THE NEXT BIG THING (liberal Media Matters hiring intern trolls)

How in the hell does distrusting Taitz equate to trusting those other clowns?

Please explain.

You were saying ...

Since you believe and want us to believe that Fukino was correct in her prefabricated opinion that Obama is a “natural born citizen”, issued in violation of state law, then you can’t honestly expect us to believe any more of your prevaricating prattle about loopholes.

Well..., I don't go along with some people's conspiracy theories that the State of Hawaii, their lawyers and the department that handles and preserves that birth certificate information (the same one that prints out the certified copy, doncha know... LOL...) -- is going to issue a public and official statement to the nation and tell them a lie... :-)

Sorry, that's off on the deep end of conspiracy theories...

But, then again, and as I said before, getting that state law passed which requires all candidates to produce their birth certificate or else they cannot get on the ballot -- will solve that problem of what the birth certificate says... which (as I said before) is a good enough reason for getting that law -- just to solve this particular issue of not seeing the birth certificate... :-)

So, I would advise getting to work on that law in your particular state. There are several states working on it right now.

But, in regards to "loopholes" -- that goes almost without saying... except that no one I've seen actually says it (so I say it...).

It's obvious that there is no legal requirement for a candidate to produce his birth certificate -- or else -- those various states who are going to pass laws on it, wouldn't bother doing it. They already recognize that there is no legal requirement to produce a birth certificate -- and so... they intend to get that law passed. That much should be obvious.

States and legislators don't bother passing laws that happen to be "already on the books". And so, since there is no law on the books that requires a candidate to produce a birth certificate... they're getting that legislation pushed through.

And secondly, it's also obvious from another angle that there is no legal requirement for a candidate to produce their birth certificate -- or else -- someone would have cited that law, in a court case, and a judge would have ordered it shown, per that law (but no such law exists, doncha know... :-), hence no judge will order it, without such a law).

So, on those two counts -- (1) states are working on such a law right now, and (2) if such a law existed, someone would have cited that law and it would have been ordered [and no one has cited such a law to date] -- it shows that there exists that "loophole" that I'm talking about -- in that no candidate has ever been legally required to show his birth certificate, because there is no legal requirement to show a candidate's birth certificate.

You were saying ...

So then the Bible is not the Word of God as long there is someone out there who disagrees with what it says???

You're not listening... :-) ... and to say it again, I just quote what I just said...

The Bible is the Word of God (just like I've always said, too) and there are opposing sides (and you see them here) who take the meaning of those very same words -- in a different way.
...
So, those who take the Bible as the Word of God, inerrant and infallible in all that it says -- still disagree with the meaning of what it says. If you've ever been in the religion threads, you would know that... LOL...

Furthermore, if you have seen my posts in the religion threads, you would have seen this posted several times over again... and I'll post it here to make it clear.

CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY WITH EXPOSITION

Background

The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.

The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. The following text, containing the "Preface" by the ICBI draft committee, plus the "Short Statement," "Articles of Affirmation and Denial," and an accompanying "Exposition," was published in toto by Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219. The nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with a brief introduction, also appear in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, rev. 1986), at pp. 181-185. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980), and Norman Geisler edited the major addresses from the 1978 conference, in Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).

Clarification of some of the language used in this Statement may be found in the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics [ http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html ]

--

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Preface

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God's written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstandings of this doctrine in the world at large.

This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.

We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.

We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.

— The Draft Committee

--

A Short Statement

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

--

Articles of Affirmation and Denial

-- Article I.

WE AFFIRM that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

WE DENY that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

-

-- Article II.

WE AFFIRM that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

WE DENY that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

-

-- Article III.

WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

WE DENY that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

-

-- Article IV.

WE AFFIRM that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

WE DENY that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

-

-- Article V.

WE AFFIRM that God's revelation within the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

WE DENY that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

-

-- Article VI.

WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

WE DENY that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

-

-- Article VII.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

WE DENY that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

-

-- Article VIII.

WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

-

-- Article IX.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

WE DENY that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

-

-- Article X.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

-

-- Article XI.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

-

-- Article XII.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

-

-- Article XIII.

WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

-

-- Article XIV.

WE AFFIRM the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

WE DENY that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

-

-- Article XV.

WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

WE DENY that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

-

-- Article XVI.

WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

WE DENY that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

-

-- Article XVII.

WE AFFIRM that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.

WE DENY that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

-

-- Article XVIII.

WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

-

-- Article XIX.

WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

===== ===== ===== ===== =====

Exposition

Our understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy must be set in the context of the broader teachings of the Scripture concerning itself. This exposition gives an account of the outline of doctrine from which our summary statement and articles are drawn.

Creation, Revelation and Inspiration

The Triune God, who formed all things by his creative utterances and governs all things by His Word of decree, made mankind in His own image for a life of communion with Himself, on the model of the eternal fellowship of loving communication within the Godhead. As God's image-bearer, man was to hear God's Word addressed to him and to respond in the joy of adoring obedience. Over and above God's self-disclosure in the created order and the sequence of events within it, human beings from Adam on have received verbal messages from Him, either directly, as stated in Scripture, or indirectly in the form of part or all of Scripture itself.

When Adam fell, the Creator did not abandon mankind to final judgment but promised salvation and began to reveal Himself as Redeemer in a sequence of historical events centering on Abraham's family and culminating in the life, death, resurrection, present heavenly ministry, and promised return of Jesus Christ. Within this frame God has from time to time spoken specific words of judgment and mercy, promise and command, to sinful human beings so drawing them into a covenant relation of mutual commitment between Him and them in which He blesses them with gifts of grace and they bless Him in responsive adoration. Moses, whom God used as mediator to carry His words to His people at the time of the Exodus, stands at the head of a long line of prophets in whose mouths and writings God put His words for delivery to Israel. God's purpose in this succession of messages was to maintain His covenant by causing His people to know His Name—that is, His nature—and His will both of precept and purpose in the present and for the future. This line of prophetic spokesmen from God came to completion in Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Word, who was Himself a prophet—more than a prophet, but not less—and in the apostles and prophets of the first Christian generation. When God's final and climactic message, His word to the world concerning Jesus Christ, had been spoken and elucidated by those in the apostolic circle, the sequence of revealed messages ceased. Henceforth the Church was to live and know God by what He had already said, and said for all time.

At Sinai God wrote the terms of His covenant on tables of stone, as His enduring witness and for lasting accessibility, and throughout the period of prophetic and apostolic revelation He prompted men to write the messages given to and through them, along with celebratory records of His dealings with His people, plus moral reflections on covenant life and forms of praise and prayer for covenant mercy. The theological reality of inspiration in the producing of Biblical documents corresponds to that of spoken prophecies: although the human writers' personalities were expressed in what they wrote, the words were divinely constituted. Thus, what Scripture says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author, having given it through the minds and words of chosen and prepared men who in freedom and faithfulness "spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (1 Pet. 1:21). Holy Scripture must be acknowledged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin.

Authority: Christ and the Bible

Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is the Word made flesh, our Prophet, Priest, and King, is the ultimate Mediator of God's communication to man, as He is of all God's gifts of grace. The revelation He gave was more than verbal; He revealed the Father by His presence and His deeds as well. Yet His words were crucially important; for He was God, He spoke from the Father, and His words will judge all men at the last day.

As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ is the central theme of Scripture. The Old Testament looked ahead to Him; the New Testament looks back to His first coming and on to His second. Canonical Scripture is the divinely inspired and therefore normative witness to Christ. No hermeneutic, therefore, of which the historical Christ is not the focal point is acceptable. Holy Scripture must be treated as what it essentially is—the witness of the Father to the Incarnate Son.

It appears that the Old Testament canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is likewise now closed inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne. No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again. The canon was created in principle by divine inspiration. The Church's part was to discern the canon which God had created, not to devise one of its own.

The word canon, signifying a rule or standard, is a pointer to authority, which means the right to rule and control. Authority in Christianity belongs to God in His revelation, which means, on the one hand, Jesus Christ, the living Word, and, on the other hand, Holy Scripture, the written Word. But the authority of Christ and that of Scripture are one. As our Prophet, Christ testified that Scripture cannot be broken. As our Priest and King, He devoted His earthly life to fulfilling the law and the prophets, even dying in obedience to the words of Messianic prophecy. Thus, as He saw Scripture attesting Him and His authority, so by His own submission to Scripture He attested its authority. As He bowed to His Father's instruction given in His Bible (our Old Testament), so He requires His disciples to do—not, however, in isolation but in conjunction with the apostolic witness to Himself which He undertook to inspire by His gift of the Holy Spirit. So Christians show themselves faithful servants of their Lord by bowing to the divine instruction given in the prophetic and apostolic writings which together make up our Bible.

By authenticating each other's authority, Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one. As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally declare that what Scripture says, Christ says.

Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation

Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.

lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.

Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind.

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.

