Posted on 01/30/2010 9:02:29 PM PST by Red Steel
A Chronology of Forgery & Deceit
Most know that there are doubts about Obama’s Birth Certificate or eligibility to be President of the United States, but few are aware of how his supporters passed off an obvious forgery of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth and used cleverly crafted quotes of apparent authorities to establish its authenticity for the purpose of committing election fraud upon the entire nation.
The notion that it is a forgery continues to be squashed by the Main Stream Media. Consider the transcript from Chris Matthews’s “Hardball” program from last night during his interview of J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), who is challenging John McCain for the U.S. Senate seat in Arizona (note that Matthews is attempting to belittle McCain’s opponent):
Matthews asked Hayworth: “Are you as far right as the birthers?” Are you one of those who believes that the president should have to prove that he’s a citizen of the United States and not an illegal immigrant? Are you that far right?”
“Well, gosh, we all had to bring our birth certificates to show we were who we said we were and we were the age we said we were to play football in youth sports,” Hayworth responded matter-of-factly. “Shouldn’t we know exactly that anyone who wants to run for public office is a natural born citizen of the United States and is who they say they are?”
Matthews referred back to some of Hayworth’s past statements. “I’m reading your letter that says the president should go back and get his birth certificate from the governor of Hawaii,” said Matthews, who then added: “I’m just asking, do you stand by this letter?”
“Yeah, sure,” Hayworth responded.
“Should the governor of Hawaii produce evidence that the president is one of us,
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.
Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.
Barrack Obama
“It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race,” Ryan, 44, said in a statement. “What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign – the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play.”
Although Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one ‘avant-garde’ club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable, lashed out at the media and said it was “truly outrageous” that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records.
The Republican choice will become an instant underdog in the campaign for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald, since Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.
“I feel for him actually,” Obama told a Chicago TV station. “What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody.”
The Republican state committee must now choose a replacement for Ryan, who had won in the primaries against seven contenders. Its task is complicated by the fact that Obama holds a comfortable lead in the polls and is widely regarded as a rising Democratic star.
The chairwoman of the Illinois Republican Party, Judy Topinka, said at a news conference, after Ryan withdrew, that Republicans would probably take several weeks to settle on a new candidate.
“Obviously, this is a bad week for our party and our state,” she said.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/http://eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
This is gonna embarass EVERYBODY-!
But perhaps not the ‘everybody’ that you think.
Ping!
One lemming is out of the hole!!!
Show it the cliff. ;^)
Nice catch!
At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution,
the definition of natural born citizen, combined both the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis.
“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 who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Emmerich De Vattel, (1714-1767,) Law of Nations, 1758, § 212, "Of the citizens and naturals."
All Republican politicians, being interviewed, should carry their legitimate stamped birth certificate with them at all times. If asked the ridiculous question about being a “birther”, immediately pull it out of their wallet and say “If I’m not afraid to show mine why should the President of the United States be afraid to show his”?
OMG!!!
It's true...absolute proof!!!
Where are all those “anti-birther” clowns that are supposedly conservative or populist like loser O’reilly aka The Leprechaun. Clowns like Beck, Hewitt, Boortz (man is he tedious), Ingraham, Coulter (sad cause I like her), Medved and a few others.
True Blue conservatives and non-sell outs:
Rush, Levin, Cunningham, Savage, Malzberg, Dennis Miller (I think) and a few others I think including Hannity.
ping
However Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Barack Hussein Obama Jr. as the 44th President of the United States and the state of Hawaii has verified his birth documents.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
Furthermore in a lawsuit challenging Obama’s (and McCain’s) eligibility as Natural Born Citizens, the Indiana state Court of Appeals recently ruled that Vattel has no relevance to Article 2 Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution and that both McCain and Obama qualify as Natural Born Citizens for purposes of receiving valid electoral votes from the state of Indiana.
The lawsuit was Ankeny et. al. v Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana. http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall.
John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams,
recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking,
``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.'' In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,''
that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.
In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and ``his excellent Treatise entitled {Le Droit des Gens.}''
James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay,
for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from {The Law of Nations.}
Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code,
and ``Vattel's {Law of Nations,} which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.''
Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,
quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.
The Law of Nations} and The Declaration of Independence
Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence,
often consulted {The Law of Nations,} as a reference for their discussions.
One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia.
The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress,
which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774.
Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774,
with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation.
In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy.
He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library.
Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift.
Franklin stated, ``I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel.
It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ...|.''
The study of {The Law of Nations} by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions ``of the circumstances of a rising state,''
is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776.
