Posted on 08/09/2011 6:10:13 PM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/09/2011 6:11:45 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
When the White House posted online an image of President Obama's purported long-form birth certificate, it also linked to the previously circulated "Certification of Live Birth," the short-form version that had been presented as the only birth documentation available.
However, the short-form certificate to which the White House linked April 27 was a forgery, claims computer expert Ron Polland, Ph.D., who says he made the image himself.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
thanks...I’m sitting here shaking my head and holding my tongue. Seems those with nothing but insults to offer haven’t read past the excerpt that was posted. No one has done more for nothing and without any sign of reward than our very own Polarik.
I wanted to recommend the book he wrote, but when SOME people who call themselves freepers who throw insults on this board don’t read past three lines, what use is that suggestion?
So...I’m sending you a link to the pdf, Brown Deer. Private Mail.
Says DU operative Red_Devil 232... LOL!
Idiot.
Unaware that third grade juvenile statements are meaningless.
< /sarc >
Huh? Get some class and get a clue...
Any proof or writings or actual Court decisions about what constitutes a “natural born citizen”? Because if you’re actually HONEST about it, you’ll admit that there is nothing definitive, and we have the words of the founders only to try to address the issue.
Or are you one of those crazy birthers who just likes to make stuff up?
Sorry if a new guy coming and questioning an old person is so difficult for you; perhaps age has caused a bit of brain-rot, eh gramps?
So. None of the links demonstrate any expertise in the areas claimed.
None of which provide expertise in the areas claimed.
“Polland’s expertise is in computer graphics and the use of computer peripherals, such as printers and scanners to input digital images.”
Pollard's lame claim. Basically, it means he's used printers and scanners. Welcome to the club and so what? He's by no means an expert on them, let alone a forensic document examiner. He had his rear handed to him when he tried to go up against one.
If you want to believe obvious frauds because they tell you ridiculous things you want to hear, that’s your business. Do try to steer clear of your wallet while you’re doing that, though.
Then how do you explain the fact that Snopes had a link to his website as the source for the original fraudulent Document?
So? they weren’t meant to.
No one here is required to demonstrate anything to a nobody like you.
Since Jul 10, 2011
so, you got anything of significance to add to this discussion?
Perhaps it's too modern for old farts who've been insulated too long? Maybe some new blood can bring you up to speed on how this "Internet" thing works?
Glad I can give you a few chuckles! Old folks always seem nicer when they’re happy...
Next up, we’ll learn that a “sign up date” means nothing in terms of how long someone’s been using the Internet, or relating to their experience on a chat forum! That is, if it doesn’t intrude on your afternoon nap.
You'll forgive me for assuming that when you send me links, they somehow relate to the point of the thread. And if you don't feel like you have to demonstrate anything to me, then by all means don't send me your pointless links.
“Really? How so dumbo?”
Not only were his conclusions obviously wrong, but he didn’t even understand the basic terminology he was using.
That is correct Alex. There are a number of supreme court cases confirming the definition understood and cited in a dozen or more supreme court cases. One interesting example is Perkins v. Elg where Marie Elg was born in New York to parents from Sweden who had become naturalized citizens before her birth. A few years after Marie was born her father decided (a job offer if I recall) to return to Sweden where he repudiated his US citizenship. His wife followed with little Marie after he was settled and also gave up US citizenship.
Marie decided to return the country of her birth just before majority (21), claiming she was a citizen. The US Attorney claimed she was no longer a citizen and needed to apply for citizenship. The case went finally to the Supreme Court whe Charles Evans Hughes, Chief Justice, determined that, because she was born to US citizens, on sovereign US soil, even though her parents took her overseas, she was a natural born citizen, the class of citizenship granted by nature and not by man, and that can not be taken from her. They went further to clarify that were she to decide to run for the presidency, after 14 years residence and having reached the age of 35, she would be eligible.
This issue is attracting the usual paid or volunteer Obama supporters. It is interesting to see that they have not advanced their attempts to mislead in two years or more.
