The birther thread to end all birther threads

Correction .......... on June 12th, 2008, the Obama Campaign 'released' an electronic/digital image of an alleged HDoH issued 'Certification of Live Birth', which by the way is not proof of birth in Hawaii, nor is it, according to Hawaiian Revised Statute HRS338-13, (if it was actually a copy of a genuine HDoH issue), 'considered for all purposes the same as the original', only a certified image copy or certified copy of ALL the contents of the original record held on file with the HDoH is considered for all purposes the same as the original.


.

 

It has already been 'decided' by SCOTUS, i.e. in Minor v Happerset.

What's really hilarious, is that we have these DeceptObots twisting what was actually held & decided by SCOTUS in two separate cases, this way, then that way, to make it fit their disgusting agenda.

Suppression of the truth at all costs, selling their souls, all for the sake of holding political power, that's the way of these dark-dwellers. ................ not a pretty sight.

DeceptObots say (so as to fit with their vile deceptive ways in attempting to mis-inform the public at large) that the decision in Wong Kim Ark, which actually says "citizen of the United States" rather means "natural born citizen of the United States", which of course many of us truth-seekers know is absurd, deception driven for power at any cost.

Then they descend further into their dark hole of deception, they say (so as to fit with their vile deceptive ways and attempt to mis-inform the public at large) that the SCOTUS holding in Minor v Happerset, was merely dicta, as if this popular Vattellian opinion & holding of the SCOTUS never existed...... it's 'not the law' they cry ............ 'the court never ruled this' they bleat, yet they insist in Wonk Kim Ark, "citizen" = "natural born Citizen" & we are to believe is "law" is "the holding"................... how bloody pathetic!

.

 

Um no....

.........

 

Once again, another post by Ms. Jolly. Another post without a single fact or piece of evidence.

 

Unfortunately for Michael, nobody except for Ms. Jolly agrees with him.

Michael has yet to explain why the voters, the Electoral College, Congress, Chief Justice Roberts, former Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and the Secretaries of State of all 50 States have expressed their opinion that yes indeed Barack Obama was eligible and that Michael's interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen requirement is bogus.

Nor has Michael explained why we should think that his understanding of the Constitution is better than the Indiana Appeals Court who said:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Nope, Micheal and Ms. Jolly think that President Obama should be frogmarched out of the White House by Birthers with torches and pitchforks because they say they are right- and everyone else is wrong

 

looks to me like the opposition is growing, like in the real world. it's a fascinating subject, with so much much obama dodging and hiding information, and the inconsistencies about how he recounts his own life, this should be a major campaign issue.

it's all about getting the information out there, and not listening to obots who'll say anything to kill the issue. sheriff joe has labeled the press now for bieng complicit, i believe this will be a turning point. actually when the media finally turns on obama it will be a political bloodbath.

 

this is provably false..........

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
that is the state of hawaii callin bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your statement.
thanks for playing

 

The American people deserve better than someone being tried in the court of public opinion based on unfounded accusations,"

 

send me your paypal information and i'll send herman cain a donation in your name. that you all should be quoting him is quite touching in our time of unpopular constitutional crisis.

 

Once again jeffie you make personal attack and "without a single fact or piece of evidence."I was showing concern for Wongkimark because he was all over the field with his comments. So once again you have nothing to provide other than "just because I said so". You are so very boring and tiresome with your repeated comments with no debating value.

 

and so it goes... like kilgore trout

 

What's really really unfortunate for ineptocrat jeffie is no one pays any attention to his babbling since it has no basis in fact and has nothing to back up in what he calls debating. And jeffie tell us why then the court went ahead and ruled ARK to be a citizen and not a natural born citizen? This case was brought on under the 14th Amendment. Had Ark been born to 2 citizen parents in American there wouldn't even be a case. There would have been no cause of action. You can't deny that and be truthful. And the case upheld the Constitutionally accepted "natural born citizen" as defined by Vattel. Another fact you can not deny and be truthful. Because the Court said "a person born of citizens" was "WITHOUT DOUBT" AND then went further and said, "persons born without any regard to the status of their parents "IS IN DOUBT" and your next 2 sentences doesn't change that. All it says is that Court in that case WAS NOT going to address the DOUBT that you so erroneous cling to. AND YOU CAN NOT DENY ANY OF THAT AND BE TRUTHFUL.

"A person who does not want to seek truth is enslaved to their own ignorance" - RS
"A person who has denied truth is already a slave to ignorance." - RS
It really really really sucks to be an ineptocrat*

 

jeff has repeatedly proven your statements wrong citing case law, and official govn't statements.

every single time you have been challenged to provide a single shred of evidence for your claims, you run away, dodge or outright ignore it.

you birthers don't fool anyone.

