Wednesday, December 31, 2008

O-bot on the divorce decree

Yet another "Anonymous o-bot" has appeared on these pages to try to disrupt our discussions in response to a recent blog post:

Just curious, why would someone hire a PI, pay $1,000.00 (maybe more) to obtain a document that is a public record and has been there since 1964? Fee for this probably what? $20.00.

Also, the news report stated that they were able to find the Dunham/Obama divorce decree but the Dunham-Obama/Soetoro divorce decree could not be found (scrubbed), yet, it was posted here on line what? about a couple of weeks ago?

Can't believe whoever got the first one, could not have gotten the 2nd one at the same time. And, in the Dunham-Obama/Soetoro divorce decree, the place of birth for the children is not listed?

Why would the Indonesian school registration list Honolulu as where Obama was born yet divorce decree list Kenya? Doesn't make any sense. I seriously doubt if Stanley Ann Dunham was trying to "conspire to hide" anything when Obama was a child.

This character purports to be astounded that one thousand dollars was spent on some public record that has been available since 1964 for twenty dollars. Actually, one thousand dollars is nothing. At this point, the legal fees spent by Obama to hide his past are probably up in the many hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the value of the volunteer labor and pro-bono legal work by those questioning Obama amounts to probably even more. There have been at least 4 major full page newspaper advertisements that have cost many tens of thousands of dollars. There have been tens of thousands of dollars of FEDEX charges and thousands upon thousands of certified mail expenses and regular postal expenses. A lot of money has been spent. Because Obama has steadily refused, for many months now, to produce a 10 dollar document.

In addition, one thousand dollars to get ahold of a potentially important document in a far-off place like Hawaii is not exhorbitant. 

There have been assorted reports that not all of these supposedly easily obtainable public documents are so easy to find. Were they "scrubbed"? Or are these just examples of an incompetent bureaucracy?

This o-bot seems to think that there are no mistakes on official documents and that we can trust all documents that purport to be official records. This o-bot seems to believe that it is impossible for anyone to perpetrate fraud when filling out official paperwork. Including a handwritten document from a Third World country over 3 decades old, in a foreign language. Of course, the o-bot would discount the recorded interview with the Kenyan paternal grandmother as being unrealible, since that is from the Third World. And the o-bot would discount the statements of the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States since this Ambassador comes from the Third World. And yet this o-bot wants us to believe that the school registration from Indonesia is completely reliable ? (only the Honolulu birth location, not the Muslim religion or the Indonesian citizenship, of course)  A bit of a double standard. And again, an anonymous o-bot cherry picking the evidence to find only material that supports the new "Messiah". 

Why might Obama's mother or his adopted father have written "Honolulu" as the birthplace on the Indonesian school registry? Why would an Indonesian official have written "Honolulu" as the birthplace on the Indonesian school registry? There are lots of potential reasons: 

(1) It could have been a mistake or the result of a misunderstanding. After all, Obama had been living in Honolulu, or might have been, before going to Indonesia. This is not particularly clear. The school official or Leo Soetoro might have just assumed it was true. After all this was not a super important document; just a school registration. 

(2) Stanley Ann Dunham registered the foreign births of her other two children in Hawaii, possibly to give them access to the rights and privileges of American citizenship or a connection with the US if they wanted it later. Why not Obama as well? 

After all, Dunham expressed disdain for the US, as did her parents, but still maintained a connection with the US when it was to her advantage, such as working for US foundations. This is not uncommon among those who style themselves as "radicals and revolutionaries". They work to attack the system, while still taking advantage of what the system has to offer. Anyone familiar with William Ayers? 

(3)  Perhaps Dunham was "hedging her bets" a bit. After all, did she want to burn her bridges with the US, where she had been raised and her parents lived ? She had no problem with abandoning Obama at a young vulnerable age and leaving him with his grandparents to raise. This was clearly far easier to do if Obama had some connection with the US. Maybe she had thought about this in the back of her mind for a while as a possibility.

(4) Perhaps Dunham did not want to go into a big long drawn-out discussion with a school official about being married to a Kenyan student when she was underage and giving birth in a foreign land and being upset with Islamic practices in that foreign land. Particularly if that school official was Muslim, like most school officials in Indonesia probably were and probably are. 

(5) Parents want to give their children every advantage. And they will often go to great extents to give them any potential advantage, including moving to foreign countries or even telling a white lie or two. Some parents will work two or three jobs to give their children advantages they did not have, like access to a college education. Some parents will turn into essentially chauffers, shuttling their children around to soccer practice, ballet, music lessons, club meetings, etc, completely abandoning any private lives they had for their children. 

And US citizenship or a connection with the US is perceived to be an advantage. How else does one explain "birth tourism" even, from advanced places like Korea? Is it so hard to believe that Stanley Ann Dunham, who seemed to have a sort of disdain for US rules but still expected to be able to exploit it, would try to retain any potential advantages a connection with the US might offer for her son? After all, Dunham did it for her other two foreign-born children.

(6) Perhaps Dunham had to present some sort of birth documents to the school in Indonesia. And explain why this purportedly Indonesian citizen (who would not be allowed to attend school unless he was an Indonesian citizen, under Indonesian law at that time; recall that he did not begin school until the age of 7 and a half, which is a bit old for a purportedly brilliant student) did not look particularly Indonesian. 

Is it so hard to believe that Dunham might have presented a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth that showed that Obama was born in Honolulu, which she might have obtained easily to retain some sort of advantage for her son? She did this for her other two foreign-born children, after all. And is it that hard to believe that this document might show an incorrect birthplace for young Obama, since the attestation of only one relative was required at the time to obtain a Hawaiian COLB? Or that there was some fancy paperwork done at the Hawaiian Health Department associated with Obama's foreign birth to give him a COLB that had a Honolulu birth location? Which shows up on the long form vault copy, but not on the short form COLB? 

 Hawaiian law allows these birth records to be changed retroactively in a number of circumstances. And the Hawaiian law on birth records was particularly lax, clearly. 

