It's Official: Experts says Barrack Obama's Birth Certificate is a Forged Document

What happened to my previous post?????????

Lemme see if I can remember what I said:

Birthers and Supporters alike, listen. If the document is fake as it appears to be, why would the POTUS have such a sloppy fake?

It must be intentional. Perhaps his ummm...security advisors advised him against posting his ACTUAL BC. I don't have security advisors and I wouldn't post my original document. So is it not possible that since it was after all the POTUS his advisor INTENTIONALLY posted an altered BC. So that when the guy who knows he looks just like Obama attempted to commit fraud he would be busted? Or maybe something not even that complicated?

Look, as the POTUS, he has access to the BEST minds in this world. If you're the BEST at whatever you do, chances are you work for our government. Is this not a known fact? Take hackers...if you're the best at hacking do you not think the government is going to come recruit you?

So if the document is faked, what gives many of you the arrogance to think the POTUS would be too stupid to have a trump tight fake submitted...heck he could have the state make him a REAL one!

Last point and maybe the one that makes too much sense. Just because he submitted a fake document for the world to see....does that mean he does not have a authentic original? I mean with the way he's hated I'm sure some of his enemies in government would have called him out...not just this birther movement.

Use your brains people....

reply to post by ontarff


I hope for your sake you are the person in your avatar, and you are currently on a long and not that exciting flight while posting out of sheer boredom. It's like an inflight movie...just bad enough to keep you interested!

CJ

Originally posted by ontarff
My error. I did not have time to read the entire reference and did a Word text search of the whole document for "naturalized citizen" and it came up with no hits. I can not explain why this occurred.

I am glad you acknowledged your mistake. All the citations I provided were directly from the cases’ opinions, which I linked.

Edit:

Her interpretations are subjective. This is deceiving. Did she think I would not check her links?

I am male.

To my knowledge, It has not been interpreted and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As I’ve told you several times now, the question of natural born citizenship, when talking about domestic births, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court 113 years ago in Wong Kim Ark. There has been no decision contradicting that interpretation since, so it’s the controlling opinion.

The case was decided 6-2, and in case you don’t want to read the extensive and explicit explanation of the majority, then let me point you to a passage in the dissent, written by Justice Fuller, to get an idea of what the majority’s decision meant.

Justice Fuller writes,

I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

The dissent was fully aware that the majority’s opinion meant that “everybody born within ... the United States, irrespective of circumstances,” including “the children of foreigners,” “were eligible to the Presidency.”

As I stated, this opinion is still controlling, since no Supreme Court decision has overturned it. Wong Kim Ark, therefore, provides the binding interpretation of the meaning of natural born citizen.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
It was clear that Mr and Mrs Mustata were not citizens at the time of their childrens births. What part of the source did you not understand? Did you even bother to read it properly??

They were not running for POTUS!

Natural born citizenship status isn’t dependent on whether a person is running for President or not.

Originally posted by ontarff
Here is some more recent information for you. ... Read the article HERE

Thank you for the link.

I found some obvious problems with the interpretation and opinion presented there. The main one is the reliance on Vattel’s alleged definition of natural born citizen. Mr. Nelsen writes—

One of the typically referenced "law books," in addition to the rules of "natural law," lending direction to the tenets adopted in our Constitution comes from Swiss diplomat Emer de Vattel. Vattel detailed in the "Law of Nations" that "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. — I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

When we analyze the historical facts however, the conclusion that the Framers relied on Vattel’s alleged definition of natural born citizen is unpersuasive at best.

Originally Vattel wrote his treatise in french. Here you can read the original written by Vattel, published in 1758. The relevant passage, on the page I linked, reads “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.” The term “natural-born citizens,” or analogous, does not appear, and the term citizen appears only once and in relation to the parents — “parens citoyens,” or, roughly translated, “citizen parents.”

The first english translation was published in 1759, in London. I couldn’t find this edition online, but here is the relevant section from a 1760 English edition. The relevant passage reads “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” No sign here either of the term “natural-born citizens” as quoted by Mr. Nelsen in his article.

