Birth Certificate Released… What Else Will Drop Today?

Grand Rants ^ | 04-27-11 | Gerry Ashley

[BigChiefLtd]

That’s what I thought when I first saw it, then I saw where it says (at the bottom) that it’s a “True Copy.” I’m not sure what, exactly, that means.

If it’s a newly printed copy, that MIGHT explain the newness and crispness of the paper. But then how did they get the original signatures printed on the new form? I want to believe this is a legitimate document, but there may be some who notice the crispness of this paper which is allgedly 50 years old. Stay tuned... birthers may not be ready to let this go yet.

[fantom]

” Trump is dead in the water as a viable candidate “ . Wishful thinking. Trump will be done when he loses interest in his new found hobby. It was interesting to hear O opining about how hard he has been put upon . Does he not remember Clinton or Bush ? If this had no traction O would not have released the doc.

[Safrguns]

>>> Trump is dead in the water as a viable candidate. He was caught hyping something he cannot now produce.

I believe that Trump IS vulnerable now... (politically) and you may be right... but the next few days will certainly tell. However, keep in mind that this is not about Trump producing something... it’s about Obama producing something!
And I say Obama has not yet produced it... its the same ole COLB.

Many have speculated that Trump is a plant, and that what we are seeing today was to be the culmination of that plant.

Others have speculated that Trump knows what he is doing, and is holding the goods that will bury him.

Based upon the tone of your post reply, I would suggest that credence is given to the “dem plant” speculation.

As far as a COLB being legal credentials for being “Natural Born”, you are sadly mistaken. You cannot even get a driver’s licence with it.

But... His COLB actually does prove that he is not Natural Born because his father is not a US citizen.

As far as the “new” birth certificate being genuine goes....

You seem a little bit too quick to accept it for real, when everything else Obama has said has proven to be a lie.

[Jim Noble]

“What were the rules”

The term “natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution or the US Code.

Birther bluster to the contrary, there are no precedents which are on point.

If the certificate is not a forgery (which, by now, would entail “a conspiracy so vast..”) it proves Ann Dunham’s child was a US citizen by birth, that he was given the last name “Obama” at birth, and that his father was not a US citizen.

Unless the definition of NBC can be litigated to the point that the “2 citizen parents” concept becomes valid US law, or this document can be proved a forgery, it’s over.

[Safrguns]

How to FIX high gas prices? Birth issue
How to FIX high unemployment rate? Birth issue
How to FIX the value of the dollar? Birth issue
How to FIX problems in middle east? Birth issue
How to FIX ____________? Birth issue
How to FIX ____________? Birth issue
How to FIX ____________? Birth issue
How to FIX ____________? Birth issue
How to FIX ____________? Birth issue

All in one nice neat little package we like to call a constitutional crisis.

It's the only way to roll things back to 2008.

[Jim Noble]

Your “2 citizen parents” argument is not valid US law. If the US Code is changed, it won’t affect Obama (Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law).

The chances that the USSC would adopt the Vattel definition, and then retroactively apply it to a sitting President, are zero and zero, respectively.

It’s over.

[philman_36]

Your “2 citizen parents” argument is not valid US law.
Then what, in your opinion, is valid US law?

[Godebert]

Why did the Founding Fathers change the original presidential eligibility requirement from "born a Citizen" to "No person except a natural born Citizen"?

[Godebert]

Why did the Founding Fathers change the original presidential eligibility requirement from "born a Citizen" to "No person except a natural born Citizen"?

[Jim Noble]

Why the founders changed the language, or what they thought it meant, is an interesting question.

What it is NOT is a statute or an on-point precedent which disqualifies Obama.

If you think the Vattel argument would be adopted by the USSC and then be retroactively applied to remove a sitting President, I think you are mistaken.

[Godebert]

"Why? This was the most important issue to birthers and now it is over. They wanted this issue for 2012 and now it is not going to be. I believe some birthers are very upset over this."

This was always the smokescreen the MSM (including FOX News) and Obama supporters used to deflect from the natural born Citizen issue.

Why did the Founding Fathers change the original presidential eligibility requirement (proposed by Alexander Hamilton) from "born a Citizen" to John Jay's stricter language of "No person except a natural born Citizen"?

[philman_36]

How about you comment on what I asked instead of something I didn't ask about or comment on.

Your “2 citizen parents” argument is not valid US law.
Then what, in your opinion, is valid US law?

[Jim Noble]

There is no valid statutory definition of NBC.

[philman_36]

There is no valid statutory definition of NBC.
That statement in no manner answers the question I asked.

Your “2 citizen parents” argument is not valid US law.
Then what, in your opinion, is valid US law?

[penelopesire]

“This bastard has more updates to his birth certificate than Billy Gates has to Windows XP!”

Post of the Day...ROTFLOL!! Pinging for a laugh out loud!

[philman_36]

Still waiting.

[Jim Noble]

“Still waiting”

For what?

I do not believe NBC is defined by statute or by the Constitution in a way that could be used to vacate the Office of President. I also don’t believe there is an on-point precedent that any court could or would use to vacate that office.

That’s what I believe about US law.

What do you believe is valid US law about NBC?

[philman_36]

For what?
For you to state what, in your opinion, is valid US law.
You did state that...Your “2 citizen parents” argument is not valid US law.
So if my argument isn't valid law then surely there has to be something that you consider to be a valid law.
So what is that law? Is it in a specific USC Title? Is it the Constitution itself? (the "supreme Law of the Land") What law is it that you determine settles the argument about what constitutes a natural born citizen.

What do you believe is valid US law about NBC?
I consider Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution to be the valid US law concerning NBC. I only consult contemporaneous documents to help define the term.
So what do you consider is valid US law concerning NBC? Or is it your belief that there is no law, not even the Constitution, concerning NBC?

[philman_36]

Oops...Article 2 Section 4, Section 1, Clause 5...

[philman_36]

Simply amazing. Still no response. I even ran my necessary errands for the day to give you time to respond.
I can readily state how I came to my conclusions and you can't? I figured you would've had something at the ready yourself.

So what do you consider is valid US law concerning NBC? Or is it your belief that there is no law, not even the Constitution, concerning NBC?