Sheriff's probe finds Obama birth certificate 'fake' (Full conference)

originally posted by: Phoenix
Reminder, what's first thing BHO did, seal his records.

He did? Where is your evidence for that....

Remember you "sealed" your records in the exact same manner Obama did!

a reply to: hellobruce

What a farce, I never ran for President which has specific Constitutional requirement of being NBC, not natural, not naturalized and not plain citizen.

It's very specific and term is only used for presidential and vice presidential office.

That passport and college records were sealed and BC records were a fraud, yes questions remain.

originally posted by: Phoenix
I never ran for President which has specific Constitutional requirement of being NBC, not natural, not naturalized and not plain citizen.

Which Obama is, having being born in Hawaii. You also ignore the fact the courts have declared Obama a natural born US citizen......

It's very specific and term is only used for presidential and vice presidential office.

Yes, and as Obama is a NBC, what are you on about?

That passport and college records were sealed

But you sealed your college and passport records the exact same way Obama did.... so did Trump, your neighbour, your mother, your mothers neighbour, your fathers neighbours brother, they all sealed their passport and college records the exact same way Obama did....

So didn't you know that? You just blindly believed a silly birther story!

a reply to: hellobruce

Automatically sealed just like the adoption orders.

a reply to: hellobruce

Who cares where Obama was born? Not even your hero Sheriff Joe cares where Obama was born.

This is about a forged federal document.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: dashen
So all the laws he passed are null and void?

No more bammycare?

He would go to jail for defrauding the American people. Libya an illegal war and anyone who aided and abetted him.

Not even close. Fraud is when you obtain something with a false document. He obtained the Presidency long before any document was supplied. That's why you don't go to jail if you pay your Visa bill with a bad check. You already got the gas and groceries. You still owe Visa but there is no crime. And there is nothing in the Federal Criminal Code (U.S.C.Title 10) that criminalizes being elected to an office for which you are not qualified. The remedy might be for the government to sue for repayment of salary but that's not a slam dunk.
BTW, look at what Arpaio actually says he proved - that the photocopy that was published was not an original, Of course it wasn't, it was a photocopy.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: hellobruce

Automatically sealed just like the adoption orders

What adoption orders? Oh, the mythical ones, with zero evidence for them, that you keep babbling about!

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
This is about a forged federal document.

No, there is zero evidence for forgery, remember they never even examined the document that they claim is forged. Only self proclaimed "internet experts" do silly things like that.

a reply to: hellobruce

Can you kindly provide a link to the court ruling Obama as natural born citizen I and I'm sure many others would be interested.

TY

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: hellobruce

Can you kindly provide a link to the court ruling Obama as natural born citizen I and I'm sure many others would be interested.

Here you are, these are something birthers love to keep ignoring.

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.” Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.“ Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny] Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny]. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise” Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.” Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.] Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that: There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702. Thus, anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, irrespective of parentage. In Re: Nomination Petition Of Rafael Edward Cruz (Pennsylvania, 2016) ruling: “this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a “natural born citizen” includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.“

www.obamaconspiracy.org...

a reply to: hellobruce

But you specifically said the court ruled Obama was NBC, old case law ain't that.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: hellobruce

But you specifically said the court ruled Obama was NBC, old case law ain't that.

It's the old and tired "bait and switch" move.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Nah, that citation would never fly past SC scutiny because using that as precedent would allow a Mexican woman to cross border, have baby, baby eligible to be president. The opinion cited for SC deals with plain citizenship not NBC.

Erecting a wall of gobeldy good does not make an NBC.

Avoidance as I said up thread.

Answers will soon be forthcoming.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: hellobruce

But you specifically said the court ruled Obama was NBC, old case law ain't that.

I knew you would not look at facts that birthers hate, as if you had actually read it you would have seen....

he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution

is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]

I wonder if you will read this!

originally posted by: Phoenix
would allow a Mexican woman to cross border, have baby, baby eligible to be president.

Well, that is exactly the case! It really shows birthers do not know much about USA law.

“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,

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.”

It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.“

“However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.

persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

a reply to: hellobruce

Yup, well debunked so many times in so many discussions.

It's used by you anti births to break up discussion into minutiae and prevent coherent discourse.

Classic tactic.

I predict BHO has a day in court in his future, if not this certainly something much more serious than just fraud.

originally posted by: Phoenix
It's used by you anti births to break up discussion

Yes, birther lies are stopped by facts, something that they hate!

I predict BHO has a day in court in his future, if not this certainly something much more serious than just fraud.

In your fantasy world, if Joe actually had any evidence he would have given it to the proper authorities, not just stream it then run away and not allow any questions!

a reply to: hellobruce

In my fantasy world Trump was elected President, oh wait that's reality.

He did say he's to drain swamp, BHO is part of that.

Bet 110% that wasn't your fantasy world, was it.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: hellobruce

In my fantasy world Trump was elected President, oh wait that's reality.

He did say he's to drain swamp, BHO is part of that.

Bet 110% that wasn't your fantasy world, was it.

Wait.. You actually invested time in creating a Utopian fantasy world, and not only did you keep the same system of government, along with a President, but your CHOICE for President was Donald Trump?

Really?

Hey guys, someone let me know when this birther nonsense leads to something substantive in the real world.

I'll check in with ATS every 5 years henceforth just to make sure I haven't missed it.

Or should I make it 15?