Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
The "Chicago Way" is crooked and not above doing such a thing if they think they can get away with it. That they tampered with the Micro-fiches is an idea I will keep in mind, and if it turns out to be true, it will require a serious re-evaluation of my current working theory. Whatever is the answer, we must go where the facts lead.
I have been scared before (back when Bill Clinton was President) and I am scared now. We just have to try and ameliorate the situation as best we can. Forcing this guy of the ballot, (if possible) will go a long ways to fixing what is scaring me (us) currently.
What *IS* Ladysforest's blog? I tried to get in touch with her about 6 or 7 months ago, but I was unsuccessful. I noticed a lead which needed to be followed up, and she was the only person in a position to do so. A commenter on one of the Blogs that she has access to said they knew the Birkebeiles, and that they didn't live in Washington State in 1961. I would like to ask a bunch of follow up questions, but I do not know how this commenter can be contacted. I was hoping to get Ladysforest to contact this commenter with some follow up questions.
If we can nail down the truth on something, we need to do so, so that we won't waste any further time or resources on it.
Regarding a paper copy, the Bishop Library in Hawaii has in its list of holdings a claim that it has paper copies of the old archived newspapers from this time period. But now they’re saying they don’t have any...
Of course, we were also told the HDOH didn’t have any birth records for Virginia Sunahara, but we know how that turned out.
The problem with drawing conclusions from various staff is that they don't really care about this. While we might hang on their every word for meaning, they are casually tossing off their opinion or thinking of the moment without necessarily being careful about what they say, or even correct about what they know.
This is not to say that there can't be examples where they are demonstrably misleading or lying, but my general rule is to assume stupidity and incompetence before malice. I've dealt with too many bureaucrats and they tend to be a clueless and useless lot. Contradiction means nothing to them. They often cannot see it even when it is clearly pointed out to them.
That being said, I'm not discounting crookedness and malice.
P.S. I did a lookup of Ladysforest blog and it came back to "My very own point of view." THAT is the blog I was referring to which has that friend or relative of the Birkebeiles which left the comment. Is there any way we could ask Ladysforest to look into contacting this person and nailing down this information? I assume commenters usually leave an email address with the blog they comment on.
Ladysforest, meet DiogenesLamp. DiogenesLamp, meet Ladysforest. If you Freepmail each other you can ask each other whatever you want. =)
Erratic and emotional is pretty much the rule for Democrats. That's why they are democrats. They make good actors and entertainers because they pretend to live in a fantasy world every day. What they don't make is good engineers or people who otherwise construct useful things for the benefit of mankind.
I have long remarked how conservatives tend to deal in tangibles, and Liberals tend to deal in non-tangibles. If a conservative produces Crops, or Oil, or Buildings or whatever, Liberals produce "education" or "entertainment" or "legal services" or "news." No actual tangible work product.
That's not to say this is always the case, but I have noted that people such as Lawyers, Entertainers, News Broadcasters, etc. tend to be Liberal, while Doctors, Engineers, Manufacturers, etc. tend to be conservative. I have always thought people who are geared toward the abstract and emotional pursue such careers as are dominated by Liberals. It has been mentioned more than once that Theoretical Physicists tend to be Liberal, and Experimental Physicists tend to be Conservative.
“Gray blurred this issue to give teeth to the 14th amendment, “
This is the problem with Wong Kim Ark. People running around pretending to know how to read the law espousing this and that and making crap up and pretending it is true. Your quote is ridiculous.
Gray slaughtered the 14th Amendment.
This is why I rarely get involved in the discussion of Wong Kim Ark.
The position that you really want is the one that was set forth by the architects of the 14th Amendment NOT THE ARK DECISION. The architects had a more restrictive intent.
It is important to note that they were trying to keep citizenship away from Indians and this effected the language.
You might want to educate yourself about how Gray slaughtered the 14th Amendment. here is a discussion about the Senators involved with developing the language of the 14th amendment
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2139082/posts
Btw, there was a treaty that was ratified by Senators who also adopted the 14th Amendment.
Justice Gray ignored that treaty.
The interesting concept - that I havent really looked into - is that of Lynch V Clarke. Wong Kim Ark mentions that case in the lower court and by SCOTUS. Was it really overturned by the 14th Amendment as some claim. I don’t know.
Same thing with pure mathematicians vs. applied mathematicians, I suppose.
Not that I have ever heard. His FAMILY was originally from Kansas, but He wasn't.
I would think they would have posted it online for everyone to see by now. The fact that they have not, (to my knowledge) argues against it.
