Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNN via BREAKING on Drudge: White House releases Obama birth certificate
CNN ^ | 27 APR 11 | DCBryan1

Posted on 04/27/2011 6:09:26 AM PDT by DCBryan1

Edited on 04/27/2011 6:22:09 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

(CNN) The White House released President Obama’s original birth certificate Wednesday.

The surprise release follows recent and sustained remarks by businessman Donald Trump, among others, that raised doubts as to whether the president was born in the United States.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: 0; 2004electionredux; 44; barry; barrysoerto; bc; birth; birthcertificate; birther; birthers; borninabunker; certificate; certifigate; clicktoaddkeyword; colb; colbfake; communist; danrather; dualcitizenship; dunham; eligibility; fake; fakebutaccurate; finland; foreigner; forgery; fraud; hawaii; hussein; indonesia; kenya; littlebarry; mediaprotectinghim; mohommad; naturalborncitizen; noteligible; notnaturalborn; obama; officialbcrelease; photoshop; photoshopped; rathergate; seebs; soerto; soetoro; stanley; trump; underfinland
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,351-1,4001,401-1,4501,451-1,5001,501-1,523 next last
To: rxsid

You’ve done an amazing amount of research on this. I started reading through your posts last night. What a history lesson! Thank you oodles! I needed it.


1,451 posted on 04/28/2011 12:23:07 PM PDT by abigailsmybaby ("To understan' the livin', you gotta commune wit' da dead." Minerva)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1447 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; Fred Nerks; LucyT; Natural Born 54; melancholy
Found this on a GLP thread.

What are looking at is the gost image of the 08 COLB behind the long form. Why would that be

there and facing the back of the long form supposedly bound in a book?

1,452 posted on 04/28/2011 12:30:48 PM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1450 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Original link here for above..

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1464463/pg6#24157186


1,453 posted on 04/28/2011 12:31:55 PM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1452 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Did you ever get an answer to this question?

Here is what I propose. See what you think.

This is what Hawaii says:

“Original forms from the time of birth are used to produce computer-generated documents recognized as official birth certificates in the state of Hawaii.”

As Clinton says, this is a case of knowing which meaning of “is” we are talking about.

Notice the plural use of the word “form” — forms—

Notice the use of the word FROM, consider it in the sense of a sale at a store with items FROM $7.99. There is more after that FROM.

Now notice these words, “produce computer-generated documents”

They have honestly said exactly what has transpired.

And here is where I think they covered their tracks to keep from getting into legal trouble:

The TXE is no mistake or blurring. It is intentional. TXE is a file extension associated with Enriched Text files. (I picked up this definition from here:

http://www.liutilities.com/products/winbackup/filextlibrary/files/TXE/

Enriched text is a formatted text format for e-mail, defined by the IETF in RFC 1896 and associated with the text/enriched MIME type. It is “intended to facilitate the wider interoperation of simple enriched text across a wide variety of hardware and software platforms”.

That definition from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text

The following post asks the perfectly right on question:

#1406 asks shouldn’t these match?

And this post really shows some clear information:

#1426 Notice the pixelation surrounding the center line text that does not appear around the text in similar letters in the same stamp in the text above and below the center line.

Here is what I am saying....I may not be specifically on to what they meant by “TXE” but I believe they meant to say “TXE” and I am pretty sure what they are really and truly saying is that what we are seeing is an ABSTRACT (translate compilation) of all the “original forms” (translate ammendments, etc.) -—FROM-— BHO’s time of birth [-—to present-—] put together in digital form ie. “computer-generated documents.”

What do you think?


1,454 posted on 04/28/2011 12:37:28 PM PDT by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1400 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
Try this instead.

I learn something new everyday....Now I know I can't use a GLP link!

1,455 posted on 04/28/2011 12:37:44 PM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1453 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“what you keep refering to is the opinion of the Editor of that publication, Samuel Owen.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No wonder you get your butt kicked in every case! You don’t know the difference between the opinion of the court, and an editor of a volume. Samuel Owen edited the “New York Legal Observer”, which compiled the various decisions.

Again, with the Indiana decision, you write “It’s “immaterial” according to this ridiculous state court ruling.” If you don’t know why they wrote that, you shouldn’t comment on legal cases. There is more to a decision that “Guilty” or “Not Guilty”. Until you understand that, you won’t win any cases.

