Hmmmm, several points here again. The press? Names please! My understanding they did not see the "documents" but where given PHOTO COPIES!!! Next, were any independent documents experts were allowed to see the "documents"?<quoted text>
Answer: Obama has allowed the press to see the official physical copies--the legal documents--of both his short form and his long form. He cannot allow anyone to see the original documents in the files because they are not under his control. The official physical copies, on security paper with the seal on the back, are the legal documents.
In contrast, Romney has shown only an image of a photostat of his short-form birth certificate. The embossed seal cannot be seen. There is no doctor's signature. And, it has not been confirmed by any official or by any Index Data.
There is no "remarks" section on either Obama's short-form or the long-form. However, the officials in Hawaii have made two recent confirmations of the facts on Obama's birth certificate, and in both of them they stated that the facts on Obama's published birth certificate are exactly the same as the one in the files.
Since: May 10
#88688 Jul 2, 2012
#88689 Jul 2, 2012
IF you can NOT find iT,
you do NOT need to be on this forum
with ADULTS talking about 0's INeligibility!
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizenship heads to Supreme Court
#88690 Jul 2, 2012
Actually I never have worked for Obama or for the Democrats or for any political party. But if I did, or you did work for the Republicans or the Conservatives, it would still not change the facts.
Most people believe in the facts, and the facts remain that only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961 and that the Kenyan government says it checked the claim that Obama was born there and that it is false.
Since: Dec 11
#88691 Jul 2, 2012
So... That's a "no" on posting your BC?
#88692 Jul 2, 2012
Lets concentrate on the LFBC only.
Obama released two hard copies and a PDF file.
On the PDF file, the registrar's stamp and date stamp can be moved, as well as other information on the document.
Most importantly, the security paper background image can be turned on and off.
If the PDF file were only a scan of one of the documents that were allegedly sent to Obama this would not be possible.
Neither of the 2 hard copies have a correct security paper background image meaning that they were created from the fraudulent PDF file document.
Did you even check out the video evidence on this link?
#88694 Jul 2, 2012
Re: "Hmmmm, several points here again. The press? Names please! My understanding they did not see the "documents" but where given PHOTO COPIES!!! Next, were any independent documents experts were allowed to see the "documents"?
Answer: The White House passed around both the two official physical copies, and asked for them to be returned, of course. And they provided photostats of the long form as well, these being the copies that the press could keep.
We know that the official physical copy was passed around because Savannah Gutrie said that she had seen the physical copy of the long form birth certificate, and it would be absurd to think that the White House showed it only to her. The AP copy is an image of the photostat. The Savannah Guthrie photo is an image of the front of the official copy.
Obama also showed the official physical copy of the short form to both FactCheck (which has excellent images of the front and the back)and Politifact.
As for document experts. Obviously not, but the White House also thought---quite rightly--that there was no need. Has Mitt Romney's alleged birth certificate been shown to any document experts????
#88695 Jul 2, 2012
You must be devoid of common sense!
How many parents must one have to have been born of citizen parents?
The answer is clearly TWO!
This remains a FACT that your post did not change.
#88696 Jul 2, 2012
WE already KNEW that !
Unexpected turn in eligibility case:'Put it on record!'
'This judge can't get out; if he screws around, he's violating law'
Klayman told WND Obama’s lawyers immediately went into a tailspin and filed to have the amendment for declaratory relief stricken, which the judge granted, arguing he wanted to wait to issue a formal decision in the case. ;-)
#88697 Jul 2, 2012
Did you even check out the video evidence on this link?
I did, and it is still from Sheriff Joe---a not impartial source of information.
Re PDF images being movable. Since this is not a photographic image and the component parts of PDF are separate, who says that they cannot be moved?
Nathan Goulding, chief technology officer of the National Review magazine, dismissed the matter of “layered components” found in the White House PDF by suggesting “that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner.” and adding “I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”
Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”
Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily:“All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.”
In contrast to the claims by birther zealots, three Republican and several Democrat officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that there is a birth certificate on file for Obama and that it shows that the long-form birth certificate published by the White House is accurate. Their confirmation is further confirmed by the Index Data–a list of the birth certificates on file by year, showing one for Obama in 1961:
And these confirmations are still further confirmed by the birth notices that appeared in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers in 1961. As the name implies the notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section only came from the DOH of Hawaii, and at the time the DOH only sent out birth notices for children born in Hawaii.
#88698 Jul 2, 2012
But who says that you have to be born of citizen parents?????
#88699 Jul 2, 2012
Ellen, birthers have not yet figured out what "necessary" and "sufficient" mean in re: Minor.
Give them another 3.5 years or so.
#88700 Jul 2, 2012
So birfoons count get their arses handed to them and count it as a win?
#88701 Jul 2, 2012
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Declaration of Independence 1776
Since: Mar 08
#88702 Jul 2, 2012
Poor willfully ignorant tacky, desperately clinging to his lies.
Well, yet ANOTHER Judge says you are full of sh!t, tacky.
Dismissed with prejudice!
And affirming Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark.
LOSER birthers LOST AGAIN!!!
#88703 Jul 2, 2012
“Lewis would have to reach a decision; he would have to put it on record,” Klayman said.“By amending for declaratory relief, we’re pulling the rug right out from Obama and the Florida secretary of state.”