The central ideas of that document are coherent with Vattel's arguments on the criteria of a people to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign.
The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted to fulfill the
``inalienable rights'' of ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,'' and can be changed if they fail to meet these obligations to the people.
Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after a long chain of abuses to the fundamental rights of the people,
with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refused.
Repeated appeals were made to our ``British Brethren,'' but since they
``have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity,'' we are prepared to face them either in war or in peace.
Therefore, we declare ourselves independent of the British Crown, with the full powers of a sovereign government,
``to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.''
The inclusion of the central conception of {The Law of Nations,} Vattel's Leibnizian concept of happiness,
as one of the three inalienable rights, is a crucial statement of the Declaration's Leibnizian character.
The Declaration of Independence was prepared by a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman.
Jefferson was assigned by this committee to write the draft of the Declaration,
after John Adams turned down the task, because of his numerous other responsibilities
Hawaii hasn’t verified squat
Correct, but if leftists repeat their lie often enough they'll start believing it themselves.
Hawaii hasn’t verified squat
At the time of Obama's birth in 1961, parents could rather easily get a Hawaiian birth certificate for a baby who wasn't born in Hawaii.
Bump
At the time of Obama's birth in 1961, parents could rather easily get a Hawaiian birth certificate for a baby who wasn't born in Hawaii.
******
1. Aug. 4, 1961--- Obama supposedly born in Hawaii in Kapiolani hospital.
2. Aug. 5, 1961--- Nordyke twins born in Hawaii in same Kapiolani hospital. Copies of long form birth certificates are on internet.
3. Aug. 8, 1961--- Obama's birth certificate is filed with Hawaii vital statistics, if we are to believe what we see on Obama's short form birth certificate that we see all over the internet.
4. Aug. 11, 1961--- Nordyke twins birth certificate filed with Hawaii vital statistics.
5. 10641--- Obama number on short form birth certificate that we see all over the internet.
6. 10638--- Nordyke twin number on top of long form birth certificate.
7. 10637--- Nordyke twin number on top of long form birth certificate we see on internet.
8. Huh? What is going here that does NOT smell right? Why does Obama's certificate have a HIGHER number than the Nordyke twins' certificates, when the Obama certificate was filed 3 days EARLIER: Aug. 8 vs. Aug. 11.
9. I'm sorry but the following scenario concerning Hawaii clerk procedure is hard for me to believe:
A clerk at the Hawaii vital statistics department files Obama's birth certificate on Aug. 8, but waits until AFTER Aug. 11---the day the Nordyke twins birth certificates are filed---to give Obama's birth certificate a higher number than the Nordyke numbers of 10637 and 10638.
Obama's number is 10641, if we are to believe the filing date that we see on Obama's short form birth certificate that we see all over the internet.
10. It seems more reasonable to me that the clerk would give a birth certificate a filing NUMBER at the same time it gave it a filing DATE.
11. So, if Obama's birth certificate was filed on Aug. 8, then I would expect it to get a LOWER filing number than the Nordyke twins' birth certificates that were filed on Aug. 11.
12. But as we can see above, Obama's birth certificate received a HIGHER number---10641---than the Nordyke twins---10637 and 10638.
13. Something does not smell right concerning why Obama received a HIGHER number than the Nordyke twins received.
14. I wish that the Nordyke twins would demand that Hawaii officials explain why they received LOWER numbers than Obama. They obviously have so-called "standing" to ask questions about their own Hawaii birth certificates.
Unless said "statement" was taken under oath, legally it means exactly nothing. Put Dr. Fukino in front of a notary public and have her sign the same thing. Or take her into a courtroom, swear her in, and have her verbally repeat the above. Until one of those two happens, this ain't "evidence".
Another thing to ask her under oath is to define “Natural Born.”
Unfortunately the Arabic on this signpost (in addition to being badly mis-spelt and written backwards (left-to-right as opposed to right-to-left) reads ‘Hawaii’ rather than ‘Kenya’ :)
Looks like lil’ Chrissy Matthews is trying to be the brightest Dim bulb student in class. He is doing exactly what Prof. Melendez (a day or two earlier) has told all the Dims to do with their opponents and ask them about BHO’s BC.
FWIW, Anti-birther=After birth
********
Maybe we should put pressure on Dr. Fukino with the following questions:
"Are you a natural born citizen yourself?
"If you say you are, then how about proving it by showing us your long form birth certificate?
"Did you have to present your long form birth certificate when you applied to your present job and when you applied to medical school?"
If she answers, "A person born in the United States" then how will you prove she's incorrect?
