'I created Obama's certification of birth'

through = throw
:p

Should he have wanted to use the theory of jus soli, he could merely have written : "Anyone born here is a citizen." It would certainly have saved him ink and time. That he did not indicates a specific rejection of this principle.

Yes, he should have. Recognizing the confusion that the original wording would cause, that act was repealed by the Virginia Act of 1783, which included the jus soli path to citizenship:

Be it therefore enacted by the general assembly, That all free persons born within the territory of this Commonwealth...shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character in manner hearinafter mentioned.

I'm not sure why you would include Story's comment there, to say that the "natural born Citizen" issue was not "black and white." I'm going to assume you are not alleging that Story was equating "natural born Citizens" with naturalized citizens (which he goes on to decribe).

I referenced Story's comment because it is the only comment the editors of the five volume Founders' Constitution chose to illuminate the origin and/or meaning of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. (except for some unedifying, to me anyway, brief quotes from the "Records of the Federal Convention.") The Founders' Constitution was published in 1987 and so cannot be said to have been edited to favor Obama. It is a University of Chicago publication now reprinted by the Liberty Fund. I suppose you think you know more than these people do about this topic, but you probably do not.

As for naturalized citizens, you might think about how closely related the words naturalized and natural born are. In England and in the colonies those who were naturalized were "entitled to have and enjoy all the Rights, Liberties, Privileges, and Advantages which his Majesty's Natural born Subjects in this Colony have and enjoy, or ought to have and enjoy, as fully to all Intents and purposes whatsoever, as if all and every one of them had been born within the Colony." (Laws of the Colony of New York, Chapter 1462, passed January 27, 1770) To assert with absolute certainty that 17 years later that these same people had changed their minds about what the words naturalized and natural-born meant to them then without some other substantial evidence is willful ignorance.

Or maybe it is an effort to divert the attention of others from the massive and various frauds committed by Barack Hussein Obama.

ML/NJ

I would like to follow up to my comment and your response from yesterday. I copied part of two of your comments (without naming you) on Obama Conspiracy Theories. I edited as follows:

I shortened two comments by someone at FREEP (leaving out judgmental and speculative parts) to ask anyone with expertise if this is true:

***
The BW image used by the WH matches the current posted image at Snopes …

… the WH … use[d] a BW image that is clearly just an Explorer browser screen print (the headers and footers formats are default Explorer settings) instead of fresh new scan and photos of the actual COLB.

This response followed:
Epectitus August 10, 2011 at 11:11 am (Quote) #

charo:

Assuming we are referring to the WHitehouse release of the LFBC on April 27, 2011.

1. The BW image of the COLB posted on tthe Whitenouse web site is a browser print of an image stored on the Snopes server. It is not a print of any image stored on Ron Polland’s photobucket account.

2. The BW image of the LFBC handed out in packets to the press in attendance is a photocopy of one of the two certified copies sent from Hawaii.

3. The high resolution BW Associated Press scan is a scan of one of the BW photocopies handed out in the press packets.

4. The color PDF is direct (optimized) scan from one of the two certified copies sent from Hawaii.

5. The Savannah Guthrie photographs are of one of the two certified copies sent from Hawaii.

Ron P. posted this later:

Dr. Ron Polland August 11, 2011 at 1:03 am (Quote) #

Epectitus: Assuming we are referring to the WHitehouse release of the LFBC on April 27, 2011.

1. The BW image of the COLB posted on the Whitenouse web site is a browser print of an image stored on the Snopes server. It is not a print of any image stored on Ron Polland’s photobucket account.

Buzz. WRONG!

That is MY image on THEIR server. Snopes has been using my image since June 2008, and it makes no difference where it was on the day the WH copied it (April 25). It is still my image,

Snopes has always used my image, either from their server or from my Photobucket account and the direct to my image on Photobucket has never been changed.

Only the image itself has been changed.

More than 5,900 views to my forged image came from Snopes on April 27, and the people posting that link all thought that it went to a copy of Obama’s “genuine COLB scan.”

