New Birth Certificate - Same Old Shell Game

In a previous article, I posited that Barack Obama had created, and was choosing to perpetuate, a clandestine shell game by obfuscating his long form birth certificate. On April 27, the White House, apparently begrudgingly, released an image it claimed was that illusive document. Obama himself stated that he authorized the release because “we do not have time for this kind of silliness. We've got better stuff to do. I've got better stuff to do.” And with that, he was off to attend to Oprah Winfrey.

Suddenly, the talking heads, whose combined intellectual resources lack the firing power of a cheap Chinese cap gun, started gloating like they had just won a playground scuffle; for, to them, everything remained right with the world, and their lord and savior had just delivered the knockout punch in the Armageddon they had worked so hard to avoid even mentioning for more than two years. For them, the definitive proof had finally been delivered to quell a “tiny group of crazies.”

Of course, the “conservative” talk show hosts and anchors had to proclaim the same thing, for if they dared venture into the realm of constitutional truth, it would be discovered that they were either complicit in the original fraud, or that they are simply not reliable sources for factual information. So, the Fox News crew, along with the other “conservative” truth-purveyor counterfeits, joined their collective hands with the Obama gospel preachers, and sang a resounding chorus of “He Gave Us the Proof, Yes, Definitive Proof.”

Alas, the definitive proof had indeed been proffered, but it wasn't the proof that the pundits and so-called “journalists” imagined it to be. What it was, as it turns out, was evidence that Obama continues to fear the Constitution so much that he will purposely fuel the fires of conspiracy to redirect the general public away from the fact that he does not, and cannot, meet the constitutional qualifications to be president.

Ask yourself this question: what, since the presidential campaign, has been the single biggest issue that has fueled the “birther” movement? It has been that computer-generated Certification of Live Birth the Obama camp released. That poorly constructed image has been the topic of a litany of articles and videos, most of them dealing either with the fact that the most typical of birth certificate information was missing from it, or that both professional and amateur forensic document examiners had discovered careless mistakes in its creation, easily determining it to be a poor forgery.

Enter Donald Trump. For once, there existed a prominent celebrity who dared wear our tin foil hat in public, and was able to shout so loudly that the media elite could not just ignore him. And, to many in the birther movement, he was the David they had been awaiting to defeat their formidable Goliath. I, for one, have no problem crediting Mr. Trump with doing something that nobody else had been able to accomplish; but, that was only to have drawn national attention to the issue, and nothing else. While Trump touts that he was the one to have forced Barack Obama's hand, he really did nothing but play into it. Having garnered publicity of vast value, he has now moved on to other constitutionally “urgent” matters, like report cards and such. We'll see how much free media attention that grabs for him.

On its day of release, it didn't take long for even the layest of the lay computer user to recognize obvious issues with the newly released image; and, as the day wore on, the mounting evidence of its not being a scan, copy, or picture of anything real continued to grow. By the end of the day, it was more than apparent that, once again, Obama had released a computer-generated image with possibly contrived information on it.

At day's end, I was stumped. Why would Obama have released such a poorly thrown-together computer image? He's had more than two years and nearly endless financial resources to produce something that not even the most savvy computer geeks could decipher as a fake. He's even got the CIA at his disposal, and it wouldn't take them long to produce a believable Hawaiian birth certificate for Alexander the Great! I drifted off to sleep in bewilderment that Obama had, again, released such an obvious forgery. It just seemed so much like a D-level high school student's attempt to hand in a plagiarized book report the day after it was due.

It was the next morning before it hit me . . . and hit me, it did. It was not careless. It was not inept. It was not a mistake. It was, actually, quite brilliant, in a street hustler sense. I realized that Obama did not end the shell game he had been propagating, he simply upped his advantage by pretending to reveal the “pea.”