And perhaps you can tell me why YOU feel free to quote dicta, but ignore the dicta of other cases? Or perhaps you think what you quoted - and BTW, WKA was NOT a state case - is the decision and not the argument used to arrive at the decision?


1,456 posted on 04/28/2011 12:42:13 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1450 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
“”Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens””

“The natives, or indigenes, are those who were born in the country of citizen parents.

A direct translation of:

"naturels"

is not "native"

It's true, the terms were synonymous which is why we see some translations of Law of Nations using "native"

A direct translation of the French word "naturels" is "natural." and you fully know that.

Undeniable Proof The Founders Translated "naturels" to "natural" Six (6) Years BEFORE The Constitutional Convention!:
From the Library of Congress: Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 -- FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1781

This accepted translation of 'naturel' in 1781, predates John Jay's 1787 letter to George Washington by 6 years.

 

That was 6 years BEFORE the Constitution.

 

DURING the Constitution, the initial suggestion is for the POTUS requirement to be a "citizen." The framers, after receiving Jay's letter suggesting "natural born Citizen" take the concept found in Vattel's Law of Nations, which they were openly reading and referencing during the penning of the Constitution itself.

June 18, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

June 27 1787. IN CONVENTION (Vattel's legal work is read aloud during the Federal Convention) "...that an equal vote in each State was essential to the federal idea, and was founded in justice & freedom, not merely in policy: that tho' the States may give up this right of sovereignty, yet they had not, and ought not:In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he [Luther Martin] read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers -- Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he [L.M.] read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford:" From Madison's Notes on the Convention.
Similar notes on Vattel being read during the convention can be found in the notes of Rufus King and Robert Yates as well.

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "natural born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

They read Vattels work during the Convention. It gave them a widely known definition for citizens who are natural born.

 

And no Mr. Rogers, citizens of our Constitutional Republic are not the same as subjects to a crown. The mear thought should be offensive to any citizen of our country today...and would have surely been offensive to those that fought with blood and treasure to throw off their chains of servitude to the crown of England.

Why natural law, Vattel vs English common law, Blackstone:
"The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic."
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

 

Oh, and I'll take the word of a guy who was ACTUALLY THERE, in the room when they were creating the Constitution:

George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), Wednesday, June 18, 1788:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states."

He refused the sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, which he later is credited as helping to create.

On December 15, 1791, the U.S. Bill of Rights, based primarily on George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, was ratified in response to the agitation of Mason and others.

At the convention, Mason was one of the five most frequent speakers. Mason believed in the disestablishment of the church. Mason was a strong anti-federalist who wanted a weak central government, divided into three parts, with little power, leaving the several States with a preponderance of political power. [7]

An important issue for him in the convention was the Bill of Rights. He did not want the United States to be like England. He foresaw sectional strife and feared the power of government.


1,457 posted on 04/28/2011 12:45:24 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1443 | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa; butterdezillion

I think you way off base. Why would an official document contain code in an otherwise inoculate sentence?

I have requested that Sharon Rondeau look, if she has a copy, or ask Miki Booth to look at her stamp on her long form. It was stamped in March of this year.


1,458 posted on 04/28/2011 12:46:47 PM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1454 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; Fred Nerks; LucyT; Natural Born 54; melancholy
Dr. Ron Polland Evaluates Obama’s “Birth Certificate”

What took him so long....lol

1,459 posted on 04/28/2011 12:51:38 PM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1458 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
"Lynch was found to be a natural born citizen." [1]

I've given you proof that the court found Lynch to be a "citizen", yet you keep on keeping on saying she was found a natural born Citizen. Nowhere in the state court decision, did they find her to be a natural born Citizen.

"It was held that she was a citizen of the United States."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1,460 posted on 04/28/2011 12:57:42 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1456 | View Replies]

To: GregNH; LucyT; Red Steel

You were able to do that with the White House PDF?


1,461 posted on 04/28/2011 1:06:03 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1455 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; GregNH; LucyT; Red Steel

No not me! If you look a few comments down I posted the original link. And now I am seeing a new post here on FReep by a new guy who has spotted the same thing.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711993/posts?page=4


1,462 posted on 04/28/2011 1:12:44 PM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1461 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Thank you for showing the correct French for NBC is “sujets naturel”, not indigenes. Vattel wrote “indigenes”, which was mistranslated NBC years AFTER the Constitution.

