Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud

The Greater Evil ^ | 11/22/08 | Polarik

[Polarik]

Thanks, Fred.

Speaking of being qoted countless times on the Wed, there is a very curious discrepancy between Google and other search engines when looking for the term, “polarik.”

Google has 111,000 hits.

Bing has 13,800,000 hits.

Yahoo has 67,900,000 hits.

I think I’ll make Yahoo my default search engine.

[Quix]

LOL.

I’ve only kept occasional tabs on all this . . .

would you be willing to post about a 12-24 line summary of where we are at this point . . . and maybe 4-8 lines of what the trolls hereon are trying to do?

There’s no way I’m going to manage to get to the whole thread.

[Lady Jag]

They're onto you, dude.

[Cicero]

It’s a problem. I’ve noticed that google seems to do some political editing, and of course there have been a lot of comments about that here.

It’s especially annoying when I go to google something that I haven’t bookmarked, and google has wiped that reference apparently because they disapprove of it. For instance, try to find an ugly anti-Obama photo. There are a ton of them out there, but they are much harder to find. Used to be easier.

The trouble is, most of the other search engines seem to be equally biased, and google is usually the most thorough—except when they play these games. I don’t think Yahoo is necessarily better.

Also, some of this may simply be happenstance or necessary cleaning of the servers, which are large but not infinite. The subject came up a few months ago. When I searched for my real name I came up with more than a million entries—including a couple of other guys with the same name. Today I just checked, and it’s now 70,000, including the usual seguing into pages where only the first or the last name appears.

Google was among the first search engines to drop the mandatory spyware that made me abandon some of the other early ones. If you checked the wrong box they would follow you around, but they didn’t install spyware on your computer as some of the other outfits (now defunct) used to do.

Anyway, maybe bing will succeed in beating out google, but I kind of doubt it.

[Ryan Church]

It’s a problem. I’ve noticed that google seems to do some political editing, and of course there have been a lot of comments about that here.

Oh, there's a problem alright.

Yahoo returns 67,900,000 hits for Polaris, not Polarik, who yields 114,000 hits.

Likewise, Bing returns 13,700,000 hits for Polaris, not Polarik, who yields 10,300 hits.

Don't believe a word that Polarik posts.

[Polarik]

I wish someone would knock Google off their pedestal, and I hate having to use it, and Yahoo...well, Yahoo is in cohoots with the AP who took a dive like MSNBC and have gone totally in the tank for Obama.

In the meantime, I’ll try to use Bing more often.

[Polarik]

Where we are is going backwards in time, to when everyone was pointing at the original Kos/Fight the Smears image posted online as “proof” of Obama’s birthplace, and when Factcheck was doing all it could to perpetuate two charades: one, that they were an “unbiased, nonpolitical, nonpartisan fact checker” and two, that they had allegedly “verified” this image as an authentic copy of a real Hawaiian birth certificate.

People were then under the illusion that Factcheck had forensic document experts examine a real paper COLB document, instead of two inexperienced lackies who scurried into the Obama Headquarters in Chicago, spent all of seven minutes there using a $99 dollar camera to photograph, not one, but two COLB mock-ups, and then rush out before anyone else know that they were there.

Then, when they were confident that they could pull off this photographic ruse as a way to silence critics of the original Kos/FTS image. In and of themselves, the photos had no other purpose except to continue the myth of the COLB image.

[Quix]

Fascinating.

Thanks for all the yeoman’s work you do on such things.

And for letting us in on your process, insights, findings.

May God bless you and those you love this

. . . uhhhhhh . . . memorial . . . . / celebration day.

[Technical Editor]

The law tells you who is a citizen at birth. The Constitution is the only place that uses “natural born citizen.”

Again, who is a citizen at birth is set forth in the law (Section 1401).

That tells you what a child’s citizenship status is at the moment of birth.

That’s it. There is nothing else. No secret provision somewhere. Just the U.S. law about who is a citizen at birth. All of it.

I did make an error, though, in the way I put it. If two parents are U.S. citizens and a child is born abroad, the child is a natural born citizen WITHOUT QUESTION. If one parent is a U.S. citizen only, the child MIGHT BE a natural born citizen, but it depends on the age of that parent.

Just read the law. Remember that you will not find “natural born citizen” anywhere but in the Constitution and in Supreme Court decisions, but also remember that those Supreme Court decisions never intended to be DEFINING what natural born citizen meant — they were simply using the term.

In 1961, the law was virtually as it is today. There was only a minor difference.

This page is from the American Citizens Abroad website and gives pertinent information about the law over time: http://www.aca.ch/hisuscit.htm

[Technical Editor]

He really is a lunatic, as are the sad people who put any stock in his nonsense. You know who he reminds me of most?

Obama.

[DavidFarrar]

Yes, okay. At least we are now moving towards each other in our effort to find a common definition of what the Constitutional phrase "natural born" U.S. Citizen means.

It is here I would also like to point out, while there may be statutory definitions, as well as regulatory definitions, of what a "natural born" citizen is. We are only interested in the Constitutional definition of what a "natural born" U.S. citizen as it pertains to Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

I will agree with you, the Constitution doesn't actually define what a natural born U.S. citizen is, it is for that reason we must go to the writers' original intent. As to their original intent, we can start by looking at the way they constructed Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution: "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."

Since the writers of Clause 5 clearly differentiated between a "...natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States"... by using the coordinating conjunction "or", we can safely assume the two terms were seen by the writer's of the Clause 5 as different. If the two terms were seen by the writers of Clause 5 as the same, there would have been no need to place any coordinating conjunction there at all.

