Sunday, June 27, 2010

Two Questions to Ask Putative President Obama’s Enablers, aka Obots, Regarding Where Obama Was Born

We have seen the responses we get from Putative President Obama’s enablers, aka Obots, when we ask to see Obama's long-form birth certificate (not the Certification of Live Birth or COLB someone posted on the internet) and when we say that Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii. Here is a typical one:

"These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations, every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials, a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate. Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate." Moreover, the director of her Department has confirmed that the state "has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Apart from identifying and commenting on the many outright lies contained in this answer, we need to ask these enablers the following two questions and caution them that they are not to evade answering them as they have done so far. Here are the questions and accompanying instructions:

If what you say is all true, then please answer for me two questions:

1. Where specifically in Honolulu, Hawaii was Obama born? Do not just tell me in Honolulu. We are talking about the President of the United States. Hence, I want to know the exact address in Honolulu where he first saw the light of day. We are only dealing with 1961 and such information should be readily available, especially since Obama says he was born in a hospital. Also, do not simply say that he was born in some-named hospital, for you will have to provide me with credible and sufficient evidence from such an institution to support your answer. Also, some unconfirmed letter image posted on the internet that Obama allegedly wrote on January 24, 2009 to Kapi’olani Medical Center is not such evidence, for Obama never confirmed that he wrote it and the letter is not from the hospital.

2. Who was physically present when Obama was born? I doubt that in 1961 an 18-year-old girl could give birth to her first baby all alone. Hence, since as you claim Obama's birth has been confirmed by all these authorities, then you or at least one of these authorities should be able to tell me who was present to assist or witness baby Obama come out of his mother's womb. Also, we can assume that the person who was present would be the person who would have "officially" reported Obama's birth to the Hawaiian health department authorities, for surely neither Nancy Pelosi nor any past or present Hawaiian authority of whom you so glowingly speak claims to have been personally present during his alleged birth in Honolulu or to otherwise have personal knowledge of how, when, and where Obama was born. In your answer, please provide the name of the person that was present during and actually witnessed the alleged birth and his/her function at that time. Please do not whine that my question is burdensome or otherwise unreasonable given the time lapse. Again, we are only talking about 1961 and we are told that Obama's birth was in a modern hospital. Hence, the answer to my question should be rather easy to obtain from the medical file that is in the possession of the alleged birth hospital.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the burden of proof is on me and not Obama or that my questions are intrusive of Obama’s privacy. After all, we are talking about Obama wanting to be the President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States of America and leader of the free world and our Constitution requires that in order to be eligible for those powerful and singular civilian and military offices he produce such information for the people he is supposed to serve and protect in that capacity.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the courts have already answered these questions, for we know that they dismissed eligibility cases because of standing, political question, or some other threshold ground, and have yet to rule on the question of where Obama was born.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me that Obama has already released to the public his birth certificate (which is really a Certification of Live Birth or COLB and not a Certificate of Live Birth) by posting it on the internet and that the state of Hawaii has confirmed the existence of Obama’s birth certificate which is in the Hawaii Department of Health file, for the only birth certificate the public has seen so far is a questionable 2008 computer image of an alleged 2007 COLB which someone posted on the internet, we know that the state of Hawaii has yet to confirm that internet image, and the alleged COLB that appears on the internet does not in any event tell us where in Honolulu Obama was born or who was present when he was so born.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me about what we all learned in some high school government class or that the people already voted in the 2008 election, for you should know that what we learn in any such class or what occurs in the polling booth is neither sufficient nor indicated in our constitutional republic as a means to answer constitutional questions.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the people who want answers to my questions should not be taken to be rational people because they also believe the JFK assassination was a grand conspiracy, the earth is flat, the moon landing was made on some Hollywood stage, or the 9/11 attack was preplanned by our own government.

Please do not answer my questions by accusing me and the people who want answers to my questions of posting on the internet false Obama birth certificates or other fabricated Obama life stories, for we know that you yourself probably posted those things to make it look like we did.

Please do not answer my questions with a question, or with otherwise evasive answers, or with personal attacks on me, my motives, my politics, my patriotism, my religion, my views on race, my work, my ancestors, or my pets.