Go to source website, informative read.
.....Ping
Until one of those two happens, this ain’t “evidence”.
****************************************************
What it is is hearsay, and it violates the Best Evidence Rule.
(without the extraneous clauses)
“I have seen the original vital records verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”
Why does it take more than one record to verify these things? Normally, it would take one vital record. An original birth certificate and nothing more.
An Indiana Court does not have jurisdiction over either the Constitution or the authority to pass that ruling. It would be overturned on appeal.
Vattel does have relevance here, and only an ignoramus would try to argue otherwise.
If she answers, "A person born in the United States" then how will you prove she's incorrect?
*******
Fukino under oath? In a court of law?
Boy, that would be great and wonderful.
For instance, after Dr. Fukino answered the question above under oath' presumably in a court of law, I would start asking her the following questions:
1. Could you please cite your references for your statement above so the rest of us can read them?
2. Is Obama a natural born citizen? How do you know?
3. If you cite Obama's long form birth certificate, could you please show it to us so that we can be sure that what you say is correct: That Obama is a natural born citizen.
4. Yes, let us get Dr. Fukino under oath and in court where we can finally ask her questions about Obama's long form birth certificate, such as why Obama' certificate got a HIGHER number than the Nordyke twins's certificates, even though the Nordyke twins were born in the same Kapiolani hospital one day AFTER Obama was born.
5. Yes, getting Dr. Fukino to answer questions under oath, and hopefully in a court of law, would be one of the greatest achievements in the search for and public display of Obama's long form birth certificate.
6. And, obviously, we all know that the great and wise Dr. Fukino will be most enthusiastic to appear in court under oath, where she can finally tell her side of this Obama long form birth certificate issue.
By asking her what she bases her “OPINION” on, because in reality, her “Opinion” is irrelevant.
Yes, yes. It was amended and proof offered to uhm, ‘support’ the amendment.
Therefore, we have vital recordS that uhm, ‘prove’ these things.
btt
This is a good point that must be remembered when "Arguing with Obamanidiots". That recourse can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations and in the Supreme Court's Venus case.
Is that for real??? Probably paid for with Stimulus Funds.
I find it unimaginable that some one who went to school with Obama doesn't have a class picture or year book. Good Lord a TV documentary was able to find school pictures of Hitler's distant nephews living in New Jersey under an assumed name. We have pictures of Bill and Hillary Clinton looking like hippies. Why nothing for Obama? Obama's past is as sparse as if his family was in a witness protection program.
...and refer to post 26...Zajko's right.
One of the early reporters to work with the Obama campaign campaign to establish the authenticity of the forgery in the eyes of the public was Amy Hollyfield of the St. Petersburg Times.
An inciteful sentence.
The first two in your last line does NOT belong there!!!
Israel Insider was one of the first news agencies to cover the story of the forgery. In an unsigned report dated June 21, 2008, Israel Insider wrote:
In response to mounting media questions about the failure of the Barack Obama presidential campaign to produce the presumptive Democratic nominee’s birth certificate, an official spokesman of the campaign has endorsed as genuine the image of a document purporting to be his “birth certificate.” But some who have examined that image in high resolution claim inconsistencies and irregularities which suggest that the purported document is a forgery. Its high profile use by the campaign, they claim, suggests an attempt to conceal the truth of Obama’s birth circumstances and citizenship qualifications from the American people.
Plus the key word......A M E R I C A N.......Citizen???
7. A simple question Dr. Fukino....”was Junior’s father ever an U.S. citizen???
*******
Obama in witness protection program? When we finally see Obama's long form Hawaii birth certificate and see what a phony Obama has been all these years, Obama may have to enter the Witness Protection Program to protect himself and his family from angry American protesters.
Time will tell as to whether Ankeney v Mitch Daniels will be appealed and overturned. State court rulings can set precedents that the federal courts can either follow or ignore. To date the Indiana Court of Appeals’ruling has not been appealed therefore, for now it stands concerning Electors who voted for Obama in Indiana.
The US Supreme Court has had seven different lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility reach them for Justices’ conferences and they have rejected them all without comment. Since it only takes four Supreme Court Justices to agree to hear a case, that means the originalist-strict constructionist-conservative members of the Supreme Court: Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas have not been convinced yet to take on an Obama eligibility case, Vattel or no Vattel.
My guess is that the originalist Justices see nowhere in the Constitution that the Courts have been given the power to remove a sitting president once he is sworn in. Congress alone has that power under Articles of Impeachment by the House and trial and removal by the Senate.
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.