Posted on 07/12/2011 9:39:04 PM PDT by opentalk
High-level engineer demonstrates how Nordyke birth certificates used.
A prominent software engineer claims the Obama birth certificate released by the White House was forged by using as templates the birth certificates of twins born in Hawaii one day after the president.
The engineer, a high-level programmer for a state government, spoke on condition of anonymity...
.... He believes forgers used the registration numbers of the birth certificates belonging to Gretchen and Susan Nordyke, 10637 and 10638, to create the Obama birth certificate number, 10641.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The fact that Medical care would be free was a big bonus, and would be entitled to the son of a Kenyan.
The BC has been nailed as a cut and paste collage. The evidence is irrefutable at this point. If he was born in Hawaii, with his current name, It would be simple enough to prove. A hospital would have the record, and it seems they don't. It seems the Hospital has not taken credit for this because they can't back it up. They probably have all the records from all other births from that period, all but the Hussein document.
It's up to we the people to toss this arrogant contemptuous petulant smug little prick out of the White House.
“The latest court case will probably be dismissed before any evidence can be collected. All past Presidents never guarded their birth records with such efforts. There’s a reason. As they say, his Birth Narrative is a crock of shit.
It’s up to we the people to toss this arrogant contemptuous petulant smug little prick out of the White House.”
And that’s exactly what should happen on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2013.
“The Canada theory is making sense. It looks like any one in Blaine WA would have went to White Rock Canada for hospital care. Only a 5 mile ride to the Hospital. Peace Arch Hospital opened in the 1950’s, so that would be the most likely birth place.
The fact that Medical care would be free was a big bonus, and would be entitled to the son of a Kenyan.
The BC has been nailed as a cut and paste collage. The evidence is irrefutable at this point. If he was born in Hawaii, with his current name, It would be simple enough to prove. A hospital would have the record, and it seems they don’t. It seems the Hospital has not taken credit for this because they can’t back it up. They probably have all the records from all other births from that period, all but the Hussein document.”
It doesn’t have to be an either/or. It could be a both. Zero was born at Peace Arch Hospital in White Rock, British Columbia AND his grandparents arranged for Dr. David A. Sinclair to submit a false American birth record for him from Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu so that he could “be born” with American citizenship.
Hospitals don’t maintain records of routine admissions and procedures such as an uncomplicated birth for 50 years. Just as Kapi’olani’s only record is the birth certificate signed by one of their attending physicians, Peace Arch probably has no record of a birth there either or it would have surfaced by now.
The state of Hawai’i did record a birth certificate for Zero on August 8, 1961. We know that from the Index file of all 1961 births. The 1961 Hawaii Index File says that they have a “Birth Index for Obama II, Barack Hussein, Male.”
The Health Bureau sent birth information to the two local Honolulu newspapers for publication on August 13th and August 14th, 1961.
Just because there is a 1961 certified Hawai’i birth certificate doesn’t necessarily mean that there was an August 4, 1961 Hawai’ian birth.
All 50 year old birth certificates are hearsay evidence unless there is still someone alive who witnessed the birth first hand.
A way to counter the birth documents that have been produced in a court of law is by presenting legitimate birth documents from another location or by eyewitness testimony.
Perhaps someone should check to see if Peace Arch Hospital forwarded birth information to local White Rock or Vancouver newspapers.
“There are several reasons to believe he was adopted, not the least of which is that his sister Maya said so.”
No she didn’t. You’re construing her denial of an allegation to be an admission of that allegation.
“If not under Hawaiian law, then certainly under Indonesian law.”
Way to keep your options open. In developing a conspiracy theory, it’s pretty standard to have contingent arguments. (”Even if JFK wasn’t assassinated by Suspect A, then certainly he was assassinated by Suspect B.”)
“There is also evidence to indicate that by 1970 his mother let her Parents adopt him.”
No there’s not.
“Notwithstanding the fact he was LIVING with them, she no longer claimed him on her 1973 tax return. They would at the very least have had to have some sort of guardianship document.”
No, that’s not true either. The IRS has four qualifications to claim a dependent. Residence, age, support, and relationship. Relationship includes, and this is a quote from the IRS, “the taxpayer’s child or stepchild...or a descendant of one of these.”