So is it too hard to imagine that Dunham might have taken advantage of this? Particularly to give an advantage to her child, when she did it for two later foreign-born children as well? Why is that so hard to believe? 

(7) There are advantages to having multiple passports and associations with different jurisdictions. For example, Obama might have exploited his Indonesian connection to travel to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. Might Dunham have wanted to develop and retain these connections with different countries for any potential advantages they offered, for herself and her children? 

Of course, this is all just speculation. But I think someone who cannot imagine why Obama's school registration in Indonesia should list his birth location as "Honolulu" if Obama was not born in Honolulu is not using their imagination. And is also willfully ignoring Obama's refusal to verify his Hawaiian birth with a long form birth certificate containing corroborating evidence.

I will point out that if we can trust all official records, then why are there 15-30 million illegal aliens in the US with forged papers? Can we trust the documents they present as their "official records"? What about the 911 hijackers that used forged documents? Could we trust the documents they presented as their "official records"?

In this sort of situation, we need corroborating evidence. Just like that Russian proverb that Ronald Reagan quoted, "trust, but verify".  Obama has given us reason enough to want to verify. So we are asking to be allowed to verify. That is all. Why should that upset you so much, little o-bot? 

Do you think if you tried this trick on the next policeman that pulls you over and asks for your license and registration that it would work? What if the policeman saw you shoving something under the seat as he approached. Do you think that would raise suspicions? You know, in many jurisdictions, if the police see you acting suspiciously, they are allowed to search your car; to investigate further.

Obama is acting suspiciously so we would like to investigate further. Do you have a problem with that?  And if you do, why is that? 

O-bot on the divorce decree

Yet another "Anonymous o-bot" has appeared on these pages to try to disrupt our discussions in response to a recent blog post:

Just curious, why would someone hire a PI, pay $1,000.00 (maybe more) to obtain a document that is a public record and has been there since 1964? Fee for this probably what? $20.00.

Also, the news report stated that they were able to find the Dunham/Obama divorce decree but the Dunham-Obama/Soetoro divorce decree could not be found (scrubbed), yet, it was posted here on line what? about a couple of weeks ago?

Can't believe whoever got the first one, could not have gotten the 2nd one at the same time. And, in the Dunham-Obama/Soetoro divorce decree, the place of birth for the children is not listed?

Why would the Indonesian school registration list Honolulu as where Obama was born yet divorce decree list Kenya? Doesn't make any sense. I seriously doubt if Stanley Ann Dunham was trying to "conspire to hide" anything when Obama was a child.

This character purports to be astounded that one thousand dollars was spent on some public record that has been available since 1964 for twenty dollars. Actually, one thousand dollars is nothing. At this point, the legal fees spent by Obama to hide his past are probably up in the many hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the value of the volunteer labor and pro-bono legal work by those questioning Obama amounts to probably even more. There have been at least 4 major full page newspaper advertisements that have cost many tens of thousands of dollars. There have been tens of thousands of dollars of FEDEX charges and thousands upon thousands of certified mail expenses and regular postal expenses. A lot of money has been spent. Because Obama has steadily refused, for many months now, to produce a 10 dollar document.

In addition, one thousand dollars to get ahold of a potentially important document in a far-off place like Hawaii is not exhorbitant. 

There have been assorted reports that not all of these supposedly easily obtainable public documents are so easy to find. Were they "scrubbed"? Or are these just examples of an incompetent bureaucracy?

This o-bot seems to think that there are no mistakes on official documents and that we can trust all documents that purport to be official records. This o-bot seems to believe that it is impossible for anyone to perpetrate fraud when filling out official paperwork. Including a handwritten document from a Third World country over 3 decades old, in a foreign language. Of course, the o-bot would discount the recorded interview with the Kenyan paternal grandmother as being unrealible, since that is from the Third World. And the o-bot would discount the statements of the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States since this Ambassador comes from the Third World. And yet this o-bot wants us to believe that the school registration from Indonesia is completely reliable ? (only the Honolulu birth location, not the Muslim religion or the Indonesian citizenship, of course)  A bit of a double standard. And again, an anonymous o-bot cherry picking the evidence to find only material that supports the new "Messiah". 

Why might Obama's mother or his adopted father have written "Honolulu" as the birthplace on the Indonesian school registry? Why would an Indonesian official have written "Honolulu" as the birthplace on the Indonesian school registry? There are lots of potential reasons: 

(1) It could have been a mistake or the result of a misunderstanding. After all, Obama had been living in Honolulu, or might have been, before going to Indonesia. This is not particularly clear. The school official or Leo Soetoro might have just assumed it was true. After all this was not a super important document; just a school registration. 

(2) Stanley Ann Dunham registered the foreign births of her other two children in Hawaii, possibly to give them access to the rights and privileges of American citizenship or a connection with the US if they wanted it later. Why not Obama as well? 

After all, Dunham expressed disdain for the US, as did her parents, but still maintained a connection with the US when it was to her advantage, such as working for US foundations. This is not uncommon among those who style themselves as "radicals and revolutionaries". They work to attack the system, while still taking advantage of what the system has to offer. Anyone familiar with William Ayers? 

(3)  Perhaps Dunham was "hedging her bets" a bit. After all, did she want to burn her bridges with the US, where she had been raised and her parents lived ? She had no problem with abandoning Obama at a young vulnerable age and leaving him with his grandparents to raise. This was clearly far easier to do if Obama had some connection with the US. Maybe she had thought about this in the back of her mind for a while as a possibility.

(4) Perhaps Dunham did not want to go into a big long drawn-out discussion with a school official about being married to a Kenyan student when she was underage and giving birth in a foreign land and being upset with Islamic practices in that foreign land. Particularly if that school official was Muslim, like most school officials in Indonesia probably were and probably are. 

(5) Parents want to give their children every advantage. And they will often go to great extents to give them any potential advantage, including moving to foreign countries or even telling a white lie or two. Some parents will work two or three jobs to give their children advantages they did not have, like access to a college education. Some parents will turn into essentially chauffers, shuttling their children around to soccer practice, ballet, music lessons, club meetings, etc, completely abandoning any private lives they had for their children. 

