Audio: Trump Top Adviser (Roger Stone) Obama Birth Certificate Not Real (Arpaio agrees:comments)

Boston Herald Radio ^ | September 16, 2016 | Roger Stone/John Sapochetti/Alex Reimer

[little jeremiah]

Why do you assume that the b.c. is fake but the info on it is real? If the info on it was real, why the need to forged it?

Assuming that the info on it is factual is just plain foolishness. Until actual authentic documentation is made public, it is silly to assume that a document which has been shown in many ways and at many times to be a forgery has correct info on it.... boggles the mind.

[Richard Kimball]

Shut up, Stone. This is not the time. Didn’t you see Donald make a deliberate effort to put this to bed?

Exactly, and for those who are interested for historical reasons, the historical reasons can wait five weeks. Obama's leaving office. The ONLY reason this has been brought back up is because the media thinks they can get some mileage painting Trump as a crazy racist. That's their only chance, and they're grabbing at it.

[SirPeredur]

Correct.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It wasn't a photocopy of the official birth certificate embedded in a PDF file.

It was a document created in Adobe Acrobat.

Adobe Acrobat did not exist in 1961.

[Lurkinanloomin]

I agree, but it should be investigated after Trump is sworn in.

It probably won’t be because everyone in the District of Corruption is complicit in the violation of the Constitution.

[Electric Graffiti]

What Trump did was obviously too brilliant. It went over the heads of 90% of the people here at FR following this issue.

When Trump declared ‘That Obama was born in the United States, period’, it was the most beautifully orchestrated pimp slap ever perpetrated on the leftist press. It wasn't a statement of fact but a rhetorical/tongue in cheek statement [You missed that obviously]

Every rational person is thinking why is this still an issue? We don't trust the press.....why are they asking Trump about ‘birtherism’? How would Trump know where Obama was born?

Trump made the press look like Obama rump swabs and masterfully vaulted this issue to DEFCON 1. Front page, where it belongs.

With every thing this faggot illegal alien has done in the last year, it is finally dawning on the brain-dead masses of asses that Obama may actually be an islamo enemy combatant who usurped the Presidency of the United States.

[Reily]

To me its certainly plausible the info is real & birth certificate fake. If you remember the whole “birth certificate” thing was starting to grow legs again. Remember Trump was making noise about it. It’s easy to see how the “kiddie corps (You know those cocoa sipping pajama guys!) would panic slap something together and release it. I can see them reason that, ‘Computer document forensic analysis is esoteric enough and full of “experts” who will contradict each other, so releasing this will defuse the controversy.’ From my optic it did, it deflated public interest in it. So it worked!

I am not saying that’s what happened. I am just saying I can make a case that its plausible.

[tomkat]

That they did, along with many many others .. hence, today's ongoing CF     :-\

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

There are serious questions about the question if Obama was born of an American mother in Hawaii, a US state, then was he automatically an American citizen. I’ve seen all kinds of debates on this issue, and the fact that Hawaii at one time had some other “citizen” clauses regarding how long one had to be a resident of that territory/then state before they qualified as American citizens (i.e. his mother).

But let’s not get bogged down in the question of whether Obama was born in the US or in Kenya. What we want to ask is why can’t we see the FULL/TRUE copy of his birth certificate, not a short version or a Certificate of Live Birth.

The same goes for John Kerry’s COMPLETE military record, including Post-Vietnam Reserve status. Did he undergo a “war crimes” investigation for killing two innocent S.Vietnamese civilians on a boat? Did he undergo a Logan Act investigation by DOJ and MID for his illegal contacts with the No. Vietnamese and PRG (Hanoi VC puppets) WHILE HE WAS STILL A RESERVE OFFICER AND WITH A SECURITY CLEARANCE?

How many times did he ACTUALLY visit with the communists in Paris? He says two, perhaps three times, but nobody can provide any information on a “third” visit.

Was he the subject of any Navy “administrative action” relating to any of his acts both during and after Vietnam?

We put some of this in the book “Unfit for Command” by the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth About John Kerry, but never got any definitive answers because we couldn’t get all his service records.

Also, did the FBI and CIA do any investigations of Kerry while a Senator with his probes of so-called CIA involvement in cocaine/heroin smuggling from South American/via Central America, into the US/

Did anyone investigate his hiring of two security risk, for either his office staff or congressional committee/subcommittee staff re the La Penca Bombing hoax of Tony Avirgan or the CISPES operations of a Communist Party USA and Communist Party of El Salvador propaganda and fundraising operation in the US (by CISPES)? Kerry reportedly used admitted perjurer Frank Varelli as a key source of information accusing the FBI of using illegal means to gather intelligence on CISPES operations.

