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]

click here to read article


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 last
To: Brown Deer
and people say that you can’t see a raised seal on a computer copy?

Good point. There it is on the Lee signature.

1,501 posted on 04/29/2011 7:57:03 AM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1493 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Again: were the Founders thinking of their own states, and the use of NBC in their state laws, or were they thinking of Vattel’s “indigene”? Were they thinking of Vattel’s native, or were they thinking of how they had used NBC when adjusting their state laws?

Were they thinking about “natural born citizen” - a legal phrase that existed prior to the Constitution - or were they thinking of Vattel? And if they were thinking of Vattel, why didn’t they adjust their other laws to match Vattel?

Vattel said citizenship followed the father. That was never true in US law. Even in the 1797 translation of Vattel, it read that the native, or natural born citizen - making an equivalence between native and NBC. Bad translation, but lets pretend it is true. They why are native citizens different in your view than NBC, when Vattel uses them as interchangeable?


1,502 posted on 04/29/2011 7:58:20 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 1500 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The discussion is Morse..lets stick to him..for the moment..did you read the highlighted sentence..did you see the number 4..did you look..down the page..Droit des Gens..he references 212. I posted 212 from the referenced book.

He writes in English the book is in French. What is he telling us about section 212..its meaning..


1,503 posted on 04/29/2011 8:05:15 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1502 | View Replies]

To: Art in Idaho

The sig on 0bama’s is an obvious fake! Not even almost close.


1,504 posted on 04/29/2011 8:10:59 AM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1501 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Why do you spend so much time defending 0bama?


1,505 posted on 04/29/2011 8:17:01 AM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1502 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

The discussion is not Morse, but US Law and what the Founders and states were thinking of in writing and ratifying the US Constitution.

NBC was in use as a legal term prior to 1787. Were they thinking of the legal term used by states as a substitute for NBS, or were they thinking of Vattel & indigenous? If the latter, why didn’t they use indigenous? If the latter, then why didn’t the states change their laws to reflect Vattel instead of English common law? Why didn’t they make parentage the critical factor in citizenship, rather than birthplace?


1,506 posted on 04/29/2011 8:20:55 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 1503 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

“Why do you spend so much time defending 0bama?”

I don’t. I’m defending the US Constitution and the principle of original intent.

What was the intent of the Founders and the ratifying states in using NBC? Was it to follow Vattel, even though our laws have never reflected Vattel’s belief that the father is supreme? Did they mean to ignore the meaning of NBC as used prior to the Constitution, and instead use the meaning found in a bad translation of Vattel 10 years later?

No court will ever find that Vattel controls citizenship, because the Founders IGNORED Vattel on citizenship and followed the practice of English common law. They used and respected Vattel, but they did NOT change their laws on citizenship to follow Vattel.


1,507 posted on 04/29/2011 8:26:35 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 1505 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; rxsid; bushpilot1; LucyT
I’m defending the US Constitution and the principle of original intent.

Nonsense, you are defending 0bama!

It's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain, that the founders of our country did not intend for someone with multiple allegiances to become the future leader of our United States!

You are not fooling anyone. If you were truly defending the Constitution, then you would instead be focusing on how 0bama is not following the Constitution. Shame on you!

Re: Obama's birth and qualifications for the presidency
Vanity | May 1, 2010 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 05/01/2010 1:22:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

One of the constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency is that he be a "natural born citizen." This was put into place by the founders to keep foreigners or persons who do not bear a non-questionable allegiance to the US Constitution out. Obviously, and admittedly Barack Hussein Obama was born to a foreign citizen and is not 100% American. He's half-American, half-African and all Marxist. He obviously bears no allegiance whatsoever to the US Constitution and is working overtime to destroy it. He's a usurper and should be removed from office. He is exactly the kind of fraud/usurper the founders feared.

"If you cannot live with the above, fine, but keep your mouth shut about it while on FR. Don't fight against us on ANY of our deeply held beliefs!!"

1,508 posted on 04/29/2011 8:47:42 AM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1507 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

I have attacked Obama on many issues, but he meets the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizen. The problem isn’t the Constitution, but the idiot voters who put a follower of Rev Wright and Bill Ayers in office.

