From Conception...To Election

"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..." Pen Johannson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Monday, July 23, 2012

HAWAII NOW REFUSES TO AUTHENTICATE OBAMA’S DIGITAL IMAGE WITH ORIGINAL BIRTH DOCUMENT

LYIN’ HAWAIIAN:  Following shocking contradictions discovered by criminal investigators between the contents of the forged digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted on the internet and long-standing federal vital records regulations, the State of Hawaii now refuses to verify that the digital image matches the paper record in their files.

By Dan Crosby
Of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY – The American people were ridiculed and insulted by the liberal media for years for questioning the authority of the State of Hawaii when the current and former directors of the Hawaiian Department of Health, Loretta Fuddy and Chiyome Fukino, publicly stated that they had verified that Obama’s birth records existed on file under their jurisdiction.

Based on that uncorroborated information, Fukino even fancied herself as an INS agent stating in July of 2009 that she believed Obama was a natural born citizen.  However, according to the digital image we were told was Obama’s official, original, authentic birth certificate, he is not a natural born citizen which is defined by birth to two citizen parents.  Obama’s alleged father was a British citizen born in Kenya.   

Then, at the very moment Obama, or most likely someone on his staff, posted a digital image of an unauthorized .pdf version of an alleged State of Hawaii issued birth certificate to an official government media source in April, 2011, a crime was committed.   

Aside from the technical evidence now eviscerating the credibility of the digital image of Obama’s forged birth certificate posted to an official government media source, one of the most shocking revelations to emerge from Maricopa County’s Hawaiian records investigation is that the Deputy Attorney General of that state would not provide confirmation that the record held on file by the Hawaiian Health Department actually matched the image placed on the internet by Obama.

During the course of the investigation, Maricopa County Sheriff CCP lead investigator, Mike Zullo, asked Hawaii’s Deputy Attorney General, Jill Nagamine, to validate the information about Obama’s birth on the internet image by corroborating it with the contents of the original paper version of the birth record filed with the State of Hawaii. 

Nagamine refused to do so.

“At one point during the conversation, I held up a copy of that document, (a paper copy of the internet image of Obama alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth”), and I asked her, point blank, ‘is this a copy of the document you provided Mr. Obama’s attorneys?’” he stated in a July 17th MCSO press conference.

Cowering behind legal nonsense, Nagamine refused to validate Obama’s birth certificate.   

“During the course of our conversation, going back and forth, it became very apparent to us that the Deputy Attorney General was doing nothing more than hiding behind state statutes with every question we asked,” said Zullo.

Zullo continued, “I explained to her that we have a problem. The problem is that we already know by the admission of the Department of Health that they released two photo copies of the purported original long form birth certificate, placed in an envelope and given to Mr. Obama’s attorney’s.  I don’t know what was contained in the documents…I don’t know what was contained in that envelope.”

Zullo’s line of questioning with Nagamine was exploring the possibility that the content of the original paper documents, which were given to Obama’s attorney’s directly by the State of Hawaii, did not match the content of the document image posted to the internet in April of 2011.

Investigators suspect an intentionally corrupted chain of custody occurred sometime between the release of the original paper documents by the State of Hawaii to the time they were posted to the Whitehouse.gov website two days later.  There is now strong evidence showing that the information contained in the original documents issued by the State of Hawaii was most likely transcribed and altered by forgers working on behalf of Obama in the course of fabricating the “new and improved version” .pdf file prior to posting it online.  This evidence includes inconsistencies between content and vital statistics coding, the absence of viewable information in the lower margin, the use of layers to obscure and add information and, most significantly, the lack of cooperation by the State of Hawaii to validate what has been claimed is the identical information in both the image and original documents.

Zullo illustrated this problem to Nagamine using the example of an altered image of his original driver’s license saying that if you changed the information from the original to the image, would that still serve as proof of an original driver’s license.
    
Washing her hands of any responsibility as a law enforcement agent to uphold regulations against the forgery of official government documents and identity fraud, Nagamine’s reply was shocking, “But, you still have an (original) driver’s license.”

Commenting on Nagamine’s response, Zullo said, “Essentially, what she was telling us is that the internet image is not what they released to Obama’s attorneys.”
   
