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

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by ontarff
Notice it doesn't say "natural born". It only states "citizens".

The problem is that you fundamentally don’t understand what you’re talking about. Following your logic, the fact that 8 USC 1401 doesn’t mention, specifically, “natural born citizen” anywhere, then no one would be a natural born citizen, since the statute covers both domestic and foreign births.

8 USC 1401(a) says the following “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Were you born in the United States? Were you subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Yes? Then, per your logic, you aren’t a natural born citizen, you’re only a ‘citizen.’

No...I disagree again. Fundamentally you are missing my point that the USC does not identify "natural born" citizen because that is only applicable to be POTUS. The USC does not articulate the U.S. Constitution's intent for that terminology. The USC was written after our Constitution only to define citizen and national as written. It was not the intent of the USC to interpret the eligibility for POTUS.

Originally posted by ontarff
No...I disagree again. Fundamentally you are missing my point that the USC does not identify "natural born" citizen because that is only applicable to be POTUS.

The District Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. This is noted at the top of the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court opinion.

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK. ...

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

Mr. Solicitor General Conrad, with whom was Mr. George D. Collins on the brief, for appellants.

This is the government’s brief in Wong Kim Ark submitted to the Supreme Court. From page 2—

The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.

The government contested and appealed “the ruling of the district court that the respondent [Wong Kim Ark] is a natural-born citizen.” From page 34 of the brief—

Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patiots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?

The government states the District Court’s decision meant Wong Kim Ark was “eligible to the Presidency of the nation.” Doesn’t get more explicit than this.

The government appealed this decision of the District Court. And the Supreme Court upheld the decision.

Order affirmed.

Wong Kim Ark, born in California to two Chinese parents, was a natural born citizen, eligible to be President.

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by userid1

Why, why, why, would you insist on using the perceptions of a site that clearly has a negative bias to support your point rather than the actual case law itself? Convenience?

Because, because, because it is only perceived as "clearly" a negative bias for you due to your opposing perspective. Yes, it is convenient that everything written here I agree with and "clearly" has merit, regardless of your opinion.

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: punctuation

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: word removed

From the Postemail web site in the "about us" section.

"Additional Editor’s Note: Because there is a mountain of evidence indicating that Barack H. Obama is not a natural born Citizen as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to serve as President, The Post & Email does not refer to him as the “President.” Therefore, if your submission refers to “President Obama” or “Mr. President,” the wording will be changed unless and until Obama proves that he meets the eligibility criteria. Anyone not in agreement with this policy should withhold his or her submission."

Would this not qualify as being a negative bias to someone who has no interest in the subject?
This is not an accredited news organization - it's an open blog with an obsessive agenda. Where's the credibility in that?

reply to post by userid1

From the Postemail web site in the "about us" section. "Additional Editor’s Note: Because there is a mountain of evidence indicating that Barack H. Obama is not a natural born Citizen as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to serve as President, The Post & Email does not refer to him as the “President.” Therefore, if your submission refers to “President Obama” or “Mr. President,” the wording will be changed unless and until Obama proves that he meets the eligibility criteria. Anyone not in agreement with this policy should withhold his or her submission." Would this not qualify as being a negative bias to someone who has no interest in the subject? This is not an accredited news organization - it's an open blog with an obsessive agenda. Where's the credibility in that?

Yes, I agree with you. It is extreme to emphasize the position in this manner. Obama is the POTUS until removed from office. That is a fact. There are extremists in every group. It doesn't make all of the information provided false. The reader must determine what is a spin and what is fact. This holds true for every source of information. Comparing the MSM Fox News to MSNBC would be an example. It is sad that these sources are considered accredited and they have both mocked "birthers". Do you think the MSM is a reliable source?

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by userid1

Yes, I agree with you. It is extreme to emphasize the position in this manner. Obama is the POTUS until removed from office. That is a fact. There are extremists in every group. It doesn't make all of the information provided false. The reader must determine what is a spin and what is fact. This holds true for every source of information. Comparing the MSM Fox News to MSNBC would be an example. It is sad that these sources are considered accredited and they have both mocked "birthers". Do you think the MSM is a reliable source?

