'I created Obama's certification of birth'

www.wnd.com ^ | 08/09/2011 | Jerome R. Corsi

[rxsid]

When the White House posted online an image of President Obama's purported long-form birth certificate, it also linked to the previously circulated "Certification of Live Birth," the short-form version that had been presented as the only birth documentation available.

However, the short-form certificate to which the White House linked April 27 was a forgery, claims computer expert Ron Polland, Ph.D., who says he made the image himself.

[Churchillspirit]

Oh darn....the fiendish plot to take back the colonies has been exposed. :)

[Bikkuri]

I never honored him .. I was only following the info that was given at the time.. All of the info coming in, I, and many other freepers, went through it (it didn’t matter who it came from.. we combed through it like a nurse trying to find the lice eggs in the hair)..

If it was good info (didn’t matter whether it was from a democrap or Repub), we let others know...

If it was ganked (whether it was from a democrap or Repub), we let others know..

I am still learning from this myself... I’ve learned a lot of stuff I should have known decades ago, if I’d kept my eyes open.. like all of us should.. but we have been too lazy :/

NOW is the time that we all need to be eyes wide open and see everything..

Now, in my opinion, is the last change we have to keep USA as a republic... and I apologize for not being there to assist ;/

[DiogenesLamp]

He said place was the most important criteria of allegiance, and what applies in the United States. Self evident.

And yet his very next words are:

"Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."

An appeal to blood. Why argue blood if place is the only thing of importance?

[DiogenesLamp]

Sheesh. Go read it carefully. It addresses criteria for allegiance, and unequivocally states place is the most important and what applies in the United States.

Notwithstanding the fact that some months later the entire Congress decreed that "Place" didn't matter when they passed the "Naturalization act of 1790." James Madison himself voted on that law.

You want to argue “Ok, he says place is the most important and what applies in the United States, but he really meant that only for Congress, not for any other office?”

That was the topic at hand; whether or not Mr. Smith was a citizen of South Carolina and therefore became an American citizen when the rest of the South Carolinians did.

So glad you can read his mind in retrospect, and know that he didn’t really mean what he so clearly declared.

He declared nothing regarding "natural born citizen". By the Laws of South Carolina in 1758, William L. Smith was a citizen. Nothing more. There WERE no "natural born citizens" old enough to be members of congress in 1789.

[TheOldLady]

Click the Pic!
Sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10

[DiogenesLamp]

Why would he set himself up for any questions if he was born on the base as you say?

I am not saying such. I have no proof of where he was born. I am saying only that I have seen evidence that indicates the claim of his birth in "Colon" Panama is a fabrication. I'm just saying you need to be aware that this claim has been called into question.

[DiogenesLamp]

By your logic, the fact that women were not made citizens invalidates “chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,” since women were part of the people and yet could not vote.

You need lecture no one on logic. Women were citizens that could not vote, just as Children are citizens that cannot vote. Weren't you the one that invoked "Composition fallacy" earlier?

You have also set up a strawman - I never claimed “law of the land” as there was no clear law on the books at that time on “natural born” - rather it was a continuation of English Common Law, on which much US law is based.

English Common Law was specifically rejected in many particulars, and specifically in the case of the term "citizen" as it was applied in the United States. English law did not recognize "Citizens", but instead invoked the term "subject" to indicate their relationship with their government. The founders explicitly rejected this English Law concept during a little event called "The American War of Independence." You may have heard of it? They also specifically rejected the English Common law during the subsequent war of 1812, during which the British were continuously trying to force us to accept the English Definition of "Subject" in the place of our substitute condition called "citizen."

That some states continued to recognize the left over English law standard of jus soli may add confusion to the federal aspect of citizenship, but it is easily clarified when looking at sufficient quantity of contemporary documents and acts of law.

Posters were discussing insight into the Founders’ idea of Natural Born. I provided James Madison’s clearly stated opinions on Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinus.

No, you provided a little "sound bite" snippet that seems to support your misapplied argument, while ignoring the larger argument he makes and the contemporary manner in which the issue was decided and handled.