You also were kind enough to point out John Jay’s letter contrasting those born in the US and foreigners as the standard. Notice he said nothing about needing citizen fathers.

And yes, at Independence, EVERY NBS automatically became a NBC for the purposes of the law.


1,463 posted on 04/28/2011 1:27:07 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1457 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

The court wrote:

(page 246)
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf

Not the editor, but the court.


1,464 posted on 04/28/2011 1:28:21 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1460 | View Replies]

"Oh, and I'll take the word of a guy who was ACTUALLY THERE, in the room when they were creating the Constitution:

George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), Wednesday, June 18, 1788:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states."

He refused the sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, which he later is credited as helping to create.

On December 15, 1791, the U.S. Bill of Rights, based primarily on George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, was ratified in response to the agitation of Mason and others.

At the convention, Mason was one of the five most frequent speakers. Mason believed in the disestablishment of the church. Mason was a strong anti-federalist who wanted a weak central government, divided into three parts, with little power, leaving the several States with a preponderance of political power. [7]

An important issue for him in the convention was the Bill of Rights. He did not want the United States to be like England. He foresaw sectional strife and feared the power of government. "

In addition to a father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason, outright rejecting English Common Law as NOT being American Common Law...

we see the father of the Constitution, James Madison, echoing his statement:

James Madison wrote to George Washington, N. York Octr. 18. 1787:
"Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.[Edit: England's "Common Law"] The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason [George Mason] does not disapprove, falls under this head.. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law."

Clearly, the founders REJECTED England's Common Law as being American Common Law.

Having rejected the English crown and the English Common Law, and having clearly embraced much of the natural law way (which Vattel's Law of Nations is built upon), it's equally clear from where they got their definition for who is a natural born Citizen.

A "citizen" can be a multi-national (or dual national), but a "natural born Citizen" can not...having no divided alligience.

They went from "citizen" requirement for POTUS, to "natural born Citizen" later on in the Convention. They clearly wanted a higher standard, to prevent foreign intrigue and entanglements from the office of Commander in Chief. For obvious reasons.

1,465 posted on 04/28/2011 2:08:53 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1457 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Where did the court write that? In the finding?


1,466 posted on 04/28/2011 2:18:15 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1464 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Put two pages together on a copy machine and the back page bleeds through the page being copied. Happens all the time, especially with light weight paper. Or is there something far more sinister going on here?


1,467 posted on 04/28/2011 2:18:23 PM PDT by Tatze (I reject your reality and substitute my own!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1455 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

I would expect to see any long form from Hawaii having a clear “THE” in the stamp. Yet, in the case of Obama there is a clear TXE—and I suspect that was intentional to cover legal bases.

Am I way off base? Could be! That’s no skin off my teeth...it’s not my birth certificate that has been called into question because of previous dishonest behavior.

Obama has manufactured for himself a whole can of worms and whatever observation or question a person wishes to make, regardless of how stupid, baseless, or ill-informed, is brought on by his senseless obstruction and lack of disclosure.


1,468 posted on 04/28/2011 2:20:23 PM PDT by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1458 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
"Vattel wrote “indigenes”"

PARTLY correct.

What is "indigenes?"

I'm sure you'd admit, "indigenous."

What Vattel wrote:

"Les naturels, ou indigenes"

The natural OR indigenous.

Again, as I've stated before, those terms were synonymous.

The framers could have choosen either natural OR indigenous. They choose to go with Jay's suggestion. Natural.

1,469 posted on 04/28/2011 2:22:14 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1463 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

b.t.w. as I’ve shown on this page, both the father of the Constitution and the father of the Bill of Rights rejected the English Common Law as being that of the American Common Law during the ratification period.


1,470 posted on 04/28/2011 2:25:53 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1463 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Natural, Native and Indigenous were synonymous in the 1700's, into the 1800's.

It's why we see Chief Justice Marshall state:

"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says "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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."
in THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814).
Here, we see the great Chief Justice Marshall (who would have studied Vattel's legal treatise "Law of Nations" at the country's first law school...the College of William and Mary...introduced to the school's curriculum in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson) directly quoting, by name, Vattel's work specifically regarding citizenship.

It's why we see Chief Justice Waite state

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar [edit: this nomenclature they were familiar with is directly mirrored to the definition found in Law of Nations...which the framers read and referenced during the Constitutional Convention], 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,"
in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Vattel's original French, From Chapter XIX, 212 regarding Citizens and Naturals (Citizens):

"Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"

Translated to English:

"the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

The terms were interchangeable then.

