Mike Zullo and Joe Arpaio prove Obama's birth certificate, social security number, and selective se

Originally posted by CornShucker
[ Doesn't anyone have the curiosity to examine anything on their own anymore??

nothing wrong with curiosity and asking questions.

But when you have been answered but persist in asking the same questions then that is no longer curiosity - it is various things that are all quite derogatory terms when used in conversation.

reply to post by Sankari


Funny, Chester Arthur is the very guy that Obama supporters use to club birthers over the head with when they accuse them of only attacking Obama because of his race.
You could try the Fogbow website. They were the original anti-birthers and I have encountered them in irc circles. One even told me they were the ones who planted the fake BC for Orly to find. Of course it all could be lies. I was also told that one of their number is a member of ICANN

www.icann.org...
Is it surprising that Obama supporters are Internet geeks who might be for giving up the Internet to International control?

According to Wikipedia Arthur's father was born in Ireland and was naturalized after Arthur's birth

Arthur was born in Vermont to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland, who was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after Chester was born.

en.wikipedia.org...

All Presidents born before July 4, 1776, were born British “natural born subjects.” Those early presidents were naturalized to become “Citizens of the United States” through the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. These presidents included Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, and Harrison. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, allowing anyone who was a “Citizen of the United States” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to be President, grandfathered these presidents to be eligible. All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria, i.e., born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves U.S. citizens at the time of the President’s birth. Neither Arthur nor Obama were “natural born Citizens” at the time of birth. Arthur was born to an alien father who also made his U.S. citizen mother an alien. Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father who never became a U.S. citizen and, being here only on a temporary student visa, was never even an immigrant. There have been 46 Americans that have served as Vice-President (not including Mr. Biden). Ten were born before 1787. All Vice-Presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria. Fourteen Vice Presidents have gone on to be President.

Let us now examine how President James Buchanan, who had an Irish father, Woodrow Wilson, who had an English mother, and Herbert Hoover, who had a Canadian mother, were “natural born Citizens.” As we have seen, President Thomas Jefferson, whose mother was born in England, and Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both born in Ireland, were grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Chester Arthur, not being either grandfathered or a “natural born Citizen,” will be treated separately.

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 question is whether they are “citizens of the United States” at the time of the child’s birth in the United States. In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), our U.S. Supreme Court, providing the same definition of a “natural born citizen” as did Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758), but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated:

obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com...

reply to post by flyswatter

Well, to start with, judges have no standing to hear cases in regards to the President's eligibility

And this is the reason Judge Malihi took the Georgia ballot case even while President Obama and atty refused to be there?

reply to post by flyswatter


Then why are Obama supporters using Wong Kim Ark as precedent for Presidential eligibility? They likely know that Wong Kim Ark does not correctly define Presidential eligibility as natural born but defines a citizen in general and they are claiming that native citizen and natural born are the same thing. I've already posted how the Wong Kim Ark opinion became tainted and I showed that the judge was an Arthur appointee.

In any case, by the Apuzzo and Donofrio breakdown of the Vattel definition, Obama's father was not at the time of his birth, nor ever at any time, a citizen of the US, rendering the birth certificate issue of non-relevance whether it shows him to be born in Hi or not.
Obama supporters claim that the Wong Kim Ark decision is precedent for anyone born in the country to be eligible, regardless of parental citizenship.

Of course his SS and Birth certificate is fake and fabricated. He was a CIA employee during the 80's.

Who knows what his real name is.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Maybe this is the real reason the judges won't hear any of the cases

Why do you persist with that lie? You have shown where Judges have heard birther cases, and remember birthers have lost every single case they have attempted, over 200 of them - as they have no facts, only lies.

Did you see where I pointed out the connection of the Judge who wrote the opinion for Wong Kim Ark having been an appointee of Chester Arthur,

So once again, who else could have appointed a Judge then?

the only other President to not be natural born...

Except that Chester Arthur was naturally born, the same as all the other Presidents....

But you keep ignoring the facts to push your agenda!

reply to post by hellobruce


I see you are using the derogatory term "birfer".

Goodbye

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Well, to start with, judges have no standing to hear cases in regards to the President's eligibility

And this is the reason Judge Malihi took the Georgia ballot case even

Why did you edit out the rest of that sentence? the bit you missed said....

to be in the office he is in right now. The one thing the judges DO have standing on is Obama's eligibility to be on a ballot in the state which the case is being brought in.

The Georgia case was about Obama being on the Georgia ballot....

while President Obama and atty refused to be there?

Well, they had not been subpoenaed to be there, and as the birthers evidence was so bad the birthers lost to a empty table.... remember what the Judge said?

