Merry Christmas! The best to you and yours!

Sandra aka Sandstone

Jim Buzzell
Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
United States Navy
“Going in Harms Way”

Tuesday morning has come and gone; the Judge Carter has ruled; the trial is tenatively set for Januare 26, 2010; a ruling on the mostions to dismiss and discovery will be heard and this case will move forward. Obama, etal need to get prepared this is not going to be easy for them to defend, since they will need to bring evidence under oath of Obama’s citizenship, status of dual Citizenship, what is his real name, did he commit purgery in his eligibility statement signed the various states, and his Illioirs Bar Licenses Application. Much to be laid out in court before the judge. We all know that however the judge decides this will through the appeal process end up at SCOTUS who then have jurisdiction over the matter as setforth in the constitution. Study well and lets see where you end up on tis issue in the final analysis.

You stil haven’t got it right, what is the problem?

Do you not understand the constitution was written, signed and ratified to protect the Constitutional Republic the Founding Fathers set in place 233 years ago.

As you and I have discussed before, “Natural Born Citizen” is distinctively different from “Citizen” however achieved. You cannot be President and Commander in Chief of the United States of America simply by being a “Citizen” of the United States.

You have argued that English Common Law is the guiding principle in this issue, it is not.

When the Fouynding Fathers setout to write the constitutional document they were not predisposed to make English Common Law the law of the new republic they were about to set up. This is why they looked to the “Law of Nations” for the guiding principles to be used in forming the constitution and the new Laws of the United States of America. Their guiding principles on how best to protect and defend the constitution once signed and ratified was to ensure that the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces was different from a “Citizen” of the United States so the offices could be protected from and foriegn influences and thereby compromise the constitution and the country from overthrough.

You have argue that the Law of Nations was not the influence and guiding principle used to establishe the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement for President and Commander in Chief, you are dead wrong; and in my opinion using the liberal, leftist, socialist spin to convince others that English Common Law prevails, again wrong.

As I have said and asked in my past dialog with you; why would the “Founding Fathers”, throughing off the yoke of British Empire look to English Common Law as a vehicle to establish a new nation? It did not make sense then and it does not make sense now.

Obama, at best could be a “Citizen”, if a “Citizen”, he could only be a dual citizen; which in and of itself disqualifies him for President and Commander in Chief.

The arguement that all birth records were distroyed when Hawaii when to an electronic vital statisics system are not true; I pesonally verified that fact with a phone call to the Health Department’s Vital Statisics Office and was informed that not only are records on file but a certified copy can be picked up over the counter, once the fee is paid, the same day; with some exception which will take two or three days because the records are so old, were not transferred to the electronic system, that they need to be retrieve for micro-film. The person I spoke to stated “no records have been destroyed or purged from the file base”. So as far as I am concerned that issue is put to rest.

If you read the article above which you responded to; any reasonable person could discern that there is a smoking gun here; that resonable doubt exists, and Obama either needs to come forth with the necessary evidence to prove his elibility, or should do the nation a favor, and resign before he is removed form office.

Tuesday morning, 9:00AM U.S. District Court in Santa Ana CA will have a discovery motion heard on this issue. Judge Carter will make history if he rules in favor; and if he does not it will go to appeal.

Standby!

Thanks for the info…it’s very revealing!

He’s an Obama-bot (O-bot).

See here: http://www.reboottherepublic.com/blog/currentevents/i-just-kod-an-obama-bot-o-bot-on-the-birth-certificate-issue/

One reason that he cannot show the birth certificate that he said he found a long time ago in an old book is that he lost it.

Maybe he left the birth certificate IN the old book. You know what happens to old books? They get thrown out when people move. So, there is an excellent change that Obama’s family lost the original.

So Obama asked for a new copy of the original birth certificate in 2007, and Hawaii sent him the Certification of Live Birth. That is what it sends to everyone, and it is the legal document of Hawaii.(http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html)

Re his other records. I take it you are referring primarily to the Occidental College records requested in Keyes v. Obama. The answer to this is that you should take a look at what was demanded in the subpoena. The plaintiffs demanded only Obama’s complete academic records and complete housing records, and forgot (!!!) to ask for records of financial aid. I’m sure you will not believe this, so take a look for yourself.

The result is that even if the subpoena were granted, Occidental would not have provided financial aid records, and so the key issue of whether Obama was a foreign student would not have been answered in any case.

But, you may ask, why didn’t Obama allow Occidental to provide the other records. First, the request for housing records is pretty shocking. What right have the plaintiffs to know who Obama lived with (and the privacy of that person is important too). Second, is that if Occidental had provided COMPLETE academic records, that would have been considerably more than the grade-point averages that other presidents have revealed. It would have given all the courses Obama took and his record in each one of them.

