DOH indirectly confirms: Factcheck COLB date filed and certificate number impossible

Butterdezillion | Feb 23, 2010 | Butterdezillion

[parsifal]

Its not your “proof” per se that you are putting in order, although as you put it in order, your evidence will work itself in.

What you are putting in order is your claim. Where someone can understand it without having to sit there and try to unravel it. YOU UNRAVEL IT FIRST.

Look again at the thing where I put edge19’s sexual harassment suit. If you can’t put your stuff into a format like that, then you need to retire from the birther movement. Nobody in “statutory authority” is going to sit there and unravel your stuff for you. That is probably why they are calling you names at HDOH and other places and why the guy at obamaconspiracy whatever got mad at you.

You are presenting a wad of undifferentiated stuff to people, expecting them to get excited about it, and then getting mad at them when they don’t and frankly, it is your fault. I can’t really make heads or tails of your stuff and what little I have deciphered looks like nothing but a dust up with the HDOH, which kind of stuff happens all the time.

So, IMHO, if you are neither willing nor able to present your material where it is understandable, do something else for fun, because all you are going to do is frustrate yourself and others.

parsy

[edge919]

Are you intentionally trying to be funny and undercut your own arguments??

“You are presenting a wad of undifferentiated stuff to people, expecting them to get excited about it, and then getting mad at them when they don’t and frankly, it is your fault.”

Look at the number of posts in this thread and the agitation in which faithers have been trying to discredit the thread. Obviously, butter’s research scares the bejesus out of faithers. If it was so convoluted and meaningless, you would ignore it like so many other threads get ignored around here.

Butter, you’ve hit a home run. Don’t fall into the “re-explain it” trap. This is still the futility game.

[parsifal]

Put YOUR time where your mouth is. You spend YOUR time and help her get the stuff into some kind of logical fashion. It ain’t exactly like you are going to spend any big amount of time reading the Wong case.

parsy, who says it would be the Christian thing to do

[edge919]

Somebody’s losing their cool. Breathe ... relax ... breathe

[parsifal]

BULLSH*T! You keep stumbling over the language. And I presented you with the language so I know what you have. You have a choice. You can be lazy, and refuse to read the case, or you can be productive and read the case upon which the NBC issue will turn, if it ever gets to court.

If you choose to be lazy, that is YOUR choice. Just quit bugging me with dumb questions, dumb observations, and dumb “gotchas” on a case you don’t know crap about. Is that unreasonable? Me expecting you to read the case you want to make comments about?

parsy, who don’t think so

[little jeremiah]

BTTT!!! A must read!!

[parsifal]

Thanks! I been fussing with these people all morning. My God, they are slow learners. They get incensed when you ask them to read the Wong case. They feel “put upon” when one expects them to present their arguments in some sort of logical fashion.

parsy, who blames the education system

[Jedidah]

There’s more to that Hezekiah tale. The rest of the story:

During his bonus 15 years, Hezekiah fathered a son named Manasseh, who became a boy king when Hez’s time was up. Manasseh became the worst king in the history of Judah. Despite his descendants’ best efforts to clean up Manasseh’s idolatry and corruption, Jehovah lowered the boom and let the Babylonians take Jerusalem and the Jews into captivity.

“Nevertheless, the Lord did not turn away from the heat of his fierce anger, which burned against Judah because of all that Manasseh had done to provoke him to anger. So the Lord said, ‘I will remove Judah also from my presence as I removed Israel, and I will reject Jerusalem the city I chose, and this temple about which I said, There shall my Name be. . .’ “ II Kings 23: 26-27

Moral of the story: Be careful what you ask for, and if your prayer is granted, you dang sure better use the gift wisely.

Sorry about the off-topic post, but it’s an important point to ponder.

[edge919]

A lot of moaning, but no actual refutation. Sorry, your arguments have failed. I proved it very precisely and you’ve nothing but a big huff.

[edge919]

Here it is folks. A lazy attempt at self-validation addressed to another faither, yet absolutely ZERO refutation to counter arguments that destroyed his. Parsy, this is called waving the white flag. I accept your surrender. Guess I need to tackle the gullobal warming alarmists next.

[BP2]

> Have you ever read Wong?

You mean where the SCOTUS ruled that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

That ruling, Parsley?

Yeah, I've seen it. I don't think Wong Kim Ark was running for President, though. And the case did NOT rule upon the definition of "Natural Born Citizen," ESPECIALLY in the context of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
That is, unless I missed something ... hold on, let me check ... NO, I didn't.

Further, I don't think that Barack Obama SR had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States," either at University of Hawaii OR at Harvard when he was on leave from the British Empire (near Mombasa) in 1961 ... unless I missed something ... hold on, let me check ... NO, I didn't.