You don’t want to accept it? Fine, you can believe that a preexisting book by the Swiss De Vattel is more important than clear statements by the Father of the US Constitution.

And you can believe that a man who says one thing on May 22nd of 1789, yet votes for it's opposite in March of 1790, is a good source of material for your argument, despite the fact that his statement is not supported by contemporary acts nor other statements by other founders. You say Madison is the "Father of the US Constitution", but the Blue print was created by Vattel. You just haven't read enough to learn this.

I am still waiting for you to explain how Slaves and Indians were not citizens under Madison's comment.

[DiogenesLamp]

It was the Washington Post reporter he supposedly showed it to.

Thanks for the info and link.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lame Cherry had an interesting piece today, *Into the bowels of Obama*

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

[charlene4]

yesturday by: The Daily Pen (this is an excerpt) but truley begs the question, HOW will WH undo the mhole they have dug themselves?

*Unfortunately, Obama’s lies and epic fraud have impugned these claims by narrowing the probative field to the following overweighted condition: The only way Obama can possibly be eligible and legitimate to be president is if the Hawaiian Health Department possesses this original document in its archive files...and, to the horror of officials of the Hawaiian Health Department, it must match the counterfeit forgery posted to the White House computer systems on April 27th, 2011, complete with “smiley face” graffiti, spelling errors, extraneous artifacts and an over enlarged safety-paper border.*

[DiogenesLamp]

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

No. If I were, your argument would make sense.

Indians were considered members of "sovereign" Indian nations (classified as "domestic dependent nations") so their citizenship was with their Indian "nation," which is also why the Constitution excluded them from taxes. It's also why if you visit the Navajo reservation in the Southwest, you will see you are visiting the "Navajo Nation." Note that current US Title 8 gives citizenship to "Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe [emphasis added.]

So you are saying that Children born of citizens from other nations do not become American Citizens just because they are born here? Great! We agree! My point exactly!

Slaves, since they were property, did not have citizenship rights. (Do you know of any country where slaves were citizens with citizenship rights while still slaves?)

Place of birth! Place of Birth! Nothing else matters. Anyone born here is supposed to be a "citizen" just because they were born here. (according to your theory.)

And I'm so glad you were physically present when James Madison gave his speech so you could attest that his "comment" was "offhand" instead of part of his prepared speech.

I am so glad that your arguing style is so infantile that it poses not a threat to the truth. And now you have pounced on the trifle of the word "offhand" because you can do no better with bigger points of fact.

[DiogenesLamp]

Good try, but no. That part of the Naturalization act dealt with those born outside of the US. You have now decided that agreeing that McCain met conditions for “natural born” when born OUTSIDE the US, now means all those conditions apply to those born inside.

Yes, I agree that to be a "natural born citizen" you must be born of two citizen parents and that those conditions must also apply within the United States. Exactly! We are in Agreement once again! (though I suspect it is only because you keep sticking your foot in your mouth.)

Again, if you are taking the resolution as binding on conditions for natural born, it now means that only those born on a military base qualify. Logical fallacies abound.

Yes, in your world they do. (Again we agree on something!) The Military base is incidental, it is the born of two citizen parents that is the salient point. Naturally you seize on the trivial in an attempt to misdirect the significant. The "Naturalization act of 1790 indicates the founders weren't concerned about the PLACE of birth, only whether it was to an American father or not.

[Dakkster]

Your link brings up a question that has been puzzling me: Did Barack Obama Sr assassinate Tom Mboya?

The first time I read Sally Jacobs article ‘A Father’s Charm, Absence’ (and also her joke of a book ‘The Other Barack’), I wondered why Barack Obama Sr’s was not considered the leading suspect in Tom Mboya’s assassination.

Here is an excerpt from Sally’s article:

‘On a hot July weekend nearly 40 years ago, Barack Obama Sr. was SHOPPING on a busy Nairobi street when he ran into his friend and mentor Tom Mboya, one of Kenya’s most charismatic political leaders. The two chatted for several minutes and Obama kidded him that his car was illegally parked.

“I told him, ‘You are parked on a yellow line. You will get a ticket,” Obama, the late father of the US presidential candidate, would later testify, according to press accounts at the time. And then the two men parted.

MINUTES LATER, Mboya was shot twice and died in a pool of blood. It was a crime that convulsed the newly independent nation and would, in Obama’s eyes, trigger a steep decline in his own promising career. Then 33, and a freshly minted government economist, he testified in the ensuing trial, an act which probably enraged those responsible for Mboya’s assassination.’

A similar account of Tom Mboya’s assassination is given in the book ‘Tom Mboya: The Man Kenya wanted to Forget by Goldsworthy’:

‘Shortly before one o’clock Mboya and Nundu left the office. Down in the Treasury car park Mboya told his driver to go home, got into his car and drove off alone. A few minutes later he drew up in Government Road outside Chhani’s Pharmacy. The shop had just closed for the weekend, but Mboya was a regular and valued customer at Chhani’s and often called there at this hour on a Saturday. ... As Mboya got out of the car a man he knew, a free-lance photographer, asked him casually what he was doing there at that time of day. `Just SHOPPING’, Mboya replied.

...Outside the shop, seven or eight feet from the door, stood a young, slightly-built African, DARK-SUITED, holding a BRIEFCASE in his left hand.’

Here is a list of evidence leading towards Barack Obama Sr as the leading suspect in Tom Mboya’s assassination:

(1) Barack Obama Sr chatted with Tom Mboya just minutes before his assassination and was shopping just as Tom Mboya said he was was shopping.

(2) The suspect was dark-suited and an elegant dresser and was carrying a briefcase as shown here:

`On July 5, 1969, a quiet Saturday afternoon, Tom Mboya returned from an official trip to Ethiopia and, at around1 p.m., stopped by a pharmacy on Government Road. As he came out of the pharmacy, a young Kikuyu named Njenga Njoroge, wearing a suit and carrying a BRIEFCASE, pulled a revolver out of his pocket. He fired twice, hitting Mboya both times in the chest. He died almost immediately.’ (’The Bridge’ by David Remnick)

Obama Sr was always known be wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase as shown below:

a)’He loved style and elegance. A tobacco pipe, a parted hairdo, and generosity were some of his conspicuous trademarks...He [Obama Sr] drove the latest car models, wore the best suits, and drank the most expensive whisky brands. ...Always neat in his dressing and sometimes sporting a brown leather jacket, he says Obama, whom they referred to as Barry, would go for the best drinks and finest brands of cigarettes.’ (’Obama’s dad and his many loves’ by John Oywa)

b)’On occasion he even sported a elegant silk tie. Whereas most students carried their books in a loose jumble, Obama chose a trim leather BRIEFCASE.’ (’The Other Barack’ pg 100)

(4) The suspected assassin Njenga was a mechanic and a sapper - making it unusual for Njenga to be wearing a suit on a Saturday afternoon.

(5) Njenga was about the same age of Obama Sr at the time.

(6) Njenga proclaimed his innocence and said he was a friend of Mboya’s as shown here:

‘Protesting his innocence, he claimed that he had known Mboya for nine years and regarded him as a friend.’ (Tom Mboya: The Man Kenya wanted to Forget)

(7) Nine witnesses to the shooting failed to identify Njenga in police line-ups.

(8) In ‘A Father’s Charm, Absence’, Obama Sr said he was the only one to have seen the assassin, but did not reveal the assassin when he testified in court. As Njenga was convicted, then what use or purpose then was Obama Sr’s testimony?

(9) The statement “His testimony was the nail in the coffin,” by Caroline Elkins (associate professor of African Studies at Harvard University) in ‘A Father’s Charm, Absence’, doesn’t make sense then as Obama Sr said he wasn’t allowed to reveal the assassin even though Njenga was convicted. Caroline Elkins statement, therefore puts her own credibility into question.