Do you seriously think that every grandparent raising a grandchild in the US has to adopt the grandkid to claim the kid as a dependent? Or are you so desperate to justify your adoption theory that you’re willing to just make up tax law without even bothering to check if it’s accurate?
“Dr. David Ramsey.”
So I pointed out that Birthers can’t produce any Constitutional professors willing to vouch for their theory that Presidents must have two citizen parents, and your rebuttal is to name someone who’s not a Constitutional professor, not even a lawyer, who’s been dead for almost 200 years, and who wasn’t part of the Constitutional Convention that adopted the natural born citizen requirement.
If that’s the best you can do, that just strengthens the argument that Birthers are lacking in living, breathing Constitutional scholars that back their theories.
“Apart from that, you are arguing the “Fallacy of Authority.” Look it up if you do not know what that is. (An Argument isn’t valid because of WHO agrees with it.”
That’s true to an extent. It’s certainly true in science. But law is a matter of consensus. When the Supreme Court is presented with a question of Constitutional interpretation, it’s the majority opinion of the Court that becomes binding precedent.
Could Birthers get a majority of the Supreme Court to agree that the President must have two citizen parents? Could Birthers get even a SINGLE justice to say that? Remember, before the Court ever rules, they’ll hear arguments and read briefs. Can Birthers identify a respected Constitutional lawyer who would argue their position to the Court? Could they rally the support of Constitutional scholars who would submit briefs saying that the President needs two citizen parents?
In short, no. Every Constitutional scholar in the country would say that there is NO requirement for the President to have two citizen parents. There’s no credible support for the opposing view, outside of a handful of Birther attorneys and non-attorneys who post on internet message boards. Even some Birther attorneys themselves, like Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, say the two citizen parent stuff is crap.
And the Supreme Court certainly isn’t going to take seriously legal briefs from online bloggers with no legal experience, claiming that they’ve discovered the ‘true’ meaning of the Founders.
The law is a matter of consensus. And when that consensus is universally against you, you’re wrong.
Dr. David Ramsey passed away in 1815.
I would like to hear from an acknowledged constitutional scholar who is alive in the 21st century comment on the two citizen parent theory.
I want to hear from someone of the stature of Judge Robert Bork, Judge Kenneth Starr, former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, anyone on the Board of Directors of the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute or perhaps a current or former conservative Republican state Attorney General or a former Chief Justice of a state Supreme Court.
Well said. I do like what Corsi is doing, but none the less, I agree with you completely.
They are *NOW*. They were NOT then. You overlook the strength of this argument. Hawaii is put into the position of having to argue that a document it previously considered inadequate for it's own use, must now be accepted by everyone else because THEY SAY SO. You are putting the "change by whim" policy of Hawaii over the constitutional obligation to secure the truth. Any Judge that thinks a State Bureaucrat ought to be able to decide The Nation's qualification's for President on their say so, is an IDIOT. (Probably a Clinton or Carter appointee. Those are ALL idiots.)
There have been well over 100 judges who have presided over pre-trial and trial hearings and appeals for Obama eligiblity lawsuits. No judge or panel of justices has requested that Hawaii present an original birth certificate. I just don’t see that happening. If either Obama’s attorneys or a plaintiff suing Obama’s attorneys want to get a court order for a copy of the original document, that is permissible under Hawaii law.
The Judges have blocked every attempt to get the matter into court by asserting the ridiculous notion that No individual citizen is injured by a false President. These activities convince me that they are DESPERATE to avoid this issue, mainly because they are terrified of where it will lead. By the way, Hawaiian law says a birth certificate can be provided to any election official who requests it for the purpose of an election. Of course if the state won't certified it as original, that is a pointless exercise.
Zero’s position is that he is the first candidate to ever place a copy of his birth certificate on the web and its been there since April of 2008. If anybody wants to see it, click a mouse. And now if anyone wants to see a copy of his long form, go to whitehouse.gov
And neither one will tell you that you are seeing the real thing. THAT is the entire problem. Hawaii WILL NOT assure anyone that what they are seeing is genuine. They keep certifying it with lawyer "cop-out" words rather than a punishable by perjury statement. Till someone puts their neck on the line and claims under penalty of law that it is a "true and correct copy of the original record..." as far as i'm concerned they are wasting everyone's time. Proof that isn't proof is useless.