Yet, it is the official position of the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, the highest ranking law enforcement official in the state, that there is no reason to investigate whether the content of the digital image of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” is a misrepresentation of an official government document.  Nagamine’s reply was a resounding confirmation that the law no longer matters in the State of Hawaii and that it probably never did when it comes to the validation of birth documents issued there.
 
Moreover, Nagamine’s failure to cooperate with an official law enforcement investigation also affirms that her office, along with the entire municipality of the State of Hawaii refuses to validate the claim that the image posted by Obama, represented world-wide as proof of his identity and eligibility to serve as president, is actually identical to the content of his original paper document record held in secret at the Hawaii Health Department.

Therefore, by default, it is not!
  
Zullo continued, “Based on that exchange, we verified that the state of Hawaii did not make a .pdf file of Obama’s birth certificate.  If the Department of Health in Hawaii did not release this .pdf computer generated file and this is not merely a photograph of a document, someone else created it! ”

“That is forgery!  There is no legal authority for anyone, including the president of the U.S. or his staff, to make a Hawaiian birth certificate.”

“You could not take this document image into a court room and have it accepted as authentic by a judge.”

The conclusion is indisputable and explicit.  Crimes of document forgery and identity fraud have been committed at the highest levels of government.  It doesn’t matter if you can accept the crushing weight of that judgment.

Of course, we all know that any legal action which takes hold will exempt Obama because he will be insulated behind plausible deniability by the aforementioned corrupt chain of custody of his records.  The crimes of forgery were committed without Obama’s knowledge.  Certainly, he was never allowed by his handlers to even know what information was contained in any of those documents.  He wasn’t even allowed to touch them or see them. 

However, he endorsed them, thereby sponsoring the lie.  
 
The various agencies serving within the State of Hawaii and federal government are now actively obstructing justice and serving as an accomplice to the crimes of document forgery and identity fraud with respect to Obama’s birth certificate, his social security number and his selective service registration.
 
Worse, they have propagated the most prolific hoax in American political history and, in doing so have eviscerated their own credibility, value and purpose to humanity.

Judgment cometh, and that right soon.  May God have mercy.

30 comments:

  1. Do you remember when Martha Stewart when to prison for telling one lie to the SEC investigator? How many Birthers have been arrested for lying to the court or presenting false evidence? None! If any Birther was arrested they would have standing in court to defend themselves, obtain discover, subpoena the original Hawaiian microfilm of Obama's birth record, depose Loretta Fuddy under oath, order the Social Security office to release the SS-5 record of the stolen CT SS card Obama has used for decades.That is why no birther has been arrested and why Obama continues to be the punching bag for birthers. The news media has been cowed by the Obama administration into withholding the facts about the Obama identity frauds and in so die have abdicated their right to be moral guardians of the news.

    On a dusty shelf in a doctor or hospital basement is a 35 year old paper medical record with the name and medicare number used by the original owner of the Obama CT SS card. A medicare number was your SS number plus a random one letter suffix. That elderly person likely applied for the CT SS card back then in order to obtain medicare benefits under a law change expanding coverage to people who originally didn't qualify for medicare. This would be proof positive of SS and tax fraud on the part of Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not long ago, there was a former Hawaiian office worker, familiar with this matter, who stated simply, almost off handedly, that everyone in the office knew there was no certificate. I am sure you can find him with a net search; he fell silent, as does everyone, but he was quite clear. I will see if I kept any info.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Either his first or last name was Adam I believe.

    And not that I follow her or support her in any way, but Orly was sanctioned by the court - quite a large sum levied against her, I would think that would constitute standing, but then I'm no lawyer. And if so, I'm sure she would use it to her full advantage, but basically she has been shut up too.

    Dems and their hypocracy floor me. What is Romney hiding with his tax returns and he should release 10 years, but Obama hides nothing surrounding all his sealed records and the highly questionable circumstances of his birth and certificates????? Whatever. To those with reasoning skills, I supposed Obama's tact is better, as we all can reason that there is definitely something there amiss - if he released it all, it would just be a forgery and probably not a very good one at that, but good enough to fool most of the people I suppose. It's just crazy what people are willing to believe and lead to believe if they want to bad enough. The bright and shiny still hasn't completely worn off of Obama - amazing - simply amazing.

