer will be accepted." Or were you actually just "ignorant" about those topics? Hmmmmm?
Regarding your point one; fine, I can admit I made a mistake there. Again, IANAL. I had heard that was the case, but a bit of Google searching in turn corrected my assumption. So there you go; you get an admission of me being mistaken.
HOWEVER... there are numerous sources scattered throughout this very thread that give you unequivocal proof that "certified copy" can and does refer to the computerized form that President Obama originally provided (and incidentally, I possess a similar "certified copy" of my own birth certificate that similarly does not include information that is included on my original, such as the doctor's signature, but which was fully sufficient to get me a high-level security clearance at one point when I thought I had lost my original and requested the replacement). Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem; I don't have time to go searching out every single one of them again and link them here, nor do I care enough.
You see, BaC, when it comes to trusting someone's interpretation of a law and a regulation, I'm going to go with the people who ARE trained in and HAVE experience in creating and interpreting said laws and regulations, not the flawed interpretation of an internet nobody. Hawaii's officials have stated unequivocally that the interpretation you keep giving in this thread is flawed. The very correspondence between the White House and the State of Hawaii requests an EXCEPTION to existing law, which they granted SOLELY because of his status as President, thereby proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the interpretation of the laws as given by others in this thread such as ANTPogo and Arus is correct and yours is wrong. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the State of Hawaii is not capable of providing a fully legal and certified copy of the original birth certificate used in 1961, by their own words, stated numerous times. That it happened this once is an aberration brought about by idiots who refuse to accept that a black man could possibly be elected President.
Satisfied?
df_mrc_export
