Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

[STE=Q]

TROLL: “But as to the State Department’s determination that the COLB is adequate”

---

And with EQUAL determination The Hawaii Attorney General’s office REFUSES to corroborate Obama’s Hawaii Birth and —MORE importantly — will ‘NOT defend’ Fukino’s statement that obama IS a “NATURAL-BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN.”

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/02/hi-attorney-generals-office-refuses-to-corroborate-obamas-hi-birth/

Here’s another “special bonus link just for you:

Sun Yat Sen - Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. Although he was born in China.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23771322/Sun-Yat-Sen-Certificate-of-Hawaiian-Birth-Although-he-was-born-in-China

bon appetit!

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

By the way... in several places you have said that “birthers” never try to bring any criminal complaints against the Obama administration... but when I direct you to someone who has contacted law enforcement — per your complaint — you attack that person.

RED FLAGS:

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

STE=Q

[MHGinTN]

In one instance, the fool demanded to know why birthers have not filed charges against the DOH over the forgery on the Internet which Barry has had his minions claim is the image of his actual COLB. Ender Wiggins isn’t bright enough to know why that is as stupid a question as any anti-birther could ask.

[butterdezillion]

Have I ever contacted law enforcement!

Notice that #5 on Espero’s list of bad behaviors that can get us in trouble is a person initiating an appeal of a denied UIPA request AND a request for an investigation.

Yes, Mr. Espero. I am guilty of doing those things. In a free country, however, people with evidence of crime are ENCOURAGED to report those crimes. And law enforcement is required to enforce the laws equally, without favoring politically-connected or powerful people.

And actually, it’s right in UIPA - as quoted in Espero’s bill when showing how UIPA would be amended - that the OIP is supposed to ENCOURAGE feedback from the public and ENCOURAGE people to pursue their right to information.

This is really an attempt by Espero to undo UIPA - and CLEARLY at the urging of Fukino, since the behaviors listed are taken point-blank off of some of the requests that I and some colleagues have made (and especially given the timing of the bill’s introduction).

I wonder if Fukino’s and Okubo’s e-mails to Espero are protected from disclosure...

[butterdezillion]

I have to work this afternoon, but if somebody could look at the link he gave there and see whether the DOH actually did say that the COLB’s posted online are adequate proof of Obama’s natural born citizenship, that would be FANTASTIC!

That would be grounds for charging them (whoever at the DOH made that sworn statement) with both perjury and forgery under Hawaii law - since the documentation they have for him is, according to their own statements, insufficient for prima facie evidence unless and until it is presented as evidence.

There will be no escape for them, if Ender has spoken truthfully. I’m not sure who exactly could/should file charges against them. Anybody know about that?

[butterdezillion]

I’m still waiting for you to tell me on what date and the approximate time you asked the DOH about whether they assign certificate numbers in their office, and the date(s) you made your UIPA requests which came back saying the records (what records?) didn’t exist.

The facts. Anybody can say anything, but without details it’s just an undocumented claim. Prove your claims.

[STE=Q]

butterdezillion wrote:

“I have to work this afternoon, but if somebody could look at the link he{wiggins}gave there and see whether the DOH actually did say that the COLB’s posted online are adequate proof of Obama’s natural born citizenship, that would be FANTASTIC!”

---

I’m not a Lawyer but, at a quick glance, it appears that the court never afimed that the online COLB was ligitamate or that Obama is a Natural Borm Citizen.

Nor could they affirm that the COLB was NOT legitimate or that Obama was NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

I also don’t remember seeing a certified “hard copy” of Obama’s COLB (as an exhibit) brought by same, before the court, for the courts examination.

As I said, I’m not a lawyer, and I only took a “quick glance” so I’m hoping that beckwith can help.

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

Here is the aforementioned link:

http://www.scribd.com/full/17508463?access_key=key-1vg7c228ugapeqcnkki6

STE=Q

[butterdezillion]

Thanks. My computer won’t let me install whatever it was that was required for me to see the page.

My computer’s been doing a lot of weird stuff.