I can prove that Snopes continued to use my image and only my image from June 22, 2008 until Aug 1, 2011.

Sometime between Aug 1 and Aug 3, however, they resampled and resaved the image. Although it looks the same, and the luminance values are the same, the chrominance values are higher because of chroma subsampling. Before the change both tables had nearly the same quality values. The file size was also bumped up to 113k and the DPI had not been set.

I saved the previous image at 44% quality using IrfanView, It is 1024 x 1000 pixels, @300 DPI, 33,634 color count, approx. 110k, and has the same metadata found in the Kos and Factcheck images (the Kos came from a Factcheck-sized image).

FYI: I imported the metadata from the Kos image into my image using ExifTool after saving it.

The current forgery clone with the tilting “prima facie” statement is a replacement I put in its place last year to see if anyone would notice the “obvious flaw.”

Nobody did. Now if I knew that the WH would be using a b&w copy of my previous image in the future, I would have left it alone.

After April 27th, I sent out a number of Twitter feeds alerting people to the swap I had made.

The bottom line is still that the WH used a COLB image they found on Snopes to make copies and distribute it to the press, saying that it is Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, when, in fact, it was the image I made.

Either way you slice it, they did not have any scan images to submit, nor a real COLB to copy – yet, they claimed to have submitted a scan they made of Obama’s actual COLB they also claimed to have received in June 2008, copied, and then pasted on Fight The Smears.

Lying about it will not change the reality of it. Get used to it.

Dr. C. responded as follows:

Dr. Conspiracy August 11, 2011 at 10:16 am (Quote) #

While it is within the realm of possibility that a fake COLB image created by Ron Polland got copied and circulated around the Internet and even ended up on the Snopes.com web site and from there to the White House web site, that doesn’t imply that no original COLB exists. It would always be easier for some White House functionary to get an image off the Internet than to figure out who has a physical document, go through the hassle of getting it and then scanning it.

Certainly Ron Polland didn’t create the high-resolution color images released by the Obama campaign in June of 2008

****

I was expecting Dr. C. to tear apart all aspects of Ron P’s newest statements with technical reasons and claim them rubbish. What Dr. C. did was to say that even if it were true (the COLB is Polarik’s fake), the reason is it was too much bother for a staffer to find the original COLB and scan it. There are many commenters at OCT who appear to have the kind of expertise to take apart Pollard’ comment point by point. So far, no one has, except for a couple of insults. They could be just ignoring him, but that is VERY difficult to believe because they normally can’t resist that kind of thing. There could be a flurry of them later.

You still gardening on F.R.???

That was because McCain was known to have technically been born outside of the US. He was born in Panama, although not in the base hospital,

You are mistaken. McCain was born in a clinic on the base, the forged birth certificate proporting to show his birth in Colon notwithstanding.

Yes, he should have. Recognizing the confusion that the original wording would cause, that act was repealed by the Virginia Act of 1783, which included the jus soli path to citizenship:

It does not repeal the Act of 1779. As a matter of fact, it explicitly refers to it here:
"all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the act entitled "An Act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth".

This is referring to the 1779 act written by Thomas Jefferson, and that is it's actual title. Furthermore, depending on how the semicolon is intended, it may very well utilize the subsequent sentence as a descriptor of the preceding sentence.

"1. When two independent clauses are relatively short and the relationship between them (contrast, addition, cause, effect etc.) can be inferred without the coordinating conjunction, some writers find it more sophisticated to omit the coordinating conjunction and replace the comma with a semicolon. Not over-stressing the logical relationships and letting the reader infer them is a stylistic technique that advanced writers sometimes use.

In other words, all free persons born within the territory of this Commonwealth may be described by reference to "An Act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth" 1779.

Your argument begs the obvious question. Unless the subsequent sentence describes the first, it serves no purpose. But if this were the case, why include the subsequent reference to the 1779 act at all? The fact that it is included means that it is relevant.

Even if your argument is correct, and jus soli interpretation has been added along with the 1779 jus sanguinus act, then it represents an augmentation and not a repeal.