    Can you imagine how rich the man would be (even more so than being POTUS) had he directed that charisma into a money making scheme instead?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hawaii has confirmed the facts on Obama's birth certificate about five times. In the latest confirmation, the one accepted as evidence by the Conservative Republican secretary of state of Arizona, the officials in Hawaii stated that they checked the image of the birth certificate that the White House posted against the one in their files and found that the facts were IDENTICAL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahhh. WRONG! Your statement is TOTALLY proven false by the following article, which deals with that myth head on: http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/sheriff-joes-posse-hawaii-duped-arizona/ Hawaii continues to hide behind saying, "he has a valid certificate"... but STILL refuses to verify that what Obama released is what they gave him... including NOT doing so in the Arizona case.

      Delete
  5. Try finding the embossed Hawaii State seal that EVERY certified copy of every birth certificate has on that .pdf document. Don't say that it didn't show up on the scan. A newspaper in Israel proved that it will show up. This is not a legal document.
    Anyone who spends #100,000.00 on four lawyers to seal their records has SOMETHING to hide. I don't understand why he was not properly vetted, of course, unless the media was in on the scam, which is obvious.
    I would like to find legal documentation that states that the candidate must be the offspring of two U.S. born parents. I can't find that anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The embossed seal is ON THE BACK, where it is supposed to be. The official birth certificate of Hawaii is the short-form. Here is an image of Obama's official Hawaii birth certificate with the Hawaii state seal on it: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/ (third photo from the top.) The seal on the back of Obama's long form was also seen by journalists, as the statement by Savannah Guthrie shows.


    The Conservative Republican secretary of state of Arizona has accepted Hawaii's confirmation that Obama was born in Hawaii. The officials in Hawaii stated that they checked the image of the birth certificate that the White House posted against the one in their files and found that the facts were IDENTICAL. The existence of Obama's birth certificate is further confirmed by the Index Data, a public file showing the BCs that are on file that shows one for Obama in 1961. The fact that Obama was issued a Hawaii birth certificate in 1961 is further confirmed by the birth notices that were sent to the papers (for the section of the papers called "Health Bureau Statistics") by the DOH in 1961. And in that year the DOH was not allowed to issue birth certificates to children born outside of Hawaii, and it did not send out birth notices to the newspapers for children who had not received birth certificates.

    Re "spends #100,000"---answer. He didn't. That was made up by birthers. There is no independent confirmation that he spent even a cent, not one penny. And he did not "seal" his documents; they are simply private. The same documents from Romney--college transcripts, college papers, passport records, etc.---are just as private and have not been released by Romney.

    Re: "I would like to find legal documentation that states that the candidate must be the offspring of two U.S. born parents. I can't find that anywhere."

    That is because there is no such requirement. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.


    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 - So much for transparency! It doesn't matter. I won't vote for a Marxist.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Minor v Happersett 1875

      "... all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens..."

      I'm pretty sure the USSC overrules Meese.

      Delete
    4. You are quoting Vattel, but there is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution followed him. He is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times.

      And the Wong Kim Ark decision was AFTER the Minor vs Happersett decision, and hence would have overturned it (if the Minor vs Happersett decision was actually a ruling on the matter, and it isn't. It is merely dicta). And the Wong Kim Ark decision ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (thus NOT from Vattel), and that it refers to the PLACE of birth (not the parents), and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.

      THAT is why Meese had that quotation in his book. It corresponds to a ruling of the US Supreme Court. It does not differ from the ruling of the Supreme Court.

      Delete
    5. Luria v. United States ruled that Minor, not Wong Kim Ark, is the Supreme Court legal precedent for presidential eligibility. Besides, Wong Kim Ark affirmed and upheld the Minor definition of NBC. That makes 27 Supreme Court justices who agreed that natural-born citizens are those who are born in the country to citizen parents. Since Wong Kim Ark required the parents to have permanent residence and domicil in the United States in order to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment, Obama is not even a 14th amendment citizen because his parents had permanent residence and domicil in Kenya when he was born.