The first American edition was published in New York, in 1787, which is of importance because it was the year the Constitution was written. Here is the relevant section, it reads “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” Again, and as in previous english translations, the term “natural-born citizens” is not present.

In fact, the first edition of Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” to use the term “natural-born citizens,” as quoted by Mr. Nelsen, is an English edition printed in London in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution’s ratification. Here is the passage on that edition, it reads, as Mr. Nelsen quoted, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

I find it a very unpersuasive argument that the Framers relied on Vattel’s definition of “natural-born citizen,” when at the time of the Constitution’s creation and ratification, there was no english translation using the term and it wasn’t present in the original in french.

The strength of this Vattel theory is further diminished by the fact that at the time of, and long before, the writing of the Constitution, the term “natural born subject” existed in English common law.

If the Framers had used ‘native’ or ‘indigene’ then this Vattel theory would hold more water, and considering the historical facts surrounding Vattel’s writings, and the existence of the term “natural born subject” in English common law, the definition of “natural born citizen” endorsed by Mr. Nelsen and others is unconvincing.

Indeed, since the meanings of “natural born subject” and Vattel’s definition aren’t compatible, it would be rather strange if the Framers intended the meaning of “natural born” to be different but didn’t bother to explain how.

Even conceding, for argument purposes, that the Framers relied on Vattel’s definition as Mr. Nelsen and others argue, since 1898 that the binding interpretation has been the one based on the English common law not Vattel, when the Supreme Court, in Wong Kim Ark endorsed the common law meaning.

The Vattel theory fails to convince, and even it was right, since 1898 and, of relevance to our discussion here, when Barack Obama was born, the law has been that anyone born in the United States, whose parents aren’t enemy soldiers during invasion or foreign diplomats, is a natural born citizen.

Well duh doesn't take experts to figure that out. That birth certificate was horrible, it was screaming fake from the day it was released. The problem is not enough people care that they are being deceived they're busy with facebook and tweeting there freedom away. O shoot got to go Jersey Shore is on.

reply to post by aptness

Thank you for the information provided. I am going to need some time to do more research on the court cases and READ them for a better understanding. I did not read that in the Nelsen et al. vs. Obama court case I provided. Are you an attorney? My recent posts have been based on the information I have read to date. I have read a lot on this BC stuff but I do not claim to be a "know it all". We need to assure that our comments are on topic pertaining to the technical experts evaluating the Adobe Photoshop copy of the BC so as not to be censored by the Mods for an "off topic post" as we have been.

We can continue this dialogue on another thread if new information is introduced. Again, I respect the time you have spent providing the information that is important to consider for this discussion.

I don't know that the problems found in the .pdf can be simply explained as anomalies associated with a simple scan the original BC. This has been reiterated by persons more knowledgeable with the Adobe software than you or I.

When determining whether a child born in the U.S. is an Article II “natural born Citizen,”the question is not whether the parents of the child are foreign born. Rather, the questionis whether they are “citizens of the United States” at the time of the child’s birth in theUnited States. In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), our U.S. SupremeCourt, providing the same definition of a “natural born citizen” as did Emer de Vattel inhisThe Law of Nations, Section 212(1758), but without citing Vattel, and not in anyway referring to the English common law, stated: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort mustbe had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which theframers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in acountry of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizensalso. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens orforeigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within thejurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class therehave been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is notnecessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider,that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

Here is a link that provides more clarity for my position.

TextThe 14th Amendment (1868) of the U.S. Constitution and/or the Wong Kim Ark (1898) decision of the U.S. Supreme Court did NOT amend Article II of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark defined who are "born Citizens" of the U.S., not who are "natural born Citizens" of the U.S. Natural born Citizenship is obtained by natural law and facts at birth, not the laws of men. This video explains who is a "natural born Citizen". This is an issue of sole allegiance at birth and national security. New essay by Commander Kerchner revealing the Founder's Intent for citizenship status requirements to be President and Commander in Chief of the military.

and another...

www.kerchner.com...

reply to post by UcDat


It is very interesting to see all the drama about the birth certificate, which is a fraud. It doesn't matter though. Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.