Skepticism and Criticism

Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since the Enlightenment, world-views have been developed which involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets. Such are the agnosticism which denies that God is knowable, the rationalism which denies that He is incomprehensible, the idealism which denies that He is transcendent, and the existentialism which denies rationality in His relationships with us. When these un- and anti-biblical principles seep into men's theologies at [a] presuppositional level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture becomes impossible.

Transmission and Translation

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

Inerrancy and Authority

In our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth, we are consciously standing with Christ and His apostles, indeed with the whole Bible and with the main stream of Church history from the first days until very recently. We are concerned at the casual, inadvertent, and seemingly thoughtless way in which a belief of such far-reaching importance has been given up by so many in our day.

We are conscious too that great and grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible whose authority one professes to acknowledge. The result of taking this step is that the Bible which God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one's critical reasonings and in principle reducible still further once one has started. This means that at bottom independent reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for the time being basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while methodologically they have moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjectivism, and will find it hard not to move further.

We affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He be glorified. Amen and Amen.

---

Webpage -- http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

Now this forms the "backdrop" for what I'll say, which I'll post in the next post, right after this...

So..., continuing with the previous post, where I made it clear about the Word of God and what it means... we come back to the example I said that was similar to the Constitution that you mention.

The Bible being the Word of God, inerrant and infallible in all that it says, teaches on or speaks about -- still does not mean that someone else will not take those same words that I look at and say, for themselves (plus also "teach it") that those words mean something different than I say (or what other reliable and responsible Bible teachers say) that it means.

And so... no matter it being the Word of God, being infallible and inerrant -- you still get people who disagree with the meaning of it.

We've got discussions going on right now in which that is happening and both sides agree to the Bible being the Word of God and being inerrant. It still does not stop the disagreements as to the meaning of any particular phrase or word, or sentence.

Who will settle this disagreement? Well, very simply, it will be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who settles it, as He is the Supreme Judge and determiner of what those words "mean". Thus to get our "final answer" (even with the Bible being the Word of God) -- it will require the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to weigh in on it.

Now, that doesn't stop me from understanding it the way I think is the proper way, but at the same time, I also realize that someone else may not understand it the way I do. And that's just the way it goes... in this world we live in.

LIKEWISE, with the Constitution, being the Supreme law of the land... there have been countless examples of how opposing legal sides have taken the same words of the Constitution as meaning something different (the one side compared to the other opposing side). And thus, it will take the Supreme Court to weigh in and give the "final answer" to what it means.

And..., in our country, if the public does not agree with the Supreme Court, they have the ability to put forth a Constitutional Amendment and "define it" the way that they think (which is different than what the Supreme Court says..., if it comes to that). Short of that, the Supreme Court is the last word on what the meaning of the Constitution is.

That's the way it works, in our country and in real life.

You will have to do some research to answer that question. But I cannot let this go unsaid. Re: Westboro Baptist disrupting soldier’s funerals...On NO ONE’s planet, is Westboro “leftist”. In NO one’s world are they liberals in any sense of the word. Nor are they conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. Some things have nothing to do with politics. This is one of them. They simply are the scum of the earth to be as disrespectful to our fallen soldiers and their families. They are not liberal or conservative. Period.

Also, the conversation from whence my tagline came from, it is one of those “you had to be there” conversations. And no matter where you think it came from in your mind, my interpretation is obviously different. But no matter, it is an excellent saying. And oh so true. In what world does Christianity and hate embrace?

You keep posting that statement, over and over.

The problem is that she never actually defines "vital records".

Point blank, there is no attorney that would ever accept her statement regarding "vital records" at face value, without immediately following up with a litany of questions to establish exactly what kind of document ( or documents ) the statement was predicated upon. Who issued or wrote the document(s); when were they originally issued or written, and by whom.

They would then ask to have a certified/notarized copy of that document sent to them. That's a given.

Fukino has provided herself with just enough wiggle room so that if the proverbial s*** ever hits the fan, -she call fall back and claim that she never actually attempted to validate a specific COLB.

Ron, Jeremiah does not know me from Adam’s housecat. If you have any questions, I will be more than happy to answer them. I have no problem being honest and forthcoming. And for the record, to show how little she knows me...I am not a Leftist or a liberal. I guess in her world if you do not hate someone,anyone, everyone, you are a liberal. But she knows me not. I will be more than happy to have a conversation with you...about anything tho I do think the tagline thingie is a bit boring by now.

Your comment about Westboro shows you either are ill-informed or - whatever.

Suit yourself. Your comments speak for themselves.

In what world does Christianity and hate embrace?