[MestaMachine]

Well, you’re here in spirit. That helps. All of this, every little bit helps. I sat here day after day, night after night burning my eyes out reading everything I could get my hands on. Read all the Hawaiian statutes up until the day owebama was elected and all the revisions. Found some really strange stuff and I realized that Hawaii has odd rules for birth certificates. They can be selfsworn with information YOU provide, and if you swear to it and have it notarized, they will accept it.
So all the info on his colb was provided by himself. Like his father’s race, for instance. That’s why it was a FRAUD, but not a forgery. There is a difference. I can’t seem to get that point across. HE is a fraud. He knowingly committed fraud. It is prosecutable. But the forgery thing obscured that. So it is beginning to look as though he will get away with it.

[tutstar]

bump

[DiogenesLamp]

Strawman fallacy. Where did I say that Madison was arguing for "natural born citizen" for William Loughton Smith?

When you introduced the quote into the topic of "natural born citizen" i.e. Presidential eligibility. It is an implicit aspect of the entire discussion, notwithstanding your attempt to sneak "citizen" under the door as the same thing, and then trying to quote Madison in support of your false equivalency.

I have pointed out that Madison argued that the main criterion for allegiance was place, not parents.

And I keep pointing out to you he immediately invokes the man's "birthright" because of his Ancestors, and point out that though Slaves and Indians meet this criteria, none of them were considered citizens, and then further still, it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that "natural born citizen" is not the same thing as "citizen."

If the primary criteria is jus soli: "place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States than that would apply to other situations than Mr. Smith.

No it would not. That is a presumption without support of fact. Mr. Smith most certainly was NOT a "natural born citizen" and neither was Madison. In 1758, Subjectude was determined by both birth to an English Father and by being born on English territory. (The better to cast a wide net for servants, otherwise known as "subjects.") That this was the law when Mr. Smith was born in 1758 does not deal with the fact that for the purpose of American citizenship it was no longer true. (As Madison himself would vote 9 months later.)

And now I have work to do, so no answers to any other fallacies you may present until this evening.

If your arguing ability is any indication of your work product, I would hope that you aren't involved in anything important such as something where lives are at stake. I would certainly not want to be in any building you designed. The first woodpecker that came along would destroy it. In any case, to get one things straight, you proffer fallacies, while I proffer legitimate facts and arguments.

[DiogenesLamp]

Rest assured. I have no need at all need to get near your wallet.

Picked enough of others eh?

[DiogenesLamp]

The post I was reacting to suggested that the Madison quote was invented. It wasn't. People who would suggest otherwise are DANGEROUS to this website and the Republic.

You really have little clue about what the Framers meant by natural-born if you think this is cut and dried. I say this as one who started from the position that it referred to who ones parents were.

You are not aware of what I know. You would do better to show me arguments in favor of what YOU know, rather than unknowingly denigrate what you think I know.

English law of the time was jus soli, French law was jus sanguinus. Most of the States used jus soli law because English common law was ubiquitous in English colonies. The founders were aware of both systems, and the evidence is that they rejected the jus soli, and adopted jus sanguinus in terms of the national government. That they would have to accept the state's usage of jus soli because it was the common standard, was axiomatic.

The Federals (founders) broke with English law on many points, among them rights for the people, support for the Anglican Church, and the relationship of individuals to their national government.

The Fact is, citizenship by soil imparts no inherent allegiance on the part of the citizen. In a monarchy, this makes no difference because the status of "subject" and "perpetual allegiance" is forced upon the individual through threats of dire punishment. In a Republic that does not claim citizens against their will, merely being born here imparts no sense of loyalty to the nation. That is only imparted by loyal parents who are Americans because they want to be.

You may not see it as cut and dried, but I certainly do, for the above mentioned reasons, and others too lengthy to go into at this time.

[rxsid]

Actually, if you go back and read what Madison was talking about, you'll see it had nothing at all to do with "natural born Citizens."

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html

[LucyT]