Obama didn't have to supply anything for his supporters to believe everything he has told them to be true; they're the ones who still believe the former forgery is real. He's had everyone who is anyone in the media dismissing anyone who doesn't believe it as a nutwhack. So, he didn't release this latest image for any of them. He didn't even release it for Donald Trump, as much as Trump would like to believe he did, for Obama's base has never looked at The Donald as anything more than a “sideshow.”

But, suppose Obama had actually unveiled the holy grail of evidence—his real birth certificate (the one mentioned in “Dreams from My Father”). Suppose, also, that it revealed nothing contrary to what he and his minions have claimed all along—that he was born in Honolulu, HI in 1961. And, it included all those pieces of information that original birth certificates generally do. What would have happened to the birth certificate debate? It would have magically disappeared.

He has purposely kept everyone arguing about the birth certificate, and that allows the media he controls to keep their snarky comments within that arena alone, allowing the pundits to quickly dismiss all birthers as idiots. What Obama cannot allow to happen is for any thoughtful discussion about the meaning of the “natural born citizen” requirement in the Constitution, because he knows he has already lost in that one. That's why one never hears any dialogue about that in the media, for the only conversational paths his media can trod are about the birth certificate, or that Obama is a “citizen.” The commentators know they are being dishonest by claiming he is a “citizen,” as if that were the constitutional requirement.

Natural born citizen. It is not hard to understand what that is with even the most cursory level of research. Historically, there has only been one definition, and it has never changed. And, neither has the constitutional requirement itself, for that would take a constitutional amendment. Even in internet forums, the “constitutional authority wannabes” claim that, because the term was not defined within the Constitution, it either has no meaning (hence, the idea that the only requirement is being a “citizen”), or its meaning is up for interpretation and debate. That is simply not true, as any good researcher knows.

To contextually determine the historic definition of a word or phrase, one must view its definition within historically contemporary primary and secondary sources. The Constitution is actually a secondary source, as it was fashioned after a primary source: Emmerich de Vattel's “Law of Nations.” In “Law of Nations,” Vattel defined a natural born citizen as one who is born on our soil to citizen parents. That is the primary source definition, and that definition has never been altered—not through amendment, nor by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the framers chose to include that specific requirement as part of a president's eligibility. It really does not matter why they included it, only that they DID include it; and, having included it, it is part of the highest law of our land.

The fact that so many internet “Einsteins” don't understand the meaning, or significance, of the term does not alter its definition—as much as they would like it to.

Barack Obama's father was never a US citizen, so it doesn't matter if Junior had been born in the Oval Office, swaddled in the American flag, and nursed by Betsy Ross. He has been constitutionally ineligible since the day he was born, and he has already lost that argument before it is ever publicly started.

So, why did Obama release an image that could have been produced by a teenager with a pirated copy of Photoshop? Because it keeps those who know he is ineligible writing articles and arguing in internet forums about the fact that it is a forgery. His congregation will argue its veracity until they reach the eternal home he has prepared for them, and those who know better will continue, in vain, to try to convince them otherwise (and be labeled “lunatics” in the process, because “He Gave Us the Proof, Yes, Definitive Proof”).

It won't be until the public discourse turns to the legal requirement of “natural born citizen,” and the fact that Barack Obama is not one, that his shell game will be brought to an end, and Barry knows that. He will continue to do anything he can to keep the birth certificate shell game going; but, forcing the issue to be his ineligibility because of his father's citizenship will scare the “pea” right out of him.

Sounds like a good idea. Heck, he can even be all hopey changy and maybe have the dept of records sell copies and donate the proceeds to some children’s charity.

At that, if he doesn’t do that, it is proof he hates children because he is depriving them of the proceeds it would raise.

apparently begrudgingly, released an image it claimed was that illusive document.

I respectfully disagree. He was waiting for a good time to release it (whatever it is). Part of his ongoing war war on us. Bringing down the country and mocking us (typical whites) while he's at it.

He's got us running around chasing our tails. Trump for president?!

He still adds nothing to debate.

