Posted on 07/03/2013 9:04:28 AM PDT by FreedomOutpost
We know that John Brennan got the head job of the Central Intelligence Agency. However, as we stated in a previous article, by obtaining the records of Barack Obama he may well show that Obama is not eligible to be President.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/does-the-cia-director-have-barack-obamas-records-that-prove-he-is-ineligible-to-be-president/#ixzz2XzxgGS3K
No, it's not productive, but it sure is fun!
Jeffy just doesn't like it when people talk back to him. He needs a lot more of it. He simply will not leave people alone who want to discuss this issue. He always has to intrude in these eligibility discussion thread and call everyone liars and idiots and try to prove them wrong with his irrational verbal vomit.
I am trying to convince him to focus his attention on other things that will help us defeat the enemies of our union.
Good luck. I would wager you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, (or in this case rump) but I wish you luck in trying.
Jeff, My advice, be a bigger man, agree to disagree and move on.... One day, perhaps you may post here again and say “I told you so” Take Care
They wouldn't respect what you claim was ALWAYS the law, so you'll create another law? Really? You're going with that?
Like I said, irrational. The notion that they weren't citizens BEFORE the 14th amendment is simply beyond your comprehension. Sane people realize the 14th was necessary to MAKE them citizens.
But you can pretend they were citizens all along. Damaged minds cannot be expected to think rationally.
How would that be for the "good of our country?" Jeff's interpretation has created the "Anchor Baby" mess, and "birth Tourism" as well as having resulted in the most UnAmerican President ever!
How is the good of our country served by Jeff being right? (Which is a virtual impossibility. He is a Wizard of "wrong." )
What possible good comes of Jeff being right? That our tyrant Nazi was a "real" American? How does that help anything? Better that he be a usurper and false American so he can be pointed to as an example of what happens when people as stupid as Jeff get their way.
I personally think, with Jeff, this issue isn't about Obama. It's about someone he works for. Just a hunch, but he acts like it's his paid Job to be a running block for any eligibility challenges, and I will point out that quite a few Republican pols have eligibility issues too.
I have long suspected Jeff works for either the RNC or some other Party affiliate. When he defends Obama's eligibility, he legitimizes that of the rest of the dubious pols. (Republican Pols, that is.)
DiogenesLamp's most recent post is a great example. You can easily verify two claims in that post, on Samuel Robert's book, that are FALSE.
(By the way, see posts 205 and 216 for more info on what an lousy authority Roberts is.)
First DL claims:
"That it was produced BY the ORDER of the State Legislature of Pennsylvania"
and then
"that it explicitly states that it is the compilation of the work done by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania."
Both of the claims are false.
There did exist a SEPARATE report that in fact WAS produced by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, at the request of the State Legislature.
ROBERTS' BOOK IS NOT THAT WORK.
Let's go over that again, for clarity.
The State Legislature asked the Supreme Court to produce a report. They did.
Samuel Roberts later wrote a book expanding on the Supreme Court's report and including some of his own opinions and analysis as to what the law was.
Heck, it's clear even from the TITLE that the Supreme Court's report and Roberts' book are two separate works. Because he refers to THEIR work in the title of his own!
If there's any doubt, here's a link.
DiogenesLamp has been corrected on this not once, but at LEAST 4 or 5 times now.
Yet he still repeats claims he knows are false.
What term do you use for someone who endlessly repeats claims he knows are proven false?
Maybe you are right. I was just thinking that it would be better that to have a constitutionally qualified bad President than constitutionally unqualified bad President. But perhaps you are correct in that if he is proven unqualified, changes can be made so this will never happen again and perhaps some of the damage he has done can be undone....
What term do you use for someone who endlessly repeats claims he knows are proven false?
A Winston, kinda like a Lewinsky...
The bigger issue here is that the Constitution is being misrepresented and lied about, and conservatives - my fellow conservatives - are being conned, used and made fools of.
And to the extent that people believe the claims and act on them, we in the conservative movement look both like idiots, and unattractive, to people across the entire nation.
The stakes are bigger than you think. Letting this issue "run" is not good for conservatives.
“”””What term do you use for someone who endlessly repeats claims he knows are proven false?””””