And under the law, Obama is a full American citizen - just as Rev Wright is. Rev Wright hates America with a passion, but no one claims he isn’t a NBC. If the voters had chosen, they could have put Rev Wright in office.

The problem with Obama isn’t his birth, but his politics - and we need to beat him in the political arena. NO COURT WILL RULE OBAMA INELIGIBLE! We win at the ballot box, or we will not win at all.


1,509 posted on 04/29/2011 9:53:01 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 1508 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

You are subverting the Constitution...for your own personal reasons. You do not have the heart to tell some one they cannot be President because you made a mistake.

Natural born Citizens are born from citizen parents.


1,510 posted on 04/29/2011 3:02:25 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1509 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

The first question mark in the ghost images looks like Hour of Birth to me.


1,511 posted on 04/29/2011 4:08:49 PM PDT by rlferny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1455 | View Replies]

To: All
Emmerich de Vattel - 1778 Edition

BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19

Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Volume I A Photographic Reproduction of Books I and II of the First Edition 1758 with an Introduction by Albert de Lapradelle

TRANSLATION OF THE EDITION OF 1758 By Charles G Fenwick WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY ALBERT DE LAPRADELLE

CHAPTER XIX One's Country and Various Matters Relating to It

The members of a civil society are its citizens. Bound to that society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they share equally in the advantages it offers. Its natives are those who are born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society can not maintain and perpetuate itself except by the children of its citizens, these children naturally take on the status of their fathers and enter upon all the latter's rights. The society is presumed to desire this as the necessary means of its self preservation, and it is justly to be inferred that each citizen, upon entering into the society, reserves to his children the right to be members of it. The country of a father is therefore that of his children, and they become true citizens by their mere tacit consent. We shall see presently whether, when arrived at the age of reason, they may renounce their right and the duty they owe to the society in which they are born. I repeat that in order to belong to a country one must be born there of a father who is a citizen; for if one is born of foreign parents, that land will only be the place of one's birth, and not one's country.

------------------------------------------------------

THE LAW OF NATIONS

FROM THE NEW EDITION, BY

JOSEPH CHITTY, Esq. Barrister At Law

WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES,
By EDWARD D. INGRAHAM, Esq.
PHILADELPHIA:

T. & J.W. JOHNSON & CO., LAW BOOKSELLERS,
No. 535 CHESTNUT STREET.

1883.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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.


1,512 posted on 04/29/2011 6:36:51 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1510 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

I did a google search “Tim Adams confessed” ....

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tim+Adams+confessed%22&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=

No results yet. I’m no great authority on him and had been out of the research network for several months, but if you have his confession, please show me a smoking gun link.


1,513 posted on 04/30/2011 5:49:34 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (George Washington: [Government] is a dangerous servant and a terrible master.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies]

To: NoGrayZone
The S in Stanley is a little wider although same font. Here's another fairly high res image with slight distortion from being a digital photo: http://twitpic.com/4q47pm/full
1,514 posted on 04/30/2011 6:16:23 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1089 | View Replies]

To: jennings2004
Would you do me a favor? E-mail your cut and paste to Sean Hannity....he simply does not understand that both parents have to be citizens for a person to be “natural born.” He really irritated me talking down to 2 callers today who knew what was correct. Thanks!

Done....not that it'll get through that thick head of his...:)
1,515 posted on 04/30/2011 11:53:48 AM PDT by Khepri (Change -- How's that working for yah?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1303 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
But that was the dissent, and it never answered why the Framers used NBC if they didn’t mean it in the same sense that it was used prior to 1787...

Hmm, good points. Thanks for the extra comments....I just want to get to the bottom of it, either way, and input like this does help to keep us birthers honest and give some clues as too what type of challenge birthers would face were this issue to land before SCOTUS...:) Thanks!
1,516 posted on 04/30/2011 11:58:34 AM PDT by Khepri (Change -- How's that working for yah?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1147 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Today is really separating the sheep from the goats!

It sure is looking that way...geesh!
1,517 posted on 04/30/2011 12:00:02 PM PDT by Khepri (Change -- How's that working for yah?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1109 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Did you not see this part of the citation in #920?

