Posted on 04/28/2011 4:14:46 PM PDT by Music Producer
New Birth Certificate – Same Old Shell Game
Dean C. Haskins
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.
Obama cannot afford for that to happen.
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.
No. I am not referring to the documents SeeBS faked. Bush actually unsealed his military records and they showed that he performed his military service adequately. Even after this action, the left continued to insist that Bush got special treatment during his service and that the official military records were "faked."
If they lie to violate the constitution, which Roosevelt and Wilson did, it was actually worse than lying for personal benefit. If you think that Obama is the only one who is shamelessly unethical and power-mad, you haven't read much about either of these men.
Must have!
Unfortunately, there have been worse names than that...
Sorry, but that is not the way the HIPAA law works. You can write a book describing every detail of your hospitalization and surgery, but without your written permission to authorize disclosure, the hospital can't say a thing. Silly, but that's the way the law is written.
My assertion is based on how most plea bargains work.
You're asserting that there exists some sort of conspiracy involving 0bama, the state of Hawaii, a hospital there and possibly a large number of people, starting in 1961, to claim that 0bama is ineligible to serve as president.
You then compound that by suggesting, without any proof, that a spectacular event occurred in a court case involving someone who volunteered himself to be a test case concerning the same.
I'm asserting an event that probably took place, and using background garnered by studying how most criminal cases are resolved in the USA (something like 80% to 85% of all criminal cases end in plea bargains). You're asserting that two grand conspiracies took place. Which sounds more credible?
I think you're right to use quotes. Wasn't it alleged that the documents, although duly filed by the proper personnel, were completed untruthfully under political coercion? That is "fudged", more than "faked." I suppose your point stands that minds are hard to change on either side.
If Obama had nothing to hide, why would he risk the suspicion of having the birth certificate be released through the White House instead of directly from the hospital in Hawaii?
Indeed, but we're supposed to be better than that. As far as we are concerned the birther issue should be off the table. It is over, resolved... even if we don't like the outcome, the facts are the facts. Now that 0bama has so graciously removed that weapon from his arsenal we can hammer him on his complete and total ineptness in handling the presidency.
I would include Johnson, Ford, Clinton and Obama.
I disagree. This pdf doesn't really answer anything, as I see it. It's true that many of the objections raised seem spurious. I was impressed by the fact that it's layered, but as a naif in these matters, I had to accept the notion that scanning could account for it. I mean, I do search Google Books. In fact the observation that "none" was split into two layers argues for it being a scanning artifact, since the "e" was darker.
But what about that background? Surely this is not original! Look at the way it's melded around three edges with the apparent cut at the binding. This is clearly, by gestalt perception, not a photostatic image of some physical document. But why not? Why alter the background? I remain very disturbed by this particular point.
“It is over, resolved... even if we don’t like the outcome, the facts are the facts.”
If that weren’t so pitiful, it would be hilarious!
First, the image itself is not even physically possible. I dare anyone to produce a scan of a single sheet from a bound volume that looks anything like that. It is not a scan, copy, or photograph of anything real—and Obama knew that before he released it.
And, second, how could it be “over” when nobody has brought the “natural born citizen” requirement to the forefront? He’s not eligible, and he knows it.
Now that The Donald is satisfied with the level of free publicity he received about the birth certificate, it appears we need another “celebrity” to shout about the NBC clause.
From what I could see, it looks like this is a scan of a document that probably no longer exists in physical form. Most states no longer keep paper records of things like birth certificates anymore simply because it is too much trouble. I know that in the case of my children, both born after 2008, there is no paper birth certificate per se. When I requested a certified birth certificate for both of them, I got an officially-stamped piece of paper that had the information that would have been recorded on a birth certificate. The document 0bama presented looks like it was originally stored on microfiche, so at best we'll get a picture of what the original certificate actually looked like, but not the original piece of paper.
Please cite which provision of federal law that would make 0bama not qualify as a natural born citizen. The US government doesn't make a distinction when it comes to citzenship outside of a birth citizen or a naturalized citizen. Do you have evidence that 0bama was naturalized? Because outside of the 14th amendment, someone born in the USA, to a mother who was a citizen and thus here legally, is a citzen.
Both parents need to be US citizens at the time of birth for the child to be natural born.
That's what I want to know. What part of the law says this?
And this, from the author of the 14th Amendment:
John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862: Who are natural-born citizens but those born in the Republic? […] [P]ersons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.[13] He reiterated his statement in 1866: Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.[14]
U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401 doesn't mention this at all.
Sorry man, we just have to accept it. Way back when this first started, I wanted it to be true. I prayed it would be true. I hoped it would be true. That's how much I wish it was true. But there's so much overwhelming evidence that it is not true that we can't continue believing it anymore.
“We rightfully dismiss such people as charlatans.”
Referring to Vattel is comparable to being “loony left”?
Boiling it down to the key point:
[quote]
... 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... 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...”
[unquote]
[unquote]
“Part of me still thinks and hopes that Trump is simply biding his time with the evidence that Obama just handed him on a silver platter...”
Doubtful I’d say. The radio/FoxNews circuit appears to be roped in now.
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.