Looking at the definitions from the period, it's quit easy to see how some English translations of Vattel's original 1759/60 work in French was translated using BOTH terms.

Les naturels, ou indigenes

The "natural" OR the "indigenous"

Natural = Natural.

Indigenous <==> Native.

Natural born citizen, Indigenous born citizen, Native born citizen meant the same thing. The terms were all interchangable in and around 1787.

Obviously, the framers choose 1 of the 3 words for those born Citizens.

Again, a direct French to English translation for the term Les naturels found in a book we know was openly read an referenced during the penning of the Constitution itself IS "the natural." It appears that, in the years after the WKA ruling (in 1898), the term "native" has taken on a new meaning when it comes to citizenship.
Of course, WKA was found to be a "citizen" (and not a "natural born Citizen") due to the fact that both of his parents were perminantly domociled in the country...and conducting business here. Barry's father, was only ever considered a sojourner, or temporary visitor, to our country.
It interesting to note, that Associate Justice Horace Gray (who delivered the majority opinion) was appointed to the bench by non other than the original usurper...Chestur Arthur...who was born in this country...but to a foreign national father and who ordered his personal and official papers burned on November 16 1886, one day prior to his death. Undoubtably he did this to cover his tracks as being born a British subject (inherited from his foreign national father).
 
A few examples from the period...

The royal dictionary, french and english, and english and french
Author: A. Boyer
Publisher: T. Osborne, 1764
Original from Ghent University


From: http://books.google.com/books?id=k7c_AAAAcAAJ



 
A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language
Author: Samuel Johnson
Edition: 3
Published: 1768
Original from: Oxford University
Digitized: Aug 10, 2006

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ



 
The new spelling dictionary
Author: John Entick
Published: 1780
Original from: University of Lausanne
Digitized: Feb 27, 2008

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=xZUPAAAAQAAJ

 

More recently:


Baldwin’s Century Edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. Published by The Banks Law Publishing Company in 1926

1,471 posted on 04/28/2011 2:35:22 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1469 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Been following this thread from the beginning...you have me reading your posts and agreeing :)

I am not easily swayed....


1,472 posted on 04/28/2011 2:52:32 PM PDT by halfright (My presidents picture is in the dictionary, next to the word, "rectum".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1471 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“The framers could have choosen either natural OR indigenous. They choose to go with Jay’s suggestion. Natural.”

No, they went with natural born citizen - NOT native, or indigenous, but NBC - a legal term with s known legal meaning.


1,473 posted on 04/28/2011 3:15:34 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1469 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I definitely understand about the “day job” thing. So much has been done by Obama’s handlers, the media, and corrupt government bureaucrats to cloud and complicate the issues - I believe to deliberately make it too complicated for most people to take the time to sort out.

Just like Whitewater.

Cheers!

1,474 posted on 04/28/2011 3:35:56 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1404 | View Replies]

To: Skrodebomb; butterdezillion; All

Skrode’s sole comment to FR. They’re crawling all over like termites. Hirelings want this to be a “trap” just like Baghdad Bob said “there are no Americans in Baghdad!”


1,475 posted on 04/28/2011 3:52:22 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1428 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; newfreep

Skrode has one comment to his name.


1,476 posted on 04/28/2011 3:53:21 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1430 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict
“Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth released today says
“I certify this is a true or abstract copy of txe record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health””

Does anyone know when Alvin Onaka started using this stamp?

There's a lot of Hawaiian birth certificates out there, but I wonder if this stamp is recent.

Someone said that txe may not be a typo, but type of file. It's not a very common format and wonder when Hawaii would have started using this format and why create a pdf from the format.


From:
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=txe+record&page=1&qsrc=2891&dm=all&ab=3&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infowars.com%2Fdoes-obama-birth-certificate-number-prove-forgery%2F&sg=slXFYWI%2FaXfdqBc62YYxb2uv9cmhfYJ2x%2FthBa5DFHc%3D%0D%0A&tsp=1304030435765

robilefox says:
April 28, 2011 at 12:05 pm
It should now be apparent why Obama was laughing so much when he presented his new long form document America. He must of known from the moment he received the document that it was completely worthless in officially proving his birth in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. However, he also knows by now that just saying it is proof of his birth will be enough for the mindless drones that still support him. He was worried by recent polls that showed only 32% of Americans thought he was born in America. So, he had to put out something to keep that number from getting lower. So, he asked the Hawaii State Registrar to release all information in their archives on his birth. The now infamous “long form” is the result of that effort.