[AmericanVictory]

It also remains the case that Wong Kim Ark was about citizenship as set out in the 14th Amendment. It was not in any way about Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and as pointing out in Schneider v. Rusk the 14th Amendment did not affect that provision, a fact which you deny without justification. In fact, the term "citizen" was not used in England at the time of the revolution and for seveal hundred years before then. That under the 14th Amendment there is a precise analogy going back to Calvin's case is irrelevant for purposes of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The Supreme Court has never ruled that there is a precise analogy between the term "natrual born citizen" in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is the precise equivalent of "native born subject" going back to Calvin's case in 1608, where Coke based the decision on natural law and the divine right of kings, concepts alien to our constitutional converntion, whose members were not enamored of the Stuart kings, to say the least. The holding in Calvin's case was rooted in feudalism and legiance, things not greatly admried by the participants in the constitutional convention. Almost everyone who did particpate however was aware of Vattel's work and his use of the specific phrase "natural born citizen." The concerns voiced in John Jay's famous letter to Washington two weeks befor the first use of the phrase by the Committe on Particulars was of foreign influence, a concern not compatible with your interpretation based on an amendment that would nto occur for another four score and some years.

[STE=Q]

“My computer’s been doing a lot of weird stuff.”

If you have windows XP, or later, you should be able to go to a former “restore point” on the computer.

Find restore and go to an earlier date before your computer started acting up.

After your computer is restored to an earlier date, make sure you bring all your “windows updates” up to date.

Make sure your virus program is up to date.

You should also have a “firewall” installed.

If you want to get one or both (firewall and/or virus program)go to (comodo.com):

http://www.comodo.com/

They are both free.

Good luck!

STE=Q

[butterdezillion]

Thanks. We’ve got McAfee but I know they’re part of the problem. McAfee put a pop-up on Donofrio’s blog to try to get people to report that there were problems there so they could put a flag restricting access to the site. When my husband took McAfee off the problem was resolved. But then I couldn’t check the safety of sites before going on them so we put it back on. But I don’t trust it at all.

Right now I’ve got one particularly helpful site I go to which always results in the “Internet Explorer has encountered a problem and needs to close”. As of today I can just drag the pop-up to the side and still do stuff with the site and the other tabs I’ve got.

Yesterday the Honolulu Advertiser sent me a confirmation e-mail to register to post comments at their article, and I could see the e-mail being received but as soon as the Send/Receive pop-up was gone the e-mail disappeared.

And my e-mail is arriving to strategic people’s inboxes 3 or 4 days after I send it.

I don’t know how to reset to an earlier date. Any help you can give would be great. I’m a computer moron. lol.

[wideminded]

It might surprise you that i found this video somewhat eye-opening. I had not heard it before. I do recall hearing part of a radio show with Obama but it was either another interview or a more complete selection from this one. My recollection of it was that it was just Obama droning on in an academic tone about topics he might have covered in his courses. At the time I must have tuned it out before he got to this part. Since i manage to be interested in many hours of C-SPAN I don't know why I would I would not have listened to the whole thing.

I agree that all the talk about "redistributive change" and how awful it was that the Supreme Court did not interpret the Constitution in a way separate from that intended by its authors sounds unbelievably radical for someone who would in a few years be a winning presidential candidate.

[wideminded]

the video ... where he stated in 5 days he would fundamentally change America

His campaign slogan was "CHANGE". So this is not some type of secret video.

[STE=Q]

“I don’t know how to reset to an earlier date”

What you are looking for is ‘system restore’ — it should be found in the ‘control panel’ on your computer.

If you have trouble finding it go to ‘help’ and put in ‘restore’ in the search topics and something should come up.

Or, do a search from the search program with the word ‘restore’ and something should come up.

System Restore is a component of Microsoft’s Windows Me, Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 operating systems.

http://www.theeldergeek.com/system_restore.htm

The above will give you instructions for windows XP operating systems.

If you have vista or windows 7 you should be able to easily find it using search, or help — where a link will activate or take you to the program on your computer.

Good luck!

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

Update: per lawsuit referred to in post #1260 and #1261

http://www.scribd.com/full/17508463?access_key=key-1vg7c228ugapeqcnkki6

Basic defense of the government (in layman’s terms):

We deny the accusation that “obama is not a ‘Natural Born’ Citizen, under the grounds that it calls for a conclusion of law.”

Dah!