And US citizenship or a connection with the US is perceived to be an advantage. How else does one explain "birth tourism" even, from advanced places like Korea? Is it so hard to believe that Stanley Ann Dunham, who seemed to have a sort of disdain for US rules but still expected to be able to exploit it, would try to retain any potential advantages a connection with the US might offer for her son? After all, Dunham did it for her other two foreign-born children.

(6) Perhaps Dunham had to present some sort of birth documents to the school in Indonesia. And explain why this purportedly Indonesian citizen (who would not be allowed to attend school unless he was an Indonesian citizen, under Indonesian law at that time; recall that he did not begin school until the age of 7 and a half, which is a bit old for a purportedly brilliant student) did not look particularly Indonesian. 

Is it so hard to believe that Dunham might have presented a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth that showed that Obama was born in Honolulu, which she might have obtained easily to retain some sort of advantage for her son? She did this for her other two foreign-born children, after all. And is it that hard to believe that this document might show an incorrect birthplace for young Obama, since the attestation of only one relative was required at the time to obtain a Hawaiian COLB? Or that there was some fancy paperwork done at the Hawaiian Health Department associated with Obama's foreign birth to give him a COLB that had a Honolulu birth location? Which shows up on the long form vault copy, but not on the short form COLB? 

 Hawaiian law allows these birth records to be changed retroactively in a number of circumstances. And the Hawaiian law on birth records was particularly lax, clearly. 

So is it too hard to imagine that Dunham might have taken advantage of this? Particularly to give an advantage to her child, when she did it for two later foreign-born children as well? Why is that so hard to believe? 

(7) There are advantages to having multiple passports and associations with different jurisdictions. For example, Obama might have exploited his Indonesian connection to travel to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. Might Dunham have wanted to develop and retain these connections with different countries for any potential advantages they offered, for herself and her children? 

Of course, this is all just speculation. But I think someone who cannot imagine why Obama's school registration in Indonesia should list his birth location as "Honolulu" if Obama was not born in Honolulu is not using their imagination. And is also willfully ignoring Obama's refusal to verify his Hawaiian birth with a long form birth certificate containing corroborating evidence.

I will point out that if we can trust all official records, then why are there 15-30 million illegal aliens in the US with forged papers? Can we trust the documents they present as their "official records"? What about the 911 hijackers that used forged documents? Could we trust the documents they presented as their "official records"?

In this sort of situation, we need corroborating evidence. Just like that Russian proverb that Ronald Reagan quoted, "trust, but verify".  Obama has given us reason enough to want to verify. So we are asking to be allowed to verify. That is all. Why should that upset you so much, little o-bot? 

Do you think if you tried this trick on the next policeman that pulls you over and asks for your license and registration that it would work? What if the policeman saw you shoving something under the seat as he approached. Do you think that would raise suspicions? You know, in many jurisdictions, if the police see you acting suspiciously, they are allowed to search your car; to investigate further.

Obama is acting suspiciously so we would like to investigate further. Do you have a problem with that?  And if you do, why is that? 

20 million letters to the Supreme Court

http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=631

CALL TO ACTION - A 20 million letter campaign - DO IT NOW!!!!!! This is our final chance to right this wrong. If you agree, please forward to all those who care. Thank you.
Posted on December 31st, 2008 by David Crockett

Reverend James David Manning has called for people to join a letter writing campaign to the Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court in this video.


Manning is asking that twenty million letters be sent. My letter, as drafted by WND follows. I encourage you to cut, paste, and mail ASAP. For the cost of one stamp, your voice will be heard by Justice Roberts who will sit in conference on January 9th to discuss whether the SCOTUS will hear Philip Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama, U.S.S.C. Case No. 08-570, in the U.S. Supreme Court has been scheduled for two [2] Conferences (January 9th and 16th, 2009)… http://www.obamacrimes.com/).

The address is

Chief Justice Roberts

United States Supreme Court

Defend the Constitution

One First Street, NE

Washington DC 20543



RE: PLEASE DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION



Dear Associate Justice Thomas:

If the Constitution doesn't mean precisely what it says, then America is no longer a nation under the rule of law.

A nation no longer under the rule of law is, by definition, under the rule of men.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly stipulates "No person except a natural born Citizen" shall be eligible to serve as president of the United States . That statement has clear meaning, and the Supreme Court of the United States is one of the controlling legal authorities in ensuring that the Constitution is enforced – even if doing so may prove awkward.

With the Electoral College set to make its determination Dec. 15 that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. be the next president of the United States, the Supreme Court is holding a conference Friday to review a case challenging his eligibility for the office based on Article 2, Section 1.

I urge you to take this matter most seriously – and judge it only on the clear, unambiguous words of the Constitution: A president must, at the very least, be a "natural born citizen" of the United States .

If you agree that this clear constitutional requirement still matters, the Supreme Court must use its authority to establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. qualifies for the office under that standard.

There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities. It's up to the Supreme Court to dispel all doubt that America 's next president is truly a natural born citizen of the United States .

I urge you to honor the Constitution in this matter and uphold the public trust.


Best Regards,
(name redacted)

20 million letters to the Supreme Court

http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=631

CALL TO ACTION - A 20 million letter campaign - DO IT NOW!!!!!! This is our final chance to right this wrong. If you agree, please forward to all those who care. Thank you.
Posted on December 31st, 2008 by David Crockett

Reverend James David Manning has called for people to join a letter writing campaign to the Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court in this video.


Manning is asking that twenty million letters be sent. My letter, as drafted by WND follows. I encourage you to cut, paste, and mail ASAP. For the cost of one stamp, your voice will be heard by Justice Roberts who will sit in conference on January 9th to discuss whether the SCOTUS will hear Philip Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama, U.S.S.C. Case No. 08-570, in the U.S. Supreme Court has been scheduled for two [2] Conferences (January 9th and 16th, 2009)… http://www.obamacrimes.com/).