To be a Natural Born Citizen, both the mother and father must be U.S. Citizens and the child must be a U.S. Citizen born in the country. Even though Obama was born in Kenya, his mother was a U.S. Citizen thus he is a U.S. Citizen by birth. There are many exemptions for being born outside the U.S. yet still being a U.S. Citizen. See www.protectourliberty.org for many citations of such.

Regardless of where Obama was born and whether or not his birth certificate is a fraud, which it is, Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. He was a Kenyan National who was subject to the British Crown in 1961. Thus Obama's father is a Kenyan/British citizen. Obama's father NEVER even applied for resident alien status never mind U.S. Citizenship. The Constitution is clear, you must be a Natural Born Citizen to be President. Based on the Law of Nations by Swiss Diplomat Emer Vatell in 1758, BOTH the mother and father must be citizens for the child to be natural born (in addition to being born in the country). The Law of Nations was adopted in language and citations in the Constitution throughout and has been cited in all federal courts - never having been questioned to this point.

So the point is, regardless of a fradulent U.S. birth certificate and actual place of birth outside the U.S. - Obama is Constitutionally Ineligible under Article II Section 1 Clause 5 to serve as President because both his mother AND father were not U.S. Citizens as required. Obama's father was a Kenyan National subject to the British Crown thus Obama has dual/triple citizenship - creating the allegiance dilemna specifically cited by Vattel as to why leaders of a nation must be Natural Born. See Kerhcner, et. al. v. Obama, et. al. for the specifics (the SCOTUS ultimately declined their Writ of Certiorari petition without comment) and www.protectourliberty.org for specifics.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Haven't we already shut down like 50 of these already and have already shot any claim therein down.

How about an original thought please?

Who is "we"? Liberals? Just saying that it's not forged over and over doesn't make it not a forgery. That's just a propaganda trick.

How about some truth, please?

How has just saying it is forged over and over and over again been working? Aside from ATS ad revenue?

I know you are but what am I?

Gawd. Trolls.

Originally posted by fdnjarff
reply to post by UcDat

 

To be a Natural Born Citizen, both the mother and father must be U.S. Citizens and the child must be a U.S. Citizen born in the country.

You know that big "boom" you heard as you sat down to type your response? That was this thread passing waaaaaaaaaayy over your head...

reply to post by aptness


what will you do when he turns aginst the american people. civil war is coming, I'm a real psychic and have had two dealings with obama. he is a tyrant and part of the evil that has the world by the throat.

Originally posted by skydog801
reply to post by aptness

 

what will you do when he turns aginst the american people. civil war is coming, I'm a real psychic and have had two dealings with obama. he is a tyrant and part of the evil that has the world by the throat.

See if you can guess what I'm thinking right now...

reply to post by UcDat


This is perhaps the single biggest political hot potato in history.

I've worked with Photoshop for years and between the kerning of certain letters and the ghosting that results from adding layers to an original image, there is no doubt in my mind that the long form birth certificate the White House released has been digitally altered.

I also believe that Trump worked with Obama's people to make this happen. After all he's a well known life-long Democrat and he sure bowed out of the Presidential race quickly, didn't he? And I thought the school records
were next, Donald....

I also believe that a lot more people are aware of this than you might think.

But imagine what would happen if Obama is lead away from the White House in handcuffs... You're going to have the Watts riots one thousand fold.

This, I believe, is going to become one of the most powerful tools the NWO has to re-shape our country.

It's going to be the catalyst that sets lights the tinder that sets Rome ablaze.

reply to post by ontarff
Thank you for your response.

I don't know that the problems found in the .pdf can be simply explained as anomalies associated with a simple scan the original BC. This has been reiterated by persons more knowledgeable with the Adobe software than you or I.

I am the first to admit my area of expertise is not photo manipulation or document examination, but several explanations and DIY experiments, allied with the fact that the issuing authority of birth certificates confirms Obama’s birth in Hawaii, leads me to accept this as more probable and plausible.

