Check out graphics at # 1,047 .
Thanks, Brown Deer.
Posted on 04/27/2011 6:09:26 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Edited on 04/27/2011 6:22:09 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
(CNN) The White House released President Obama’s original birth certificate Wednesday.
The surprise release follows recent and sustained remarks by businessman Donald Trump, among others, that raised doubts as to whether the president was born in the United States.
YES, This is not ALL of the information.
am I reading this correctly an Osteoporosis doctor delivered Barry?
I still have it up on my computer, I have no idea how to take a screen shot.
I use Firefox, can anyone help me?
Check out graphics at # 1,047 .
Thanks, Brown Deer.
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html"
Perhaps it's been pointed out already in this 1000+ comment thread...but in case it hasn't:
Statue 1401 can be found within the U.S. code under TITLE 8—ALIENS AND NATIONALITY, and mentions nothing about "natural born" Citizens. It can not, anyway, as Congressional statues can not define who a "natural born" Citizen is. If it were possible, the Naturalization Act of 1790 would have been preserved (instead of being repealed by the Act of 1795)
“(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf";
“MYTH #2: Lynch v. Clark ( a New York State case, not federal) is legal precedent for Obama to be considered a natural born citizen.
Despite the fact that state court cases have absolutely no legal weight of authority in federal court, Obama eligibility supporters cite this case often. Attorney Collins tears the decision to shreds and exposes its faulty conclusions.”
No, they are not the same. In the layered “BC”, which google has now removed, that is does not appear in a layer, then appears alone in another layer.
I have no idea how to use screen shot (Firefox).
Why are the O’s in “Oahu” raised, and the O’s in “Obama” not?
My answer to # 1,019 ping..................
Now, we all know what the 0b0z0butts’ talking points were all about in the last few days.
“No matter what 0b0z0 shows, it’ll be debunked as forgery!”
That’s the heavy artillery softening positions before the “big release” invasion, so to speak.
Let me tell the 0b0z0b0ts that Dan Rathers’ “forged but factual” Bush documents were debunked totally in a matter of days on this very site.
This is NOT a “Birth Certificate or Certificate of Birth,” rather (pun intended) it’s a Loooooooong COLB a la the one that was on the Internet for years.
The bad news for 0b0z0butts and regime is that the full debunking of the digital crap is well under way and it won’t be DAYS this time, it’ll be a matter of hours!
Remember 0b0z0ids, it’s not the forgery; it’s the COVER UP, STUPID! 0b0z0 can run (not in ‘12) but he can’t hide.
It all depends when The Donald’s experts will check, digest what’s on FR and other sites and RESTART THE BULLHORN ON THE SAME SUBJECT.
I’m waiting for the “education” records of this illiterate in the BathHouse to come out!
They are the same font. That is a simple fact comparing them side by side. If they landed in different layers it is because the Stanley S was weaker and got left excluded during image processing. Same as the R in BARACK up top.
If you are correct and the image was created digitally from several different layers, it sounds like the exact same technique used in the creation of the CERTIFICATION of Live Birth (Short Forms) posted on the pro-Obama web sites back in 2008. FReeper Ron Polarik demonstrated technically how that fraud was accomplished on a series of YouTube videos.
Stanley....flat (and blurry. That S showed up in one of the layers, alone). Student......not flat.
typewriter with manual shift for Caps.
That language that you quoted has nothing to do with the president’s constitutional qualifications. Had you bothered to quote the entire paragraph, rather than an excerpt, you would have noticed that Hamilton believed that the means by which the Constitution assures us that a person beholden to a foreign state will not be appointed to the presidency is due to the existence of an Electoral College composed of citizens of each state elected by the people thereof (and the members of the Electoral College cannot be officers of the U.S., who may be corrupted). It’s funny how the stylistic change of “born a citizen” to “natural-born citizen” was not deemed by Hamilton to merit even a mention in his Federalist #68 on the mode of electing the president.
Anyhow, here’s the entire paragraph written by Hamilton on how the Constitution’s Electoral College protects us from a foreign power imposing a president beholding to its interests:
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
Did you not see this part of the citation in #920?
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
The whitehouse PDF is extremely low quality. I recommend you ignore it and use a higher quality image like the one I linked above.
Yes, 18b are the exact handwriting!!
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.