This long form is quite clearly based on secondary sources without any original documentation to support any of the information on the presented printout. It is obviously not a copy of an original record of birth; as these copies are negative image reproductions of archived photostats. In addition, the Registrar clearly states in his affirmation on Obama’s new long form the following: “I certify this a true copy or abstract of TXE record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health”. A TXE record is an “enriched text file” used to combine graphics with textual data for easier storage and retrieval of information stored in computer databases. So, the Registrar is certifying that all the information on the new long form is all from electronic sources, which might not even be based on any one particular database record. The Registrar admits none of the data is from original sources. Obama’s new long form is completely worthless in proving his Hawaiian birth.

However, Obama has the added pleasure of watching “Birthers” scramble around looking at all the inconsistencies of this worthless document. All the uneven layering and artefactual errors might well be just the process of presenting the database information on a standard informational receipt form; like mismatching from improperly inserting data into a form letter. However, instead of reading what the Registrar is affirming and understanding the information is totally from unofficial secondary sources, the conspiracy theorists look at faded background, dimmed numbers and other anomalies to prove Obama’s long form “birth certificate” is a fake.
However, the Registrar openly admits in plain text that nothing on the long form is based on original sourcing; it is all digital data printed out as an “abstract”. So, Obama is laughing at his critics trying to prove his worthless new unofficial birth record is somehow forged proof of his birth in Hawaii; they are trying to prove a negative from a negative by first starting from the position this worthless document is being presented as positive proof of Obama’s birth.

Of course Obama knows this new long form on his birth is as phony as a $3-bill. But, he also knows it doesn’t change anything. His supporters will deny the fact that the document is worthless and his critics will fail to gleam any new, useful information to attack him with. In addition, he divides and distracts America at the precise moment that the American economy implodes. This is win-win-win for Obama; or, as Charlie Sheen would say, “Winning”. So, like Nero of Ancient Rome, Obama sits above the people with a pleased expression, contemplating the next tyranny to impose on the hapless masses.”

1,477 posted on 04/28/2011 3:54:18 PM PDT by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 941 | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa; Danae

But WHY would it be in onaka’s HAND stamp? Danae says the onaka stamp is NOT machine generated. It is a hand stamp.
So it makes no sense that it would be done to indicate a file extension. And clearly, if it WAS computer generated, it would be an alteration of the doc if it IS changed, which makes the entire document invalid.


1,478 posted on 04/28/2011 4:41:12 PM PDT by MestaMachine (If you want to pillage,plunder,destroy, blaspheme,or defile, become a muslim, or name yourself obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1454 | View Replies]

Comment #1,479 Removed by Moderator

To: MestaMachine

If it is a file type, not just a file extension, Hawaii may currently be keeping the birth certificate records in this format instead of keeping the originals.

I really don’t know. But “true and correct” certainly has a different meaning than “true or abstract”


1,480 posted on 04/28/2011 4:57:31 PM PDT by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1478 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

Maybe it was something as simple as someone choosing to break out a brand new stamp with out looking at it, thinking, oh hey this is really important, lets pull out that new stamp. They do wear out with use and time.

I don’t have any explanation for it. That “the” doesn’t look anything like mine. It looks to me like a different stamp. That’s all I can say with any certainty.


1,481 posted on 04/28/2011 4:57:52 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1478 | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa

Well it is clear there is an X where an H should be. There is no logical explanation that I can see. So how did that get there? As I suggested, the forger had a Jesus moment!


1,482 posted on 04/28/2011 5:00:56 PM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1468 | View Replies]

To: Danae
There is one simple way for Obama to verify the authenticity of the birth certificate.

One can argue that Obama has waived his right to privacy by releasing this information. If so, then we should do the following:

1) Publicly ask Obama to waive access to the information, since he has already publicly released it.

2) People can now request uncertified copies from the Hawaii Department of Health, now that the document has been made public (let's see if the office can reproduce the document).

3) The hospital no longer can hide behind the excuse of privacy because hospital information (including the doctor) has been released by Obama. They should now release corroborating information, such as shift reports or billing records.