Jeff.... You agree to disagree and move on. Ok?
I'm going by what the sponsor of the bill, Senator Lyman Trumbull, stated on the floor of the United States Senate.
By the way, there was certainly a time when the vast majority of black people were not citizens. This is because they were slaves, and as slaves, they were legally considered to be "property" and not "persons."
“””” conservatives - are being conned, used and made fools of””””
I don’t think so Jeff. That is all you will here from me. I am finished.....
ANNOUNCEMENT to everyone..... I Give up. <:-(
The difference is that if people falsely believe that we have a completely illegitimate President, there is a danger of some otherwise good and patriotic citizens wrongly concluding that the rule of law has broken down completely in our country, and deciding to resort to extreme measures.
If the narrative is false (and it is), then at leas a few such persons' lives can be ruined - and needlessly so - by their following and acting on the false narrative.
So when DiogenesLamp continues to repeat and insist on the false narrative, he's not just promoting something that is only likely to make us conservatives look bad (as bad as that is); he and the other birther propagandists are actually toying with good people's lives.
Before you do, will you please do ONE thing?
Refer to post #245.
Click on the link to the book.
Carefully examine the book's title.
Read the Preface. It's only 6-1/2 pages long. I have read hundreds if not thousands of pages to find the truth on this matter. If you think there is any importance to this issue at all, 6-1/2 pages is just a very small thing.
Ask yourself whether the two claims made by DiogenesLamp are true, or whether (as I say) there is no evidence at all that DL's claims are true.
And in fact, in the Preface, Roberts PRESUMES as to what the opinion of the Supreme Court would be, so it's clear he didn't directly KNOW their opinions, and they had no role in his book.
Having done that, ask yourself: Who's telling the truth, and who's telling falsehoods?
I wish you a good evening.
Jeff,
You claim to be an expert and know more than anyone else on this subject because you have read and researched more than anyone.
I’m going to stand with Socrates on this and say “the only thing I know is I don’t know.”
I became obsessed with this in early Spring, 2008. I have read for hours practically every day for 5 years on this subject. I have probably reviewed almost everything that has been posted to the internet on this subject.
I still don’t know the truth of the matter.
Here is what I do know:
When Obama posted a scanned document to the Daily Kos website and claimed it was his birth certificate, he got no respect from me. The DMV or no one else will allow me to do that. And, why Daily Kos?????
When Hawaii officials will say and produce everything except the microfiche copy (like the Nordyke’s) with a raised seal and certifying statement, I have reason to doubt what they say and produce.
Obama, by claiming Obama, Sr. as his father, is not natural born. A horse and a horse naturally produce a horse. A horse and a donkey naturally produce a mule...which by the way carries the load for someone else.
As for my opinion, after studying this in depth for five years, I think the simplest answer might be that Ann Dunham may have given birth to him in Canada where she appeared with the newborn infant in Seattle within a few weeks of his birth. She is known to have stayed there and attended the university for several semesters before returning to school in Hawaii. I also think the Kenyan birth story is possible, but not as simple as the above.
As for experts on the natural born citizen subject, read Aristotle, Justice Story, John Jay, Mario Apuzzo, George Mason, John Bingham, Herb Titus, and many, many, many others.
Our republican government was not modeled after the British which we fought and defeated, quite miraculously, I might add. Common law continued in use, yes...but it is not the basis for our constitution. We the people, were citizens of the states which united together under the constitution. Our posterity are the natural born citizens.
Also, I am not an anchor baby fan.
The truth you claim so mightily to hold dear, is yet to be found in this issue. That is why eligibility questioners and birthers persist. I deem this to be the most important issue of the day. If you were wise like Socrates, you would admit you don’t know like the rest of us.
Except that that's not what the term "natural born" ever meant in history and in law. It's not remotely what it meant to the Founders and Framers.
Even today, in common use, that's not what people use the term "natural born" to mean.
People say that a person is a "natural born baseball player." They mean that he was born with that quality or ability, not that both of his parents were baseball players.
Likewise, a "natural born citizen" is really just someone who was born a citizen.
Legally, the term has a very specific meaning and a long history. It goes back to the English understanding of natural law, which is quite different from what you just said.