The address is

Chief Justice Roberts

United States Supreme Court

Defend the Constitution

One First Street, NE

Washington DC 20543



RE: PLEASE DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION



Dear Associate Justice Thomas:

If the Constitution doesn't mean precisely what it says, then America is no longer a nation under the rule of law.

A nation no longer under the rule of law is, by definition, under the rule of men.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly stipulates "No person except a natural born Citizen" shall be eligible to serve as president of the United States . That statement has clear meaning, and the Supreme Court of the United States is one of the controlling legal authorities in ensuring that the Constitution is enforced – even if doing so may prove awkward.

With the Electoral College set to make its determination Dec. 15 that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. be the next president of the United States, the Supreme Court is holding a conference Friday to review a case challenging his eligibility for the office based on Article 2, Section 1.

I urge you to take this matter most seriously – and judge it only on the clear, unambiguous words of the Constitution: A president must, at the very least, be a "natural born citizen" of the United States .

If you agree that this clear constitutional requirement still matters, the Supreme Court must use its authority to establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. qualifies for the office under that standard.

There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities. It's up to the Supreme Court to dispel all doubt that America 's next president is truly a natural born citizen of the United States .

I urge you to honor the Constitution in this matter and uphold the public trust.


Best Regards,
(name redacted)

An O-bot Response to the Soetoro School Records

When I posted the Indonesian school records showing that a Barry Soetoro had registered for school in Indonesia as a Muslim, and was listed as an Indonesian citizen born in Honolulu in a previous blog post, another anonymous O-bot responded: 

"Robert,  One more thing. On the first two docs you provided to support the Soetoro thing, you might want to notice that on both docs, the Place of Birth stated is Honolulu. Seems to me this contradicts the whole "wasn't born in Hawaii theory", wouldn't it? Also, how old was Obama when this doc was filled out? Did Obama fill it out? Who filled out this doc?  
 
One of my parents is a Baptist and the other is a Catholic. Depending on which parent/guardian filled out one of my docs as a child would determine my Religion. If my Mom filled it out, it would state Baptist. If my Dad filled it out, it would state Catholic. I had no choice in the matter as a minor child."  

 
This O-bot seems to  want to bring up the religious aspect, doesnt he? It is true that these forms seem to suggest that Obama was registered in school in Indonesia as a Muslim. Again, this is a typical O-bot effort to distract from the issue at hand. No one has claimed that it is illegal to have a Muslim president of the US, have they? 
 
Also, this form was filled out by a minor child's parents probably, or maybe by a school official. And yes the birthplace on this form is listed as "Honolulu". So the O-bot wants to DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama is an Indonesian Citizen and DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama is a Muslim, and DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama's name was Barry Soetoro, but BELIEVE this form when it says Obama was born in Honolulu.  
 
Notice how the O-bot likes to cherry-pick the information? According to the O-bot, the only valid information is information that makes the "Messiah" look good. 

We have no idea how valid this form is. Maybe Obama did not go by the name Barry Soetoro as a child, although this has been confirmed by people that knew him in Indonesia, so that seems unlikely. Maybe Obama was born in Honolulu, but then if he was and his original long form certificate shows it, why has Obama fought efforts to get him to release that information?

You see, dear Anonymous O-bots, when it comes to trying to decide what information in this entire affair we can trust and what we cannot, one has to consider all the evidence as a whole, and look to see what evidence is corroborated and what is contradicted by other evidence and by common sense.
 
Playing the game the O-bot way, the only allowable evidence is evidence that supports the Messiah. Period. All other evidence must be discarded.

An O-bot Response to the Soetoro School Records

When I posted the Indonesian school records showing that a Barry Soetoro had registered for school in Indonesia as a Muslim, and was listed as an Indonesian citizen born in Honolulu in a previous blog post, another anonymous O-bot responded: 

"Robert,  One more thing. On the first two docs you provided to support the Soetoro thing, you might want to notice that on both docs, the Place of Birth stated is Honolulu. Seems to me this contradicts the whole "wasn't born in Hawaii theory", wouldn't it? Also, how old was Obama when this doc was filled out? Did Obama fill it out? Who filled out this doc?  
 
One of my parents is a Baptist and the other is a Catholic. Depending on which parent/guardian filled out one of my docs as a child would determine my Religion. If my Mom filled it out, it would state Baptist. If my Dad filled it out, it would state Catholic. I had no choice in the matter as a minor child."  

 
This O-bot seems to  want to bring up the religious aspect, doesnt he? It is true that these forms seem to suggest that Obama was registered in school in Indonesia as a Muslim. Again, this is a typical O-bot effort to distract from the issue at hand. No one has claimed that it is illegal to have a Muslim president of the US, have they? 
 
Also, this form was filled out by a minor child's parents probably, or maybe by a school official. And yes the birthplace on this form is listed as "Honolulu". So the O-bot wants to DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama is an Indonesian Citizen and DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama is a Muslim, and DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama's name was Barry Soetoro, but BELIEVE this form when it says Obama was born in Honolulu.  
 
Notice how the O-bot likes to cherry-pick the information? According to the O-bot, the only valid information is information that makes the "Messiah" look good. 

We have no idea how valid this form is. Maybe Obama did not go by the name Barry Soetoro as a child, although this has been confirmed by people that knew him in Indonesia, so that seems unlikely. Maybe Obama was born in Honolulu, but then if he was and his original long form certificate shows it, why has Obama fought efforts to get him to release that information?

You see, dear Anonymous O-bots, when it comes to trying to decide what information in this entire affair we can trust and what we cannot, one has to consider all the evidence as a whole, and look to see what evidence is corroborated and what is contradicted by other evidence and by common sense.
 
Playing the game the O-bot way, the only allowable evidence is evidence that supports the Messiah. Period. All other evidence must be discarded.

