Skip to comments.CNN via BREAKING on Drudge: White House releases Obama birth certificate
Posted on 04/27/2011 6:09:26 AM PDT by DCBryan1Edited on 04/27/2011 6:22:09 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
(CNN) The White House released President Obamas 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.
You were able to do that with the White House PDF?
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.
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.
The court wrote:
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.
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.
Not the editor, but the court.
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. 
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.
Where did the court write that? In the finding?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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
Original from: Oxford University
Digitized: Aug 10, 2006
The new spelling dictionary
Author: John Entick
Original from: University of Lausanne
Digitized: Feb 27, 2008
Baldwins Century Edition of Bouviers Law Dictionary. Published by The Banks Law Publishing Company in 1926
Been following this thread from the beginning...you have me reading your posts and agreeing :)
I am not easily swayed....
“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.
Just like Whitewater.
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!”
Skrode has one comment to his name.
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.
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 Obamas 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. Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Obamas birth.
Of course Obama knows this new long form on his birth is as phony as a $3-bill. But, he also knows it doesnt 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.”
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.
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”