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

reply to post by userid1

And yet (as has been pointed out to you), there are unchallenged lower court decisions which, in fact, DO define the term and do apply to Obama as part of a greater grouping of people - and they have NOTHING to do with Vattel's definition.

Again, those cases set precedent to rule on who is a "citizen". The cases have nothing to do with eligibility for POTUS and the use of the term "natural born" as applied in our U.S. Constitution for this specific reason.

Well that's very nice but...since your opinion, and what is recorded in case law don't agree, why would your *opinion* of the founding father's writings have merit?

They have merit by me and most patriots who support what we believe was the intent of our Founders. That is the best we can do as a group until there is a formal interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court. (another echo).

Which it did a poor job of doing IMO - but hey, that's just me. Why is "entertainment" useful at this juncture of the discussion?

Because I am getting bored going round and round with you. You have added nothing to the change the problem with a U.S. Supreme Court decision on this matter. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case so far based on "standing", not because it has already been settled at a lower District Court level. This point of our discussion is debated over and over.

I certainly never said I thought it was empirical evidence either. I was simply pointing out the flaws it held in supporting ANY position you were advocating.

You use the word "flaws" to call out a different perspective of the video's interpretation? IMHO, It did a good job of supporting my position from my point of view. I am not going to call your interpretation "flawed"..

Originally posted by ontarff
You forgot to include

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.

Two issues with this. (1) as userid1 pointed out you are quoting from the dissent, which means its opinion is not binding, and (2) I already had cited exactly the same passage from the dissent to you here, several pages back.

I cited the passage to you as a suggestion “to get an idea of what the majority’s decision meant” if you didn’t feel like reading the majority’s opinion, which, I suspect, you still haven’t. I quoted the passage and then said

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.”

You acknowledged my post then replying “[t]hank 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.” Now you cite the same passage of the dissent that I did, but in support of your position.

If you accept the dissent’s opinion as authoritative and supportive of your position, you must accept the majority’s opinion meant, by implication, the opposite. That’s what a dissent is. It contests and disagrees with the majority’s decision. This was the point I was making by citing the dissent’s opinion.

And since it’s the majority’s opinion that is binding, it’s the majority’s interpretation of natural born citizen that is law.

Originally posted by ontarff
So, does this infer that Hawaii DoH could also allow the original hard copy typed BC to be released as well using a waiver for release? I don't know.

I don’t think so.

From Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-13—

(a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.

Hawaii state law only permits the disclosure and issuance of copies, not the original internal records.

What would be the point of releasing the actual internal record anyway? How would Obama or the DOH show it to you? They would have to scan it and put it on the web, wouldn’t they? And we’d back to where we are right now.

Your request is illogical considering what has already been released. What was released was a certified photocopy of that internal record. By definition that certified copy reflects what’s on the original record.

I'm done replying to this thread. It's apparent that no amount of discussion is going to change your mind.
But I'm going to say the following.

He was born in Hawaii.
He's a citizen.
He's the President.
As far as I am concerned. We agree to disagree.

Whether you like it or not.
And there's nothing you can do about it.

reply to post by aptness
While I agree with your comments on the majority decision being established as law on this particular case, I support the comments here

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

www.thepostemail.com...

And I support the Conclusion from the same source.

Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

Now I know you, userid1 and Kitilani and others are going to again argue the source, but unless you are a higher authority on law to contradict the Conclusion from my source, (even then, there is already a dissenting opinion from a higher authority supporting my position) you will not have proven to me that the comments posted from my source are invalid.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by ontarff


Do you even understand how to read a court decision? Do you know what the dissenting opinion means? Do you know what the majority opinion means?

Originally posted by grey580
I'm done replying to this thread. It's apparent that no amount of discussion is going to change your mind.
But I'm going to say the following.

He was born in Hawaii.
He's a citizen.
He's the President.
As far as I am concerned. We agree to disagree.

Whether you like it or not.
And there's nothing you can do about it.

Thank you for your participation. The only thing I can do about it is to educate and enlighten the sheeple to do their own research and get involved.

Originally posted by ontarff
I don't believe the Director of the Hawaiian DoH Chiyome Fukino or Governor Abecrombie. Neither have backed up their statements with empirical evidence.

Which would be what? Please answer. I am not longer sure you know what "empirical evidence" even means.

Again, I will repeat, a group/committee of unbiased professional non-govermental professional experts in document fraud.

I will ask again, WHO??????????????????????
That was what I asked. I did not ask "who are the two people you do NOT trust."
Can you answer direct questions?

I am getting tired of having to repeat myself on this thread. This is turning into a never ending circle.

Imagine how it feels to try and educate you on actual US law while you keep dismissing SCOTUS rulings in order to find some WND article.

The other 113 page ATS thread that covers most of the questions asked is HERE. I would suggest that people do some reading to enlighten themselves. Geez!

Actually, I just asked you one very specific question and you have not answered any where in this thread so you need to take your deflective attitude and couch it, homes. If you cannot answer a simple question, you should probably get back to your crayons before they close the day room.

Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by ontarff

 

Do you even understand how to read a court decision? Do you know what the dissenting opinion means? Do you know what the majority opinion means?

I have already answered your question above. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. Maybe you posted before you read my response to aptness.

Originally posted by ontarff
I have already answered your question above. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. Maybe you posted before you read my response to aptness.

Where?
You mean that long winded post where you confuse the dissenting opinion for a ruling?
You just say you answered things in order to avoid answering them, don't you?

reply to post by Kitilani

Actually, I just asked you one very specific question and you have not answered any where in this thread so you need to take your deflective attitude and couch it, homes. If you cannot answer a simple question, you should probably get back to your crayons before they close the day room.