Moreover, the second part of this sentence: "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"... was clearly meant to be the grandfather clause, allowing those who were merely U.S. citizens, but not "natural born" citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution, to be eligible to the Office of President as well. We can further assume that "natural born" was something more special by way of citizenship than by simply being a citizen by the construct of this phrase.

So what was the difference between a U.S. Citizen and a "natural born" U.S. Citizen the writers of Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution had in mind when they constructed this sentence?

Can there really be any other meaning to a "natural born" citizen, as it pertains to Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, than a person born of two U.S. Citizen parents?

ex animo

davidfarrar

[DavidFarrar]

Now, now,

We must be patient. This gentleman is just learning a hard lesson. It takes time to understand that Barack Obama, being a Harvard Law professor knew, or should have known, full well what the Constitutional difference is between a “natural born” U.S. Citizen and a U.S. Citizen, even if TE does not.

ex animo
davidfarrar

[Technical Editor]

Can there really be any other meaning to a "natural born" citizen, as it pertains to Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, than a person born of two U.S. Citizen parents? Yes, there can: a person born in the United States. The founding fathers were not born in the United States. The United States didn't exist. And several were not born in any of the American colonies. Yet they were eligible to run for president, weren't they? For example, Alexander Hamilton was born in the West Indies, not in one of the thirteen colonies.

[Technical Editor]

I messed that up royally, didn't I? You had asked if there could be another meaning for "natural born" besides having two parents who were citizens. My answer should have been: "Yes. It could mean simply being born in the United States, just as "natural born" in England meant being born in the dominions of the King." There's no reference at all to the status of the parents. David, I don't know what I was thinking in my first response.

[DavidFarrar]

A person born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. A person born of two U.S. citizens is a "natural born" U. S. Citizen, according to Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, Alexander Hamilton (a signer of the U. S. Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 stated, “The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that “the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, The Law of Nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.” Clearly, Hamilton, himself, was aware of the writers of the U.S. Constitution use of Vattel’s Laws of Nations to form the basis of Article ll, Section l of the U.S. Constitution in its wording, meaning, and definitions

"The Law of Nations” provides the writers of the U.S. Constitution with the definition of a “natural born" citizen as follows:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents"...plural. Therefore, in terms of the intent of the writers of Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, according to Hamilton, himself, a natural born U.S. citizen is a person born of two U.S. Citizens.

ex animo

davidfarrar

[Technical Editor]

Hamilton was not referring to a particular book. He was referring to the broad area of international law as it was commonly referred to in the colonies. You are making the novice's error of looking at the words, and because they are capitalized, thinking they are a title of a written work. No reputable scholar makes this fundamental error. Look at a printed version of the Constitution that retains the original text as it was written. You will find many words capitalized, because that was the style of the day. Your conclusions are faulty, and I would advise you to stop reading the writings of psychologically unbalanced people who advance this ridiculously uneducated theory.

[Plummz]

Duh. That’s why they wrote an exception allowing persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to hold the office of President. Since Barry is not 220 years old, he does not meet this exception. You need to stop parroting the rationalizations of psychologically damaged individuals in your desperate anti-American quest to legitimize Barry.

[DavidFarrar]

As you say, Hamilton, as well as most of the other signers of the U.S. Constitution, were perfectly aware of Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations. Indeed, it offered the very model of consitiutional law the colonies were seeking. Therefore, according to Vattel, a natural born citizen was a person born of two subjects (plural) of the crown.

ex animo

davidfarrar

[Technical Editor]

Case Study: Albert Gallatin

Obama could be gone more expeditiously than Albert Gallatin was dispatched if irrefutable proof of his not being born in the United States is found and presented to both houses of Congress.

It’s been done already!!! (See *******-enclosed text below).

---

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000020

GALLATIN, Albert, (1761 - 1849)

GALLATIN, Albert, a Representative and Senator-elect from Pennsylvania; born in Geneva, Switzerland, January 29, 1761; was graduated from the University of Geneva in 1779; immigrated to the United States and settled in Boston, Mass., in 1780; served in the Revolutionary Army; instructor of French in Harvard University in 1782; moved to Virginia in 1785 and settled in Fayette County (now in Pennsylvania); his estate becoming a portion of Pennsylvania, he was made a member of the Pennsylvania constitutional convention in 1789; member, State house of representatives 1790-1792; *******elected to the United States Senate and took the oath of office on December 2, 1793, but a petition filed with the Senate on the same date alleged that Gallatin failed to satisfy the Constitutional citizenship requirement; on February 28, 1794, the Senate determined that Gallatin did not meet the citizenship requirement, and declared his election void*******; elected as a Republican to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Congresses (March 4, 1795-March 3, 1801); was not a candidate for renomination in 1800; appointed Secretary of the Treasury by President Thomas Jefferson in 1801; reappointed by President James Madison, and served from 1801 to 1814; appointed one of the commissioners to negotiate the Treaty of Ghent in 1814; one of the commissioners who negotiated a commercial convention with Great Britain in 1816; appointed United States Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to France by President Madison 1815-1823; Minister Plenipotentiary to Great Britain 1826-1827; returned to New York City and became president of the National Bank of New York; died in Astoria, N.Y., August 12, 1849; interment in Nicholson Vault, Trinity Churchyard, New York City.

Bibliography

Gallatin, Albert. Selected Writings of Albert Gallatin. Edited by E. James Ferguson. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967; Walters, Raymond, Jr. Albert
Gallatin: Jeffersonian Financier and Diplomat. New York: Macmillan, 1957; Kuppenheimer, L. B. Albert Gallatin’s Vision of Democratic Stability: An Interpretive Profile. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1996.

---