And finally, please do not answer my questions by telling me that the questions and answers have already been generously twittered by our smart populace.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 27, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S.  Also read this, A Catalog of Evidence - Why Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt Obama was Born In Hawaii: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html
####

11 comments:

jayjay said...

That's pretty easy to answer both question - the answers you'll get are:

... crickets!!

... crickets!!

A pen said...

Since Rep. King has questioned the unseen BC on the house floor isn't it obvious that the question of resolving whether it even exists is not political but in fact an unsatisfied legal one? I mean, how can it be a political question if politicians haven't decided it because they have never seen it either? Rep. King certainly made it clear that congress has never taken up the vetting of Obama and therefore never decided it. The courts then can not say it would be a separation of powers issue since no other branch has taken it up. In reality the court would be and has been telling congress to do something, vet this man, and that would be and is an intrusion upon their authority. Actually all the courts have been asked to do is clarify what constitutes a NBC, correct? That isn't a political question and neither is seeking constitutional satisfaction.

Dixhistory said...

We as a nation are in big trouble as far as our freedom goes.

All Electors of both parties all of Congress and our courts refuse to uphold our US Constitution and their oath to it.

Why do they not do their sworn duty?

cfkerchner said...

Newest ad running today on page 5 of the Washington Times National Weekly edition.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33644483/Hawaii-Sr-Election-Clerk-Obama-Was-NOT-Born-in-Hawaii-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-20100628-Pg-5

CDR Kerchner
http://www.protectourliberty.org

cfkerchner said...

Re-Reposted here for ViVi:

by ViVi:
---------------------
Interesting developments. I hope that the court will not focus on standing, but at least go to whether or not a claim has been stated and then whether or not Obama has presented any competent evidence to rebut material fact alleged.

I also hope that the court doesn't fall for the lazy reading of Wong Kim Ark, by simply reading it as two Chinese immigrant parents = an American child. The myth that WKA settles this, open-and-shut, for Obama needs to be punctured, and can be by presenting a much closer analysis of the WKA facts. The key points are set out here:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2981596/birth_of_a_president_mccain_birthers.html?cat=17


Incorporated into your brief, this analysis of WKA could go a long way toward opening up the court to the conclusion that this area of law really is unsettled. Therefore, no court is following "binding precedent," which means the SCOTUS ultimately will have to decide this.
------------------------

[Editors note: See this essay on Wong Kim Ark by Atty Mario Apuzzo and English Common Law arguments]

WKA:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html

ECL:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

Spaulding said...

While your blog tends not to be contentious, you provide a valuable service by insisting on clarity and honesty. It was a surprise to see the "Sarah Herlihy" style of legal obfuscation offered to Kerchner readers. The author, B.A. Rogers, of the article submitted by Cmdr Kerchner for ViVi rests her dilution of the natural born citizen interpretation upon news media articles, misquoting Calvin's Case, and a tortured discussion about a legal notion of domiciliaries, yet another treasure derived from the fog of misdirecton that is Wong Kim Ark.

It is easy to identify the partisans. They always avoid Morrison Waite, John Marshall, John Jay, John Bingam, Charles Evans Huges, Joseph Story, ... At least, while he apparently fears the power of the left more than he treasures the framers' brilliance, Mark Levin has presented the essential idea in Madison's a "Letter to Henry Lee..." in his book, Liberty and Tyranny, p37. Madison says that the Constitution can only protect our freedoms if we assume the original meanings. The "Vivi" article is yet another exercise in creative symantics.

Author B.A. Rogers is a lawyer living in San Diego for her health? More and more the suggestion made by Arthur Robinson, running for Congress in Oregon (and far ahead), that lawyers not be permitted to sit in Congress makes sense - they have a conflict of interest.

Robert said...

This post may seem to be off topic, but I think it goes to the root of the problem that has also allowed Barack Obama to reach the Oval Office in spite of his obvious failure to meet constitutional standards.

We have a government that has little regard for the law and less regard for the citizens whom it is chartered to serve. It has grown to fully embrace Al Gore's doctrine of "No controlling legal authority." We have a government that is enforcing laws that do not exist and ignoring many that do.

Restricting lawyers from political office would be unconstitutional. However, please consider some ideas that tie a politician to the people he represents more completely and reinforce the concepts of equal representation and accountability.

Politicians follow and respect the money that keeps them in power. So, I propose that politicians be allowed to accept campaign contributions only from legal citizens who reside within their own constituency. PACS, parties, corporations, etc. would be excluded. All contributions should be transparent. All unused/unspent campaign funds should be turned over to the general funds of the constituency represented at the conclusion of each election cycle.

Politicians should not be granted lifetime benefits or retirement plans other than those they fund for themselves as private citizens or through their private businesses. They should be subject to the same laws as the rest of society. They should be expected, with limited exceptions, to return to their home district or state after their term in office for a time not less than half their term in office.

The idea of the founders was that the politicians would serve and then go home. We need to get back to that idea.

Puzo1 said...

Dr. Conspiracy is desperately trying to maintain his credibility with the public. I asked two questions of the Obama enablers/obots regarding the alleged birth of putative President Obama: (1) where exactly in Honolulu was he born and (2) who was present during the birth to attest to that fact. Well, I am not surprised that Dr. Conspiracy and team were not able to answer me. Now, is that not funny? One would think that the Obot Czar would have that information at his finger tips. But he does not. And what does that tell you? If Dr. Conspiracy cannot produce it, neither can anyone else.

Now Dr. Conspiracy goes on the attack. He wants me to show the exact place in Kenya were Obama was born. What a poor try. Dr. Conspiracy refuses to admit that it is Obama that must first provide sufficient and credible evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Once he does that then we can explore whether that evidence is authentic and conclusive. Hence, I do not have to first prove where in any part of the world Obama was born. How absurd would that be to place such a burden on the American people.

Things should be very clear to any reasonable person who is following this issue that the Obama enablers/obots are nothing but bluff and that they have no evidence to back them up. That includes evidence regarding Obama's alleged birth in Hawaii and the law on the meaning of a "natural born Citizen."

Puzo1 said...

“Simply Saying Something Is So Does Not Make It So”—Rhodes v. Obama (September 16, 2009, the Hon. Clay D. Land of the United States District Court in Georgia).

The insults to our intelligence continue in Obotdom. Now, at Dr. Conspiracy's website, they say that Obama has proven that he was born in Hawaii and that the issues of in what hospital and who was present at the time of the birth are irrelevant. That sounds like saying I have proven I am a millionaire but the issue of how much money I have is not relevant.

The Obot logic is amazing. Now they want us to accept their logic that Obama has conclusively proven thta he was born someplace (Honolulu) but the exact place where he was born (where in Honolulu) and those who were present to see him born in that exact place are irrelevant in testing whether the statement that he was born in Honolulu is true. How does one prove one was born someplace if one does not prove where in that place one was born and who was present to witness one being born there? How does one prove such a birth event occurred unless one produces evidence that someone was present to see the birth happen in a specific place? Surely, the Obots would not expect us to accept infant Obama himself as the witness to his own birth.

Again, we are told by Obama and his enablers that we are not talking about a person who may have been born in a non-institutional setting (house, barn, hut, field, etc.) with no records or information available to people who may later question whether that birth occurred as alleged. Rather, in Obama's case, the evidence needed to answer my two questions (exact place of birth and who was present at birth) should be readily available given that he alleges he was born in a modern U.S. hospital only in 1961. So I say to the obots, either produce the simple evidence or simply admit to the truth that Obama has not yet conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii.

jayjay said...

Robert:

Good ideas all!

I might only throw in some term limits in addition and I think you're right that the Founders would have been aghast at the idea of poloticians holding elective office as a lifetime appointment.

Unless they get back in touch with those who elected them (as the Founders surely assumed they would) they are bound to be voting against their own constituents wishes a good bit of the time. I know mine do!!

Robert said...

1. Proof of birth place
2. Proof of parentage
3. Proof of 14 years residence
4. Proof of age 35 +

5. Proof of sufficient number of legal votes.

6. Proper confirmation via the electoral college and the senate.

7. Proper swearing in by the chief justice.

I can produce proof of meeting at least as many of these requirements as Obama and I'm sure I'm sure I've got a paper documenting my votes somewhere. When I find it I can post it online.

Can I claim the office of the president?