In any case, it contains this caution: " Whereas it is the policy of all infant states to encourage a population, among other means an easy mode of admission to the rights of citizenship; yet wisdom and safety suggest the propriety of guarding against the introduction of secret enemies and of keeping the offices of government in the hands of citizens intimately acquainted with the spirit of the constitution and the genius of the people as well as permanently attached to the common interest:"

Seems as though the primary consideration and requirement of the entire act is to make citizenship easy to obtain for those people intent upon coming to the commonwealth to live as citizens. Exactly the same thing required in the "Naturalization act of 1790." It accepts foreign born, or born to foreign with the stipulation that they must become citizens.

Furthermore, depending on how the semicolon is intended, it may very well utilize the subsequent sentence as a descriptor of the preceding sentence.

That doesn't make any sense. The first sentence refers to those "born within the territory," and the second refers to "all persons, not being natives." The two sentences describe two different groups.

But if this were the case, why include the subsequent reference to the 1779 act at all? The fact that it is included means that it is relevant.

Simply to state that those who were already made citizens would still be citizens.

Yep, every Friday morning.

Someone begins it by calling me a SCHMUCK...yeah, you bet I'll return the pleasantries.

Cheers!

You stated:

It proves that the natural-born thing is not quite so black and white as some here would like to believe. Joseph Story too somehow leaves out parentage when discussing this:

§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; ...

Why, again, would you choose this passage to allege that the "natural born Citizen" definition isn't so "black and white?"

That passage, as I stated before, speaks to the admission of naturalized citizens to the office of POTUS. He's not talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger type naturalized...but rather, the founders and framers as having been "naturalized" via the Declaration of Independence. Obviously, they were not born American citizens and none of them where "natural born Citizens."

So, they inserted the "OR" clause there and grandfathered themselves past the NBC requirement. That's what Story is talking about there.

Clearly, there are TWO parts to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The "NBC" part, and the "citizen" part. Story is obviously refering to the "OR", or grandfather part.

It's interesting that you would state this:

As for naturalized citizens, you might think about how closely related the words naturalized and natural born are. In England and in the colonies those who were naturalized were "entitled to have and enjoy all the Rights, Liberties, Privileges, and Advantages which his Majesty's Natural born Subjects in this Colony have and enjoy, or ought to have and enjoy, as fully to all Intents and purposes whatsoever, as if all and every one of them had been born within the Colony."

If you were to view my posts in the past, or my profile page, you will see that I'm well aware of how English law defined "naturalized" subjects.

In English law, a naturalized subject was for all intents and purposes the same as a "natural born subject."

Obviously, "naturalized citizens" are not for all intents and purposes the same as a "natural born citizens." If they were, like in England of the time, Arny would be eligible.

Naturalization laws can change on the whim of any Congress.
A naturalized citizen take's the law(s) of men (and women) to recognize them. A "natural born Citizen" does not and has it's basis in meaning from the laws of nature.

My comments are based on direct analysis of the forged image from Pollards photobucket site that WND linked and claimed was the the image or copy of the image that used to be on the Snopes website. I compared that with a download I took off the WH website on April 27th. It is obviously not the same image. Using Photoshop and overlaying the images shows this in a matter of minutes. The black and white house image seems consistent with the Daily KOS ‘scan’. But as very low resolution black and white image it is hard to make an absolute declaration of such.

Again, is it not very very strange that a screen print of an image on Snopes is used? Supposedly someone has that real 2007 COLB. Or do they? Once it was used to forge a passport record was it discarded?

I have to laugh at the ‘optimized’ pdf explanation. At least they did not claim it was due to the use of OCR. I guess that attempt has finally fallen its face. An optimize step may create a file with some of the characteristics but nothing like this file. Experts have shot the optimized and OCR theory so full of holes these is nothing left that explains the file other than it was manufactured digitally.

An optimized file would have created a replicated background image after extracting the text. This file has the entire background image still in it. That is NOT optimized. That is cut and paste.

