Flashback: Obama cuts 2008 Selective Service stamp in half...

7/18/15 | me

[spacejunkie2001]

...and inverted the '08 portion to read '80, then stamped the bottom of a fake selective service form as if he really filled it out. Sheriff Joe's Posse proved that all forms had the entire year in the stamp....but not odumbo's.

When, pray tell, will ANY of the media do their job and search out obamas's fake documents and confront him with it????

[DiogenesLamp]

If anybody wants to inspect the original, they can get a court order from a judge, in accordance with Hawaii law.

In a competent system of governance, the Applicant can submit proof if he wants to get on the ballot. In absence of proof, he is excluded.

But that is in a "competent" system of governance. It is safe to say, such a man as Obama could not get anywhere in such a system.

public records and those records will be accepted in every other state.

When the State of Hawaii has submitted a certified Copy of the document necessary to establish the requirements of Article II, you let me know. Till then, stop prattling on about "States have to accept each other's documents."

Sure. When such documents are provided. They haven't been provided yet.

[CpnHook]

Certain aspects of constitutional law are implicit and axiomatic.

I'm well familiar how "it is axiomatic" in DiogenesLamp-speak means "I'm making this up with nothing to support it other than my say-so."

When you come to terms with how "natural born" modifies "subject" in the analogous sense that "natural born" modifies "citizen," and that is why most all prominent legal commentators applied (and still apply) the birth-rule in the same way from one to another -- then you can perhaps start to claim credibility in comparing guns with birth certificates.

You're not out of the kindergarten level as to why "natural born" means the same thing consistently in English usage.

Certified Original Birth Certificates have become the Normal Way of demonstrating that someone was indeed born in the United States

No, the certified short form is what is normally used for DMV, passport, marriage licenses, etc. Copies of original (long forms) certificates are not the norm, due in part to medical information that is sometimes contained therein. That's why it was a big deal for Hawaii to let that out. It's not often done.

And neither form (long or short) purports to state the citizenship of the parents. You're again just making this up.

[DiogenesLamp]

As to the first two,

You certainly are. Trying to use that Bastardized version of the Amendment grating citizenship to freed slaves to re-write the qualifications for Presidents and to authorize "Anchor Babies" is exactly what you have been doing.

You and William Brennan are a pair. Liberal revisionist bullsh*t artists.

Your opening post to me in 2013 accused me of sophistry on a subject I simply know more than you.

You know less about it than me. You know a bunch of crap that is absolutely wrong, and you are too stupid to let people show you when and where it went wrong, and for what reasons. You are the quintissential Liberal @$$ that Reagan meant when he said:

The Trouble with our opponents is not that they are ignorant... it's that they know so much which isn't so."

You know more CRAP than me. That's what You know.

[DiogenesLamp]

And who would have told him other than Stanley Ann?

Exactly! See? You can catch on if you work at it. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

Your wasting your time with those two obots.

Entertaining myself, more like. Sure, it's a waste of time, but entertainment is often a waste of time.

[CpnHook]

If I had to read your dreck, I'd ventilate my head just to make it stop.

Whether you read my posts or not, the following (which you're wrong about) are all true:

1. I know that citizenship is a matter of municipal (domestic) law, not international law. The Supreme Court backs me up. Who backs you up? No one. You just have to argue that to try prop up Vattel. Sorry, big FAIL on that point.

2. I know that neither Washington (George or Bushrod), Adams, Franklin, Wm. Lewis, John Marshall nor the other "authorities" you try passing off in support said one peep about some "citizen parent" element to "natural born citizen." You read into them what isn't there. Hand-waving pure and simple. Roberts gives you support, but one lone obscure historical figure doesn't get you very far.

3. I know Swift, Kent, St. George Tucker, Justice Story, Rawle, Chancellor Sandford, Justice Curtiss, Justice Swayne -- and others I'm not even bothering with at present -- all clearly articulate that the rule on natural born citizen in the U.S. is is jus soli as to the native born (save for the common law exceptions and Indians). And I can easily produce their statements that show that.

4. I know that every historical text or commentary on the Constitution that speaks on the point confirms that the "grandfather clause" was adopted for the benefit of the foreign-born patriots like Hamilton and Wilson. And I offered James Madison who provides the theory for why Washington, etc. were self-viewed as "natural born citizens." You disagree the clause was for Washington, etc., but then offer not one bit of historical evidence in support nor have you even tried to explain why Madison doesn't make you out to be an idiot.

5. I know that John Bingham wasn't speaking at odds with his "learned friend," Judiciary Chairman Wilson. Your "history lesson" is to force your reading on to Bingham, but then be stupidly silent when pressed as to why neither Bingham nor Wilson (nor anyone else in that chamber) caught wind of this supposed disagreement. Your history lessons are bogus.

6. And I know that Justice Gray was SPOT-ON in his reading of the history of "natural born citizen" and the meaning and impact of the 14th Amendment, because Gray correctly discerned that the 39th Congress in stating they were affirming "existing law" made abundantly clear that the existing law of "natural born citizen" was jus soli ("You're not going to go down the path that Jeff Winston did," you said in your usual snark. Oh, yes, I did. And the results have left you silent.

Now, go on, go hide and bury your head so you can pretend not to hear. It's what you do best.

[Nero Germanicus]

“Supplicant?”

The legal standard in a civil action is “by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Since no one has ever filed for a criminal action, the legal standard of “beyond a readonable doubt” has not been brought into play.

“preponderance of the evidence:”
the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.

[DiogenesLamp]

And you can't appreciate the distinction between publications that circulate nationwide versus a little agency blurb intended for a smattering of publishers?