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: spelling

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: additional text

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: spelling

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: text editing

I have much more faith in MSM than the postemail or WND or Birther.org - ALL of which have a clear agenda. However, that's not really the question I asked you. I asked why you would quote from (essentially) disreputable sources when you have the SCOTUS rulings, and the Constitution at hand with which to make your points. As mentioned previously, the "anti-birthers" make a point of referencing or quoting from the most un-biased sources they can to avoid the taint that sites like the one's you've been using have associated with them. I have yet to see (for example) in any of these threads about Obama's birth issues a quote from an "anti-birther" from the Huffington-Post, Keith Olberman, etc. Yet the same consideration is NOT returned and not only do we have to suffer "facts" (spin to anyone else) from them, we also have to suffer the indignity of having someone point us to Orly Taitz as being a genuine "American Patriot" - who *just* happens to have a "DONATE" button available, much as WND does with it's shopping area. Do MSM sites like CNN etc have DONATE buttons or areas to buy things directly from that web site - or just run of the mill, non-political advertising?

Originally posted by userid1
Since he was born in HI, he was born inside the US

This has yet to be proven.

Second line: just because he released a second form of identification doesn't make it any less of a forgery.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by userid1
Since he was born in HI, he was born inside the US

This has yet to be proven.

Second line: just because he released a second form of identification doesn't make it any less of a forgery.

Two BCs
Testimony from HI officials regarding existence of BC
Birth announcements in 2 papers
Testimony from nurse who remembers Obama in newborn ward
Testimony from Gov of HI who remembers him and his family as he grew up in HI.

All out the window with a snap of your fingers eh? You're building one hell of a conspiracy there. Pretty improbable wouldn't you think if you look at all the people involved and "gotten to"?

Meanwhile, your evidence to support your conclusions to the contrary are............................................?

Originally posted by filosophia
just because he released a second form of identification doesn't make it any less of a forgery.

Before the release of the long form certificate you birthers claimed the short form was insufficient, not that it was a forgery. Have you changed your opinion? The short form was a forgery? Based on what?

Originally posted by userid1


Two BCs
Testimony from HI officials regarding existence of BC
Birth announcements in 2 papers
Testimony from nurse who remembers Obama in newborn ward
Testimony from Gov of HI who remembers him and his family as he grew up in HI.

Two BCs - All you needed was a Hawaiian residency to get the short form, which was the residency of the grandparents, with no other qualification, meaning the day of supposed birth was not verified nor was the birth even verified. The short form was not the long form despite the claims that it was good enough...good enough until Obama released the long form that supposedly did not exist. The long form was the forgery of the century, anyone even without a adobe program can figure that out as the background intentionally matched the backdrop of the paper so as to make the signature not float, there are also technical issues with the certificate number specifically the final 1. It's a forgery that alone is a criminal act.

Testimony from HI officials regarding existence of BC- The health director said she saw the documents in accordance with law, meaning she did not actually handle the document but only saw the short form that was noted in the directory. Not even the governor could find the document.

Birth announcements in 2 papers - you forgot to mention and at two hospitals, sort of an impossible thing to do.

Testimony from nurse who remembers Obama in newborn ward- got a link for that?

Testimony from Gov of HI who remembers him and his family as he grew up in HI. - yeah from age 7 onwards

I think anyone who is not a jaded liberal supporter of Obama, knows he is not an American and is a puppet for the big banks, Soros, and the Fourth Reich. He was groomed by the old commie Ziggy B. . His beliefs and background will all point straight to Islam.

So we Americans have a Islamic black guy that only the CIA knows where he comes from running the White House. The Congress is either helping him or keeping their mouths shut out of fear. Washington D.C. does not one good thing for America anymore and if they in D.C. are not stopped soon this country will implode financially or erupt into civil war.

Its high time the Army gets some balls and put this nightmare to an end. Maybe if Gen. Stormin Norman stood up and raised hell people would listen but its gonna take a leader like him with the support of the Armed forces to stop this corrupt illegal government in D.C.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by filosophia
just because he released a second form of identification doesn't make it any less of a forgery.

Before the release of the long form certificate you birthers claimed the short form was insufficient, not that it was a forgery. Have you changed your opinion? The short form was a forgery? Based on what?

I was referring to the second long form as a forgery, not the first. But, the first one is a forgery as well because it lists the race of the father as African and not negro, his file number is a higher number than twins born the day after him, and his number includes a '19' along with 61 to indicate 1961 whereas a real long form certificate did not have the '19' only the 61 to indicate the date.

edit: You cut out "second line" the original quote read

Second line: just because he released a second form of identification doesn't make it any less of a forgery.

