Agree! BTW,
I managed to download a PDF file (from the White House Web Site) and was looking at what you are looking at.
PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.
1) In Adobe right click over the document and left click Marquee Zoom
2) Now scroll up and down the document (with wheel on your mouse). Look at what you were looking at.
You can clearly see it it in the name Barack (how the R sticks out), and then scroll down the document and you can clearly see the white out with the type over.
And Trump’s enough of a known qualtity and attention whore, for want of a better term, that they can dump on him the way they dumped on Palin and he’ll revel in the attention.
Weren’t the birthers expecting to find that he didn’t have a valid birth certificate? That he was born in Kenya?
The only good thing about this is that we can get Trump off stage and start thinking about a real conservative candidate.
There are several states who are considering legislation that require the president to prove he is constitutionally eligible to hold the office. He is hoping that a release of a document will stop them in their tracks.
What happened to the “things you wouldn’t believe” that Trump’s people were telling him? He comes off looking like Trump the Chump to me.
I think folks are missing the key issue.
If his father had Kenyan citizenship at birth, then Obama’s “natural born citezenship” status is in doubt.
Please note that Natural Born Citizenship is NOT THE SAME as having citizenship at birth. Congress is free to define all manner of people as having citizenship at birth. But the “Natural Born” status in the constitution does not depend on congressional law. It is set theory — many people can have citizenship conferred at birth by congress who are not “natural born citzens”.
The citenship of the parents is a KEY ISSUE for determining natural born status.
Look at these two supreme court cases:
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.
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.
Also the supreme court cases habitually cite The Law of Nations Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, which in translation says:
§ 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. . . .
Natural born does not depend on congressional law at all.
Your research is lacking. The citizenship of the parents is a key issue. This might help:
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.
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.
Also the supreme court cases habitually cite The Law of Nations Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, which in translation says:
§ 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. . . .
Well if all things fail, the GOP will have to beat Obama at the ballot box. Right now they are trying everything else to get Obama off the ballot. Not much confidence in winning on the issues? Sad.
Darn! I forgot a point: If CNN and its sister network Fox “settled” the matter how did they do so without seeing this document?
The truth is CNN and their pals at Fox were trying to make the issue go away. CNN because they were scared to death of it, and Fox because they were scared to death of being called birthers. But as I said “How DID they KNOW Obama was born in Hawaii without seeing this long form birth certificate?”
Since Trump is sucking the oxygen from the room on a lot of other Republican/Conservative candidates. But most candidates haven’t bitten on the birther issue. Some have outright said it wasn’t an issue or they did a dance with words that gave them a lot of rope to go either way. In other words, there wasn’t a lot of blood going to be spilled between the candidates on this issue.
It was only Trump with his investigation that kept it alive.
So why not allow Trump to focus on his more important issues that will now force the other candidates to respond? Those other issues is where the blood will begin to spill. And that will allow Obama and other democrats to divide republicans and conservatives as their candidate(s) jockey for position and wins in the primaries.
I just went to look for it.. my long certificate has mothers maiden name , length of pregnancy, mothers occupation, fathers occupation..exact time of birth , the city and hospital where birth occurred.. ..birth weight and length and the signature of the delivering doctor to verify my birth
I do not think this is the entire document
One thing it does; it shows that Obama, the White House, liberals, the DNC and the media are all liars - the COLB was not the birth certificate, even though they all tried to pretend it was.
He wants to keep the issue alive to discredit the GOP, he said as much in the presser by saying some will not be satisfied...
On the whole O is getting what he wants judging from most of the comments here today...
The BC states that Barry’s father was at the university yet Stanley Ann had no occupation outside the home during the pregnancy.
This is odd, wasn’t she a student at the university as well?
Why wouldn’t she attend school at that time? Did she take a leave of absence?
why is the thing rolled?
why didn’t barry release this earlier, except to punish Lakin?
why didn’t he release the one he found folded in a book?
i think this release is bunk.
why is the original cert of live birth obtained from SNOPES?
barry certainly has a copy of it.
barry IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
barry is a LIAR.
Liquid Paper was invented in 1956. Not widely marketed, but there were other correction “carbons” before then.