Yeah, you may have forgotten, (or more like never comprehended) that it is simply on the basis of that "book" which Bill Ayers wrote for that stupid scumbag, that anyone ever regarded this Affirmative action fool as Presidential Material.

That "book" is what made Obama a "thing." Without it, he would be just another ignorant, hate filled Democrat loser. That book made people think he was intelligent. That book is what kicked off his career.

Without that book he would probably still be handing out Ice Cream cones at Baskin Robbins, which is very likely the only job for which he was ever qualified.

Oh, right, the agency bio comes in PICTURE form, and you think that makes your argument stronger . . .

People of your mental acuity usually like to look at pictures.

[DiogenesLamp]

And yet you keep reading them, even all the ones posted to another person.

Skimming. You're efforts are not worth more than that.

[DiogenesLamp]

All anyone would need to do is convince a prosecutor or a congressional committee to look in to whether that might have happened in the specific case of Barack Obama.

When he was a nobody, such a thing would have been possible, but when the Media Industrial complex took him under their wing, objectivity became impossible. Everyone is afraid of the media.

We are now governed by the Media driven "herd mentality", a phenomena not much different from what the Nazis used to persuade the Germans to allow them to do all those horrible things.

[CpnHook]

Trying to use that Bastardized version of the Amendment grating citizenship to freed slaves to re-write the qualifications for Presidents

Was Jacob Howard, draftsman of the 14th Amendment language at issue, a "liberal" when he stated:

"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws..... They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Sen. Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765 (1866).

Was James F. Wilson the "learned friend" of John Bingham a "liberal" when he stated:

"It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86."

Was Justice Sandford, writing in 1845 in Lynch v. Clarke a "liberal?" Rawle in 1827? Kent in 1825? St. George Tucker in 1803? Z. Swift in 1795?

All of these learned men speak to the same principle. (It must be time for a LARGE photo of Bingham about now, right? To make you feel better?)

And, DumbDumb, you still haven't answered: what did the 39th Congress means when it stated it was merely declaring "existing law" on birth citizenship? What was the existing law, if other than what was articulated by these men I've cited? It couldn't be the "citizen parent" rule you espouse, because the slaves would not have been citizens even under the Amendment.

You need to stick to engineering. You've been proven incompetent as to history and law.

[DiogenesLamp]

By contrast, no one in 1787 would have understood "no one except a natural born citizen" to mean "you have to proffer a birth certificate," a thing that didn't then exist.

And this is an example of why it is a waste of time to argue with such an ignorant and deliberately dishonest fool.

Obviously it is beyond your capacity to comprehend a "birth certificate" as an secular evolution of "Church Records."

Yes, AR15s didn't exist either, but only a f***ing sh*thead like you would conclude they must not be covered under the second amendment because they are " a thing that didn't then exist."

Guns throw lead. A Birth Certificate verifies birth.

Duh.

[CpnHook]

That "book" is what made Obama a "thing.

And yet that book says nothing about being born in Kenya, which is an odd omission given your claim he was making that "lifetime" claim.

Of course, the book doesn't state that. Obama had already had it circulated widely in 1990 that he was born in Hawaii.

[CpnHook]

Obviously it is beyond your capacity to comprehend a "birth certificate" as an secular evolution of "Church Records."

And Obama had birth certificates released --in two forms. A majority of the electorate had no issue. The Congress had no issue.

You have an issue. Big whoop. No one has appointed you the standards Czar.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, yeah, that's where one puts original birth certificates -- in the records files.

That is also where you place made up bullsh*t replacement birth certificate records, of which Obama was very likely a recipient.

Hawaiian officials refuse to eliminate the distinction by their carefully chosen verbiage.

And you tried claiming to FW that I'm the one invested personally in these topics due to some supposed issue with some family member. The accusations you make against me again are shown to be pure projection.

Is that a "No"?

Well it is the least idiotic explanation for why you would be an willfully ignorant fanatic regarding the topic. Perhaps I was being too kind.

Perhaps you're just intent on Justifying Obama and Illegal Immigrant "Anchor Babies", because there seems to be no objective explanation for your determination to remain misinformed on the topic.

[DiogenesLamp]

Corroboration Of Birth In Hawaii

No thanks. I tore it apart the first time you presented it, and I see no point in making the rubble bounce.

If you have nothing new in this regard, I believe i'll give it a miss.

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, there's evidence. It just isn't sufficiently dispositive. Stanley Ann is demonstrably in Hawaii during the last Half of August, and it's very unlikely that an Airline would have allowed her to fly with an infant.

Demonstrably in WASHINGTON STATE.

[Nero Germanicus]

In a rational system, the burden of proof is not on the People, but should be on the supplicant for their favor instead. The default position of All State Elections should be “exclude in absence of proof”, not the other way around.

---

Barack Obama placed a copy of his official Hawaii birth certificate on the Internet for the whole wide world to see on June 10, 2008. That was three months before any legal challenge to his eligibility was filed.

That was “proof” enough for 70 million voters and 535 members of Congress.
That it wasn’t “proof” enough tor you...oh well.

“The state of Hawaii says that he was born there, that’s good enough for me.”— Representative John Boehner, Speaker of the House

[DiogenesLamp]

It is you, not the Chief Election Officers in the states who is ignorant of the law.

That's what they tell me about "Gay Marriage" and "Obamacare" too. No, I think i'll stick with my explanation.

[Nero Germanicus]

I didn’t post it for you.

That collective corroborative data helps to explain why there has been so little civil, criminal or congressional traction that would lead to serious and official further investigation.