      Delete
    6. Re: Luria vs United States. It did not say that the Minor definition applies. It simply said that "Under the Constitution of the United States, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. "

      And that is merely repeating the fact that a president must be a Natural Born Citizen, but Luria vs United States did not say that you have to have two citizen parents and be born in the USA to be a Natural Born Citizen, nor did it say that Minor vs Happersett had said (which by the way it didn't) that two citizen parents are required.

      The actual words of the Wong Kim Ark decision were:

      "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

      III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

      The above quotation clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel). And it says that the meaning refers to the place of birth (no mention of parents), and it says that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.

      Nor did it require "permanent residence and domicile." Here is what it said:

      "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

      There is nothing about residence status and domicile. The rule was simply being in the country. Even the aliens who were just here temporarily were under the jurisdiction of the USA, and because of that their children who were born in the USA were US citizens at birth---except for the children of foreign diplomats.

      Obama's father was in the USA when Obama was born, as proven by WND. He was here on a valid student visa. Obama's mother was born here, in Kansas. More importantly, OBAMA was in the USA, as proven by his birth certificate from Hawaii, the repeated confirmation of the facts on it by the officials in Hawaii of both parties, the Index Data file (http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html) and the birth notices that were sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii (for the section of the paper entitled "Health Bureau Statistics") by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961.

      Here BTW, is an interesting new article on the subject:

      http://cityonahillpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/07/fred-thompson-on-natural-born-citizen.html

      And another:

      http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/rewriting-birthright-citizenship

      Delete
    7. smrstrauss,

      (1) your interpretation of Minor vs Happersett is EXTREMELY flawed. This is carefully explained here:

      http://www.barimshabazz.com/natural-born-citizen/

      (2) Your usage of Wong Kim Ark conveniently confuses "natural born citizen" with "natural born subject". We fought a war with Great Britain so that we could become citizens, NOT subjects... and there is a difference. What that difference is, and how that impacts this very topic in way that pretty much destroys your arguments, is found here:

      http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah110.htm

      Delete
  7. EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 made it harder, not easier, for a president to seal presidential papers than a similar executive order issued by George Bush. But, to see that, you have to have the two executive orders in front of you to compare. It is nevertheless true. It makes it HARDER to seal papers, not easier to seal papers.

    AND, this is something that you as a US citizen should really know about Executive Orders. They do not, and cannot, apply to state records, medical records, corporate records, law firm records, school records, college records, Etc.

    Why not? Why can't they?

    Because an Executive Order is not a law and therefore cannot force anyone outside of the Executive Branch to do anything. An Executive Order is only an order from the top of the Executive Branch to the rest of the Executive Branch. That is all.

    So, why aren't Obama's school papers, college papers, passport records, medical records, Etc. all public? Because Obama has chosen not to release them and they are covered under state and federal privacy laws. Mitt Romney's school papers, college papers, passport records, medical records, Etc. all are not public too. Why not? Because Mitt Romney has also chosen not to release them, and they are covered under the same privacy laws.

    Yes, there was an EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489. No, it does not seal Obama's school records, etc.

    Nor has there been a lawsuit against Obama just for his college papers, medical records, passport records, Etc.---for them as a group or for them individually. So, since there was no such cases, Obama did not spend money defending them. There were some cases against him to get him thrown off of the ballot, and Obama spent a little money defending them. But that was to stay on the ballot, not to hide anything. So your crap about "spends #100,000" is still crap.

    Re: "I won't vote for a Marxist." That is your right, and I would fight to the death for your right to do exactly that. But most voters do not think that he is a Marxist, and they also have rights.

    In any case, Obama was born in Hawaii---as his short form birth certificate and long form birth certificate (with the embossed seals on the back, where they are supposed to be) both show, and as the confirmations of the officials in Hawaii (both parties) also show, and as the Index Data shows, and as the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii to the Health Bureau Statistics listings of the papers in 1961 shows. And the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 160 countries do not grant citizenship to the children, born in those countries, of nonresident aliens. Therefore, how can place of birth be the sole criteria to be a natural born citizen?