Being raised in a foreign country is one of the things the founders were worried about. Even if it turns out that his sperm donor was an American, he himself is VERY UNAMERICAN.
Actually, it's images like that that make me think the BC's anomalies must just be computer artifacts. The 'R' there is clearly of a piece with the background, while the other letters are separate from it somehow. So if it were a paste-up job, that would have to mean somebody pasted in a bitmap 'R' from one source and merged it with the background, but pasted in other letters from a different source and didn't merge them with the background. The idea that someone would create a document that way is, to me, way more improbable than the idea that the scanning, optimization, and PDF'ing process created some inconsistencies.
People today have NO IDEA how people behaved and Acted in 1960. Getting pregnant out of wedlock was considered highly shameful, and many girls were sent away. Having Sex with a black man in 1961 was a felony in 26 states. (If I remember my research correctly.) Getting PREGNANT by a black man was something which might have gotten them killed in many states and ostracized in many others. It was about the most scandalous thing a girl could do. That Madelyn Dunham's co-workers claim that she never mentioned she had a grandson makes it seem likely to me that Kansas girl Madelyn was very ashamed of it. Hawaii may have been very racially tolerant, but much of the nation wasn't, and I suspect Madelyn's parents were aghast because of their Upbringing.
All of this makes it completely reasonable to wonder whether Stanley got Shipped off to Uncle Ralph, or Aunt Eleanor, rather than that she remained in Hawaii.
Alternatively, it could be that Stanley never told her parents about the Marriage or that the father was black, it may be the result of their discovery of it after the child was born that CAUSED Stanley Ann to Leave quickly for Washington. That scenario has plausibility as well. The "Marriage" occurred on Maui, probably to keep it a secret. None of Barack's friends were aware Stanley was even involved with him.
I recall reading something on this very issue, but i'm not sure where I read it. Apparently people HAVE requested information regarding a possible birth in Canada for Barack Obama. (Presuming Stanley Ann Gave up that name rather than an alias of some sort.) According to what I recall reading, the Canadian officials are rather cavalier about providing such information, and can take up to a year to decide whether or not they will even entertain the notion of giving it to you.
There *IS* a claimed Canadian "Change of Name" document for "Barack Obama" supposedly found by a lawyer named "Pidgeon," but I don't put much stock in it. Seems far too fishy for me. Still, I find it odd that a Lawyer would claim to have gotten it from Canadian Government officials if in fact he did not.
You annoying person. You are going to make me look this up again. I find it strange that you would even know about it. One who thinks the subject is nonsense ought not to have bothered finding out all the "refuting points." Here is what she said:
Maya Soetoro Ng: You mentioned the adoption laws of Indonesia that you saw as related to my brother's legitimacy (you were suggesting that because my father, his stepfather, had adopted him, that my brother was no longer American) and I said that I had no idea about Indonesian adoption law."
You are arguing that she is simply repeating the accusation. I am arguing that she is repeating the accusation and not denying it which she likely would have were it not true. I read it as her tacitly acknowledging that he was adopted. But that is not the only piece of evidence that supports an Indonesian adoption. Since you know about this one, How about you tell us of the OTHER pieces of evidence you know about that support the Indonesian adoption theory?
“If not under Hawaiian law, then certainly under Indonesian law.”
Way to keep your options open. In developing a conspiracy theory, it’s pretty standard to have contingent arguments. (”Even if JFK wasn’t assassinated by Suspect A, then certainly he was assassinated by Suspect B.”)
We aren't talking about a "Conspiracy" and we aren't talking about JFK. Only a dishonest debater introduces CRAP into the discussion to obfuscate. Adoptions are LEGAL and they are NOT a conspiracy. They DO result in fake birth certificate which are passed off as genuine. I have one of those.
“There is also evidence to indicate that by 1970 his mother let her Parents adopt him.”
No there’s not.