A 20 million letter campaign

Reverend James David Manning has called for people to join a letter writing campaign to the Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court in this video. Manning is asking that twenty million letters be sent. 

The address is

Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543


A 20 million letter campaign

Reverend James David Manning has called for people to join a letter writing campaign to the Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court in this video. Manning is asking that twenty million letters be sent. 

The address is

Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543


An email battle

I have had a short glimpse at a long-running email battle between an Orly fan known as "BobJen" and "John", who purports to be a lawyer. John writes long long emails to BobJen, arguing that there is no question that Barack Obama is eligible to assume the Presidency and that this entire controversy about his eligiblity is silly. 

I have to wonder why "John" is so frantic that he spends so much time and effort defending Obama. Here is one of the recent emails "John" sent to BobJen:

I performed research to respond to the question: Why doesn't Barack Obama release his "original birth certificate?" The answer is: he doesn't have to. Why? Because the birth record that he obtained and posted on the campaign website, entitled Certification of Live Birth, is competent evidence, admissible in the courts of the United States as a valid public record for the truth of the information contained in the document, which includes the date and place of birth.
 
The authority for its admissibility is found in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Hawaiian statutes governing birth records:
 
    1. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(9) provides that "Records or data compilations in any form of births, fetal deaths,, deaths or marriages, if the report there was was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law,"  are not hearsay and are therefore admissible in evidence for the proof of the information they contain (Copy attached)
 
        a. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-5 provides that it is a requirement of law to report every birth to the Department of Health" "within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred..."(Copy attached)
 
        b. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-12 provides that certificates shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. (Copy attached)
 
       c. Hawaii Revised Statues section 338-13 provides that the Department of Health shall upon request furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof
(Copy attached) 
    
 
    2. Federal Rule of Evidence 902 provides that such a record is self-authenticating if it bears the seal of any state or agency of a state and a signature purporting to be an attestation or an execution. The record is also self -authenticating if it has the signature of an officer or employee of a state or agency thereof if the officer certifies that the signer has the official capacity and the signature is genuine. 
 
The copy of the birth record ("Certification of Live Birth") on the Fact Check.org website contains the seal of Hawaii and the attestation of Alvin T. Onaka stating "I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file at the Hawaii State Department of Health."  (Copy of FactCheck.org  posting is attached; See also PoliticFact.org posting, copy attached: these are non-partisan organizations and not the Obama campaign).  This is sufficient to authenticate the document under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
 
Further, Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-19 states that the department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic or microphotographic copies of any records an fies in its office  and such copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original. 
 
in the case of Inoue v Inoue, 118 Haw. 86 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2008), the court concluded that the information regarding who fathered a child in the Certification of Live Birth was admissible and conclusive proof of paternity. (If you want the case, I'll send it, but it's long) 
 
Based upon these legal authorities,  the Certification of Live Birth is valid and admissible evidence that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961,
 
There is no competent evidence that the birth record is not true:
 
1. I have seen references to the requirements of the Hawaiian Homelands Program. The form for applying for that program says that an applicant should use a complete Certificate of Live Birth rather than a Certification of Live Birth. Why? Because to participate in that program you have to prove more than you were born  in the State of Hawaii. You have to prove that you are a native Hawaiian defined as "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778" This is not a requirement for the Presidency of the United States or to be a natural born citizen. It is a special requirement where one needs to provide his/hergenealogy. (Copy attached). 
 
2. I have seen references to certificates for children born out of state which can be issued under Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-17.8, But that statute does not say that you can have a certificate issued that states a child was born in Hawaii when the child was not born in Hawaii. I have seen references to the fact an amended birth record or certificate can be issued, but that statute says only if the person was born in Hawaii. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-17,7
 
3. I have seen references claiming that Obama's paternal grandmother says he was born in Kenya. That is pure hearsay. I have seen no statement or testimony from her under oath. Statements of others claiming she made these statements are not competent, admissible evidence, 

4. There is no evidence whatsoever that his mother ever even travelled to Africa.
 
5. When one applies for a birth record, there is no distinction between a Certificate of Live Birth and a Certification of Live Birth (See  Instructions and Form for "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record" attached). 
 
(By the way, you are a friend but if you were a client, this research would cost a lot of money).
 
On the use of names issue, I saw copies of Obama's drivers license, marriage license and Illinois State Bar registration record (like the one you sent me for Michelle Obama) on a website. In each of them he uses the name, Barack H. Obama or Barack Hussein Obama. Where did he use other names?
.....
Best regards,
 
John

The COLB presented purports to be prima facie evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, but unfortunately, there is  contradictory evidence that makes one question the authenticity of this COLB . 

John claims that Onaka has signed the presented COLB and affirmed that it is accurate. So if Onaka did this, and Onaka stands by that, why did the press release made by Onaka's organization not confirm this? Seems like an obvious thing to do, since that is what everyone is asking for.  Over and over. And not just informally, but in court proceedings. In multiple legal venues. 

If Onaka had confirmed that Obama's presented COLB showing that Obama was born in Hawaii was a true likeness and all information on this COLB was consistent with the long form original certificate on file with the Hawaii Health Department, probably 99 percent of this controversy would have evaporated. Instead, this press release raised even more questions because of what it did not state, and what Onaka and others at the Hawaiian Health Department have declined or refused to state.

John does bring up the argument that the COLB is not even good enough to participate in many Hawaiian government programs. If that is correct, which it appears to be, why should the COLB be accepted to show eligibility for the presidency? I certainly know a COLB would not get you a US government clearance, for example.

Obama is being hired to work for us, the citizens of this country. And as his employers, if we want to see that Obama is eligible for the job, then Obama should show us what we need to make sure we are comfortable that he is eligible and meets the requirements. It is that simple.

Several courts have issued subpoenas on the basis that the COLB is inadequate to show that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. So this "email lawyer" knows more than those judges? 

The problem is, Obama can refuse to show his long form copy all he wants. And Obama might even get away with it with Congress and with SCOTUS and other courts. But Obama is losing in the court of public opinion. And that is the most important court for Obama to be concerned about, since Obama is a politician. 