      Delete
    2. Because we are the USA, and we are EXCEPTIONAL (and beside, it was the meaning of Natural Born in the common law).

      And the words Natural Born Citizen come from the common law, not from Vattel---whose book, BTW, was not even translated to include the words "Natural Born Citizen" until ten years after the US Constitution was written.

      Delete
    3. The so-called birth certificate is nothing but a very badly forged digital image, full of "anomalies." In any case, a digital image isn't considered valid legal proof in any court in the land.

      The Founders could read French, fella. I could at one time, too, but didn't do it for over a half century, so skills are a bit atrophied.

      Learn about eligibility before you bloviate further: http://art2superpac.com/issues.html

      Delete
    4. Only birther "experts"---who have not proven that they are really experts, and who certainly have not shown that they are fair and impartial---CLAIM that there is something wrong with Obama's birth certificate. That is two reasons why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review do not believe them. Recently the conservative secretary of state of Arizona asked Hawaii to confirm that Obama was born there and other facts on Obama's birth certificate. Hawaii did, and the conservative secretary of state of Arizona accepted it as a fact and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in Arizona in November.

      The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law, not from Vattel (who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers while the common law is mentioned about twenty times).

      Subjects and citizens are different, to be sure. But they do not differ in every way. Subjects pull their pants on one leg at a time. Citizens pull their pants on one leg at a time. So, what would happen, of course, is that if citizens and subjects had different parent requirements, then the writers of the US Constitution would tell us, and they did not say that there was any difference.

      Where is there any evidence that the writers of the Constitution chose a new definition of Natural Born that was based on the parents, rather than the existing definition that was based on the place of birth. There are no articles or letters saying anything like: “We are citizens now, so let us base the Natural Born requirement on parents,” or “let us use Vattel’s definition of Natural Born and not the one in the common law.” There is nothing like that at all, and the writers would certainly have told us if they had made such a change.

      The grandfather clause of the US Constitution was passed to allow Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, American leaders who were not born in the 13 colonies, to be eligible to be president.

      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]



      “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      http://cityonahillpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/07/fred-thompson-on-natural-born-citizen.html

      http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

      Delete
  8. Gene, would it be Tim Adams that worked as Senior Elections Clerk that said O had no birth certificate? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKVpD5v4Hk

    This is interesting as well...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKVpD5v4Hk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/tim-adams-master-thesis-there-is-no-birth-certificate-for-obama/

      Delete
  9. Tim Adams, a member of a white supremacist group, was lying. He said that he had been told this by other members of the Election Commission staff, but no one has confirmed that they said it---not even former members of the staff. And the officials in Hawaii point out that the Election Commission did not have access to birth certificate records in any case.




    Obama was born in Hawaii as his birth certificate from that state and the repeated confirmation of the facts on it by the officials of both parties in Hawaii, and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the newspapers Health Bureau Statistics sections by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 all prove. Only 21 people total came to the USA from Kenya in 1961, and if Obama and his mother were two of them—which is enormously unlikely—Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled alone. Why? Because WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama’s father was in Hawaii when Obama was born.

    Re Sheriff Joe:

    It has been two weeks since the Sheriff’s press conference, and nothing has happened. NOTHING. Nothing at all.

    No member of Congress (and there are 535 of them) has called for an investigation. Not even Rush Limbaugh wants to discuss it.

    John McCain, who is one of the Senators of Arizona as well as being the former Republican candidate for president, has recently called the Sheriff crazy. The CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Arizona, who did his own investigation into Obama’s place of birth, has accepted Hawaii’s confirmation that Obama was born there, and has not changed his mind following Sheriff Joe’s press conference.

    Could the explanation be that the whole world is part of the plot? Or, more likely, is it that they believe the birth certificate, and the officials in Hawaii, and the Index Data, and the birth notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers——and they do not believe the sheriff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! That's all Rush is talking about today.