It was a joke because I needed a second line, so I talked about the 2nd release on the 2nd line. But it's a moot point because both certificates are forgeries.

reply to post by aptness

The government states the District Court’s decision meant Wong Kim Ark was “eligible to the Presidency of the nation.” Doesn’t get more explicit than this.

You forgot to include

2 Bancroft Hist. U.S. Const. 193. Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, 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.

It doesn't get more explicit from my point of view than that.

Wong Kim Ark, born in California to two Chinese parents, was a natural born citizen, eligible to be President.

No...what the court ruled on was

The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States. 1 Fed.Rep. 382. The United States appealed to this court, and the appellee was admitted to bail pending the appeal.

The court did not rule that he was eligible to be POTUS. (You wish!) This has yet to be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And to add...

In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens. Tested by this rule, Wong in Ark never became and is not a citizen of the United States, and the order of the District Court should be reversed. I am authorized to say that MR JUSTICE HARLAN concurs in this dissent.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by userid1

Yes, I agree with you. It is extreme to emphasize the position in this manner. Obama is the POTUS until removed from office. That is a fact. There are extremists in every group. It doesn't make all of the information provided false. The reader must determine what is a spin and what is fact. This holds true for every source of information. Comparing the MSM Fox News to MSNBC would be an example. It is sad that these sources are considered accredited and they have both mocked "birthers". Do you think the MSM is a reliable source?

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: spelling

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: additional text

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: spelling

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: text editing

I have much more faith in MSM than the postemail or WND or Birther.org - ALL of which have a clear agenda. However, that's not really the question I asked you. I asked why you would quote from (essentially) disreputable sources when you have the SCOTUS rulings, and the Constitution at hand with which to make your points. As mentioned previously, the "anti-birthers" make a point of referencing or quoting from the most un-biased sources they can to avoid the taint that sites like the one's you've been using have associated with them. I have yet to see (for example) in any of these threads about Obama's birth issues a quote from an "anti-birther" from the Huffington-Post, Keith Olberman, etc. Yet the same consideration is NOT returned and not only do we have to suffer "facts" (spin to anyone else) from them, we also have to suffer the indignity of having someone point us to Orly Taitz as being a genuine "American Patriot" - who *just* happens to have a "DONATE" button available, much as WND does with it's shopping area. Do MSM sites like CNN etc have DONATE buttons or areas to buy things directly from that web site - or just run of the mill, non-political advertising?

The problem of only using the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court cases for reference in our discussion is that, to date there has not been a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the eligibility of the POTUS (due to standing) and the formal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution on this issue.

Some people honestly need money to do the right thing. This is why we have charities. Let the person donating beware of any fraud. Not everyone can spend their time and energy for the good of all of us at their own expense. The government jacks us up with taxes and inflation. I did not volunteer to give them my hard earned cash for what they are doing with it today. Did you?

Originally posted by filosophia
But, the first one is a forgery as well because it lists the race of the father as African and not negro,

I suggest you do some research about that, it has been mentioned here several times before! Even the Hawaiin Department of Health has explained that

his file number is a higher number than twins born the day after him, and his number includes a '19' along with 61 to indicate 1961 whereas a real long form certificate did not have the '19' only the 61 to indicate the date.

Again, do some research, that has all been explained many times here before

But it's a moot point because both certificates are forgeries.

No they are not.

By the way, "research" does not mean believing everything a birther site states!

Originally posted by ontarff
The court did not rule that he was eligible to be POTUS. (You wish!) This has yet to be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

When has the Supreme Court ruled on ANY President being eligible? Why do you think that they will rule on Obama?

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by ontarff
The court did not rule that he was eligible to be POTUS. (You wish!) This has yet to be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

When has the Supreme Court ruled on ANY President being eligible? Why do you think that they will rule on Obama?

Read my response again...What is it you didn't understand when I stated, " This has yet to be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court."

To answer your question, IMHO, only the People can or will ever make that happen over TPTB. We can not let another Chester Arthur get away with it.

Originally posted by filosophia
Originally posted by userid1

Two BCs - All you needed was a Hawaiian residency to get the short form, which was the residency of the grandparents, with no other qualification, meaning the day of supposed birth was not verified nor was the birth even verified.

