Wiggy, YOU and the other After-Birther conspiracy kooks have
|
Posted on 02/23/2010 8:02:16 AM PST by butterdezillion
Hawaii's own sunshine laws serve the public at large. I'm asking nothing more than is provided for in these essential laws. Attempted insults gain you no credibility.
Anybody who believes that the statement that "Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen" is ambiguous does not know what the word ambiguous means.
I've explained precisely why it's ambiguous and you've failed to show otherwise. Nice concession.
Birther lie #27.
Both have been documented and ne'er debunked by verifiable proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Oh, the one signed by a chief administrator who would not become chief administrator until months later?
Feel free to provide proof.
LOL... what's that supposed to be evidence of? Exactly?
Lacking anyone to testify that Obama was seen as a newborn in Hawaii will get beat by the other testimony every time.
It would be against the law to confirm it, ...
Absolutely false. The UIPA plus the regular birth statutes gives the director of the DOH plenty of discretionary and mandatory authority to confirm it.
Except of course for that damn COLB which is (according to the US State Department) absolute legal proof of Obama's Hawaiian birth and natural born citizenship.
The U.S. State Department has said absolutley nothing about Obama's alleged COLB. Nice fantasy and nothing more than fantasy. All you have is faith and no facts. The American people deserve better. Don't carry water for a fraud.
EnderWiggins
Since Jan 16, 2010
Oh good Lord! Lets try it again. ( and please try to keep up with the program this time. bzzzz.....bzzzz)
From Wong, the very last part of the case:
VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people,” and
any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.
Rev.Stat. § 1999, reenacting act of July 7, 1868, c. 249, § 1; 15 Stat. 223, 224. Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States, and
that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [p705] for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed. “
Now there is a reason why this is phrased the way that it is. That is because of the way appeals are presented. They are presented in very strict and formal ways via “issues.”
But look at the last sentence:
“For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Now, lets look at the first “clause” of the last sentence:
“For the reasons above stated”
Now, what are the “reasons above stated”. It is all that stuff from older cases and cites to English common law that the Wong Court spent pages and pages and pages going through. That is how they got to the holding.
Look at the big blurb above and you will note that there is nary a “reason” to be found in it. Its pretty much conclusions. You see, the “reasons” are “above” in the Opinion. It is all that stuff you keep trying to ignore.
And, by doing this, that is going through all this “reasoning” the Womg Court answered a much bigger question than what was presented for review. That is why Wong is still cited and has been cited in over 1,000 cases. Cases that have nothing whatsoever to do with Chinese permanent residents, blah blah blah blah.
Do you doubt me? Do you think I am just making this up? Do you think I am just fibbing to you? Try this 2009 case that I have tendered to you on numerous occasions. It cites Wong! Wong! Wong! Wong! And there ain’t a Chinaman in the Indiana case.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
parsy, who says you are missing the forest because your eyes are closed.
Wiggy, YOU and the other After-Birther conspiracy kooks have
|
I am so done feeding the trolls.
I can’t believe I wasted so much time.
It is not helping the cause.
They are hijacking threads. Simple as that.
Any honest FReeper who wants info or wants to add to the discussion is detoured into listening to garbage and then most likely leaves the thread. Which means we have lost another FReeper who could help get us answers.
Normal, honest people ask questions...even disagree.
But they do not ask the same questions over and over on multiple threads. And they certainly would argue their point once or twice and move on.
These trolls have the same MO. Disrupt, change the subject, or just frustrate people with their rubbish.
We need to stop feeding the trolls. I know I am.
Let’s try another logical analogy:
Deer Bob and Ted —The Car Guys
How are you? Fine I hope. I have this 1985 Dodge truck with a 318. The darn thing won’t start on cold mornings like the choke ain’t kicking in. How do I fix this?
Sincerely,
Patlin.