Is anyone investigating Kerry’s State Department giving his daughter a reported contract (via a related SD organization) of about $9 million dollars? This is well documented. Now is it legal or a payoff by the State Dept. to Kerry?

We need to ask real questions about what we haven’t seen or don’t know rather than revisiting where Obama was born.

The same for why Hillary and Susan Rice etc lied about the video and the cause of the Benghazi attacks. We need to know WHO MADE UP AND ORDERED THE LIES, AND WHY WASN’T ANY ONE EXPOSED AND PUNISHED.

ANSWER THIS AND YOU’VE NAILED HILLARY’S FAT LYING BUTT TO THE PERJURY AND MEDIA COVERUP WALL.

[kiltie65]

I have the thought Obummer will skip the country after he is done with the Presidency and he will either then write a book, or gloat nonstop about how he screwed America. Or Prez. Trump will contact various gov’t entities and find out the truth of the matter, and Obummer will have to flee the country. The fun just does not stop with Trump as Prez!

[poconopundit]

A question. What if in 2017 we prove that Obama was not a natural born citizen, what happens to all treaties, bills, and executive orders he signed?

Are they still valid law?

[Godebert]

"A question. What if in 2017 we prove that Obama was not a natural born citizen....."

It's already been proven.

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

[Dalberg-Acton]

"The BC posted at whitehouse.gov is a computer-generated fraud."

That is true. I don't know where Obama was born or if that is even his real name. But Mayor Rodrigo Duterte and I have good idea WHAT he is.

[little jeremiah]

If the info on it was factual, there would be no need to forge a document. There were threads taking it apart. There is no doubt it is computer generated, not a photograph of a real document.

[SirPeredur]

Generally yes.
Executive Orders give the President the ability to set Administrative Rules for the Executive Department. Simply “all employees come in a 9AM and leave at 5PM”. They are used to give the President Executive power over his workers. They are used for much more complicated issues as well. They are not “Law” and can be changed at any time by any President.

Treaties (approved by the Senate) and Law, created and approved by both houses of congress are more durable. Across administrations and cannot be easily changed except by Congressional Amendments to the laws and re-signature by the Executive.

In this pretty clear field we throw the little “grenade”.

There is a tradition thought history of something called the “De Facto Officer Doctrine”. Generally upheld for centuries.
From the Web:
De Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by possession. The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

So, it is not possible to “Throw Out” anything an Officer of a nation has done, If he was honestly working for the good of his office.

[SirPeredur]

Generally yes.
Executive Orders give the President the ability to set Administrative Rules for the Executive Department. Simply “all employees come in a 9AM and leave at 5PM”. They are used to give the President Executive power over his workers. They are used for much more complicated issues as well. They are not “Law” and can be changed at any time by any President.

Treaties (approved by the Senate) and Law, created and approved by both houses of congress are more durable. Across administrations and cannot be easily changed except by Congressional Amendments to the laws and re-signature by the Executive.

In this pretty clear field we throw the little “grenade”.

There is a tradition thought history of something called the “De Facto Officer Doctrine”. Generally upheld for centuries.
From the Web:
De Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by possession. The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

So, it is not possible to “Throw Out” anything an Officer of a nation has done, If he was honestly working for the good of his office.

[poconopundit]

Thank you... LOL. You threw the book at me! This is good material and authoritative.

And reading some of this, it occurs to me that Trump still left the door wide open for going after Obama.

He said, “Obama was born in the United States.” That’s all. Trump said nothing about Presidential eligibility.

So the press is barking up the wrong tree!

It ain’t over till the fat lady sings and she’s still on her way to the threater.

Still looking for an answer to the question of what happens to all the laws Obama signed. Cheers.

[Reily]

Look I am not arguing that! All I said was I could construct a case for plausibility. No where did I say I was correct.

[Seizethecarp]

This will sound too elementary for some folks, but when you are in the replies in BirtherReport, be sure to click on the sub-replies to expand the replies below each top reply to get the full replies so you don’t miss key stuff...

[poconopundit]

Well, very interesting. Thank you for your perspective on the law. I think it’s about time America got back to the rule of law. It’s being trampled on daily by our current federal government.