Why, again, would you choose this passage to allege that the "natural born Citizen" definition isn't so "black and white?"

You either have extreme difficulty with the English language, or you are a professional smoke blower. Go back and read my last post to you. With your bezillion words, you didn't address either question I raised there. Simple yes or no on both:

Do you think the editors of the Founders' Constitution were being disingenuous by only using Story's quote to illuminate the Natural-born requirement?
Do you think the colonists who drafted and understood the language of the 1770 NY law I quoted changed their collective minds about the meaning of the words they used in the intervening 17 years?

No long, BS, meandering answers, two questions: yes or no.

ML/NJ

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” –George Mason "

I suggest you read the context for this quote. Mr. Mason is not proclaiming the advantages of this difference, he is concerned that some protections of English common law will be lost. He speaks of the Common Law of England which " prevented a dismemberment of their country" and "has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the immunities of the people." The quote you posted is immediately followed by: "I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that [US] Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire."

I have read it, and have seen much of this elsewhere. It is a collection of assertions, and material that is supposed to support the point often is irrelevant. It also uses the George Mason quote you used, again with no context so as to imply Mason disdained English Common Law, when he was actually concerned that we did not have its protections. Yes, the founders consulted Vattel and Blackstone. This is is not at all persuasive that they followed Vattel on “natural born.”

Indians sovereign nations? Like Britain or France? What's to understand? They held allegiance to another government, therefore they could not be "natural born citizens" even when they were born here. Again, you reinforce my point

No, you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding that Indian nations were regarded as akin to separate nations, so those born in that nation were as those born in Britain or France.

Using your logic, one would conclude that if a criminal is hanged for killing a man named "peter", we must conclude that only those who kill a "peter" can therefore be hanged.

You prove my point. The specifics of the individual do not mean that only those narrow specifics are the criteria. McCains specifics were recited, it does not mean that only those are the operative criteria. Thank you.

You posted Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Citizenship Statute in 1779. Your quote supports my point : “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth ..." and then goes on to address "and all infants wheresoever born," which is a separate group from those born in the Commonwealth. See St. George Tucker, an early legal scholar who wrote

Aliens by birth, are all persons born out of the dominions of the United States, since the fourth day of July, 1776, on which day they declared themselves an independent and sovereign nation, with some few exceptions, viz. 1. In favour of infants, "wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of the birth of such infants; or who migrated hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen of the commonwealth; or who migrated hither without father, or mother,

It is clear from this that the strictures of citizen father were for infants born outside of the US. Note the very similar language of the Virginia statute.

Do you have a ping list?

Convincing evidence of the b.c. forgery!!!

http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/6-smoking-guns-w2.pdf

Once again, I take MAC in hand to 'splain the "Birth Certificate" released by the WH some months back.

It was a copy ... not of a birth certificate on file in Hawaii ... but of a newly created digital abstract of information purportedly on file in Hawaii.

The WH staff took this ABSTRACT and copied it several ways and then released it to the MSM. All assumed it was a copy of a birth certificate. The WH itself on day 1, said it was a copy of an ABSTRACT. Then clammed up and let the MSM do its job of selling the copy of an ABSTRACT as a Certified Copy Of a Birth Certificate.

Had any reporter had the gumption to ask
(a) A lawyer,
(b) A Title Officer or a Licensed Real Estate Agent or Broker
(c)A DMV Clerk,
(d)A Notary Public,
Or (e)even a used car guy
what the difference between an ABSTRACT and a Certified Copy is, this whole story would still be very much alive, with everyone; not just on this site and Leo's Blog!.

My friends, we still have not seen "The Birth Certificate." And as far as the question of Obama's Constitutional eligibility goes, we have been utterly stonewalled by the courts from the highest to the lowest and every elected Republican representative.

Please join me in shouting from the rooftops, "Is he a Constitutionally eligible President, or not? Answer the GDD question!"

. . . . Check out Kenny Bunk's post # 239 !

Thanks, Kenny Bunk. A lot to think about.