Makes no sense but as I said, “suit yourself”.

And your lack of comprehension speaks for itself also. And pinging All....and calling someone who you do not know a troll speaks for itself also. You are a boor, rude and lacking in social graces...that is obvious. You know nothing about me. If you did, you would never have called me a troll. My mother raised me better than yours did you. I am going to go make cookies with my grandson now. You stay and be small minded, deluded and rude. I think you are a troll. No, I know you are a troll. And from my mail, many do.

I don't have any questions, I've never seen your screen name or tag line before yesterday.

As you mentioned many sayings and things are turned into nefarious meanings (like homo's co opting the rainbow) I just thought I would let you know.

I certainly did not wish to get in the middle of an apparent feud you are having with another poster.

When one is speaking about another freeping, it is traditional and good manners, to add their name to the posting. Thank you.

One person does not a feud make. I am done as I have done enough explaining...again and again all to no avail. And to me that silly tagline is so self explanatory. Who would object? Maybe someone who went to different churches than I. And again, thank you for your research. Take care.

I have no problem being honest and forthcoming...

Ha - then why not answer my simple questions? And get annoyed when I ask for clarification of your own statements?

You were saying ...

You keep posting that statement, over and over.

Yeah, and I see the same arguments in these threads over and over again... so there's nothing new there... or with this issue either... :-)

Besides that, I know that there are people who have never seen this before. I just ran across someone (I think on this very same thread, above) who had never seen this before (saying that to me just a day or so ago).

It's good to have it posted whenever it comes up about Obama not being born in Hawaii (if someone posts that "over and over again") -- to have this particular official statement from the State of Hawaii right alongside of that kind of statement.

Point blank, there is no attorney that would ever accept her statement regarding "vital records" at face value, without immediately following up with a litany of questions to establish exactly what kind of document ( or documents ) the statement was predicated upon. Who issued or wrote the document(s); when were they originally issued or written, and by whom.

You're confusing two different venues here. One venue is a courtroom in which there are rules that the court goes by and evidence that can be presented and questioned. And that's perfectly fine for the courtroom.

I have no problem with that, if one ever gets this in a courtroom -- but they never will get it in a courtroom, basically because as I have said all along, there is no legal requirement for a candidate to produce his birth certificate. Hence, no court is ever going to order it for an election ("as if" it was legally required, which it isn't).

The other venue, is the public venue. That's the information that the public receives from our agencies, our government, our officials and whatever else in the way of "official pronouncements" that they want to make.

No one has any of those (just mentioned above) go into a court, be examined by a lawyer and go through some sort of legal process in that courtroom -- in order to make some kind of official and public announcement that affects the general public or is given for some pressing public need.

This official statement by the State of Hawaii and from the same agency who issues the "certified copies" of the very birth certificate that some people want to see (LOL... oh, the irony here...) -- is in the venue of an official public announcement -- not the other venue -- of being in a "court case".

If it ever comes to a court case (and I've said why I doubt it ever will) -- then you will see the rest of the stuff that goes on in a courtroom -- being done at that time.

With it being an official and public announcement to the nation about a pressing matter that people have been asking about -- you won't see "courtroom procedures" being done. Sorry... but that's just the way it is...

Fukino has provided herself with just enough wiggle room so that if the proverbial s*** ever hits the fan, -she call fall back and claim that she never actually attempted to validate a specific COLB.

There's no need for the State of Hawaii to validate any "specific COLB" that someone may be waving around in public, somewhere else. That's not their business.

Their business, as far as the State of Hawaii is concerned and for the department who is the very one who issues that kind of "certified copy" of a birth certificate -- is simply to state what they did -- from the records that they maintain and the records that they will print out, when requested by the appropriate parties.

In this case, they made the statement that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen. That was the "public issue" that many were asking about. Since they have been inundated with requests about it -- they made that public statement which stated what their records show.

And for those who are "conspiracy minded" (LOL... as I am not...) -- I should mention if the State of Hawaii is "fiddling" with the records... and making a false statement -- they won't have any problem at all -- "producing" a "certified copy" of a birth certificate that says the very thing that they just said... LOL... (so, if you're that conspiracy minded -- when you see the very agency who maintains the records you're asking for, make that kind of statement -- I would say "it's pretty much over"...).

The only way I was rude was not pinging you when I mentioned you. Everything else I posted was within the realm of civil discourse.

From now on, if I ever mention your name again, I will ping you.

But it likely will never occur again.

Do not post to me again. Thank you.

Can’t/won’t answer my questions, so take the coward’s way out.

Ta ta!