This is why we need the SCOTUS to rule on the debated question of what “Natural Born Citizen” means in our constitution... in the same way they have recently ruled on the — formerly debated — question of the constitutional meaning of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”

In other places the government also employs the Srg. Schultz defense (’I know nothing’)... that they have insufficient knowledge to determine the truth of the allegations.

In the forth paragraph of their answer they say they: “Do ADMIT that President Obama is a living natural person, born on August 4th, 1961.”

Why didn’t they state he was born {in Hawaii} on August 4th, 1961?

I mean, we already knew that he is living and was born... somewhere?

Any way...

Oh yah, in case you missed it...

Hawaii Attorney General’s office REFUSES to corroborate Obama’s Hawaii Birth, and WON’T defend Fukino’s statement that he {Obama}is a Natural-Born American Citizen:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/02/hi-attorney-generals-office-refuses-to-corroborate-obamas-hi-birth/

STE=Q

[EnderWiggins]

Before proceeding, I'll note here that you seem to accept that the State Department's response to Strunk is exactly as I described it. It is an authoritative statement offered under penalty of perjury in a Court of Law that declares that Obama's COLB absolutely constitutes proof of his Hawaiian birth and his natural born American citizenship.

So far, so good.

"And with EQUAL determination The Hawaii Attorney General’s office REFUSES to corroborate Obama’s Hawaii Birth and —MORE importantly — will ‘NOT defend’ Fukino’s statement that obama IS a “NATURAL-BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN.”

What the heck does "with EQUAL determination" mean? Is that like saying they both yelled at the same decibel level? Or they clenched their fists the same way? Or their faces achieved the same particular shade of scarlet?

The Hawaii Attorney General's office has no obligation to corroborate or defend anything Okubo said. But you appear (like MissTickly and butterdezillion) to have entered that Twighlight Zone of Birther "reasoning" in which an official's refusal to tell you what you want to hear is magically transmogrified into some super-secret way of actually telling you what they did not tell you after all.

I am comfortable that the State Department's declaration in court that the COLB is valid, that it is proof of Obama's citizenship, and that Obama is a natural born American citizen is significantly stronger testimony than the Hawaii State Attorney General's complete silence on the issue.

"Here’s another “special bonus link just for you:

Sun Yat Sen - Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. Although he was born in China."

Too bad it's not a COLB, that it was not issued by the State of Hawaii, and that it doesn't fulfill the State Department's regulations for proof of American citizenship at birth. If it were not so completely irrelevant to the discussion as that, it might at least serve to make you feel better.

[EnderWiggins]

"By the way... in several places you have said that “birthers” never try to bring any criminal complaints against the Obama administration... but when I direct you to someone who has contacted law enforcement — per your complaint — you attack that person."

And your tendency to falsely paraphrase me remains unblemished.

I have never "said that 'birthers' never try to bring any criminal complaints against the Obama administration."

What I have said is that no-Birther or Birther lawyer has ever brought a criminal complaint against the Hawaii DOH.

Please, try and argue against what I've actually said, and not against some figment of your own imagination.

[EnderWiggins]

"In fact, the term "citizen" was not used in England at the time of the revolution and for seveal hundred years before then."

How odd then that it took me less than 60 seconds to find an English text from 1774 that not only used the term "citizen," it actually used the whole phrase "natural born citizen."



Quintilian. Quintilian's Institutes of the Orator: In Twelve Books. Translated by J. Patsall. Vol. 2. London: Printed for B. Law and J. Wilkie, 1774. 31-2.

So... it appears that the term "citizen" was used in England at the time of the Revolution after all.

"The Supreme Court has never ruled that there is a precise analogy between the term 'natrual born citizen' in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is the precise equivalent of 'native born subject.'"

Ignoring that the term used in Calvin's case was "natural born subject" and not "native born subject" you are close, but no cigar. While absent from any final ruling (since no such ruling has ever been required) the dicta in Wong Kim Ark is quite explicit that they are synonymous terms.

"Almost everyone who did particpate however was aware of Vattel's work and his use of the specific phrase 'natural born citizen.'"

This is not true. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, Vattel never once in his life can be shown to have used "the specific phrase 'natural born citizen.'"

[mojitojoe]

That’s the Marxist monster you defend and voted for.