Skip to comments.Fake Obama Kenya birth certificate?
Posted on 08/02/2009 4:56:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Looks like a Canada Coin Pressed into the back of the page
I can make out a D A on the embossing.
Seems to match up with some Canada Coins.
Has anyone actually seen another “Republic of Kenya” birth certificate issued before December 1964?
Simple question. Sure would add a lot of credibility to the Taitz Kenyan COLB.
WND has a new article up showing a pre-1964 BC at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106135
The certificates registry number is 5733
It is also the registry code for: “Problem with Windows REGISTRY”, a reference to Obama not appearing on the Hawaii Live Birth Registry.
lol I just want to see a certified birth certificate...how did he run for president without one....are they just using the census report to guess his date of birth and where?
lol i thought if he was born on us soil he was us citizen.
I have an infant grandson who is a citizen of usa and italy...he was not born in italy and did not have to set foot n itallian soil...his gradpa filed the papers.
Fact of the matter is, our country has birthright citizenship. Why do you think Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee made abolishing that privilege a part of their campaigns? Answer: because it currently exists.
Like a number of others here, you are confusing citizenship with Natural Born citizenship.
The case you cite only dealt with citizenship, not Natural Born citizenship.
[[ In fact, the Supreme Court ruled a very long time ago in Marbury v. Madison that it is quite impossible for the term citizen as it is used in Amendment XIV to have the same meaning as natural born citizen phrase was used in Article 2 of the Constitution (Leo Donofrio and sister).
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.
Constructing the word citizen in Amendment XIV to render the natural born citizen phrase without effect for the purpose intended by the Founding Fathers as it was written into the Constitution and actually effected to the present day is in the words of Justice Marshall inadmissible, unless the words require it.
For thousands of years, virtually every society and government within the tradition of our present Law of Nations has observed a custom of using allegiance by birth and allegiance by oath as a means of establishing citizenship in a society and nation. The Founding Fathers relied upon this universal principle of allegiance and citizenship when including the phrase natural born citizen to indicate a person born with allegiance only to the United States of America was a requirement for eligibility to the Office of the President.
Now we have a gang of people who have failed many attempts in very recent years to obtain an Amendment to the Constitution which would make Barack Hussein Obama Jr. eligible for the Office of the President. Having failed to lawfully obtain the required Amendment to the Constitution before the presidential campaign, they instead resorted to simply brazening it out in disregard of the Constitution. Now they seek to exploit legal loopholes, pettifoggery, and false propaganda as a means of obfuscating the obvious fact the Founding Fathers by word and deed denied the Office of the President to any person born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign and government.
Freeper 'Whiskey X' on a concurrently running thread.]]
I agree especially from that era. Modern day the full stops would be omitted as most letters are now open punctuation.
I normlly sign my letters - E J Hills unless I am more familiar with the person I am sending the correspondence to and then I would sign them Eleanor J Hills.
I would never put EJ HIlls there would always be a space beteen the first and second letter but as stated above no longer the full stops.
You should've at least glossed over United States v. Wong Kim Ark before you characterized my post as "obamanoid crap."
In that case, Justice Gray wrote, "In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: 'The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167."
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite wrote, "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Going back to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray wrote, "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."
QED. You lose.
[[ Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause - and the courts own stated objective in reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings - leaves the Wong Kim Ark ruling as worthless as a three-dollar bill. The Court will never be able to sugarcoat over history or deny the acts of Congress in attempt to maintain Englands old feudal common law doctrine in this country at the expense of rendering unethical and legally unsound rulings.
NOTE: The Wong Kim Ark ruling left undisturbed the uniform judicial doctrine since 1885 that said when residence is permanent the child born here of permanent residents should be considered a citizen of the United States. Although not a constitutional controversy under the words or interpretation the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment provided, current federal judicial understanding could be said unsettled under Wong Kim Ark in terms of temporary or illegal residents. [[ http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html ]]
I did read what you offered me, and it is clear that you did not understand much of what you quoted from WhiskeyX.
I never said that the phrase "natural born" in Article II is without meaning. Why do you think I quoted those portions of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett that specifically addressed that phrase?
You can't have your cake and eat it, too, bud. You can either accept your "For thousands of years,..." quote from WhiskeyX, or you can accept your Federalist Blog rant against English common law, but you can't take both. It's plainly obvious to anyone who is literate in our language that the Constitution does not define "natural born." Since that is the case, the two cases I quoted from analyzed English common law and clarified the meaning of "natural born."
Clearly, you do not like their conclusions. That is fine. Like the author from the Federalist Blog, you are welcome to say that United States v. Wong Kim Ark is "as worthless as a three-dollar bill." You are also welcome to ignore that "natural born" has been previously clarified by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and Minor, and that it makes plain that Obama is a "natural born citizen," but it only shows how deceived you have been. My sincerest condolences.
