Posted on 12/15/2016 4:30:41 PM PST by Fractal Trader
A years-long forensics investigation into the computer image of the long-form Hawaiian birth certificate image that Barack Obama released during a White House news conference during his first term and presented to the American people as an official government document reveals it is “fake.”
It also confirms those who were subjected to the derogatory “birther” label from many media outlets and Democrats for badgering Obama with lawsuits, petitions to the Supreme Court, and more, were right – at least in the dispute that the document was manufactured and the questions about Obama’s birth and legitimacy to be president under the Constitution’s requirements still are unanswered.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Its hard work, but somebody’s got to do it! :)
An Obama political strategy from the beginning of his first campaign in 2007 until today is to “leak” easily disproven disinformation to key operatives in the mainstream media and then quickly “disprove” their own leaked disinformation. It has worked like a charm for nine, going on ten years.
Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals advocates this, particularly when the disinformation can embarrass or humiliate your opponents.
That's not entirely true.
If born in a foreign country, that child could be a naturalized citizen of that foreign country, depending on their laws of citizenship. Thus becoming a dual citizen with divided loyalty's owed from birth.
Of course, with English Common law, that wasn't possible (from their perspective) as the subject owed a complete and permanent allegiance to the one sovereign (King or Queen).
The framers obviously came to the conclusion that they went too far in 1790, repealing the relevant specific part with their next major citizenship act. Otherwise, they would have left it alone had they thought it was ok.
To remove as much doubt on citizenship & loyalty as possible, they went with the one and only definition of "natural born Citizen" they were well acquainted with.
That definition for "natural born Citizen" comes from the well known and celebrated Vattel's Law of Nations regarding nautural law (& not the King's law). They openly read from it at the Federal Convention during the drafting of the Constitution regarding other matters. Natural law, btw. was the internationally accepted legal authority that allowed us to separate from the perpetually owed allegiance to the crown (see references in the Declaration of Independence).
George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), Wednesday, June 18, 1788:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states." - From the father of our Bill of Rights.
You're welcome. I consider that background to be one of the more important things I discovered relating to this issue.
However, I would disagree with the reason why the framers scuttled "subject" in favor of "citizen". The term "subject" inferred subordination to the state, while the framers considered the individual to be "sovereign".
So you are thinking they would keep the English law principle of creating a "subject" but call just call it something else?
I am arguing that they adopted the usage of the word "Citizen" because they got this usage of the word from what Vattel had written in his "Law of Nations" instruction manual for creating a Republic. That book of his landed in the Colonies like a hand grenade. Indeed, it appears to be responsible for the very earliest stirrings of revolution. James Otis cites it in his "The Rights of the Colonists asserted and proved" pamphlets. Vattel's book as much as says that the United States should be formed.
"Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted."
At this time in history, there is no other philosopher of natural law suggesting such a thing. As all the nations in the world save Switzerland were Monarchies, asserting that people should form a "Federal Republic" would have been tantamount to treason. The Kings of Europe would not have looked kindly upon such agitation for the overthrow of their rule.
Switzerland was the only nation in which such a thing could be voiced, because it had overthrown it's monarchy 400 years earlier.
Otherwise, I'd contend that the 1790 & 1795 laws regarding citizenship clearly indicate that the framers (who were part of the legislature at the time) wanted every benefit of citizenship conveyed to children born abroad of an American citizen father -- including eligibility for the presidency.
They do not make that clear at all. In fact, the 1790 and 1795 laws make it clear that prior to these laws, foreign birth (with an American father) automatically precluded citizenship, and they further make it clear that having a foreign father also precludes citizenship. Whether they intended this law to affect Presidential eligibility is not clear one way or the other. Being a "citizen" is not necessarily the same thing as being a "natural" citizen.
Such citizenship was an accepted part of British common law because Britain's far-flung commercial interests required British subjects to be far-flung across the globe themselves. A child was no less British because he was born in India of a British father and a maharani.
Yes, but statutory law was created to address this issue. English common law made these people aliens until statutory law was created to change this condition.
It was not until 1932, as I recall, that the U.S. parental citizenship requirement was modernized to make the mother the co-equal of the father -- but the requirement remained one citizen parent.
It was the "Cable Act" of 1922 that initially allowed women to pass on citizenship, and it was the Women's citizenship act of 1934 that expanded it into roughly what we have today.
But such acts cannot amend constitutional law. To change constitutional law, it requires an amendment, not a redefinition of the word "citizen" based on Congress's power of naturalization.
