Even more evidence Obama birth certificate 'fake'

worldnetdaily.com ^ | 1/8/17 | Bob Unruh

[Nero Germanicus]

An investigator who was commissioned by now-retired Sheriff Joe Arpaio to find out whether the document President Obama presented as his birth certificate is real says there’s now a 10th feature of the document that shows it’s fraudulent.

Investigator Mike Zullo, who joined with Arpaio in a Dec. 15 news conference disclosing nine other elements that experts concluded were copied to create Obama’s document, released a video to WND explaining the additional evidence.

It explains that two stamps on the Obama document not only were identical in angle to the stamps on another birth certificate – that of Johanna Ah’nee from the same time period – they also had the identical vertical relationship.

This despite the fact that the “stamps” purportedly were hand applied days apart.

“What are the odds that both the stamps in box 20 and the stamps in box 22 would have the exact same corresponding angles even though they were stamped 16 days apart?” the video asks.

That means they almost certainly were digitally copied from the Ah’nee certificate then dragged together and pasted onto Obama’s, the video explains.

Zullo explained that the fact the two stamps are an exact match vertically reveals that they were taken as a group.

“The fact that there is no vertical displacement indicates the exact vertical and horizontal alignment of the stamps are an exact copy from the Ah’nee certificate … reinforcing the claim that the Ah’nee [document] is without question a source document.”

It eliminates, too, he said, any chance that the date stamps were placed by hand on the Obama document.

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

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. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

[Utah Binger]

Photoshop user, I could see that the birth certificate was a fake from the day it was released

Me too!

[The_Media_never_lie]

It remains as important as ever that all Americans learn the truth.

[Political Junkie Too]

Not citizens but ex-presidents.

See my post #55. No restrictions.

-PJ

[atc23]

Exactly what purpose is this? He has been president for 8 years and nothing is going to change. No court is going to undo anything and Trump will be president in a week and a half. What is the purpose of this?

To correct the record

[Peter Libra]

Your post #82.

Out of politeness from up Canada way I will not give vent to my conclusions about the now President. I have read "Dreams From My Father" and have misgivings about his inner beliefs on race .

What I do enjoy is research into family histories. I somehow find it hard now to find the Ah'Nee certificate- perhaps just me. I did study it previously and found the name of the hospital typed under the heading Hospital Name. It seems to me different placements under the title. Two different applications comparing the Barack Obama birth certificate, with the Ah'Nee certificate.

[PA-RIVER]

I agree. Not a day goes by without some MSM insult over the BC.

It’s time they had it shoved in their faces.

First, get every back up tape and microfilm for his SSN. Get the the original owners name. Start there. Next. His selective service. Then void his pension.

[Nero Germanicus]

Who rules on the correct interpretation of natural law? The Founding Fathers made provision for any and all of their original thinking to be altered by amendment.
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and by statute law to make anyone who qualifies as a Citizen of the United States at Birth under Amendment 14 also a natural born citizen under Article II.
In 1898 the attorneys for the federal government asked the Supreme Court to rule on: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”
“To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet he was not born subject to the ‘political jurisdiction’ thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”

The Supreme Court ruled 6-2: [An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 {Coke, 6a,} ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
Every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”—U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

[TexasTransplant]

America has had MSM shove “TRUTH” down our throats so long that Facts don’t seem to matter much anymore.

Things are changing rapidly in that department

Pray for Mr Donald Trump, President Elect MAGA

[Nero Germanicus]

Layers are produced by a digital reprographc process known as Mixed Raster Content (MRC) so the PDF of a document can have layers.
Actual photographs of the hard copy of Obama’s birth certificate which were taken at the press conference for the Washingtn Press Corps on April 27, 2011 have no layers.
J. Scott Applewhite, a photographer for the Associated Press took this photo of the hard copy of the Obama Certificate of Live Birth.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/white_house_releases_obama_bir.html

[Nero Germanicus]

Its worked for ten years now. He first announced his candidacy on Feb. 10, 2007 and Dreams From My Father was published in 1995.
What made it tough is that Barack Obama Senior acknowledged paternity in a Student Visa hearing with the Immigration and Naturalzation Service conducted on August 31, 1961. People who were challenging Obama’s eligibility got Obama Senior’s immigration file through a Freedom of Information Act request.
What has always baffled and disappointed me is that Congress never held a single hearing on his eligibility.

