Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
That's exactly what I just said, genius.
We have NOTHING that is proven.
And the best physical evidence we have suggests that the announcements did not come from the HDOH office in the first place, and that none of the microfilms that are in the libraries now are the ones that were in those libraries in 1961 - even though some with the wear and tear are clearly pretending to be the original microfilms from then.
I have in my possession the claim by the HDOH that they had no birth record for Virginia Sunahara AND a copy of the birth index page where her name is listed. Those are mutually-exclusive contradictory claims. That has to be explained. Duncan Sunahara is trying to get to the bottom of this but the HDOH is refusing to give him a photocopy of his sister’s original BC. They are breaking the law rather than show that to him. That should tell us something.
I have tried my level-best to avoid speculation about what happened. I have tried to focus all my attention on just the documents we actually have and whether they can be authentic. The physical evidence suggests that there are huge problems.
And really, you don't help yourself when you admit that you don't read the parts of someone else's posts that are inconvenient for you. Ankeny ruins its own contradictory claims by citing the actual language from Minor that says:
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Does the court not know what "as distinguished from" means?? Does the court not want to admit that Minor reviewed citizenship for alien children under the Nationality Act of 1790?? And does that court not understand that is undermined its own logic when it said:
In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
Only six years after the 14th amendment was ratified, the Minor court said it does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. I can go on and on about the mistakes in Ankeny. Would you like to quote some more passages to keep proving my points for me??
I think Hawaiian bureaucrats are both lazy and incompetent when it comes to applying their own laws and regulations. That they play fast and loose would not surprise me at all. What I am saying is you cannot equate a denial of access with a confirmation of existence because you don't know if they are or are not complying with rules. Maybe they are, maybe they are not.
It's just too weak to base a conclusion on.
Show me the sentence that says her parents were citizens
Show me the “holding” that she was an NBC.
The most basic citizen, natural born, was not entitled to vote if that citizen was a women.
But it is still obiter dictum because citizenship is NOT RELEVANT.
Everyone admitted she was a citizen.
The question before the court was whether a female citizen could vote.
The HOLDING.
NO
While stating that they have to decide the law as it is not as it should be.
I’m not labeling the entire black population as rioters.
What I am saying is that given the opportunity there will be people who will riot.
With the OJ Simpson riots, were they really rioting over OJ? Were they rioting over a perceived injustice? Or were they simply using an excuse to beat people on the streets, target Asian business owners and set portions of their city on fire?
The irrational walk among us. We ignore them at our peril. These are the people I’m concerned about. Not the people who will look at Obama and realize exactly what happened, how it happened and what he did.
I know white people who are going to feel that the justice system is F-ing with Obama if he loses. That’s because liberals have been taught to believe that the justice system is the mechanism by which they transform America. When these white people see that the Constitution stopped Obama in his tracks, they’re going to be pissed.
Some of them might even be dangerous.
Yes, thank you. Sort of like an apple a day...
“So if Ann was never married to Barack then she was guilty of swearing to fraudulent data on the BC.”
Stanley Ann cannot be held criminally liable for fraudulently placing the name of the man the INS believed was a bigamist on her hospital BC for Barry (if indeed she did) if she did not know of the marriage to Kezia at the time of the birth.
A bigamous marriage is a nullity so HI statutes would not recognize the marriage, if it were ever litigated and proved to have been bigamous, IMO. In that case SADO would have been legally single at the time of the birth for citizenship purposes, IMO.
IMO, there is no legitimate HI BC because Barry was most likely born in Kenya, shown by the internal Kenyan government docs obtained by Corsi showing evidence that his BC was stolen from the Kenyan files...and Rahm’s mystery trip to Kenya in December 2008!
Now that is true.
SHow me the quote that states she had American citizens as parents.
Without getting at the records we could be dealing with either. It wouldn't surprise me if we were also dealing with both. Lying and Incompetent seems a pretty apt description of government in general.
Either way, it's not a good foundation for proving something.
done!
Yeah, he stepped down between the time that he indirectly confirmed there were supplemental affidavits and the time that the HDOH Administrative Rules were finally posted on their website as required by law. He got an offer for a more powerful job from a Board of Directors that included Chiyome Fukino, the HDOH Director who also later pushed to have people like myself labeled as “Vexatious Requestors” if we reported ethics violations by the HDOH (as I did shortly before Fukino requested the “Vexatious Requestor” bill).
I didn’t realize that he had been deputy AG. That means that he knew VERY well that a denial of access is an admission that the record exists. This wasn’t just some little secretary at the HDOH not knowing which direction was up and so flubbing a response.
Read the sentences again. They do not contradict.
If you don’t understand the basics then I can’t read your convoluted postings about the 14th Amendment.
It is too much trouble when you can’t understand how to read a basic court case.
Of course an excuse isn’t needed.
But the politicians don’t give a damn. There will be race baiters on the television, in the news, at the coffee shops, and on the university campuses that will stir up trouble.
People looking for a fight will find one.
It’s a good foundation for saying that we DO need to get at the original records and audit the records where there are known contradictions. And that’s exactly what we’re trying to do. It’s all we CAN do. Anything else really is just speculation.
“NBC definition has nothing to do with the case.”
I agree with Leo Donofrio’s analysis that the NBC definition in Minor was a holding and was relied on explicitly by the Court to establish what category of citizen Mrs Minor fell into. The Minor Court “reached” and “held” that the category of citizenship that applied to Mrs. Minor was NBC.
They did not “reach” or “hold” whether or not the children of aliens or foreigner were citizens but with their definition of NBC IMO they DID “reach” and “hold” that the (legal) children of aliens and foreigners were excluded from being NBC.
See Leo Donofrio here:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/
“The court REJECTED this argument because she fit its definition of NBC.”
Show me the sentence that says here parents were American Citizens.
What was the question before the court?
No one disputed that she was a citizen.
The question was NOT was she a citizen under the 14th Amendment.
The question was whether the 14th Amendment gave her the right to sufferage.
The HOLDING was no suffrage through the 14th Amendment.
There is always the opportunity for rioting. And if we don’t get some semblance of the rule of law within our own government what was once labeled “rioting” will become an everyday fact of life.
Like recent racial attacks somebody else mentioned. That’s becoming more and more common. Obama financially supported his cousin, Raila Odinga, whose plan to get into office in Kenya was to use false claims of election stealing to spark violence. It was a pre-arranged, giant-sized temper tantrum by somebody with a 2-year-old mentality who had made an agreement with Muslims who wanted Odinga in because he would establish sharia for them and stop the Kenyan government from cooperating with US anti-terrorism measures. It is no accident that US tax dollars after Obama was elected have gone to push for a new Kenyan constitution that authorizes the use of sharia. I suspect it is also not an accident that Kenya’s neighbors - Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, etc - are increasingly becoming hotbeds of Islamist terrorism.
Like it or not, there are people who thrive on violence as a way to power. And I think that’s what you’re saying too. We need to be aware of that, yes. But we also need to know that if we ever let them get away with it or let fear of them dictate what we do, they will continue to do it and it will be worse for us than if we had confronted them directly.
I want you to show me where the court reached and held that Minor was an NBC. Show me where it says her parents were American Citizens.
Show me where it states that her citizenship was in dispute?
Because it wasn’t.
Facts not in dispute.
The question was whether the 14th Amendment provided suffrage to a female citzen.
Not whether the female was a citizen. Everyone agreed she was a citizen.
AGAIN, a fact not in dispute.
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.