"To Ladysforest | 06/30/2011 7:54:08 PM PDT sent"
I never got a response, so I thought perhaps she hadn't been paying attention to FreeRepublic for awhile or didn't want to do it. Perhaps it just got overlooked.
Could be. I don't have that much contact with people who are explicitly mathematicians, but it would seem likely.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2489872/posts?q=1&;page=101
mojitojoe makes a comment on this thread about paper copy being saved but this is not the post I am thinking of ..so don’t know if it is him or someone else
I can understand why something might not be posted.
Sometimes, you keep evidence to yourself and wait to pounce.
Someone did that with the BC that he faked. Obama used it.
“You need to listen more carefully. I didn’t say I have proof that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. I said I have proof that the newspaper announcement microfilms having Obama’s birth announcement have been changed out at least once in several different libraries.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2576033/posts?q=1&;page=51
this post isnt what I am referencing either but it is interesting
I never received a response from you regarding my comment about seeing through other people’s eyes. (including the riddle of the five hats.)
Did you just not think it worth the bother of reading or did I not explain the idea clearly enough?
I won’t be offended if you tell me it wasn’t worth the bother, because I realize it would require a bit of reading and mulling. Sometimes a shorter message is better, but often you can’t get the point into a shorter message. I’m sure we all know how that is.
My point exactly. In order for the Article to have any meaning, it must accomplish the task of minimizing foreign influence in the Executive. Any interpretation which does not accomplish this purpose must be a WRONG interpretation.
The main point being something of significant substance happened in 1971. And that should be investigated as much, if not more, intensely than what happened in 1961.
I think Sven is right about an adoption or custody hearing causing a replacement birth document in 1971. It fits too well to be wrong. About the Connecticut social security number, it is less supportable, but still the best guess i've heard so far.
I didn’t answer it because it isn’t relevant for me.
This is a court of law.
Aren’t you a Vattel supporter??????
Did it ever occur to you that the lower case in Wong Kim Ark
REJECTED Vattel and so did SCOTUS.
Yes, SCOTUS rejected the Law of Nations as they were slaughtering the 14th Amendment. Can’t figure out how? Read the lower court case.
While everyone goes around crowing about Wong Kim Ark because they don’t understand the case..what they should have been doing is annihilating it because it is one of the worst decisions ever by the Supreme Court AND it made the 14th Amendment LESS restrictive than was the intent by Congress.
The Justices in the dissent understood what was happening and discussed it throughly.
Wong Kim Ark is NOT in your favor. It is not a case that people on this site should be crowing about while they try to prove Obama can’t be President.
I alway Chuckle to myself when I see someone espousing about Vattel who then laud Wong Kim Ark. I suppose most of these people have never read the lower case of Wong Kim Ark.
I pointed out to "SometimesLurker" that All the people who created the 14th amendment were familiar with the term "natural born citizen" because it was cited in the debates on the Amendment. That they did not include the words "natural born" right before the word "citizen" was not an oversight or a mistake. It was explicitly left out because citizens created by the 14th amendment were NOT "natural born citizens".
Likewise, Justice Gray and the rest of SCOTUS were quite familiar with the term, and they did not leave it out of their ruling by accident or oversight. They declared Wong a citizen because he was a "citizen" under the 14th amendment. Had they decided that 14th amendment citizenship is the same thing as "natural born citizenship" they would have explicitly said so. The fact that they did not means they did not so intend that the one be considered the equal of the other. It would have cost them nothing to add two words to the decision. They did not do it.
Now you argue that because the term was used in the lower case, that it bound the decision in the upper case. I disagree. It is within the powers of the court to partially agree, or partially accept some aspect of a lower case while not granting acceptance of the whole.
They accepted the "citizen" part, but they tacitly did not accept the "natural born" part. Again, had they done so, the decision would have two additional words.
The fact that subsequent lawyers and authorities have interpreted it that way is just the result of a fault in their understanding.
Interesting point. It fits the theory.
Lynch v Clarke was a case in the State court of New York. It held that a person born in New York of foreign parents was a citizen of New York. The reasoning was that since New York had no statute on the question, the English Common law standard should be used by default.
The State Legislature of New York overturned the Lynch v. Clarke decision by passing a statute denying citizenship to the children of Transient Aliens.
I have argued with "sometimeslurker" who asserted that the attorneys for the government argued that it would make Wong Kim Ark eligible for the Presidency, to which I replied that perhaps their argument is exactly why the court used the term "citizen" instead of "natural born citizen"? The Government attorneys made them aware of the danger and they therefore avoided it by choosing the wording they used.
Yes, I believe Wong Kim Ark was decided wrongly, but even in it's wrongness it did not go so far as to make Presidents of Anchor babies.
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.