As for experts on the natural born citizen subject, read Aristotle, Justice Story, John Jay, Mario Apuzzo, George Mason, John Bingham, Herb Titus, and many, many, many others.
I've now read all of those and many others, except for Aristotle, who has nothing to say on the legal meaning of "natural born citizen" in US history and law. He can't, since he lived 2,100 years before the United States was ever founded.
Common law continued in use, yes...but it is not the basis for our constitution.
...it is fair to seek the meaning of terms [used in the Constitution] in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.
- Alexander Hamilton
The Congress was authorized to provide for the punishment of felonies committed on the high seas... The common law furnished the only definition of felonies. ...the Constitution speaks of treason, bribery, indictment, cases in equity, an uniform system of bankruptcy, attainder and the writ of habeas corpus; all of which were unknown even by name, to any other system of jurisprudence than the common law.
- Lynch v. Clarke, NY, 1844
There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.
- Smith v. Alabama, US Supreme Court, 1888
If you were wise like Socrates, you would admit you don’t know like the rest of us.
Which is why that is what I did, until I had read and read and read until I knew there was simply no "there" there.
Sorry - that sentence should've been italicized, since it was a quote.
I’m quite sure our founders knew Aristotle’s views on citizenship.
They probably did, just as they probably knew Emer de Vattel’s views on citizenship, and the French view on citizenship, and the views of a bunch of other people.
But there’s no evidence they adopted Aristotle’s views on citizenship. Nor is there any evidence they adopted or even publicly discussed Vattel’s.
On the other hand, there is PLENTY of evidence that they kept the views that we inherited from our English culture and heritage.
People can argue the NBC issue, no point in doing it until it reaches the Supreme Court. However, the BC looks forged to me, and that’s a real crime. I’ll go with the CCP’s experts over yours.
Has any of them scanned an old BC and had one of the numbers come out looking like the “1” here?
http://m816.photobucket.com/albumview/albums/frnullandvoid/OddSerial.png.html?o=98
No need for another wall of text, just post their images. They must have hundreds of examples to choose from.
Have you read what "my" experts (though they're really not my experts) have written?
De Queiroz invented a lot of the technology that compressed the birth certificate PDF. He looked at the PDF and saw no evidence of anything not mechanical. On the contrary, he said it looked simply like software compression to him.
And the CCP's corresponding "expert" didn't even know a compressed PDF could have multiple bitmask layers. He said it was impossible, and "proof" of forgery.
But the fact that that was not a problem was published in one of Prof. de Queiroz's specifications on the technology way back in 1999.
And that's basic. So the CCP's "expert" didn't even have a basic understanding of the compression technology.
Most of the CCP's other "experts" were taken to task in Woodman's book and shown to be nothing but quacks.
I mean, that may sound like harsh language, but it's true. I'm just being honest here.
Has any of them scanned an old BC and had one of the numbers come out looking like the “1” here?
Have any of the CCP's experts ever hand-built a document with all the stuff in the Obama PDF, and explained why? No. It just can't be done.
On the other hand, just this week or so, someone figured out what kind of equipment was used to scan and compress the birth certificate image into a PDF. It was a Xerox WorkCenter. And here's a test result.
I've already downloaded it and opened it in Illustrator. You can do the same. It's got the same kind of layers as in the Obama PDF, the same halo, the same separation of stuff that would be on the same layer IF anyone had hand-made the file.
So the birther con game is over, except for determined denialists repeating stuff that's already been proven to be BS. The Constitutional claims are BS, and so are the forgery ones. We even know now what kind of equipment made the PDF. We may not know the exact model number of the machine, but it was a Xerox WorkCenter.
Of course, a lot of us have known the forgery stuff was crap for quite a while now, because we have photographs of the actual paper document that were always different from the PDF.
Oh, and yeah. In answer to your question:
Has any of them scanned an old BC and had one of the numbers come out looking like the “1” here?
Yeah, there are characters on the Xerox WorkCenter-scanned-and-compressed image that came out looking like that "1." Not that exact number on the certificate in this case - which you would never expect due to the fact the experimenter didn't have the original equipment or the original certificate - but other characters on there came out looking just like that. Same effect.
In retrospect, it is all as silly and stupid as hell.
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.