You have asked more than one question that I have answered several times already. You have quoted my response to your question. I will have no further discussion with you for "take your deflective attitude and couch it, homes" and "you should probably get back to your crayons" ad hominem language. Good day.

reply to post by aptness

What would be the point of releasing the actual internal record anyway? How would Obama or the DOH show it to you? They would have to scan it and put it on the web, wouldn’t they? And we’d back to where we are right now.

Respectfully, I disagree that this is illogical. The original 1961 typed hard copy BC is the underlying empirical evidence to prove that the digital .pdfs evaluated by the experts identified by the OP are NOT bogus. The analytic report of the original hard copy BC would support any digital scan of the original document. The argument by the "experts" suggest the long form posted by the White House was was not the 1961 original document.

See forms in right margin HERE

reply to post by ontarff


Oh, I forgot to add that the original 1961 hospital records of live birth from the hospital in Hawaii where Stanley had her baby would also empirically support the .pdf documents identified as bogus by the experts used by the OP. However, they don't exist either.

IMHO, the Alex Jones interview with Corsi in May says it all for those who haven't read his book.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

here is a question about Maya Soetoro and her children born in Hawaii.

the President's half sister.

In 2003 Soetoro married Chinese Canadian Konrad Ng (Simplified Chinese: 吴加儒)[citation needed] of Burlington, Ontario, Canada. Her husband, now also a US citizen, is an assistant professor at the University of Hawaii's Academy of Creative Media. They have two daughters, Suhaila and Savita. Konrad Ng became the scholar-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution’s Asian Pacific American Program in 2009.

Soetoro-Ng has described herself as "philosophically Buddhist." She is fluent in the Indonesian language,Spanish, and English.

Maya Soetoro


If in fact Ms. Soetoro was born in Indonesia to American (natural born) citizen Ann Dunham and Indonesian citizen father, and Her husband was not an American citizen at the time her children were born in Hawaii, are Her and Her children eligible to be POTUS ?

Any different if the children's father was naturlized by the time of their births ?

I guess those kids are Obama's half Nieces by bloodline ?

Also, was Obama adopted by Ann's husband Lolo Soetoro and then "released" upon divorce ?

reply to post by xuenchen


This stuff has been known about for some time. Maya writes childrens books now I believe too. Does that have any bearing on Obama being born in Hawaii?

This is getting a little crazy now. Which is the reason again? Was he not born in Hawaii, or is it because his father is Kenyan?

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by aptness
While I agree with your comments on the majority decision being established as law on this particular case, I support the comments here

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

This interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the Court’s conclusion in Wong Kim Ark is erroneous.

The 14th Amendment is declaratory of the common law principle that always applied in the United States, before there was even a 14th Amendment, and that applies to this day.

From the 14th Amendment debates, Senator Howard, credited with drafting the citizenship clause of the Amendment states the following—

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and natural law a citizen of the United States.

And from the majority’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark—

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

This is how the dissent classifies the majority’s interpretation of the Amendment—

Thus the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond the control of the legislative power.

Your source is right in saying the 14th Amendment didn’t “extend the meaning of natural born citizen,” but fail to understand why that is not significant to their argument, on the contrary, because they fundamentally don’t understand Wong Kim Ark, or don’t want to.

The 14th Amendment, being “merely declaratory” of “the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” cannot create new or different classes of citizens that the English common law principle of birthright citizenship didn’t and doesn’t.

This notion of “14th Amendment citizens” and that the Wong Kim Ark Court created a new class of citizens is unsupported by the majority’s own rationale, and, undoubtedly, stems from a misunderstanding of the opinion and the law.

Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, not because of the 14th Amendment, but because of the birthright citizenship principle, of which Section 1 of the 14th Amendment affirms. And by that common law principle Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen as well.

See forms in right margin HERE

What’s the source of that long form birth certificate that I assume the blog in question implies is the only legitimate long form certificate?

Originally posted by xuenchen
If in fact Ms. Soetoro was born in Indonesia to American (natural born) citizen Ann Dunham and Indonesian citizen father, and Her husband was not an American citizen at the time her children were born in Hawaii, are Her and Her children eligible to be POTUS?

I assume Maya was born a US citizen by virtue of the 8 USC 1401(g) statute. If that was the case then the answer to your question, concerning Maya in particular, is uncertain. Language in Wong Kim Ark suggests that those born outside the United States can only acquire citizenship by acts of Congress, and are therefore technically naturalized citizens. But the Court didn’t have to rule on that question so that is only dicta.

On the question of her children, if they were born in the United States, they are natural born citizens. And Maya’s citizenship, or her husband’s, is irrelevant. Unless she or her husband had diplomatic immunity.

Any different if the children's father was naturlized by the time of their births ?

Not according to Wong Kim Ark.

Also, was Obama adopted by Ann's husband Lolo Soetoro and then "released" upon divorce ?

I don’t know if Obama was adopted in Indonesia or not, but even if he was what’s the relevance or implication?

here is a question about Maya Soetoro and her children born in Hawaii.

By the way, I think other members have asked you to back up your claims about Maya having a birth certificate from Hawaii. I’d also like to see evidence to back up that claim. And to know what’s the place of birth on that alleged Hawaiian birth certificate.

reply to post by aptness

By the way, I think other members have asked you to back up your claims about Maya having a birth certificate from Hawaii. I’d also like to see evidence to back up that claim. And to know what’s the place of birth on that alleged Hawaiian birth certificate.

yes,

actually I was asking for verification too.

I posted on another thread that She may not.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maya must have needed something for school, drivers license, etc ?

EDIT to add;

She certainly would have needed one to get a SS Number ?