Yes there is Smart @ss. Since you know what Maya said, please tell the class what evidence *I* am referring to, or admit you are ignorant about the subject you are discussing.
“Notwithstanding the fact he was LIVING with them, she no longer claimed him on her 1973 tax return. They would at the very least have had to have some sort of guardianship document.”
No, that’s not true either. The IRS has four qualifications to claim a dependent. Residence, age, support, and relationship. Relationship includes, and this is a quote from the IRS, “the taxpayer’s child or stepchild...or a descendant of one of these.”
Yeah, we aren't debating IRS policy, we are pointing out the fact that as far as Ann was concerned, he was no longer her dependent. Whose dependent was he? Her mom and dad's. Tell me, How does a Grand parent take legal responsibility for a child for several years without a document which grants them custody? Madelyn Dunham was a bank Vice President. She was not an idiot. She knew how to do things properly. If you think she didn't get guardianship papers of some sort, then you are daft.
Do you seriously think that every grandparent raising a grandchild in the US has to adopt the grandkid to claim the kid as a dependent? Or are you so desperate to justify your adoption theory that you’re willing to just make up tax law without even bothering to check if it’s accurate?
It isn't the tax law we are discussing. That is tangential. Do you know anything about Bank loans? Do you know anything about ordinary legal procedures? Hawaii may have been laid back and indulgent of relaxed rules and laws, but at some point in the next 8 years of Obama's life living with his grandparents, someone was going to demand proof of guardianship. Should he have gone to a Hospital or Doctor for a medical procedure, their assertion's of him as their grandchild would not have been sufficient. Again, Madelyn Dunham was a Bank Vice President. She KNEW the correct way to do things, and I have little doubt she did them that way.
I can't wait to see a freedom of information act request for Stanley Armour and Madelyn Dunham's tax records for that period. It ought to establish the truth one way or the other.
Again, your knowledge is interesting in how you know things you shouldn't know if you consider the issue irrelevant. One does not desperately argue an issue they feel is of no consequence, they simply walk away. Your persistence and knowledge which you pretend is sufficient for rebuttal says more about you than what you actually write.
Dr. David Ramsey was a contemporary Historian and Scholar. In that regard, he likely has more accurate Knowledge than all your modern law professors put together. It doesn't even make any difference. Your "fallacy of authority" argument is a fallacy. One would think an educated person would know this.
If that’s the best you can do, that just strengthens the argument that Birthers are lacking in living, breathing Constitutional scholars that back their theories.
Another fallacy masquerading as an argument. You are asserting that because something hasn't been proven, it is therefore false. No, it is unproven. Didn't they teach you logic in college? You Must have a job that doesn't require it. Lawyer or Government employee i'll wager.
I actually know of Two (so far as I have bothered looking) modern Constitutional scholars that support the "birther" position. Google them yourself. (Clue for one: Gold and Blue. Clue for other: Congressional report.) You are failing in your opposition research on this one. You should have KNOWN about this the way you knew about Maya's statement.
“Apart from that, you are arguing the “Fallacy of Authority.” Look it up if you do not know what that is. (An Argument isn’t valid because of WHO agrees with it.”
That’s true to an extent. It’s certainly true in science. But law is a matter of consensus. When the Supreme Court is presented with a question of Constitutional interpretation, it’s the majority opinion of the Court that becomes binding precedent.
Yes, the legal system has made a FEATURE out of what Science and Engineering regard as a FALLACY. "Precedent." The previous opinions of others unencumbered by the need for reasoning from "first principles." It is the "fallacy of authority" run amok, and THAT is how the Legal system works.
If Engineers built buildings the way the Courts Built our legal system, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization!
Could Birthers get a majority of the Supreme Court to agree that the President must have two citizen parents? Could Birthers get even a SINGLE justice to say that? Remember, before the Court ever rules, they’ll hear arguments and read briefs. Can Birthers identify a respected Constitutional lawyer who would argue their position to the Court? Could they rally the support of Constitutional scholars who would submit briefs saying that the President needs two citizen parents?