Is this what you're trying to suggest? - "c. If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961)." Assuming no physician (now known to be untrue), and since his was not a "delayed" application (ANY BC issued must be so stamped and neither of his are) - then this is the only other option that would satify your allegation. So was the former Lt Gov "in" on it too?

The short form was not the long form despite the claims that it was good enough...good enough until Obama released the long form that supposedly did not exist.

Where did you get THAT from. The Director of Public health said 2X it existed and she'd seen it.

Testimony from HI officials regarding existence of BC- The health director said she saw the documents in accordance with law, meaning she did not actually handle the document but only saw the short form that was noted in the directory. Not even the governor could find the document.

"Former state Health Director Chiyome Fukino has said several times she has personally inspected President Obama's birth certificate twice. In an interview earlier this month she said claims Obama was not born here are "ludicrous" and "silly."" www.hawaiinewsnow.com...
Do you have some issue with the words "personally inspected"?

Birth announcements in 2 papers - you forgot to mention and at two hospitals, sort of an impossible thing to do.

Based on the birth announcements found here: whatreallyhappened.com...
I don't see a hospital listed at all...

Testimony from nurse who remembers Obama in newborn ward- got a link for that?

Working on it - do specifically remember reading it though - will retract until I can provide proof - fair enough?

Testimony from Gov of HI who remembers him and his family as he grew up in HI. - yeah from age 7 onwards

"As for Obama's roots in Hawaii, Abercrombie told Hawaii News Now he first laid eyes on baby Barack Obama a few days after he was born. Abercrombie said Obama's parents introduced their newborn to friends at the University of Hawaii where Abercrombie was going to college with the president's father." www.hawaiinewsnow.com...
Where DO you get your information? This was a reaaaaalllyy simple google - all of 15 seconds. Maybe you should try it sometime instead of relying on others whom you *wish* to believe, but who make you look bad when you parrot them..

Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by filosophia
Originally posted by aptness
Originally posted by filosophia

You know what else the supreme court did not endorse? The British law after the colonies established independence. So I'll say to you what you said to me, And? so what the british law says is irrelevant.

Read the majority opinion in Wong - or just respond to my comment to you earlier regarding how often British common law was, in fact, referenced in this case and then tell me it was irrelevent to the SCOTUS in this case.

Did you read this part?

It is beyond dispute that the most vital constituent of the English common law rule has always been rejected in respect of citizenship of the United States. Whether it was also the rule at common law that the children of British subjects born abroad were themselves British subjects -- nationality being attributed to parentage, instead of locality -- has been variously determined. If this were so, of course, the statute of Edw. III was declaratory, as was the subsequent legislation. But if not, then such children were aliens, and the statute of 7 Anne and subsequent statutes must be regarded as, in some sort, acts of naturalization. On the other hand, it seems to me that the rule partus sequitur patrem has always applied to children of our citizens born abroad, and that the acts of Congress on this subject are clearly declaratory, passed out of abundant caution to obviate misunderstandings which might arise from the prevalence of the contrary rule elsewhere.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by Kitilani

I cannot tell you how excited I am right now for the prospect of you backing that up. I just cannot wait.

Sorry to keep you waiting. I know you will discount THIS source. What source would you find acceptable? Even if told you I found a Hawaiian citizen with two birth certificates, one from the Hawaii DoH and another from somewhere else, that would also admit he was not born there, you would probably argue that he was lying to support my position.

Why would you have to go to WND to prove how Hawaii did or does things? Why would you not go to an official Hawaiian source? Any good reason for that at all?

The announcements of Barack Obama's birth printed by two Hawaii newspapers in 1961 do not provide solid proof of a birth in the Aloha State because of uncertainties over the policies and procedures that apparently were being used at the time. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, for example, according to its website, now reprints birth information it receives from Hawaii's Department of Health. "We don't have an editor who handles birth and marriage announcements; we print what we receive from the Department of Health Vital Statistics System," a Star-Bulletin newsroom operator explained to WND. Read more: Hawaiian newspapers don't prove birthplace www.wnd.com...

That has what to do with your claim about being able to get a Hawaiian birth certificate if you were not born in Hawaii? Deflection?

Originally posted by ontarff
HERE is another recent reference to support my position.

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: additional information

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: word stricken

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: additional text added

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: punctuation

Um...a blog called "Socialism is not the answer" that contains no proof of anything at all is a source for what again?
You made a claim and I asked you for proof. Where is it?