Yet another After-Birther myth de-bunked ...

So, Parsley ...

In Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which addresses citizens and the native born,
did they have prima facie that appeared in the Courtroom? I mean, there are standards
for jurisprudence ... even back at the start of the "Progressive Age" when Judges started
to falsely believe the Constitution was a "breathing document."

DO you think the Justices accepted a black and white PICTURE of witness statements
supporting Wong Kim Ark's claim of native born status, or do you think they would have
insisted on an ACTUAL certified copy of that document before accepting it as "FACT".
Hmmm, maybe they just used the Internet ...

Seriously ... in the case of a BRITISH Subject like Obama, in order for
Obama's "birth certificate" to be accepted as a legal "fact" —
as HRS 338-13(b) and 338.19 permits — the "birth certificate" should
at least have the common courtesy to appear in Court. It NEVER has.

As the Certification says very clearly:

NOT

"This COPY OF A copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

[edge919]

In one of the early cases, I think it Bob Bauer, who footnoted FactChuck.org to allege Obama’s nativity story was legit. This was the closest the alleged COLB ever got to being seen in court. But all he said was that this amateur, Obama-linked Web site came to a conclusion that Obama was legit and only tangentially mentioned the existence of a publicly released birth certificate.

Here’s the problem. Why cite a third-party opinion when the document has to be presented in court, like you point out, in order to have full legal weight?? It’s admissable in court (if legit), so the appropriate move is to admit the actual document and not Web-based hearsay.

[parsifal]

I’m tired of spoon feeding you. If you have a legitimate, valid question about Wong, then great. But, you just keep chirping, and every so often I have to throw another regurgitated worm in your mouth.

Are you incapable of reading Wong? Do you need a link? When you read legal cases, you often have to read them more than once, particularly one as long, and as full of citations as Wong.

If you did, you would realize that there is language in the case which says, in effect “natural born subject=natural born citizen”, and that within the case, the terms, and variations thereof, are used interchangeably. It is the holding that is important.

And it doesn’t require permanent domicile, and if one cite says “citizen” it isn’t necessarily a “gotcha” moment, because the language is being culled from numerous sources across centuries and across continents. It is tiring trying to explain this to a person who hasn’t read the case and keeps popping up hollering “gotcha” when they haven’t a clue what they are talking about.

You are too busy hollering “gotcha” to read the case or understand the issues. This is a sign of immaturity. It often happens with young debaters. Too much emphasis, here and you never grow into a good debater, because you will be focused on the small things, and miss the big things, which a knowledgable person will clobber you with.

So, if you want my input, or responses, read the case, and make intelligent “gotchas”. I will respond to an intelligent “gotcha”. I will not respond to “I fling poo gotchas.”

parsy, who says, Fair Enough?

[Jedidah]

Terrific column by a FReeper here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2458759/posts

that echoes your attitude and resolve. May it be so for all of us.

[DJ MacWoW]

Remember this?

Natural-born and Native-born Definitions

[edge919]

Translated: “APB. The faither tactics are failing. All hands on deck. We’re drowing here. Send emergency help at once. Can’t refute the skeptics. yeaaaaarrgghghh.”

[edge919]

I love the affectation, but it’s still the same, tired futility game. I know you can’t refute my points, so I understand your desperation. Just admit you were wrong. This is not a winning move for you.

[parsifal]

“found out yesterday that acting OIP Director Cathy Takase testified regarding the “vexatious requestor” bill in Hawaii. She said there was a need for the bill because there are “mentally ill” people who can’t recognize when they’ve been given an answer already.”

Not only does your average birther “can’t realize when they’ve been given an answer already”-—your average birther also “can’t realize when they haven’t given answers to others who have asked them.”

parsy, who has already labeled the birthers as “Borg Units”, and Orly Taitz as the Queen of the Borg....rotflmao!!!

[curiosity]

Nope. I simply trust Hawaii's department of Health, whose records show that Bamabi was born in Hawaii, as officially verified by the director of said department.

That, and the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that the records of the said department are incorrect.

[Electric Graffiti]

Since Obama has certainly shown his allegiances to Kenya by actively participating in the affairs of the Kenyan political process when he went to Kenya and campaigned for Odinga without direct orders from the United States government to do so, he has demonstrated his split-allegiances and is most definitely in violation of the INTENT of the Natural Born Citizen requirement. (Sorry for the run-on sentence, it’s getting late).

Great post.

"If Obama is eligible to be President then so are the sons of Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if they impregnate an American woman who gives birth on US soil. The very notion is obscene. Such a person might be a US citizen under current policy, but their citizenship is not natural born and they cannot be President and Commander In Chief of the US armed forces."-----Leo Donofrio.

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.









Is there any question why the founders put the Natural Born Citizen requirement clause in the Constitution?