      Delete
  10. Actually, smrstrauss, your dissembling/sophistry doesn't change the fact that "Obama" is a fraud:

    Obama hasn't submitted a shred of valid legal proof of eligibility for the presidency

    1. Forged birth certificate on whitehouse.gov:
    http://www.youtube.com/embed/CCVp7-7rdoM?feature=player_detailpage
    http://www.youtube.com/embed/_3BITSkdFyw?feature=player_detailpage
    2. His draft registration is forged:
    http://constitutionalreset.ning.com/profiles/blogs/obama-s-fraudulent-selective-service-registration
    3. He has used at least 16 stolen Social Security numbers, including the one he uses to get paid in the White House 042-68-4425:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-9QeJqSneA&feature=player_embedded
    4. Even if he was born here, he 's not eligible, since his father was a foreigner and never a citizen. Learn something about Presidential eligibility:
    http://art2superpac.com/issues.html


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only birther "experts"---who have not proven that they are really experts, and who certainly have not shown that they are fair and impartial---have claimed that there is something wrong with Obama's birth certificate. That is two reasons why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, the National Review and the Conservative secretary of state of Arizona do not believe them.

      His draft registration is indeed forged. A birther posted it, and the birther forged it. BTW, the birther never even claimed that he got it from the White House. In other words, the White House COULDN'T have forged it.

      Re Social security number:


      The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.

      Millions of people have multiple social security numbers caused mainly by data entry errors:

      http://www.cnbc.com/id/38678753/How_Many_Social_Security_Numbers_Do_You_Have

      http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/20-million-americans-have-multiple-social-security-numbers-associated-with-their-name/

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20013733-501465.html


      You might well ask why, if there is evidence that Obama has multiple SS numbers and that one of them came from Connecticut that NO committee in Congress wants to investigate? Why not?

      Because it is not illegal to have mistakes in your SS files, and lots of people do. And there is no evidence that this is other than a mistake, or a lot of mistakes. Republicans would be GLAD to hold a hearing to show that there was a crime involved with Obama's SS number. But they KNOW that there is no evidence, and if they looked into their own files (I did to mine), they are likely to find multiple numbers in them.

      Re: "Even if he was born here, he 's not eligible, since his father was a foreigner and never a citizen."

      He was for sure born here, in Hawaii, as his birth certificate, and the confirmation of the officials of both parties in Hawaii, and the Index Data, and the birth notices sent to the newspapers of Hawaii by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 all show.

      And, as the Wong Kim Ark ruling states (six to two, one not voting) the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen.


      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.] (The section of the book was indeed written by James Ho, but guess what, he is also a CONSERVATIVE. In fact, he was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.)


      "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

      “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

      Delete
  11. I of III

    Smrstrauss at July 29, 2012 5:38 PM,

    You made the following statements which I quote. My responses follow:

    1. “You are quoting Vattel, but there is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution followed him.”

    You are wrong. I have explained in my briefs to the courts and on my blog that the historical record shows that the Founders and Framers looked to Vattel for their ideas on natural law and the law of nations. These fundamental laws, and not the English common law, were incorporated into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, foundational documents of our republic.

    The Founders and Framers did not look to Vattel only in a general way on natural law and the law of nations, but also specifically for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.” As examples only and not as an exhaustive list, during the 1789 Ramsay-Smith congressional debate on whether Representative William Smith was at least a “Citizen of the United States” for seven-years so as to be eligible to be a representative under Article I, Section 2, Smith relied upon Vattel to show that he was such a “citizen.” David Ramsay in 1789 said that birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776 belonged only to the children of “citizens.” St. George Tucker in 1803 said the same. Our first law school at the College and William and Mary, along with many other early colleges, taught courses on Vattel, the law of nations, which they considered to be “national law.” These courses specifically provided explanations of Vattel’s definitions of “citizen” and “natural born citizen” under natural law and the law of nations.