If the document is real, the Hawaii Dept. of Health should have no problem turning out additional copies to those who pay the fee for one, now that it is public domain knowledge.

-PJ

1,483 posted on 04/28/2011 5:06:40 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Everyone's Irish on St. Patrick's Day, Mexican on Cinco de Mayo, and American on Election Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1481 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Perhaps you've forgotten. It happens. So, let's try it this way...and ask you:

Since you've confirmed that it wasn't the editor who stated natural born citizen...Just where did the state of New York circuit court mention natural born citizen?

Was it in the finding of the court?

Or, perhaps it was in the dicta of the Lynch v Clarke state court case?

I can think of no other options but those remaining two.

1,484 posted on 04/28/2011 5:29:50 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1464 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
If you haven't seen this yet el MAnseur reveals where at least some of barry bassturd's funding came from.
1,485 posted on 04/28/2011 5:39:16 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1436 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

When you’ve been citing cases, have you been citing the actual decision, or the dicta of the case?

“There are multiple subtypes of dicta, although due to their overlapping nature, legal practitioners in the U.S. colloquially use dicta to refer to any statement by a court that extends beyond the issue before the court. Dicta in this sense are not binding under the principle of stare decisis, but tend to have a strong persuasive effect, either by being in an authoritative decision, stated by an authoritative judge, or both. These subtypes include:

* dictum proprium: A personal or individual dictum that is given by the judge who delivers an opinion but that is not necessarily concurred in by the whole court and is not essential to the disposition.
* gratis dictum: an assertion that a person makes without being obligated to do so, or also a court’s discussion of points or questions not raised by the record or its suggestion of rules not applicable in the case at bar.
* judicial dictum: an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision.
* obiter dictum in Latin means “something said in passing” and is a comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but it is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive).”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictum

The Lynch case involved judicial dictum: an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision. The essential for the decision was citizen, but the court arrived at that decision by recognizing she met the qualifications of a NBC. And that issue - NBC - was argued by counsel before the court, and a critical part of the final decision.

The only court cases directly involving a Presidential candidate’s eligibility have been Obama’s. Only one was heard on the merits, and they determined Obama was eligible. The Supreme Court has refused to hear any of the birther cases submitted to them.

In the dicta, which BOTH of us have cited, numerous cases have dealt with the issue of who is a NBC. In Lynch’s case, the interpretation of who is a NBC was the deciding factor in declaring her a citizen. And the US Supreme Court followed the example of the Lynch dicta in arguing that WKA met the qualifications for a NBC and thus was a citizen.

The dictum in these cases has proven so influential that both democrat and republican opponents of Obama refused to raise the issue in court during the election. It was so influential that no state denied him a place on the ballot, and no Congressman of either party objected to his taking office. To date, no state has passed any objection to someone with non-citizen parents running for President. And none will. The dicta you wish to read selectively has established itself so securely that the US Supreme Court, offered a serious chance to issue a formal ruling in Dec 2008, refused to take the case.

In Lynch, the judge showed that the meaning of NBS carried over universally to NBC. He showed the states that ratified the Constitution had already endorsed the idea that NBS = NBC. His reasoning was so powerful that it has been followed by the courts for 160+ years.

Against his arguments, you claim that the word “indigenes” in Vattel inspired the Founders to write “natural born citizen”, because they didn’t know how to write “indigenous”. THAT claim is so breath-taking stupid that no one has ever argued it in court.

NBC was NOT a phrase invented for the first time in the US Constitution. It was already being used by the states as a substitute in their laws for NBS. So did the delegates from the states continue in national law what they had already done in state law, or did they see the word “indigenes” and think, “Wow! That means NBC...even though it is also an English word, and still in common use as the descriptive indigenous.

And every court that looks at it will always conclude the Judge in Lynch was right, and you are wrong. Why? Because Lynch made sense, and you do not.


1,486 posted on 04/28/2011 5:53:02 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1484 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Shoot the HDOH could likely make a million bucks by charging the 10$ fee for it.


1,487 posted on 04/28/2011 6:27:36 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1483 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

You asked, and I answered. The ‘08 COLB would not have been behind the page in the records book. Lets step through it, shall we? Records book is placed on a photocopier, copy is made, printed on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper. So far so good, right? That piece of paper is stamped, dated, embossed with the seal and sent to Obama. He puts it with his ‘08 COLB. Why? I don’t know. Ask him. He then puts those documents on a scanner to scan the image into a computer. The ‘08 COLB bleeds through. Not so difficult to understand how. Sorry, but I cannot tell you why he put the one document behind the other, but its obvious he did.