LOL, nice try. BTW, loosen those kneepads and switch FR names for a while. And what cheese would you like with your whine? Would you like a perkins or an Elg, and we might be able to quote a Venus for you as well. Your condescending faux expertise is wearing thin, in every persona with which you present it at FR. Have a pleasant evening ... did you think the name you’re using now would get you extra chances for negatives, troll?
I reciprocate your courtesy and wish you a pleasant evening, as well.
Your arrogance betrays your persona. You have not explained how the 14th A can stand as you interpret it without negating the use of natural born citizen for presidential eligibility as an exclusive clause. That is precisely what Wisky X’s owrds call to your attention yet you try to be devious and smarmy to avoid the clear conflct with your specious assertions. As before, have an evening. You aren’t the expert you imagine yourself to be.
Nope. The the issue being decided in case you cite only dealt with citizenship, not Natural Born citizenship.
Reading the quotes you included in your reply, and applying the same logic you are using, it would appear you are saying the Court in Wong Kim Ark actually decided the definition of ‘natural-born subjects’ in the U. S.
Do you really mean to conclude that many of us here are SUBJECTS of the United States? Anathema! Traitorous!
We are sovereigns, not subjects.
So, take your QED and introduce it to a place where the sun don’t shine.
I remind you that in Minor, Chief Justice Waite wrote, "...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens...were natives, or natural-born citizens..." (emphasis mine). Justice Gray referred to this in the Court's opinion in Wong Kim Ark, and Justice Gray came to the same conclusion regarding the meaning of "natural-born." Since you have no other substantive arguments, you chose to create a red herring and focus on the wholly irrelevant "subjects" instead of the highly relevant "natural-born."
Answer one simple question: Was the Court, in Wong Kim Ark, ruling on citizenship or natural born citizenship? Only one is correct.
I'll say it one more time: the term "natural-born" is not defined in our Constitution. Consequently, "natural-born" does not simply mean what you want it to mean.
For problems like these, we have a Supreme Court to intepret our Constitution. Even though neither Minor v. Happersett nor United States v. Wong Kim Ark explicitly dealt with the question of what "natural-born" means, the question was nevertheless answered because it was so closely related to the explicit issues at hand. You can disagree with the conclusions of Chief Justice Waite and Justice Gray. You can even dismiss them as garbage judicial activism if you like. But you can't pretend that they never made any judgments on the meaning of "natural-born."
You know what I just realized? Neither you nor MHGinTN has cited a definition of "natural-born." Could it be because you know that jurisprudence is not in your favor?
These posters don't deal in truth, they deal in deceit, ever seeking to make their purposed, calculate lies, 'plausible' to those who want to believe lies rather than find the truth. Such deceit requires a mindset so twisted that truth really doesn't matter, winning and empowerment for their lies is what matters to them.
We have two or three spittling on this thread for just such obvious purpose. They are schooled in Alinskyesque methodology, relying on ridicule, condescension, and outright lies to do their dirty service to their father ...
You might also not that once a deceiver gets registered in a court ruling (Gray was appoiinted by Arthur and had a vested interest in twisting the meaning of the Constitution to lend credibility to his illegitimate appointer), the professional liars resort to that deceit as the basis for their faux truth.
I'm serious. Buy Deus Ex and play it. I guarantee that you'll love it.
Non-responsive. It was a choice-of-two question. Pick one or the other.
BTW, the Constitution doesn’t define Bill of Attainder or ex post facto either. Why is that? Serious question, and the answer is obvious.
Despite readily emphasizing the importance of "natural-born," you are oddly silent on its definition. For the sake of advancing the discussion, please cite a definition, preferably one backed by a SCOTUS case.
No, you didn’t and you still haven’t. You answer that first, and then we’ll move forward.
Instead, it sounds like you’re moving right to snarky. Are you sure you want to go there?
I will repeat my answer for the third time: "Are you trying to argue that because the Court 'only' ruled that Wong Kim Ark was '...at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States,' they had nothing to say about 'natural-born' citizenship? That's a disingenuous argument, at best." (emphasis added)
Why do you think I used the word only and placed quotation marks around it? Why did I quote a passage from Wong Kim Ark that only stated "...citizen of the United States"? That was my answer to your question; you simply did not catch it. The Court addressed a question of citizenship. In the process of addressing that question, they clarified the meaning of "natural-born," which is not defined the Constitution, as noted by Chief Justice Waite and plainly obvious to anyone literate in English.
That is why your question is poorly posed. You're attempting to argue that because Wong Kim Ark was not specifically about "natural-born" citizenship, it has nothing to do with the issue of what "natural-born" means. Now, it is you who has not answered one of my previous questions: if that truly were the case, then why did Justice Gray expend so much effort analyzing English common law to clarify the meaning of "natural-born"? If the phrase were irrelevant, then he shouldn't have felt compelled to address it. The take-home point is that Wong Kim Ark, like Minor before it, contains a clarification on the meaning of "natural-born," and while you are free to dismiss it, you cannot ignore that it exists.
Now, if you please, provide a definition on "natural-born," preferably one supported by SCOTUS jurisprudence.
That neither Mr. Justice Miller, nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of the Slaughter House Cases, understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign states were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment, is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: 'Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship) reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance.' 'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
Still think Justice GRAY 'clarified' the definition of 'natural-born citizen'? In that quote, he is quoting Justice Waite's opinion that those born of two citizens become natural-born citizens at birth.
Interpreting USSC opinions isn't as simple as you thought it was, huh?
BTW, the answer to my question, the question you've been trying to avoid answering, was written by Justice Gray:
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.'
Did you notice that the underlined portion in my answer is from your final italicized paragraph, which I reproduce as follows?
Thank you for proving that I had, in fact, answered your question, and that you simply failed to comprehend it.
And, yes, I do still think that Justice Gray clarified the definition of "natural-born." I reiterate a section of Wong Kim Ark that I previously quoted, as follows, and add its following section for further elucidation:
Wong Kim Ark just isn't in your favor.
Do you think this one is a real example?
So you’ve decided to go snarky after all. Bad decision.
You have accused me of being of limited comprehension more than once. Ironically, you are proving that YOU are the one with limited comprehension.
The reason I continue to say you haven’t answered my simple question is, well, simple. You replied to my question with a question. IOW, you asked me if that was what I was arguing. You were NOT saying that was what you were agreeing to.
Now on to the main thing. Justice Gray, in writing the majority opinion in this case, was building a Proof (you have taken Logic or Geometry in school, haven’t you?) that Wong Kim Ark was a CITIZEN. He was not building a Proof that WKA was a natural-born citizen.
To that end, he pulled together all of the supportive cases and quotes related to citizenship that he could find. Some were related to citizenship, others to various sub-sets of citizenship - some to naturalized citizenship, some to native-born citizenship, and still others to natural-born subjects. There is even one quote he resorted to that differentiates between natural-born citizens, natural-born subjects, and the native-born. Imagine that.
In none of his Proof was he defining natural-born citizenship, which is a sub-set of citizenship, but rather, making the case for WKA’s citizenship. If he had been trying to define natural-born citizenship, he would have directly done so at some point. He didn’t. Every mention of natural-born citizenship is a quote from someone else.
But you won’t come to that true understanding by pulling selected quotes from the opinion. You have to read the entire opinion at one sitting to comprehend the full meaning of what Justice Gray was doing.
BTW, concerning your ‘answer’ that you repeated 4 times, Justice Gray himself didn’t say anything about natural-born citizenship. Rather, he quoted others saying different things about natural citizenship, as he built a Proof for his decision in favor of WKA’s citizenship.
If I have to respond to such a question, I can do so only by qualifying my answer. Of course I do not agree with you that there actually is such an either/or choice for Wong Kim Ark. You yourself now admit that Justice Gray did, in fact, discuss what "natural-born" means, thereby showing how your dichotomy is a farce; that Justice Gray concluded that Mr. Wong was "merely" a citizen does not negate his analysis of the meaning of "natural-born."
As for your alleged "true understanding," what part of "The same rule was in force...in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established" don't you understand? There are no quotation marks anywhere in those two paragraphs. The initial paragraph even begins with "It thus clearly appears that,..." Sounds oddly like a definition to me.
It appears that you have finally understood my answer. Yes, Justice Gray didn't say anything about "natural-born" citizenship in that paragraph. So you now know why I added the word only and placed quotation marks around it. I don't know for how long you had that paragraph in mind, but surely, you should've noticed that my ellipses quotation came directly from it. It would've saved the two of us a few posts.
Since the likelihood of my actually getting a definition of "natural-born" from you is almost zero, I'll make it easy for you. Why don't you tell me why Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen under the definition below?
You just want to play games with words, to try to win unearned points. That’s a fools game.
My question didn’t ask which issue WKA was ‘about’, but rather, which issue was the Court deciding.
Because you continue to try to twist words and play other word games, you get nothing further from me. You have zero understanding of Court decisions and how to interpret them, and are intent on playing fools games with words and such.
You’re just not worth any more time or effort.
Thank you, come again.
LOL...still...”viral messengers”. LMAO