If the Department of Health and other Hawaiian authorities hadn’t pronounced themselves and vouched for Obama’s place of birth, I would probably give more weight to the forged birth certificate theory, but considering these facts, I don’t find the theory plausible.


Regarding the argument that Minor v. Happersett supports Vattel, I don’t agree, for several reasons. For instance, reading that frequently cited passage you quoted, Chief Justice Waite writes,

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar ...

The Court indicates, ab initio, the meaning should be interpreted in light of common law. The Chief Justice continues,

... 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.

It is true the last phrase seems identical to the english translation of Vattel’s statement but, and as your own source conceded, Vattel is not cited. Nowhere in the opinion, in fact. And the Chief Justice had already indicated the context was common law. He continues,

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

The Court expresses doubt regarding the status of children of aliens, recognizes some authorities include this group as well, but explicitly states the Court doesn’t need to address that question.

So the Court in Minor v. Happersett didn’t address the question of the status of children of aliens and nowhere in the opinion is Vattel cited. I concede that one phrase does seem similar to the english translation of Vattel, but the Court clearly said the meaning was to be interpreted in light of common law.

I don’t, then, find this case or the passages in question as endorsing Vattel’s definition, let alone as controlling to determine the status of the children of aliens.

Furthermore, Minor v. Happersett was decided 23 years prior to Wong Kim Ark. Happersett, as stated, didn’t address the status of children of aliens, and Wong Kim Ark did. And even if Happersett had addressed it, and endorsed Vattel as I assume you suggest, then it was overturned by Wong Kim Ark.

The 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark defined who are "born Citizens" of the U.S., not who are "natural born Citizens" of the U.S.

I find this statement, from your source, to be very misleading.

Wong Kim Ark ruled the common law principle of birthright citizenship trumped the statutes enacted by Congress that prohibited Wong Kim Ark from even becoming a citizen. The Court ruled Wong Kim Ark was a citizen based on that common law principle. Which also meant, according to this same common law principle, that he was a natural born citizen.

The common law principle applied long before the 14th Amendment. In Wong Kim Ark the Court says,

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.

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. ...

We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

So the characterization that somehow “natural born citizen” in Happersett and in Wong Kim Ark meant different things is without merit.

Also, the allegation that Wong Kim Ark dealt with those “who are born citizens of the U.S.” and not “natural born citizens,” particularly when applied to domestic births, and that these are different things is unsupported even by Minor v. Happersett. The Court there said,

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

So in Happersett the Court recognizes there are only two ways one can become a citizen, either by birth — and the Court cited the natural born citizen clause to support this conclusion — or by naturalization.

A “natural born citizen” then is someone who is “born a citizen.” And, as addressed and stated in Wong Kim Ark, it applies to children born within the jurisdiction irrespective of the citizenship of the parents.

Originally posted by fdnjarff
The Constitution is clear, you must be a Natural Born Citizen to be President. Based on the Law of Nations by Swiss Diplomat Emer Vatell in 1758, BOTH the mother and father must be citizens for the child to be natural born (in addition to being born in the country).

If this is what the Constitution demands, then in 2008 there was no Presidential candidate that qualified, since McCain wasn’t born in the country.

The Law of Nations was adopted in language and citations in the Constitution throughout

Are you talking about Article I Section 8 clause 10? “The Congress shall have Power To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”?

You honestly believe that the Framers were referring to the title of a book?! “Law of nations,” as used in the Constitution, is a term of art that meant international law.

This tells me your understanding, or lack thereof, of the Constitution and meaning of natural born citizen is probably entirely comprised of what you have read in birther blogs.

Originally posted byskydog801
what will you do when he turns aginst the american people. civil war is coming, I'm a real psychic and have had two dealings with obama. he is a tyrant and part of the evil that has the world by the throat.

What I think of the man is irrelevant since we’re talking about a legal qualification. Is Barack Obama eligible? That is the only relevant question to our discussion here.