Yeah I saw it. That's why I cited the 1874 case...
1,518 posted on 04/30/2011 12:03:18 PM PDT by Khepri (Change -- How's that working for yah?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1097 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Check my profile.

I'm on record for a LONG time stating that the SCOTUS cases I cite, mention born in soverign territory to citizen parentS in the dicta.

You, on the other hand, tried to pass off the dicta of a state court case as having found someone born in N.Y. to foreign parents as being NBC...

"Lynch was found to be a natural born citizen.
...
1,251 posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:31:35 PM by Mr Rogers"

When in fact, they did no such thing. The ruling of the court was that she was a "citizen."

 

You blatently lied.

You don't do yourself a favor regurgitating the crap from OBOT sites like Dr. Conspiracy's

1,519 posted on 05/02/2011 3:37:40 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 1486 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

You quote dicta, and so do I. The difference is you quote it out of context.

“You don’t do yourself a favor regurgitating the crap from OBOT sites like Dr. Conspiracy’s”

If Mario Apuzzo can post and debate on Dr Conspiracy - and do so with courtesy and honesty - then perhaps you could learn something there. And the only thing I’ve used that site for was a picture of the 1787 American translation of Vattel - which Dr Conspiracy got from a friend of Mario Apuzzo. If you haven’t heard of him, try reading here:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/


1,520 posted on 05/02/2011 6:29:11 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 1519 | View Replies]

To: jennings2004; All
Look what I found! Can anyone source this?

Natural-Born Citizen Defined?...One attempt to be sure, and a good one at that.

Methinks people are beginning to figure out the kind of things that are going to be presented in Corsi's book.

Sorry President Usurper...we *are* going to make time for these "silly games"...

I'm becoming more convinced that Trump was out there raising the issue for the expressed purpose to let Obama to try to put this to bed before the book came out...

Khepri

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: janice Subject: [CPA] Re: WHY "Natural Born Citizen", not ANYONE BORN USA??????

To: Conservative_Principles_and_Activ...@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2011, 1:55 PM

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father's citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of "natural law and national law."

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child's natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States."

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:

Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))

Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained years earlier that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England's "natural allegiance" doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It should be noted this allegiance due under England's common law and American law are of two different species. Under the common law one owed a personal allegiance to the King as an individual upon birth. Under the American system there was no individual ruler to owe a personal allegiance to.

The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

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, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box. Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed "to insure … attachment to the country." President Washington warned a "passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils," and goes on to say:

Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.

Conclusion

Extending citizenship to non-citizens through birth based solely upon locality is nothing more than mere municipal law that has no extra-territorial effect as proven from the English practice of it. On the other hand, citizenship by descent through the father is natural law and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn't recognize citizenship of children born to their own citizens?). Thus, a natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is recognized by law of nations rather than mere local recognition.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: "We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments."

When a child inherits the citizenship of their father they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen. In a nation that has abandoned the English tradition of "perpetual allegiance" to the King upon birth for the principal of expatriation, the requirement of preexisting allegiance of the father can be the only method for a child to be born into the allegiance of the nation, and thus, a natural-born citizen.
1,521 posted on 05/05/2011 9:21:29 PM PDT by Khepri (Change -- How's that working for yah?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1303 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict

“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” doesn’t appear to be correct” — what is your source? The one you cited doesn’t match, it’s an advertisement for a “system scan”.
My understanding is that txe file is simply a text file with tags like html or rtf. Here’s the definition of “Enriched text” from the wikipedia —

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text?oldid=0

So, I think that X is just a blurry H.

The rest of your post is pure conjecture - for example there is no evidence that the PDF is based on “secondary sources” quite the contrary. The unevenness of the PDF we see is clearly the result of trying to create a readable version of a photostat of some kind - just look at the degree of compression and filtering they had to do.

Rgrds-Woody


1,522 posted on 05/16/2011 9:02:51 PM PDT by woodbourne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1477 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

Test. Does this say 11:03am?


1,523 posted on 01/17/2013 9:10:58 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | 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 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