RE: Saving the blog.

Yes I often save it but I never re-post it. It is just a normal business practice to be able to look up later to see what I said. You will not find my comments all over the Internet. If the readers are not interested in what I said or questioned, I just drop that site, concluding that the group has a different approach. My aim is to have intelligent exchange of ideas while respecting opposing views. I never post anything on a site where name-calling is the order of the day.

RE: Mr. Fuqua

Thanks for the info – this is very interesting. Can you provide a link to that information please? My impression is if HI-DoH told him that he had to wait a year, he could file a complaint as the rules have deadlines. It seems to me that HI has no reasonable legal defense on that issue and I don’t understand why that avenue is not approached more aggressively. Or maybe it is – just not reported?

RE: Hospital letter

Do you think that the approach I (and others) suggested would work? The lawsuit would not name BHO as defendant. The hospital would be the defendant. For one thing, DOJ could not defend the hospital on taxpayer’s dime.

——————

Mr. Charlton replies Fuqua is one the plaintiffs in Barnett vs. Obama. Contact Dr. Orly Taitz about the matter. You can’t sue the hospital about the letter unless they defrauded you in a charity scam; and they could make the case moot at any point by merely refunding your donation.

I agree and that goes for both parties. It will take the people to send in people with another agenda or mind set for congress to do anything. Those there now need to be in prison at the least

DixHistory

You said I am off the topic. You mentioned Bill, Hillary, HI DoH, and the “Hospital Letter” either in this thread or your prior one. So possibly I am combining the two, but I think I am addressing relevant issues, directly or indirectly. If I bring up unrelated issues please forgive me but I would be very interested in your reply, whether you agree or not, as obviously you are more knowledgeable about these issues than I am.

RE: Bill Clinton’s remark about eligibility

I can not come to your conclusion that Bill was calling attention to eligibility. To me it is more like saying a person of any race can be president if constitutionally qualified. It is more like a statement that he (Bill) is not a racist. It was in this context.

Bill is a master communicator if he wanted to attack BHO he could have done it elegantly without endangering Hillary’s chances in any manner.

RE: Hillary

If you call Bill a Birther, you could mention that in one of her campaign speeches Hillary said that her opponent does not have “American roots”. (Can not give you the date but I heard it myself.) We don’t know if she knew that facts or not. In hindsight we know that either Hillary or McCain could have eliminated BHO based on eligibility.

McCain’s reluctance is obvious due to his own birthplace, but why the Clinton-team did not do it remains a mystery. Probably poor campaign management judgment or overconfidence, thinking that she can win on issues.

I can see Hill saying to Bill:
Bill, you master politician, why did you not advise me to push the eligibility issue? After all you were not busy with Monica anymore, or were there anyone else who kept you preoccupied?

RE: “The hospital letter”

An additional piece of circumstantial evidence: The White House refused to confirm or deny if the hospital letter is authentic. Very curious – don’t you think? I am surprised that no one is suing the hospital for false advertising or the like. Patients or people who made donations to the hospital might gain standing. Interning things could come out.

RE: HI

One of the HI’s rules says that blood-relatives are exempted from the general rule and can get a copy of the vital records. One of Orly’s plaintiffs claimed to be relative of BHO. (Can not remember his name or which case but the judge said that he does not have any special treatment just because he is a relative.) Obviously that is true for that case but why he or some attorney has not taken advantage of that avenue in HI? If this relative does not want to do it, one could track down the German or Kenyan relatives and have them file the official request. The rule does not say that they have to be close relatives and the requesting person does not have to be a US citizen. The German bloodline is well documented; Der Spiegel or one of the German magazines published a big article on his relatives.

I look forward to your comments.

—————

Mr. Charlton replies: Dennis, you actually save your comments on your PC so that you can repost them later?

But as for your comment regarding Bill, I have to take the opinion of a political scientist (as quoted in the article) over that of merely your gut reaction. Especially since your argument really has no sound reasons to support it. Clinton’s comment, if it were in the context of refuting a charge of racism, would be completely inappropriate, since the Constitutional requirements of office have nothing to do with race, before or after the 14th Ammendment. Thus by citing them, he could not deflect such a criticism.

As for finding a relative who request the Bc: A man by the name of Fuqua, a not too distant cousin, if I understand correctly, has already requested the original vital records, was told to wait a year.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/12/dobbs-its-a-reasonable-question-to-ask-where-obama-was-born/

This question has nothing to do with birth certificate or where Obama was born.

This question is about the citizenship of Obama’s father, the foreign claims upon Obama at birth, and the full definition of the term “natural born citizen”.

This question is a legitimate question of Constitutional law, which can be asked impartially.

The status at birth of a US natural born citizen can be governed by only one country, and that is the United States of America. Therefore, even a Hawaiian-born Obama would not be a natural born citizen because of his British/Kenyan citizen father. For a natural born citizen is a person born in the US *AND* born to parents (plural) who are both US citizens.

——————-

Mr. Charlton replies:Texoma, Obama’s citizenship status has everything to do with who his parents were and where he was born, and a BC documents that, so it is crucial to the discovery of these facts.

In about 7 days we have over 1,030 people confirmed to participate, over 1,030 Maybes, and the number is growing daily!

Let’s hit them on ALL fronts!

Help us send a message Loud and Clear that this issue is not going away!

Operation Release Event page; http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=243863999736

Help us PUT PRESSURE ON OUR COURTS AND GOV’T OFFICIALS: We must make them to stop hiding from the eligibility issue!

This 20th and 21st of January will mark the inauguration of this administration, in which Obama promised us that “Transparency, Accountability, and the Rule of Law” would have been “the touchstones to his administration”… Help us make him deliver on that promise!