Do I really need to copy and paste my previous response, as it answers your earlier suggestion that the Lakin case adds nothing to the debate when in fact it did?

I'll throw it to you then. Do you have solid, irrefutable and unquestionable proof that this birth certificate is a forgery, or that 0bama, the state of Hawaii or someone else important is lying, or that the naturalization laws of the USA in the 1961 bar someone like 0bama from being a considered a natural-born citizen?

Is there such proof, to that high of a standard, or is all that is left now flaccid arguments like "oh there's a halo on top of this letter so it must be fake!"

Why is it that a FReeper has to mention this truth when we have an entire Congress that just sits there mute and does not participate in this all-important matter?

Disgusting!

“The House did vote to make each of these men president, thereby giving their final stamp of approval as to the legitimacy of the election.”
As someone else rightly pointed out, it doesn't matter if a Presidential candidate's parents are foreign born, as long as they became citizens prior to his / her birth, the natural born requirement is met.

Congress voting for anything that is Unconstitutional is the same as “it never took place”. The fact that it was wholly owned by Obama’s party at the time precludes their even looking into “legitimacy”. Nancy Pelosi and the DemonRATs knew full well that Obama was / is unqualified and a fraud.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for anyone to do anything about it.

Of one thing I am absolutely sure: BO is a con man, and his whole career has been based on a con.

What I am not sure of is whether he is a very clever con man or simply a lucky con man. This article posits that BO continues to outwit everybody with his multiple forgeries. I tend to think that he is not that smart.

Of one thing I am absolutely sure: BO is a con man, and his whole career has been based on a con.

Plea bargaining is what a criminal does when he knows that the state has sufficient evidence to get a conviction that will land him in prison for a long, long time

It's also something you do when you can't afford a trial (which is why, many moons ago, I was convicted of disorderly conduct. It wasn't worth $5000 to win the case.)

The same registrar’s name appears on the birth certificate of Edith Pauline Coats.

No kidding? LOL! Uke's parents must have had a few drinks when they named him.

Every single president has to lie out of necessity and for good reason. It's the ones who do it for for themselves or for reasons detrimental to the national interest who are to be reviled.

In my life, there has been one president who was as honest as he could be: Ronaldus Magnus.

What matters is not if the parent is foreign born, but if the parent was a citizen at the time of the child’s birth.

Correct. I am not natural born. My younger sister is. Difference? Mom became a naturalized US citizen in between.

It's also something you do when you can't afford a trial (which is why, many moons ago, I was convicted of disorderly conduct. It wasn't worth $5000 to win the case.)

I am going to assume that you didn't purposefully violate the law in order to serve as a test case to challenge the constitutionality of the law that you were accused of violating.

On the other hand, Lt. Col. Lakin purposefully chose to disobey orders, end his military career on a dishonorable note, and risk a criminal conviction and a prison sentence for the purposes of serving as a test case to challenge the eligibility of 0bama. The problem of course is that the law was on 0bama's side and there was no way that Lakin could mount a defense against it. In light of these facts, the most likely reason that Lakin pleaded guilty was to get a lighter sentence because had he chose to fight he would have been convicted of more charges and ended up serving even more time.

Part of the reason for his decision to pursue the case was for the discovery it should have allowed. When that discovery was unjustly denied, there would have been no way to mount a defense. Hence, the plea. He had no choice, considering the grossly unethical judge.

When that discovery was unjustly denied, there would have been no way to mount a defense. Hence, the plea. He had no choice, considering the grossly unethical judge.

And had be been convicted, instead of having pleaded guilty, he could have appealed on these legitimate grounds. When Lakin pleaded guilty, he essentially agreed with everything the trial judge did, including all of the trial procedures, conviction and sentencing.

They too claimed that Bush was able to "fake" the real documents.

What? CBS came up with some obviously faked documents, which were supposed to discredit Bush. I think the "fake document" shoe is on the same foot.

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.