[Nero Germanicus]

Where did I say that his mother wasn’t a citizen? I listed Presidents with parents who were born outside of the United States PERIOD.
Your lack of ability to read for comprehension never ceases to amaze me.

[Nero Germanicus]

That’s correct for American born founders. Tom Paine and Alexander Hamilton were Founders but they were never eligible to be president due to foreign birth.

[Fantasywriter]

It’s lying by omission. Listing that both Trump and Obama had foreign-born parents, as if they’re equivalent, is the kind of half-the-story that slippery liars specialize in. You leave out the crucial info—that Trump’s mother became a US citizen prior to his birth—and then self-righteously protest your honesty.

It’s a sick game.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

would an impeached POTUS lose his status of “former POTUS”?

Well, Clinton was impeached.

[Dave W]

Good grief. Give it up and move on. Even if it is fake, so what? It won't make the network news, neither cable news and it sure won't make AP or any other paper. It also will not be in any history book, ever. It will never be part of a discussion at any grade level. It won't be covered by a panel at AIPAC and it won't be given any time at the National Press Club.

It won't be part of a profile on 60 minutes. No one is going to write an op-ed about it. There will be no congressional hearings and no hearings by anyone who matters.

Alex Jones will do about 100 shows on it, but he isn't listened to by anyone who matters. His one chance at legitimacy during an appearance on CNN was a disaster when he screamed the whole time.

But sure, it really is not my business there are those who are obsessed by a 10 year old "I want it to be true story so bad, I am going to spend my life doing something that the world at large could care less about".

If true, it will never be corrected.

[Nero Germanicus]

For persons born in the United States, the birthplace of their parents is only relevant if a parent has diplomtic immunity or is a member of a foreign military on U.S. soil.

The law of the land: 8U.S.C. §1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

[Godebert]

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

[DiogenesLamp]

If it’s a “legal” fake, why would Hawaii copy and paste the nine points?

Just type in what you want. No need to lift stuff to make it look ancient.

It is standard procedure in all the states to make replacement birth certificates look like they were from the time of birth. People don't get this, but there are over 120,000 adoptions per year. In every adoption, the state creates a new "fake" birth certificate and they design it to look exactly like one from the date of birth of the child.

This system is already in place in every state. When Barry's lawyers convinced Hawaii to give him a birth certificate, they simply cobbled it together in the usual manner.

People question why it is so full of oddities, well this is the normal product of state employees creating these replacement documents. They don't put a lot of effort into it because these things aren't supposed to have to pass great scrutiny. They are usually just presented to get the kid into school and such.

[DiogenesLamp]

What you have is a theory with no evidence to back it up. That will go nowhere.

It will go nowhere because of past mistakes made by the Judiciary, specifically Prigg v. Pennsylvania, which ruled that State officials didn't have to enforce Federal (and in this case specifically constitutional) Law.

As to the authority so conferred upon state magistrates [to deal with runaway slaves], while a difference of opinion has existed, and may exist still on the point, in different states, whether state magistrates are bound to act under it; none is entertained by this Court that state magistrates may, if they choose, exercise that authority, unless prohibited by state legislation.

This thing opened the door for States refusing to enforce constitutional requirements.

Hawaii Health Bureau statistical data for the Obama birth was published on August 13, 1961 in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper. If that 1961 data was fake, I can’t imagine anyone holding anyone from 2007 to 2017 responsible for it.

Newspaper announcements do not prove that someone was born in a state when that state law allows people born elsewhere to get a birth certificate from that state so long as their parent was a resident.

In *NORMAL* states, it would likely be sufficient, but Hawaii is different. It has a system that allows births outside the state to be recorded as having occurred inside the state. This is a fact that you have no interest in addressing other than to say "They wouldn't do that."

We do not know what they would do. I have read plenty enough articles alleging a US Citizenship mill for the entire Pacific Rim through Hawaii's lax laws on the issuance of birth certificates.