At least one state is instituting new rules requiring that all candidates on the ballot be vetted properly and requiring that all candidates show that they are eligible to participate (a little belated but perfectly reasonable for them to request this). If Obama continues to be unwilling to show his documents, then Obama will not get a second 4 year term. Obama might not even make it all the way through his first 4 year term if things turn against him badly enough.

And Obama will have to deal with what has happened to his public image in the meantime. And for a politician, his public image is the most precious resource he has. Already there are signs Obama's public image is badly tarnished [1][2][3].   And I predict it will get worse. 

On this eligibility issue, if Obama is eligible, Obama is causing himself and the country problems unnecessarily if what Obama and "John" allege is correct. Why would Obama do that?


Other names
 
John, since you seem to not be aware of Obama's use of other names, take a look at these:

 


An email battle

I have had a short glimpse at a long-running email battle between an Orly fan known as "BobJen" and "John", who purports to be a lawyer. John writes long long emails to BobJen, arguing that there is no question that Barack Obama is eligible to assume the Presidency and that this entire controversy about his eligiblity is silly. 

I have to wonder why "John" is so frantic that he spends so much time and effort defending Obama. Here is one of the recent emails "John" sent to BobJen:

I performed research to respond to the question: Why doesn't Barack Obama release his "original birth certificate?" The answer is: he doesn't have to. Why? Because the birth record that he obtained and posted on the campaign website, entitled Certification of Live Birth, is competent evidence, admissible in the courts of the United States as a valid public record for the truth of the information contained in the document, which includes the date and place of birth.
 
The authority for its admissibility is found in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Hawaiian statutes governing birth records:
 
    1. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(9) provides that "Records or data compilations in any form of births, fetal deaths,, deaths or marriages, if the report there was was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law,"  are not hearsay and are therefore admissible in evidence for the proof of the information they contain (Copy attached)
 
        a. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-5 provides that it is a requirement of law to report every birth to the Department of Health" "within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred..."(Copy attached)
 
        b. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-12 provides that certificates shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. (Copy attached)
 
       c. Hawaii Revised Statues section 338-13 provides that the Department of Health shall upon request furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof
(Copy attached) 
    
 
    2. Federal Rule of Evidence 902 provides that such a record is self-authenticating if it bears the seal of any state or agency of a state and a signature purporting to be an attestation or an execution. The record is also self -authenticating if it has the signature of an officer or employee of a state or agency thereof if the officer certifies that the signer has the official capacity and the signature is genuine. 
 
The copy of the birth record ("Certification of Live Birth") on the Fact Check.org website contains the seal of Hawaii and the attestation of Alvin T. Onaka stating "I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file at the Hawaii State Department of Health."  (Copy of FactCheck.org  posting is attached; See also PoliticFact.org posting, copy attached: these are non-partisan organizations and not the Obama campaign).  This is sufficient to authenticate the document under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
 
Further, Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-19 states that the department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic or microphotographic copies of any records an fies in its office  and such copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original. 
 
in the case of Inoue v Inoue, 118 Haw. 86 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2008), the court concluded that the information regarding who fathered a child in the Certification of Live Birth was admissible and conclusive proof of paternity. (If you want the case, I'll send it, but it's long) 
 
Based upon these legal authorities,  the Certification of Live Birth is valid and admissible evidence that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961,
 
There is no competent evidence that the birth record is not true:
 
1. I have seen references to the requirements of the Hawaiian Homelands Program. The form for applying for that program says that an applicant should use a complete Certificate of Live Birth rather than a Certification of Live Birth. Why? Because to participate in that program you have to prove more than you were born  in the State of Hawaii. You have to prove that you are a native Hawaiian defined as "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778" This is not a requirement for the Presidency of the United States or to be a natural born citizen. It is a special requirement where one needs to provide his/hergenealogy. (Copy attached). 
 
2. I have seen references to certificates for children born out of state which can be issued under Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-17.8, But that statute does not say that you can have a certificate issued that states a child was born in Hawaii when the child was not born in Hawaii. I have seen references to the fact an amended birth record or certificate can be issued, but that statute says only if the person was born in Hawaii. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-17,7
 
3. I have seen references claiming that Obama's paternal grandmother says he was born in Kenya. That is pure hearsay. I have seen no statement or testimony from her under oath. Statements of others claiming she made these statements are not competent, admissible evidence, 

4. There is no evidence whatsoever that his mother ever even travelled to Africa.
 
5. When one applies for a birth record, there is no distinction between a Certificate of Live Birth and a Certification of Live Birth (See  Instructions and Form for "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record" attached). 
 
(By the way, you are a friend but if you were a client, this research would cost a lot of money).
 
On the use of names issue, I saw copies of Obama's drivers license, marriage license and Illinois State Bar registration record (like the one you sent me for Michelle Obama) on a website. In each of them he uses the name, Barack H. Obama or Barack Hussein Obama. Where did he use other names?
.....
Best regards,
 
John

The COLB presented purports to be prima facie evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, but unfortunately, there is  contradictory evidence that makes one question the authenticity of this COLB . 

John claims that Onaka has signed the presented COLB and affirmed that it is accurate. So if Onaka did this, and Onaka stands by that, why did the press release made by Onaka's organization not confirm this? Seems like an obvious thing to do, since that is what everyone is asking for.  Over and over. And not just informally, but in court proceedings. In multiple legal venues. 

If Onaka had confirmed that Obama's presented COLB showing that Obama was born in Hawaii was a true likeness and all information on this COLB was consistent with the long form original certificate on file with the Hawaii Health Department, probably 99 percent of this controversy would have evaporated. Instead, this press release raised even more questions because of what it did not state, and what Onaka and others at the Hawaiian Health Department have declined or refused to state.

John does bring up the argument that the COLB is not even good enough to participate in many Hawaiian government programs. If that is correct, which it appears to be, why should the COLB be accepted to show eligibility for the presidency? I certainly know a COLB would not get you a US government clearance, for example.