    In my presentations, I have also explained that several U.S. Supreme Court and lower court cases specifically cited and quoted or paraphrased Vattel and his Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Cases that cited and quoted Vattel for the definition of a “natural born Citizen” are The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); and United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”). Cases that paraphrased his definition are Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (a child inherits the citizenship of his parents); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (a child inherits the citizenship of his parents); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (said that the Founders and Framers were familiar with the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen;” the American “common-law” definition that the Court gave was a paraphrase of Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen” and not that of the English common law’s definition of a “natural born subject”) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (cited and quoted Minor and its Vattel paraphrased American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen”). These cases, along with other historical evidence, show that Obama’s supporters are wrong when they say that Vattel did not provide the Founders and Framers with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” On the contrary, this evidence demonstrates that it was, indeed, Vattel who provided the Founders and Framers with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Indeed, this historical and case law evidence conclusively demonstrates that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” can be traced to Vattel’s Section 212 and was handed down from there to the Founders and Framers when they wrote the Constitution and continued to be confirmed in case law of our U.S. Supreme Court and lower court down to even the 1898 seminal case on citizenship, Wong Kim Ark.

    ReplyDelete
  12. II of III

    2. “He [Vattel] is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times.”

    The specific issue is the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” not the English common law in some general way. The English common law may be mentioned, but there is no evidence that the Founders and Framers used the English common law to define a “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, and only as one example, we know from his Federalist No. 42 that Madison called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in defining terms in the Constitution. James Madison sat on the convention committee that drafted Article II presidential eligibility. Hence, he would not have relied upon the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.” Moreover, the law of nations is not only mentioned many times in the Federalist Papers, but was actually incorporated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 as part of Article III’s “Laws of the United States.” The English common law cannot make the same claim.

    3. “And the Wong Kim Ark decision was AFTER the Minor vs Happersett decision, and hence would have overturned it (if the Minor vs Happersett decision was actually a ruling on the matter, and it isn't. It is merely dicta).”

    Minor did confirm through a binding precedent what the American “common-law” meaning of a “natural-born citizen” was, i.e., “[a]t common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Second, Wong Kim Ark did not abandon or amend this American “common-law” meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it interpreted and construed the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby defined a “citizen of the United States” at birth thereunder. It did not amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    4. “And the Wong Kim Ark decision ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (thus NOT from Vattel), and that it refers to the PLACE of birth (not the parents), and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.”

    First, you are confused about what the “common law” means. The “common law” does not only come from the English. It also comes from the law of nations. Second. Wong Kim Ark used the colonial English “common law” as an aid in interpreting, construing, and applying the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not use the English “common law” to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” From that English “common law,” it concluded that every child that is born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (which at a minimum necessarily excluded children born to diplomats and invading armies), is a “citizen of the United States” at birth. The Court did not hold that such a child is necessarily a “natural born Citizen” also, and it would not have given that Wong Kim Ark also expressly recognized that a person has to satisfy the American “common law” standard of a “natural born Citizen” and not only be a “citizen” in order to be born with that status.

    ReplyDelete
  13. III of III

    5. “THAT is why Meese had that quotation in his book. It corresponds to a ruling of the US Supreme Court. It does not differ from the ruling of the Supreme Court.”

    The quote that Obama supporters like you plaster all over the internet as being made by Edwin Meese was not made by him, but rather by James C. Ho. Ho’s love affair with Wong Kim Ark jus soli puts Ho in a bind. Ho argues that, under English common law jus soli, simply being born in the United States makes one a born citizen of the United States which in turn makes one a “natural born Citizen.” First, he cannot explain if mere birth in the United States is sufficient to make on a “natural born Citizen,” why did the Founders and Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 say “natural born Citizen” rather than “born Citizen.” Second, Ho cannot explaint why if just being born a citizen makes one a “natural born Citizen,” why should Wong Kim Ark have concluded that persons born abroad to citizen parents who are also born “citizens of the United States” are not “natural born Citizens.” Ho offers no explanation why Wong Kim Ark gave birth on a soil so much more power than birth to parents? Not having an answer, Ho simply suggests that we not paying attention to Wong Kim Ark when it comes to the question of whether our citizens born abroad to citizen parents are “natural born Citizens.” He submits that they are. So Ho uses Wong Kim Ark anyway he wants, given the particular needs of the moment. He takes from the decision what he needs and throws away what he does not.

    So, as we can readily see, there is no merit to any of your assertions.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James C. Ho is another CONSERVATIVE attorney. In fact, he was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. And Ho was selected by Meese (whose decision was approved by the Heritage Foundation).

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      http://cityonahillpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/07/fred-thompson-on-natural-born-citizen.html

      http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

      Delete