In 1787, a "natural born citizen" had to have an American father, and the mother's citizenship status was immaterial to the point.
Right. Call it something else because a "sovereign individual" was anything but a "subject".
I am arguing that they adopted the usage of the word "Citizen" because they got this usage of the word from what Vattel had written in his "Law of Nations" instruction manual for creating a Republic.
I get that. But disagree with you. There is no reason to believe they borrowed this usage from Vattel because it's not apparent they borrowed anything else.
“I have seen articles written by a person or person’s that attended Columbia at the same time Obama claims, and this person or person’s say they never saw him.”
I believe that was Wayne Allyn Root. He’s been blogging about the Obama enigma for years.
An we know this for a fact...how?
The fact is that we are all guided by our opinions of what the framers meant...because they never bothered to define the exact meaning of those fateful words. The subsequent citizenship laws define the terms "citizen" and "naturalized citizen" -- but fail to address "natural born citizen".
So we are where we are, reliant on disparate opinions.
“...the word “Citizen” itself demonstrates that we followed Vattel’s “Natural Law” , and not English common law. Had we intended to follow English common law, we would have kept using the word “Subject.”
Well done. I wholeheartedly agree.
Exactly! And the poster I was responding to said this...
"I just watched a few minutes of that ridiculous video. Their first point was wrong about the copy paste. Those old typewriters had a habit of typing out of horizontal alignment."
So tell me what you think he was referring to, this new information or old information?
“I’ve read articles by his white ex girlfriend. Essentially made him sound like a cold hearted angry user.”
I remember reading the same report, but I never bought her claim to have once been his girlfriend. Only one such claim, by only one woman in his past, is a mighty thin resume for an allegedly heterosexual man.
There’s ten times the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence pointing to him being a lifelong homo.
Yes scripted, I was quoting you. Your post is a good one.
> A child was no less British because he was born in India of a British father and a maharani.
That’s not true. The foreign-born children of English fathers could themselves become subjects by naturalization. See for example this 1541 statute.
33 H. 8. c. 25 Stat. Realm Vol. 3
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000017915533;view=1up;seq=929
The best dead ringer for obummer I ever saw was Pete O’Neal who was the founder of the Kansas black panthers. Zero’s alleged egg donor was from Kansas, if I recall correctly.
‘I’m sorry that, some 55 years later, you are unable to locate any source that places Stanley Ann at the residence near this date, but that’s neither here nor there.’
Your dishonesty knows no bounds. The Obama-sycophantic biographers are not just now, today, beginning their search for traces of SA in HI. Obama has been in the spotlight for nearly a decade. Plenty of people were located who placed SA in HI BEFORE her pregnancy. A whole cabal of SA admirers who remember her from HIGH SCHOOL, gather yearly in WA to celebrate her life. Smh.
It’s just her pregnancy that is a black hole. That is a fact. And I’ll be honest with you:the hypocrisy or stupidity—whichever it is—of Obots is mind-boggling. Are you people simply thick as planks, or do you just not mind appearing that way, if it’s in service/servility to Obama?
And fewer and fewer Americans give a flying **** what the MSM says. That’s why they are freaking out mightily, laying off staff etcetc. They’re becoming irrelevant.
Vtw, if her parents’ house was Stanley Ann’s usual residence, then why wasn’t she there during and after her pregnancy?
Btw
So how do you explain that her birth certificate gives the father's race as "Hawn-Caucasian-Chinese" and the mother's "Hawn-Caucasian-Korean"?
Those aren't racial categories that the federal government recognized.
When the birth was reported to the federal statistical authorities, somebody would have to put that into one of the federal government's codes, but here you have in black and white racial categories on the birth certificate that aren't federally recognized.
If her birth certificate is legitimate, then state authorities weren't confined by federal regulations when they filled out birth certificates.
The federal interest in the matter relates to statistics. They wanted to know how many children were born whose parents were White or Black or Chinese or Japanese or American Indian. The feds didn't have any authority over the records that states kept of births for their own use or the use of their citizens.
In most states, it was straightforward in those days and what's on birth certificates probably corresponded to the federal categories, but things were complicated in Hawaii racially. Their categories didn't always match up with federal categories, and the feds didn't have authority under the Constitution to interfere with the state's internal record-keeping.
In U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to rule on: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”
“To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet be was not born subject to the ‘political jurisdiction’ thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”
The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that: “[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
“…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.”–U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
When the two citizen parent theory was tested concerning the natural born citizenship of Barack Obama, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–Indiana Court of Appeals
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.