At this point, the courts don't want to be involved. They are using legal dodges to avoid answering the question. Even should it get to the Supreme Court, the 4 Liberal Judges will rule against, the 4 conservative Judges will rule in favor, and the Nitwit Kennedy will decide the issue for everyone. FACTS by DEMOCRACY! Let us not pretend it is otherwise.
In short, no. Every Constitutional scholar in the country would say that there is NO requirement for the President to have two citizen parents. There’s no credible support for the opposing view, outside of a handful of Birther attorneys and non-attorneys who post on internet message boards. Even some Birther attorneys themselves, like Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, say the two citizen parent stuff is crap.
The fact that the Legal system is full of nonsense does not change the actual facts of History. They are simply substituting power for accuracy, and the two are not interchangeable. It took the courts something like 200 years to clarify the SECOND AMENDMENT, which is plain as day, so why should anyone expect them to expeditiously get Article II correct? I personally don't care what Judges, Courts, Lawyers, and Precedent's declare. I have done my own research, and I have yet to see a single thing that conflicts with my understanding, and No, I don't give a Sh*t about subsequent court decisions. Furthermore, if you cannot come up with an argument based on contemporaneous information circa 1790, then as far as I'm concerned, you don't have any sort of argument even if you have all the constitutional scholars in the Nation on your side.
And the Supreme Court certainly isn’t going to take seriously legal briefs from online bloggers with no legal experience, claiming that they’ve discovered the ‘true’ meaning of the Founders.
Yes, they are imperious Chicken Sh*ts. Claiming that someone has insufficient "Legal experience" engenders in me the same reaction that I have toward politicians who declare that someone has insufficient "Political experience." It is the firm belief that when the people who make up the system are consistently doing things WRONG, Achieving horrible results, then the answer is to get people who do not have their "experience."
The law is a matter of consensus. And when that consensus is universally against you, you’re wrong.
Vox Vocis Ex Cathedra. Galileo: "Yes your holiness, the Sun DOES go around the Earth." Give me a break. Facts are not decided by consensus of our Clerical Courts, or any other body. They are "Declared", and the followers obey. I prefer to live in the real world.
In one of the recent books about him, they interviewed some boys he knew in Indonesia. They explained that he wanted to be President of Indonesia so that the other two boys would be working under his orders.
In America, we think of the president as serving the people and leading. We don't think of ourselves as servants to the president. This is why he bows to other world leaders. His mindset is that he is a benevolent king, and an equal to other kings. And when kings visit foreign kingdoms, they bow.
The Indonesian culture became a part of him. His contempt for all things American is seething. It drips from his tongue when he speaks.
Why?
I want to hear from someone of the stature of Judge Robert Bork, Judge Kenneth Starr, former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, anyone on the Board of Directors of the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute or perhaps a current or former conservative Republican state Attorney General or a former Chief Justice of a state Supreme Court.
Odds are they know less about the issue than you do. What I have discovered in my own research is that there is a wealth of information that isn't common knowledge, and unless you specifically go looking for it, you won't likely be aware of it. I assure you that most Lawyers and Judges have not delved into the intricacies of an Obscure constitutional provision. They may be experts on General Principles, but get them into the cul de sac of something rarely of note, and I bet they don't have much of a clue.
Did YOU know that Benjamin Franklin used Vattel's Book "Law of Nations" as a cipher code book to communicate with his Agents in Europe?
The methodology of the lawyer types is to find "Precedent." Why think for yourself when you can let someone else do it for you? The Fact that they won't be able to find a correct precedent won't stop them from applying an incorrect one.
Just for example sake, Say a Mexican couple cross the border and have a child. They go back to Mexico. The child grows up to be a wildly popular sports star and then settles in California.
He Then runs for president.
Is this Mexican man, born of Mexican citizens and raised in Mexico, who will surely have Mexico's interests in mind, qualify? Why shouldn't Obama qualify if he doesn't?
If this Mexican is elected, and then allows complete uncontrolled immigration, and the Mexican army crosses the border into California, would we be surprised if he did nothing? We have Turkish women coming here from the Islamic world, giving birth. Their intent is to bring Sharia law here one day. Do they qualify?
Common sense tells us that Neither qualify, and neither does Barak Hussein. The sons of foreigners are not natural born citizens for Obvious reasons.
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.