If you take the time to read the cases, which most haven't the time to do, the confusion gradually lifts. Rxsid provided you with the correct quotes. I don't want to repeat what he has conveyed, hundreds of times, and so will try to lift the confusion on another aspect of natural born citizenship.
Justices and judges have often stated, both in supreme court cases and in legal treatise, “Citizens are either natural born, or naturalized.” When the Constitution, in Article I section 8, ordered Congress “To establish an Uniform Code of Naturalization”, the Constitution, in which every word must be assumed to have meaning, said, in effect, that laws - statutes - define citizens, and every citizen so defined is a naturalized citizen. Thus all 14th Amendment citizens, whose criteria were spelled out in US Code, such as governed Obama, are, by definition, naturalized citizens.
The Costitution refers to two classes of citizen, the class which is eligible to the presidency, natural born citizen, and the class to be stipulated later in an Uniform way, so that the term which meant something slightly different in the Colonies, now states, would not interfere with interstate commerce. Like almost every term in the Constitution, the definition comes from our common language at the time of the framers, as Chief Justice Waite pointed out in Minor v. Happersett. It was a semantic trick to claim that we didn't understand the meaning of a natural born citizen because it wasn’t defined in the Constitution. Besides “Treason” see how many definitions you can find for any term in the Constitution.
Madison told us why the Constitution was written without definitions. It is because the meanings of words gradually change. If the Constitution was to have eternal meanings, as its framers intended, the meanings of words had to come from the common language at the time of the framers, just as Chief Justice Waite explained “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,”
Read original sources (just not those at Obama supporters justia.com, who altered references to Minor v. Happersett to keep amateur constitutional law readers off the track till Obama was finished destroying what remains of our foundations). Read The Venus. Read Vattel’s Law of Nations; it is a fascinating book, and contains the citation by Chief Justice Marshall in The Venus, 12 US 253, “born on the soil of citizen parents.” Read Minor v. Happersett. Read Wong Kim Ark and understand that Justice Gray, appointed by usurper Chester Arthur, is probably trying to confuse you. Wong Kim was made a “citizen”. Gray cites Minor v. Happersett as his first citation. Finally, read Congressman John Bingham's unequivocal confirmation of the Vattel definition, the Marshall, Waite, Hughes, Gray, Ramsay definition. Bingham is the originator of the 14th Amendmend, which nowhere mentions natural born citizen.
There is no doubt that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but he may be “native born citizen of the US”, the the term used in Title 8 US Code. He told us he was native born on his own web site - a citizen by statute. It really doesn't matter whether he is native born or born somewhere else. Obama was born a Subject of the British Commonwealth. We are experiencing a coup where neither our courts, our legislature, or our military justice system will protect the Constitution. They probably all feel that removing Obama would cause civil unrest, or cost the Republicans the next election, or both. These are not the leaders we can tolerate if we are to survive as a free nation.
It is not easy reading, but if you read Leo Donofrio’s analysis, you may understand that not only is there a clear common language definition in Law of Nations, our most popular legal reference at the time of the framers, our first law book at our first law school, but Minor v. Happersett used the Vattel/Marshall definition in the decision written by Chief Justice Waite for Minor v. Happersett. That established legal precedence. But our ruling class was afraid of the consequence, and did not have the courage to honor its oath to Honor, Protect, and Defend the Constitution.
Thank you for the very detailed clarification.
Since it all seems to be now moot, I had given up on exploring it any further.
At that time there were pros and cons to the interpretation
and evidence.
I did not want anyone to get the impression that I was
arguing in favor of Obozo.
I despise his Marxist ass, as much as anyone on here.
It is obvious that the US is up to its neck in excrement,
but God only knows what will save her.
What is it with all of these 2009’ers (and a non-2009’er who is a known troll)? They all come from the same DU/KoS thread?!
Sorry, forgot to add you to my question :p
No such claim has been made that I've ever seen. However both parents must be Citizens at the time of the birth for their child to be a NBC. The method of Citizenship of the parents isn't an issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.