Klayman told WND Obama’s lawyers immediately went into a tailspin and filed to have the amendment for declaratory relief stricken, which the judge granted, arguing he wanted to wait to issue a formal decision in the case.
But Klayman said his team is willing to file a stand-alone complaint for declaratory relief with Lewis as soon as next week and “pull the rug out from under him, too.”
“This judge can’t get out from under his legal requirement,” Klayman said.“If he screws around, he’s violating law.”
In hundreds of cases filed challenging Obama’s eligibility, the full range of questions – from Obama’s birth records, charged by some as fraudulent, to the Constitution’s meaning of “natural born citizen”– have never been ruled upon, dismissed typically on questions of who has “standing” to bring the challenge.
Klayman, however, told WND,“It doesn’t matter how Lewis rules, the losing side will appeal, and this case is going up, maybe all the way to the Supreme Court.”
Still, he said,“I want Lewis to address the issue of eligibility and create a record, so we can take it up before the election. I’m still confident, hopeful that will happen.
Klayman reiterated the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett definition of “natural born citizen” as a person born in the country of two citizen parents.
“The point is this, your honor,” said Klayman.“The president is not like everybody else. If that was the case the framers would have said ‘citizens’[can be president.]”
Showing 1 of 1790 comments
The rest of the world knows Obama is a usurper. They're laughing at the stupidity of the "useful idiots" like you who are letting Obama get away with "fundamentally transforming" America. They see where we are headed even if YOU don't! People from Communist countries know EXACTLY where Obama is taking us. They saw it in their own countries before they escaped to the freedom of America. Now they're afraid that we won't be a free country much longer and they wonder where they can go when the last great hope for freedom on Earth is gone.
You claim that you're Americans, but you don't believe in anything America stands for. You want some kind of socialist democracy that would kill our Republic. You only believe in freedom for yourself to lord it over other people.You don't believe that people should be allowed to keep the money they earn and that the government has the "right" to take our money and give it to NON-Americans! You believe that everyone should be equal -- equally poor (except yourself, of course)! You believe in "social justice" over the Constitution, which to you means that you can tell the rest of us how to run our lives, what to think and how to feel!
You would have done good in the USSR's KGB, but YOU think you are the "good" guys in all this. But guess what? History will remember you as the traitors that took down America from with-in like Kruschev said you Communists would do one day.
IF, by some miracle, the small band of patriotic Americans that you call "birthers" can have this usurper removed from office BEFORE he totally "transforms" America -- all the better!
There is NO "win" with Obama because he has been "put" in office to destroy America. We will ALL lose, but you "useful idiots" still don't get it!
#88704 Jul 2, 2012
INGLIS v. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR'S SNUG HARBOUR
28 U.S. 99 (____)
>>>>> Supreme Court of United States.
The question then arises as to what was the operation of the treaty upon his son, the demandant, who was then an infant of tender years, and incapable of any election on his own part. It appears to me, that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents, at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be, that children generally acquire the national character of their parents (Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219); and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant
[ 28 U.S. 170 ]
would be deemed a British subject. The argument itself assumes that the demandant now acts officially in that character, and that ever since his arrival of age he has adhered to his British allegiance.
(Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219)
Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently, those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man's country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement (§ 122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member, which comes to the same point; for, to settle for ever in a nation, is to become a member of it, at least as a perpetual inhabitant, if not with all the privileges of a citizen. We may, however, consider the country of a vagrant to be that of his child, while that vagrant is considered as not having absolutely renounced his natural or original settlement.
Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the United States
By United States. Supreme Court, Stephen Keyes Williams, Edwin Burritt Smith, Ernest Hitchcock, Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company
Since: Mar 08
#88705 Jul 2, 2012
And ANOTHER smackdown of Apuzzo.
"We will affirm the order of dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed on him for having filed a frivolous appeal."
Gonna start costing birfoons to file these LYING frivolous suits.
Since: Mar 08
#88706 Jul 2, 2012
Link to the putz's smackdown:
#88707 Jul 2, 2012
The Doctrine of the Three Percent.
The Three Percent are the folks the Founders counted on to save the Republic when everyone else abandoned it.
And we will.
There will be no more free Wacos
and no more free Katrinas.
For we are the Three Percent.
We will not disarm.
You cannot convince us.
You cannot intimidate us.
You can try to kill us, if you think you can.
But remember, we’ll shoot back .
We are not going away.
We are not backing up another inch.
And there are THREE MILLION OF US.
Your move, Mr. Wannabe Tyrant.
#88708 Jul 2, 2012
What is a "Three Percenter"?
During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.
Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders' Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.
The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any futher circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders' Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.
We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.
Add your comments below
|Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08)||4 min||Yeah||1,154,009|
|The President has failed us (Jun '12)||7 min||Coffee Party||292,891|
|Rev. Al Sharpton to meet with Sony Pictures on ...||8 min||VeganTiger||6|
|Ben Carson: Race Relations Have 'Gotten Worse' ...||9 min||xxxrayted||681|
|Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11)||13 min||Dogen||132,589|
|Obama calls on women only at news conference||14 min||Deo Vindice||5|
|Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08)||17 min||feces for jesus||306,983|
|NY judge may toss 4 guilty pleas in inside-trad...||1 hr||Rossadena||2|
|2016 hopeful Ben Carson pledges support for Israel||2 hr||Your Ex||4|
Find what you want!
Search US News Forum Now
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC