I definitely see discrepancies!
Posted on 03/29/2011 10:44:31 AM PDT by Smokeyblue
Donald Trump learned the hard way this week that if you're going to call on the president to release his official birth certificate, you'd better do the same.
Trump, who has been putting pressure on Obama lately to make public his long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, decided to set a good example and release his own on Monday. Only problem was, the certificate that Trump provided to the conservative Website Newsmax wasn't his actual birth certificiate, but rather a "hospital certificate of birth."
On Tuesday, Trump, who is contemplating a presidential run in 2012, sought to correct the oversight, providing a copy of his official birth certificiate issued by the New York City Department of Health to ABC News.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
To recap, you claimed the COLB didn't have the registrar's signature. I posted a link to a photograph that shows it does. You then posted a link to a long, rambling blog that touches a lot of topics, but does not, as far as I can see, refute my photographic evidence of a signature.
So I don't have to sift through thousands of words of poorly-written verbiage, would you mind summarizing how you think that blog post refutes my photographic evidence of a signature?
Are you talking about the signature on the back of the forged document that you keep posting? So I guess the back of that paper has been notarized! Everything on the back is legal. Forget about the front of the paper. That is just typewritten stuff that can’t be notarized or signed.
If you can’t take the time to look at the blog that Brown Deer posted, then why do you hang out on these threads to debunk everything that anyone ever states. You don’t seem to have the time to follow up on any details.
This tells me that you are just here to stir the pot. How much do they pay you to do this? I need a job and would love to take on a position. Unfortunately, I would have to side with the opposition, so I guess I’m at a loss there.
next?
Hey Brown Deer Check this out:
First State Registrar stamp states:
I certify this is a true copy of the record on file in the Hawaii state department of health
3rd State Registrar stamp states (which is on the back of BO’s Certification paper):
I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State department of health
So I assume that the back of BO’s birth certificate which is blank allows them to state that this is a true copy or abstract - meaning that there is nothing there to see. LMAO
Sometimes I just crack myself up!
I’m open to suggestions. For now, just the fact that the most annoying of all trolls was engulfed in zot flames is good enough for me. :) [Though I do wish I could pin a medal on the Mod that pulled the trigger. The service he/she rendered to FR should not go unsung.]
Yes it is. This is what you posted earlier:
Stop with your nonsense! In the case of 0bama's fake COLB, it is not signed by the official custodian of birth records
I just quoted it back to you! Are you blind?
the biggest discrepancy I see is that the Onaka signature IS A SIGNATURE on the first two examples, BUT IT'S A STAMP on the forgery. With that STAMP I could 'certify' just about anything...
Dude. Go look at post 368 above. This is what you wrote:
"Stop with your nonsense! In the case of 0bama's fake COLB, it is not signed by the official custodian of birth records, so cannot be used as primary evidence of birth for a U.S. passport."
Are you denying you posted that? Or did someone log in and post that without your knowing it?
There's been a lot of water under the bridge since then. For instance, blacks are no longer only 60% human. That was all settled by the unpleasantness of 1861-1865, followed by the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. United States
became a singular noun.
The fact remains the founders didn't write the definition of natural born
into the Constitution. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on it directly. Nobody raised an objection to Obama's well-known parentage when he ran in 2008. Even the birthers were then stuck on proving he was born abroad. They didn't raise the parentage issue until the Kenya birth theory ran out of steam. Find a Vattel thread from before the election. If the Court ever does address the issue, look for them to find that natural born
simply means citizen by birthright. They are not going to go with some esoteric Vattel argument at this point. Even if they actually bought it, it would seem contrived to fit Obama's facts.
If I were to take your view, all Bin Laden needs to do is impregnate one of his wives, send her somewhere in the US to give birth....take them both back to his cave and raise his son to hate America then ship him back to fulfill the 14 year residency requirement later in life, have him run for political office after age 35, then viola instant natural born enemy sitting in the oval office to destroy us from within. Do you REALLY think that's what the founders had in mind when they wrote that requirement into the Constitution??!?!?
You can dream up all sorts of Manchurian candidate scenarios. If you're good, maybe you can write a best-seller or sell a hit script to Hollywood. But it is not possible to write a constitution that foresees all possibilities. In the end, you have to rely on the judgment of the voters.
True, he was not as bad his kid.
But, as Hugh Hewitt likes to say about elections, "If it's not close, they can't steal it." In 1960, it was close in Illinois, and Daley tipped Illinois's 27 electoral votes into Kennedy's column. It was also close in Texas, where Landslide Lyndon worked to tilt the state's 24 electoral votes to Kennedy. Between the two, they put JFK in the White House.
In 2000, his son worked hard to tip Florida's 25 electoral votes to Gore, but fortunately failed.
It's not something else! It's the same thing!
Your interpretation of the 14th amendment is woefully inadequate and completely erroneous.
Furthermore, the 14th amendment never changed the definition of Natural Born, it merely addressed citizenship - PERIOD.
The author of that amendment Rep. John Bingham (OH) - said: "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." [Congressional Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866)] Bingham said the very same thing Ramsay did decades earlier.
The fact remains the founders didn't write the definition of “natural born” into the Constitution.
They didn't need to. As Ramsay proved (along with Bingham) the definition was commonly understood by all. Today's liberal indoctrination camps we call public schools have so dumbed down education in the name of political correctness, that critical thinking skills are no longer taught or even recognized, with the result that analytical thinking is a thing of the past. No longer can Americans (like yourself) add 2 and 2 together anymore. No longer can they even ponder the consequences of certain actions or even have the ability to think through things logically. Just because you have become a tool of the left and can't think critically doesn't mean the same applies for the rest of us. Some of us aren't products of liberal institutions. The truth is still there for those who want to look for it, or you can choose to continue to be a liberal tool and keep repeating all their myths as you did in your previous post to me. Your choice.
Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on it directly.
Again, they didn't need to, it was understood by all. But nevertheless there were many cases where the subject was brought up and SCOTUS to date has never re-defined the term.
Nobody raised an objection to Obama's well-known parentage when he ran in 2008.
You must have been living on Mars then. It was all over the place in 2008! It was all over FR in 2008!! Berg brought it up and the first cases against Obama were winding their way through the courts prior to the election. Donofrio brought it up! Taitz was working on it!! The very first thing Obama did on the day he was inaugurated was to issue an executive order sealing all his records. Who does that??? Honestly...WHO DOES THAT??? You are either blind, a fool, an idiot, or a troll for making that statement. Your choice.
Find a Vattel thread from before the election.
How about we go back almost 36 years to the year 1975. I was a senior in High School taking the required Government class in order to graduate. Guess what we were covering? The constitution and all its articles. Guess what one of those articles was? Yep, the natural born requirement for POTUS. Guess what the teacher taught? That 'natural born' means jus soli + jus sanguis (TWO citizen parents on U.S. soil). Guess what his text was? Vattel and Bingham. Now the million dollar question is: If I was personally taught that almost 40 years ago, why wasn't anyone else in the country taught this????? Of course I don't live in a liberal controlled section of the country, the teachers were not yet brainwashed into political correctness, and at the time they actually still taught facts instead of a political agenda so perhaps that explains it.
You can dream up all sorts of Manchurian candidate scenarios
Awwww....isn't that cute....the need to resort to personal insults so you'll feel better??? Okay I'll respond in kind if that's how you want to play.
You sir are an IDIOT. Are you not aware of "maternity tourism"? Still living in that bubble somewhere on Mars? So all these women coming into this country for the sole purpose of getting citizenship for their babies, then skeedaddling back across to the caves they came from is just a figment of everyone's imagination??? And because you're ever so much smarter than everyone else, none, zip, zero, nada, of those citizenship tourism babies would EVER think of returning as an adult and claiming all of their rights and privileges even though they've probably been raised with anything other than American values???? And of course NONE of those babies could EVER have a father who may be a terrorist with designs against this country?!? Nah, that could NEVER happen, only Hollywierd could believe that one! YOU SIR ARE AN IDIOT.
God save us from fools such as yourself. You and yours are far more of a threat to our sovereignty, and our liberty than any Manchurian candidate could ever dream of being. If I have to rely on your pathetic judgment then we are indeed screwed.
Thanks I'll pass on your 'judgment'. Unless you can produce a BC that proves you are over 200 years old and were present during the writing of the Constitution, or until such time as you can produce documentation from the National Archives that Ramsay was wrong -- I'll take HIS and Bingham's DEFINITION over your flawed one any day of the week.
You can blabber about this all you want to repeating all the troll talking points but you're still just farting in the wind.
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.