Deer Patlin,
We accepted your question about the 1985 Dodge and here we go:
(Now pretend that Bob and Ted write about 20+ pages on carburators, for Fords, Chevys, Dodges, American Motors, and gives diagrams, and talks about clogged jets, bad floats, junk in the fuel line, junk in the gas filter, the mixture screws, and vaccum hoses, and tune ups)
So, Patlin, in answer to your question, just spray a little WD40 on the springie thingie and it should start easier.
Very truly yours,
Bob and Ted
Now, do you think the only part of Bob and Teds response is the last part to you? I guess you could. But other people would save the whole thing so they could try to figure out why their 1985 Ford Bronco with the 300 inch 6 ain’t starting. You might also, if something else goes wrong.
Wong answered a whole lot of questions en route to deciding about Wong, and I have shown you that.
parsy, the Drone with the Dodge
OMG! Are you one of those “African on the COLB” people, too?
ROTFLMAO!!!!
parsy, who says you are going to need a whole bunch of de-programming!
The above post just proved my case.
Rubbish
Please don’t talk to the trolls
Beeps, Dude! If you increase the point size and bold, it does not magically transform “blather” into “truth”.
parsy, who says you are killing monkeys in the rain forest by the hundreds!
Self:
Remember to get a trademark on the name “Truth Trolls” so that a clear distinction can be made between those who defend the honor and sanctity of the Constitution and bad trolls who live under bridges and try to eat billie goats.
parsy, a Truth Troll
Self:
Don’t forget to pick up kittens, puppies, candy apples, and shrimp at store.
parsy, who cycles
Read and learn. First paragraph, standard race classifications for vital statistics records:
“Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and ‘other nonwhite.’”
Newxt paragraph: Association of standards with actual birth certificates:
“A comparison of the race designation in matched sets of birth certificates and census records from the 1950 registration completeness test indicates very high agreement for white persons and Negroes.”
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf see page 231.
Conclusion: Strong reason to be suspicious of “African” racial classification on birth certificate.
That’s funny ... kind of a like UFO believers ... but instead a UBO ... Unidentified Birth Object. Obama = UBO.
That’s a good one BP2. :-)
“...and bad trolls who live under bridges and try to eat billie goats.”
You know goat meat is pretty good if properly prepared.
You’re probably right. He signed up here 2 days after “Red Flags” was posted on my blog and on The Post & Email.
I’m a teacher by trade. It bugs me to see people not “get it”. I have to remember that he’s a liar; it’s not that he doesn’t “get it”. So I’m best just to skip past his posts.
Actually, by this time now there’s probably not anybody agnostic on the issue who’s still watching anyway so I don’t need to worry about him deceiving others.
Read up around the first few pages and look at the collection system. (I think we are talking about the same REPORT) Read 5-8 or 5-9 maybe where they talk about the microfilm records, and keypunch. Prior to input, error correction would take place.
There WAS, and IS, no BCP (Birth Certificate Police) who made sure all bcs were filled in properly. Each state could also modify and use the standard forms to fit their own needs. For example, somewhere in that REPORT (cause it wasn’t a printout of LAW), you will note some states did not report “illegitimate” status while some did.
Somewhere around page 231, as I recall and if we are talking about the same report, you get your “race” discussion where Chinese and japanese are “races”. This was hardly rocket science stuff. As I pointed out to someone, I forget who, there is no way to determine what each state’s dept. of health, or dept. of vital statistics did or what their internal control systems were.
I think Louisiana continued to use “colored” “mulatto” and “octaroon” for a long time. Not sure when it ended. Not worth researching.
parsy
Better analogy.
Background: Wong cites passage: “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, ...” noting a clear distinction between the two concepts. IOW, citizen child of alien does not = NBC.
The analogy: Using same phrasing, “A fruit is as much an item of food as a steak”, except we all know that fruit does not = steak.
IOW, Obama is a fruit and is not elegible to be POTUS.
I think that everyone has pretty much made up their mind too. The trolls are no longer trying to obscure the debate. Now they are fishing. They can go hungry. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
to 
to 