This is a good post that ties right in with this thread. The other thread is extensive with many flags.

The FBI must not have this technology, or they would have discovered the birth certificate was a forgery. The FBI are probably way behind professional commercial digital forensic analysis. An international expert on scanners and document-imaging software filed a 22-page criminal complaint with the FBI, charging that the long-form birth certificate released by the White House is criminally fraudulent. “What the Obama administration released is a PDF image that they are trying to pass off as a Certificate of Live Birth Long Form printed on green security paper by the Hawaiian Health Department,” Doug Vogt writes, “but this form is a created forgery.” Vogt’s criminal complaint asserts: “I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011, is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs, and the creation of this forgery of a public document constitutes a class B felony in Hawaii and multiple violations under U.S. Code section Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Sec.1028, and therefore an impeachable offense.” When the Obama birth certificate “forgery” comes to the public’s attention, Vogt continues, “It will surpass all previous scandals including the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration.” Since 1993, Vogt has owned Archive Index Systems Inc., in Bellevue, Wash., a company that sells a wide variety of document scanners worldwide and develops document imaging software. Before that, Vogt owned Nova Typesetting for 11 years.

conservativebyte.com...

The other ATS thread is HERE

reply to post by ontarff

So,.....are we to assume that all your arguments from birther websites regarding the truth about a "natural born" citizen have now been set aside as you seem to be not arguing the point anymore?

Don't misunderstand me, I actually respect the arguments you make to a degree, however, it would be appreciated if you would at least admit that the sources you quote are at the very least negatively biased, if not completely wrong.

For the purposes of this discussion - is that too much to ask?

BTW - Doug Vought is more on the ball than the FBI - sure, I'll buy that- but would anyone else?

reply to post by KennibleLecter


Shocking. There it is. The watts riots? You sir are small minded.

CJ

reply to post by ontarff


The whole issue with the Constitutions term Natural-Born Citizen is that nowhere in the Constitution does it define what that means.

However I just read something interesting on Wikipedia.

The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.

Since it's not defined in the constitution. And I'm going on a limb here.
Does this mean that it's up to the state to define what a Natural Born Citizen is? I don't know.
It could be viewed that way and we are dealing with 300 year old law here.
So it's a bit confusing. What the framers intended and what the government intends today is substantially different.
In any case it certainly throws a wrench in the works.

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by ontarff

 

So,.....are we to assume that all your arguments from birther websites regarding the truth about a "natural born" citizen have now been set aside as you seem to be not arguing the point anymore?

Don't misunderstand me, I actually respect the arguments you make to a degree, however, it would be appreciated if you would at least admit that the sources you quote are at the very least negatively biased, if not completely wrong.

For the purposes of this discussion - is that too much to ask?

BTW - Doug Vought is more on the ball than the FBI - sure, I'll buy that- but would anyone else?

edit on 8-7-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)

No, not at all. I have agreed to disagree with aptness at this point but I can see his perspective. He has contributed a lot of information where you have mainly been a cheerleader and not contributed much new info on the topic. When I have additional information to support my argument, I will present it. That is the scientific method.

Originally posted by grey580
Since it's not defined in the constitution. And I'm going on a limb here.
Does this mean that it's up to the state to define what a Natural Born Citizen is? I don't know.

No. A state can’t change the meaning of something in the federal Constitution. Just imagine the chaos if each state was able to define what natural born citizen mean.

What the framers intended and what the government intends today is substantially different.

Check this post, if you haven’t yet, you might find it informative.

Basically, there is no evidence the Framers relied on Vattel. The original work by Vattel written in french doesn’t include the term “natural-born citzen.” The first english translation where the term shows up was published 10 years after the Constitution’s ratification. And “natural born subject” was a term that existed in English common law long before the creation of the Constitution.

Not to mention that since the meanings of “natural born subject” and Vattel’s definition aren’t compatible, it would be rather strange if the Framers intended the meaning of “natural born” to be different but didn’t bother to explain how.

What’s the more plausible conclusion? The Framers meant the common law principle.