None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, theCourt finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are not persuasive

then

For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President BarackObama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, CONCLUSION President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b)

So Obama was a natural born citizen, and thus is eligible to be on the Georgia ballot, and was legally elected President. There is nothing you can do to change that fact!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Your large extract from a stupid anti-Obama site is factually false.

We have already established that "natural born" does NOT require that your parents be citizens.

Arthur's birth in Ireland was a RUMOUR - that was never established as fact, and when it did not take root more rumors started suggesting he was born in Canada. He was born in Fairfield, Vermont - go get a copy of Reeves, Thomas C. (1975). Gentleman Boss: The Life of Chester A. Arthur. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-394-46095-6.

Obama was born in Hawaii.

Therefore both were/are "natural born citizens".

Continually quoting made-up evidence does not make you look clever - it makes you look like a gullible idiot.

Kim Wong Ark is directly relevant because it is a SCOTUS case where what constitutes "natural born" was directly established. As you obviously know but will do anything to avoid admitting. Individuals might choose to not quote it for reasons of their own, but you saying that it makes someone a govt shill" or whatever for using it is also simply ad hominem bluster on your part that does not address the facts of the case.

Let me lay these out for you AGAIN:

Chinese person born to non-citizens in the USA was determined to be a citizen by birth.

the Indiana Court of Appealthought Kim Wong Ark was relevant:

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.

given a choice between taking your baseless assertions about what the law is, and those of the SCOTUSA, over 200 court cases of various types including Indiana as above, what is it that makes you think your scurrilous lies have any standing in fact?

Sites that deliberately lie about the law are prolific - but their number does not make them correct - see my sig.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


It is also worth pointing out that the leading precedence used in Wong Kim Ark was Lynch v. Clarke. A case that decided that birthright citizenship is equivalent to natural born citizenship. A case that birthers continually ignore every time it is mentioned.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Who is "we"? You and some other pro Obama people here?

Let's go back to the Constitution, Article II.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

en.wikipedia.org...:_Qualifications_for_office

Take the first sentence

"No Person except a natural born Citizen"


" or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, "


Analyzing this, what is the meaning of the two parts? Are they the same? If so, why did they put the second part in? Are we not assuming that those who were born in the US at the time of the Revolution were considered citizens? Why did the first Presidents have to be "grandfathered" in with the statement, "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution:. That means there is something different between a natural born citizen and a citizen. That difference can only be parents who were citizens at the birth of the individual.
People are simply refusing to see what is in front of them in the natural born clause.

Some legal scholars, opposed to the idea that jus soli should apply to the children of undocumented immigrants, have argued that the Wong Kim Ark precedent does not apply when alien parents are in the country illegally. John C. Eastman, a former dean of the Chapman University School of Law, has argued that Wong Kim Ark does not entitle U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants to gain automatic citizenship because, in his opinion, being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States requires a status of "full and complete jurisdiction" that does not apply to aliens who are in the country illegally.[167] Eastman further argues that the Wong Kim Ark decision was fundamentally flawed in the way it dealt with the concept of jurisdiction,[168] and that the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924—which followed Wong Kim Ark—would not have been necessary if Congress had believed "that the Citizenship Clause confers citizenship merely by accident of birth."[

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


"We" is everyone who has pointed out your errors.

Why don't you just acknowledge that you are wrong?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


There were many people in the US at the time of the adoption of Constitution who were born in England to British citizens. That clause was to allow for people who fought for independence the chance to become President regardless of place of birth.

As I've said numerous times now (and you've ignored it every time) look to Lynch v. Clarke. This is the seminal case in regards to the definition of natural born citizen. It not only provided a definition for natural born citizenship, it also found that the definition that was settled upon had been US Common Law dating back to the thirteen colonies.

I suggest you read this article. It is essentially just quoting the decision from Lynch v. Clarke with a few short comments interspersed throughout. Hopefully this will convince you once and for all that birthright citizenship is equivalent to natural born citizenship. Then again you will probably just ignore this like every other time the case has been brought up.

Evidence Found that American Common Law Defined Whether a Child Born on US Soil of Non-Citizen Parents Was a Natural Born Citizen!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

"We" is everyone who has pointed out your errors.

Why don't you just acknowledge that you are wrong?

My error was in forgetting the Georgia case. The Constitution says natural born but does not say what natural born is. This is why there is any doubt at all as to what it is. I am not wrong that the Justice writing the opinion for Wong Kim Ark inserted natural born for citizen.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
My error was in forgetting the Georgia case.