Obama is being hired to work for us, the citizens of this country. And as his employers, if we want to see that Obama is eligible for the job, then Obama should show us what we need to make sure we are comfortable that he is eligible and meets the requirements. It is that simple.

Several courts have issued subpoenas on the basis that the COLB is inadequate to show that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. So this "email lawyer" knows more than those judges? 

The problem is, Obama can refuse to show his long form copy all he wants. And Obama might even get away with it with Congress and with SCOTUS and other courts. But Obama is losing in the court of public opinion. And that is the most important court for Obama to be concerned about, since Obama is a politician. 

At least one state is instituting new rules requiring that all candidates on the ballot be vetted properly and requiring that all candidates show that they are eligible to participate (a little belated but perfectly reasonable for them to request this). If Obama continues to be unwilling to show his documents, then Obama will not get a second 4 year term. Obama might not even make it all the way through his first 4 year term if things turn against him badly enough.

And Obama will have to deal with what has happened to his public image in the meantime. And for a politician, his public image is the most precious resource he has. Already there are signs Obama's public image is badly tarnished [1][2][3].   And I predict it will get worse. 

On this eligibility issue, if Obama is eligible, Obama is causing himself and the country problems unnecessarily if what Obama and "John" allege is correct. Why would Obama do that?


Other names
 
John, since you seem to not be aware of Obama's use of other names, take a look at these:

 


OBAMA HAS NOT MET HIS BURDEN OF PROVING HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII


By now, many of us know about the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama posted on the internet in June 2008 as proof that he was born in Hawaii.  This document was touted by fightthesmears.com and factcheck.org as sufficient proof that he was born in Hawaii.  Later on we learned about Hawaiian law in effect at the time of Obama's birth that allowed parents or guardians of babies born in a foreign country to register the foreign births in Hawaii and to receive a COLB as evidence of that registration.  We also learned that only the original Certificate of Live Birth (BC), issued by the birth hospital, provides, among other things, the name of the hospital where a baby was born and the name of the attending physician that delivered the baby.  We learned that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (a state agency that happens to detail the difference) states:

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a  more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

After learning this information many concerned Americans had doubts about whether the COLB was sufficient proof that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.  But apart from the lax Hawaii law, there is another important point to understand about the COLB.  

If one reads the document, one will see that at the bottom it states:  "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

The important words here are "prima facie evidence."  "Prima facie"  is a Latin phrase meaning "on its first appearance" or "by first instance." It is evidence which is adequate, if not invalidated, to confirm a particular intention or fact. It is evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.  A prima facie case may be insufficient to enable a party to prevail if the opposing party introduces contradictory evidence.  In other words, it basically means that on the face of it or on the surface there is enough evidence to prove the alleged fact, unless and until the alleged fact is contradicted. 

What does all this mean?  Obama has presented his COLB has proof that he was born in Hawaii.  That document itself states that it is only "prima facie" evidence of that fact.  As we have seen under the definition of "prima facie," the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented.  When evidence contradicting the alleged fact is presented,  the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact.  If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence.  

Many concerned Americans have provided the public domain with evidence which contradicts the COLB's statement that Obama was born in Hawaii.  They have presented the following:  the existence of the lax Hawaiian law that existed at the time Obama was born which allowed parents to register their foreign born babies in Hawaii; Obama's grandmother's statement that her grandson was born in Kenya and that she was present during that birth; the Kenya Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008 during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF's "Mike In the Morning," that "President-Elect Obama" was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a "well-known" attraction; the conflicting statements of Obama and his sister concerning in which Hawaiian hospital he was born; the failure of any Hawaiian hospital to confirm that Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama's alleged birth in Honolulu;  Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," but she failed to say that the certificate shows that Obama was born in Hawaii; fightthesmears.com's and factcheck.org's current silence on the issue;  the lack of any other corroborating document showing that Obama was born in Hawaii; the refusal of Obama to release for inspection his past documents (college and law school records and passports) which would shed some light as to where he was born; the failure of Obama to declare publicly after his COLB has been put into question that he was born in Hawaii; and Obama relying on state privacy laws to block the release of a certified copy of his birth certificate.  

This mountain of contradictory evidence is sufficient to cause the prima facie presumption of the COLB to fall.  Obama therefore now has the burden to come forward with competent evidence to prove that he was born in Hawaii.  To date, he has failed to come forward with that evidence.  

Hence, under these circumstances, how can the American people in good faith conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii which makes him a "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to be President?  How can Obama in good conscience take the oath to be President on January 20th when so many Americans have put forward all this contradictory evidence regarding where he was born and he refuses to come forward with any other convincing evidence (like a certified copy of his original birth certificate) showing that he was born in Hawaii?  

Obama should do the right thing for everyone's sake and produce the evidence of where he was born.  

(c) Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey 
December 31, 2008

OBAMA HAS NOT MET HIS BURDEN OF PROVING HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII


By now, many of us know about the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama posted on the internet in June 2008 as proof that he was born in Hawaii.  This document was touted by fightthesmears.com and factcheck.org as sufficient proof that he was born in Hawaii.  Later on we learned about Hawaiian law in effect at the time of Obama's birth that allowed parents or guardians of babies born in a foreign country to register the foreign births in Hawaii and to receive a COLB as evidence of that registration.  We also learned that only the original Certificate of Live Birth (BC), issued by the birth hospital, provides, among other things, the name of the hospital where a baby was born and the name of the attending physician that delivered the baby.  We learned that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (a state agency that happens to detail the difference) states:

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a  more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

After learning this information many concerned Americans had doubts about whether the COLB was sufficient proof that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.  But apart from the lax Hawaii law, there is another important point to understand about the COLB.  

If one reads the document, one will see that at the bottom it states:  "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

The important words here are "prima facie evidence."  "Prima facie"  is a Latin phrase meaning "on its first appearance" or "by first instance." It is evidence which is adequate, if not invalidated, to confirm a particular intention or fact. It is evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.  A prima facie case may be insufficient to enable a party to prevail if the opposing party introduces contradictory evidence.  In other words, it basically means that on the face of it or on the surface there is enough evidence to prove the alleged fact, unless and until the alleged fact is contradicted. 