 

jeffie jeffie jeffie this Indiana Appeals Court who said:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

HAS NO BEARING NOR EFFECT ON NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. BECAUSE THE JUDGE SAID IT OUTSIDE ANY CASE BEFORE THE COURT. YOU SEE THE CASE WAS RULED TO HAVE "NO STANDING" AT THAT POINT THERE WAS NO CASE. BESIDES ALL THAT IT DOESN"T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THE SUPREME COURT.AND YOU CAN NOT DENY ANY OF THAT AND BE TRUTHFUL. jeffie I wrote in all caps just for you so you can see the truth better. A

"A person who does not want to seek truth is enslaved to their own ignorance" - RS
"A person who has denied truth is already a slave to ignorance." - RS
It really really really sucks to be an ineptocrat*

 

The COLB released in Jun of 2008 not only is proof of birth in Hawaii, it is according to the US State Department (and the Constitution's full faith and credit clause") proof of birth in every state and every US court.

And yes, according to Hawaii statute is absolutely is 'considered for all purposes the same as the original.'

 

I'll answer that. It's the same reason that the court in Minor never called Virginia Minor a natural born citizen either. Neither were running for President.

This is bald faced lie. Vattel was never even cited in either case, and the definition of natural born citizen offered by the Wong court is anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation.

The Wong decision changes that. It settled all doubts regarding the children of aliens born on US soil. They too are natural born citizens.

 

can i buy beer with it ?

 

what was the need to declare wong natural born, why would it come up at all. what other areas of law is it used besides the executive branch.?

 

"The American people deserve better than someone being tried in the court of public opinion based on unfounded accusations,"

 

Michael has yet to explain why the voters, the Electoral College, Congress, Chief Justice Roberts, former Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and the Secretaries of State of all 50 States have expressed their opinion that yes indeed Barack Obama was eligible and that Michael's interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen requirement is bogus.

Nor has Michael explained why we should think that his understanding of the Constitution is better than the Indiana Appeals Court who said:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Nope, Micheal and Ms. Jolly think that President Obama should be frogmarched out of the White House by Birthers with torches and pitchforks because they say they are right- and everyone else is wrong[Now the above is what my posts said. What follows is Ms. Jollie once again attempting to move the goal posts.

Just to keep it clear- I pointed out that virtually ever person disagrees with Ms. Jolie and Micheal's new definition of "Natural Born Citizen"- and then I followed that up by asking Michael why his opinion should be considered better than that of the Indiana Appeals Court.l

Now watch how Ms. Jollie moves the goal posts:

quote=jollyroger88805;4701048]
jeffie jeffie jeffie this Indiana Appeals Court who said:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

HAS NO BEARING NOR EFFECT ON NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. BECAUSE THE JUDGE SAID IT OUTSIDE ANY CASE BEFORE THE COURT. YOU SEE THE CASE WAS RULED TO HAVE "NO STANDING" AT THAT POINT THERE WAS NO CASE. BESIDES ALL THAT IT DOESN"T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THE SUPREME COURT.]AND YOU CAN NOT DENY ANY OF THAT AND BE TRUTHFUL. jeffie I wrote in all caps just for you so you can see the truth better.

][/quote]

Frankly I am not even sure what Ms. Jollie is saying I could or cannot deny.

Because Ms. Jollie has moved the goal post to something different from what I clearly stated.

So I will make it very clear:

Ms. Jollie....The voters, the Electoral College, Congress, Chief Justice Roberts, The Secretaries of States of all 50 states and former Justice Sandra Day O"Conner have all expressed their opinion that Barack Obama was indeed eligible. And the Indiana Appeals Court clearly expressed their opinion that, based upon Wong Kim Ark, that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen- that you cannot deny and claim to be truthful.

And their combined opinion reflects the consensus opinion within both the population at large, and the legal community of the definition of Natural born citizen. It is the definition that was indeed used by all parties involved in the 2008 election.

And the definition being proposed and promoted by Ms. Jollie and Michaeln is the opinion of a fringe minority that is contrary to the consensus opinion within the United States. That you cannot deny and claim to be truthful.

Birthers- attempting to corrupt the Constitution since 2008.

 

rahl This is exactly why your comments mean nothing. They are opinion NOT just with NO source BUT with totally inaccurate, unsubstaniated, uneducated and false info. The Supreme Court did uphold the lower court ruling {At least you got that part right} And here is what the lower Court ruled COPIED and PASTED: "The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a CITIZEN of the United States." {Notice again a CITIZEN not a natural born citizen !!} You got that WRONG again and every time you have said this. ARK Supreme Court decision Copied and Pasted: "becomes at the time of his birth a CITIZEN {NOTICE it doesn't say "natural born citizen"} of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

 

not a single court case has ever cited vattel regarding citizenship. not one.



here is your clue. think about that. so it needs to be decided. again what other applications are there for natural born other than the presidency ?