You never forgot it, you denied that they ever existed..
Remember when you claimed in this thread:

no court will take the cases of Obama's BC;
What court has heard any Obama case? ;
No, you are flat out wrong. No court has taken any birther case on the issue of Obama's eligibility.;
What this means is that the case was not tried and therefore no ruling has been made that Obama is or is not natural born. ;
nor does it mean that any case has been tried and a ruling passed down that Obama is eligible;
All the others have been dismissed on grounds of not having merit.

As you have been shown, every one of those statements by you are wrong. That is what comes from believing the nonsense at WND and other silly birther sites.
You have no understanding that birthers have lost every single court case they have attempted, over 200 of them, and won zero. This is because they have no evidence, all they have are silly claims and lies.

reply to post by hellobruce


Bruce it was probably discussed here on ats back when...so I probably just forgot about it. You called me a deliberate liar.
But in any case, in your mind there must not be any difference between forgetting something and deliberately misrepresenting something.
I hold no credence to any statement you make to me because you played both the race card and the derogatory name calling "birfer" card. That tells me that you will side with Obama under any circumstance. Now, I could still be wrong about that too but I won't hold my breath.
I'm done with this thread now and I am going to leave you all to discuss the layers of the PDF document.

I'm sure you are just as much an expert in that as you are in Constitutional matters.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I am going to leave you all to discuss the layers of the PDF document.

What do layers have to do with anything? That PDF is NOT the birth certificate, something birthers have trouble understanding.

I'm sure you are just as much an expert in that as you are in Constitutional matters.

I am not claiming expertise anything like that, but I do know when to listen to experts and not believe everything on a site like WND....

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus



Let's go back to the Constitution, Article II.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

en.wikipedia.org...:_Qualifications_for_office

Take the first sentence

"No Person except a natural born Citizen"


" or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, "


Analyzing this, what is the meaning of the two parts? Are they the same? If so, why did they put the second part in? Are we not assuming that those who were born in the US at the time of the Revolution were considered citizens? Why did the first Presidents have to be "grandfathered" in with the statement, "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution:. That means there is something different between a natural born citizen and a citizen.

Indeed you are quitre correct - as I previously pointed out ther are 2 paths to citizenship - birth and naturalisation/

That difference can only be parents who were citizens at the birth of the individual.

That is arrant nonsense - there can be whatever difference is defined for the 2 terms, or can be determined as the original meaning from examination of precedent.

And that examination has determined, several times and repetitively, that birth in the country causes a person to be a natural born citizen, with a few caveats none of which apply in this case.

People are simply refusing to see what is in front of them in the natural born clause.

The only "people" doing that are birthers - there is nothing in the constitution or any other document that required both parents to be citizens in order for the child to be natural born if it is born in the USA. There are some circumstances where that is a requirement if the child is born OUTSIDE the USA - but there are also circumstances where ONE parent as a citizen is enough if the child is born outside the USA.

Again none of these apply, because Obama was born inside the USA.

Some legal scholars, opposed to the idea that jus soli should apply to the children of undocumented immigrants, have argued that the Wong Kim Ark precedent does not apply when alien parents are in the country illegally. John C. Eastman, a former dean of the Chapman University School of Law, has argued that Wong Kim Ark does not entitle U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants to gain automatic citizenship because, in his opinion, being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States requires a status of "full and complete jurisdiction" that does not apply to aliens who are in the country illegally.[167] Eastman further argues that the Wong Kim Ark decision was fundamentally flawed in the way it dealt with the concept of jurisdiction,[168] and that the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924—which followed Wong Kim Ark—would not have been necessary if Congress had believed "that the Citizenship Clause confers citizenship merely by accident of birth."[

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 5-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Indeed some people do argue that - but it seems to have failed to make any impression on the courts in regard to Obama, so I'm guessing that either no-one tried it....or it was tossed out.

And another reason it does not matter in the case of Obama is that it does not apply to him - neither of his parents were illegals!

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by hellobruce

 

I see you are using the derogatory term "birfer".

Goodbye

Yep, that was my train of thought as well when I started reading the comments on this thread. No point discussing anything with someone who cant get past school yard name calling.

...But this is what I've come to expect from people that call themselves "intellectuals".

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I am going to leave you all to discuss the layers of the PDF document.

What do layers have to do with anything? That PDF is NOT the birth certificate, something birthers have trouble understanding.

No, it seems by that comment alone YOU are the one having trouble understanding. Have you looked at any of the research at all or are you just spewing Rachel Maddow talking points?

No s**t the PDF is not the birth certificate. The PDF shows that the birth certificate is a composite of multiple birth certificates and...

Nevermind. I'm done wasting my time on people who refuse to acknowledge facts and instead would rather argue nonsense and semantics in order to maintain their false reality.

Whatever, he was born in Hawaii, there, now you can go back to sleep.

edit on 6-6-2013 by Nicks87 because: spelling