What does all this mean?  Obama has presented his COLB has proof that he was born in Hawaii.  That document itself states that it is only "prima facie" evidence of that fact.  As we have seen under the definition of "prima facie," the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented.  When evidence contradicting the alleged fact is presented,  the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact.  If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence.  

Many concerned Americans have provided the public domain with evidence which contradicts the COLB's statement that Obama was born in Hawaii.  They have presented the following:  the existence of the lax Hawaiian law that existed at the time Obama was born which allowed parents to register their foreign born babies in Hawaii; Obama's grandmother's statement that her grandson was born in Kenya and that she was present during that birth; the Kenya Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008 during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF's "Mike In the Morning," that "President-Elect Obama" was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a "well-known" attraction; the conflicting statements of Obama and his sister concerning in which Hawaiian hospital he was born; the failure of any Hawaiian hospital to confirm that Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama's alleged birth in Honolulu;  Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," but she failed to say that the certificate shows that Obama was born in Hawaii; fightthesmears.com's and factcheck.org's current silence on the issue;  the lack of any other corroborating document showing that Obama was born in Hawaii; the refusal of Obama to release for inspection his past documents (college and law school records and passports) which would shed some light as to where he was born; the failure of Obama to declare publicly after his COLB has been put into question that he was born in Hawaii; and Obama relying on state privacy laws to block the release of a certified copy of his birth certificate.  

This mountain of contradictory evidence is sufficient to cause the prima facie presumption of the COLB to fall.  Obama therefore now has the burden to come forward with competent evidence to prove that he was born in Hawaii.  To date, he has failed to come forward with that evidence.  

Hence, under these circumstances, how can the American people in good faith conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii which makes him a "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to be President?  How can Obama in good conscience take the oath to be President on January 20th when so many Americans have put forward all this contradictory evidence regarding where he was born and he refuses to come forward with any other convincing evidence (like a certified copy of his original birth certificate) showing that he was born in Hawaii?  

Obama should do the right thing for everyone's sake and produce the evidence of where he was born.  

(c) Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey 
December 31, 2008

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Discussion with a staffer

I had an email exchange with Jon Yoshimura, who works for Senator Akaka of Hawaii. 

I sent him an email about Senate Resolution 511 and the AOL informal survey:


In Senate Resolution 511 unanimously adopted earlier this year, the
Senate affirmed that to be a natural born citizen, one must be the
child of two American citizen parents. Are they going to ignore their
own resolution?

Senators must stand up and address the Obama Eligibility Controversy
on January 8, 2009, or voters will respond by removing them using the
power of the ballot box. After all, an informal AOL poll of over
100,000 reveals that 53 percent of respondents, from every state,
think that Obama eligibility is in question:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-certificate/5

Even more than half of the respondents from Hawaii felt there was a
question about Obama's eligibility.

Here is a special message to all Senators:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOA5WSUDmE

Senators have to understand that the public expects them to live up to
their oath of office to defend the constitution, or else suffer the
consequences.


and he was quite doubtful:

If you want me to take you seriously, you must stop mistating/ignoring the facts. You said:  "In Senate Resolution 511 unanimously adopted earlier this year, the Senate affirmed that to be a natural born citizen, one must be the child of two American citizen parents."

This is simply incorrect. S.Res. 511, ironically, cosponsored by then-Senator Obama, acknowledges Sen. John McCain's eligibility to run for President as a "natural born Citizen. " It confirms that Sen. McCain was born to "American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone," but creates no requirement that in order to be a natural born citizen your parents must both be American citizens.

You also point to a survey on AOL that suggests that a majority of Americans think that the President-elect's eligibility is in question. Besides the fact that this survey is not being conducted in a scientific manner according to accepted polling guidelines, I believe that most Americans believe otherwise and have already come to the correct conclusion that Obama is a natural born citizen. Thus, the only ones responding to the survey are those who are being led to it by individuals and organizations who want to keep the issue on life support. For example, although I am somewhat well read, this is the first I heard of the survey and I wouldn't have come accross it without your prompting.  

Please stop this deliberate campaign of misinformation which preys on the ignorance of those without access to legitimate information...or...if you wish...continue to waste your time.

Anyway, I mean you no ill-will. Thank you for writing me and I hope you find time to have a happy holidays!

Sincerely,

Jon Yoshimura

I responded that

Greetings Jon:

Well Mr. Yoshimura, perhaps you are correct.

I just wonder why President-elect Obama would rather spend considerable sums of money in court, rather than produce the documents that would settle this matter.

He is creating ill will and suspicions unnecessarily and might take office with a dark cloud over his administration. There is no good reason to do this.

Robert Stevens

To which he replied

I agree. He should put this matter to rest.

And therein lies the crux of the matter; the lynchpin. It is not that the AOL informal survey is so compelling or that Senate Resolution 511 contains earth-shattering revelations. It is not that the paternal Grandmother's account is so convincing and her story might not be the result of mis-translation, or confusion, or faulty memory, or senility, or any number of other potential explanations. It is not that the reports of the forensic document experts are completely damning. It is not that the apparent inconsistencies on Obama's Selective Service Registration form could not be explained away.  It is not that there might not be some reasonable justification for Obama not releasing his college and law school records. And so on and so forth.

It is the sum total of all these issues, coupled with one VERY IMPORTANT inconsistency in this entire account:

When Berg called Obama's bluff, Obama did not resolve the controversy quickly and cheaply and easily. And when others have piled on, and things have become even more suspicious, with more lawsuits, Obama has not made all these challenges go away, which Obama could very easily if what Obama has maintained all along is correct. 

The tone of the discussion has become more strident. The amount of speculation has increased. The rumors have spread further and further. 

And all because Obama did not take all the air out of this months ago. 

You have to ask yourself, why?