I’m thinking that when other presidents get elected it may not be such a good thing to have a precedent in which (1) outsiders can demand to know who she or he lived with while at college; (2) how good or bad she did in every course.

If you are suggesting that Occidental’s financial aid to Obama would have proven that Obama was a foreign student, it would not have. It could have proven that Occidental either (1) thought that Obama was a foreign student or (2) manipulated its rules to give financial aid to someone as a foreign student even though that person was not a foreign student. The latter is Occidental’s right.

Still, the plaintiffs (Keyes, etc) simply forgot to ask about the financial aid records. Or, maybe they didn’t forget. Maybe they deliberately did not ask.

Both the US State Department and Indonesia have now said that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia.

The birthers have also misrepresented the law in the claims they have made about Obama’s birth certificate. In truth, Obama has proved that he is a native of Hawaii, and this proof would hold up in any legal or administrative proceeding.

In order to explain the birthers’ deception on this point, it is necessary to delve into the arcana of Hawaiian vital records. The document that Obama has released, which carries the title “certification of live birth,” confirms that the president was born in Honolulu. It is a legal birth certificate, and, as the Honolulu Star-Bulletin notes, it is the only kind of birth certificate the state of Hawaii issues.

FactCheck.org has a close-up photo of the certificate, which states clearly at the bottom: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” If a court were somehow to take up the question of Obama’s eligibility, then, the birth certificate would almost certainly be sufficient to resolve the question in his favor. The opposing side would have to provide serious evidence calling into question the veracity of Hawaii’s official state records. Innuendo and hearsay would not be admissible.

Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement.

Ah, but what about the original birth certificate? This is the nub of the birther “case,” and this is where things get really obscure.

As the Star-Bulletin notes, Hawaiian birth certificates have changed in form since Obama was born. Back then, the official record was a paper document with the title “certificate of live birth” (rather than “certification”), and it included “more information, such as the name of hospital, certifier’s name and title; attendant’s name and title, etc.” Hawaii no longer issues those old-style birth certificates:

[Spokeswoman Janice] Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

”At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.

Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

”The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.

CNN has reported–or rather, CNN executive Jon Klein reported to staffers in an email that others reported–that the obsolete paper certificates were destroyed when the department switched to electronic record-keeping. Klein’s information appears to have been in error. The Honolulu Advertiser reported yesterday that Okubo and her boss, Chiyome Fukino, both confirm that Obama’s original birth certificate still exists. Fukino says she has seen it and that the information matches the now-official electronic records reflected on the certificate Obama has released.

So why doesn’t Obama release the original certificate? The Advertiser says it is “unclear” whether the president “would even be allowed to see it if he asked.” It is clear, though, that the Hawaii statute governing disclosure of public records does not prohibit state officials from providing him with a copy, since he is “the registrant” and therefore has “a direct and tangible interest” in the record. One would think that Obama could persuade state officials to give him a copy, even if that is not their usual policy.

But the real question is: Why should he? The demand has no basis in principle and would have no practical benefit.

Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.

The release of the obsolete birth certificate would not “resolve the issue” to those for whom it is not already resolved. They claim without basis that today’s birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday’s is as well.

The president would gain nothing politically for his trouble. By acknowledging the birthers’ demands, he would lend them a modicum of credibility. By ignoring them, he actually reaps political benefits from their efforts. His critics, even those who are not birthers, end up looking like cranks by association. His supporters use the birthers to paint Obama foes as racist–which is probably unfair even to the birthers, as we argued Tuesday, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t effective.

In a Commentary article last year, William F. Buckley recounted the way he, Sen. Barry Goldwater and a handful of other top conservatives worked to stigmatize the John Birch Society, whose founder, Robert Welch, maintained, among other things, that President Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,” and that the U.S. government was “under operational control of the Communist Party.” The Birchers, like the birthers, made respectable conservatives look like kooks, and in preparation for a prospective Goldwater presidential campaign, Buckley and his associates “thought it best to do a little conspiratorial organizing of their own against it.”

They succeeded in “excommunicating” the Birchers. It’s probably impossible to do the same to the birthers, because today the right wing is too vast to mount much of a conspiracy. The birthers are likely to be with us for as long as Obama is president–and because of them, it is more likely that this will be for the next 7½ rather than just 3½ years.

end quote

http://www.reboottherepublic.com/blog/currentevents/i-just-kod-an-obama-bot-o-bot-on-the-birth-certificate-issue/