And thanks for the personal attack. I guess if you don’t have anything of substance to add, you lash out with name calling instead. Nice.


1,488 posted on 04/28/2011 7:07:36 PM PDT by Tatze (I reject your reality and substitute my own!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

It means the final PDF was produced on a Mac. Basically, if you open any document on the system and select “Print,” you get a menu that lets you send the file to your favorite printer or select “Preview” that generates a PDF that opens in the “Preview” application. One can save this PDF as a file. I do this a lot on my MacBook... I have NO IDEA what was used to produce the original document...


1,489 posted on 04/28/2011 7:34:09 PM PDT by RochesterFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1039 | View Replies]

To: All
Same Lee or not?


1,490 posted on 04/28/2011 7:35:21 PM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1488 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
It's not even that; open that WH.gov docuemnt in a PDF editor ...

It's a WATERMARK applied in the pdf file ...

Any thought as to why the watermark was added? I can't think of a reason myself.

----

Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
www.AnySoldier.com

1,491 posted on 04/28/2011 8:56:15 PM PDT by JCG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Oh, I’ve seen that, but unfortunately most of our country hasn’t.


1,492 posted on 04/29/2011 2:39:36 AM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1485 | View Replies]

To: Art in Idaho

and people say that you can’t see a raised seal on a computer copy?


1,493 posted on 04/29/2011 3:12:14 AM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1490 | View Replies]

To: Tatze

What personal attack?


1,494 posted on 04/29/2011 5:44:03 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1488 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
What personal attack?

Seriously? Well, I would tell you to go back and read it again, but the mods have already deleted it.

1,495 posted on 04/29/2011 6:21:50 AM PDT by Tatze (I reject your reality and substitute my own!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1494 | View Replies]

To: Tatze

Well I don’t usually attack people like that, so if was offensive I apologize.


1,496 posted on 04/29/2011 6:30:35 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1495 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; Mr Rogers
it is clear to the sane.. Morse...refers to 4..Vattel Droit des Gens Treatise On Citizenship Preface XI  Alex Morse Photobucket Photobucket
1,497 posted on 04/29/2011 6:39:44 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1471 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; Mr Rogers
Our Ms Rogers is always in denial..perhaps the truth is to painful for him..it is why he continues to deny the meaning of a natural born Citizen. He purchased a sea horse for his fish tank.. cannot understand why it will not fit. He is certain it is a sea horse. Photobucket
1,498 posted on 04/29/2011 6:59:10 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1497 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

When the Founders put NBC in the Constitution, were they thinking of how they had changed their state laws from NBS to NBC, or were they thinking of Vattel’s “indigene” - and merely couldn’t remember the English word “indigenous”?

I agree that native born and natural born are the same. It is birthers who try to make a distinction. Why?

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

and “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . .”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

The facts of the WKA case include: “he departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.”

“But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, “citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,” and

mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil...” WKA

“Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.” WKA

Please note that here, as elsewhere, US law differs from Vattel - a native born citizen of the US does NOT require two citizen parents, although Vattel would have required it.

In like manner, a NBC does not require two citizen parents. The men who wrote the Constitution and the states that ratified it had recently changed their own laws to reflect the universal switch of natural born subjects into natural born citizens. Were they thinking of NBC in the same sense in which they had just used it in state laws, or were they thinking of “indigene” and forgot about the english word “indigenous”?


1,499 posted on 04/29/2011 7:15:36 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1497 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; rxsid

Alexander Morse confirms naturels is natural born..it is right in front of you how can you deny it..les naturels ou indigenes...parents citoyens.

Natural born citizens are born to citizen parents.

You lost this battle but you refuse to admit it. Read the highlight in yellow ...there is a number 4..drop down to the 4. What does it say..

If you cannot accept this..this means you refuse to accept the truth.

You need to come to grips with reality. Look at what rxsid posted..we are not making this stuff up..

Obama is illegal. He knows it. Don’t be like Obama.


1,500 posted on 04/29/2011 7:50:04 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1497 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,351-1,4001,401-1,4501,451-1,5001,501-1,523 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson