Obama's hidden birth certificate now exposed

Originally posted by AuranVector

Originally posted by LErickson
How are you posting this in 2012 without knowing it was pure BS?
I hate when birthers live under the guise of caring about the truth only to embrace every lie that appeals to them

[url=

The faked Kenyan birth certificate

www.abovetopsecret.com...[/url]

That is from 2009.

Please at least get new material instead of recycling old material.
Search is your friend.
Kenyan Birth Certificate returned pages and pages and pages of old threads on this.

The thread that you linked does not have any photos at all.

It has a ton of photos in it?

It has this exact same BC in a photograph in it.

Need me to hold your hand while we walk down that thread together?

reply to post by timetothink


If the British had minded their own business generations ago then native Americans would be running things. Somehow I don't think you would support that. Your argument about minding your own affairs makes no sense since the US is the country that concerns itself with other countries above all others.

And its the US that is full of arrivals from other nations and continents. I bet the founding fathers had no clue when the constitution was written how the country would change. Doesn't mean to say that some wish that they were living in 19th century America though.

On the topic this is a pretty desperate attempt to reignate the BC debate. What makes it all the more desperate is that people in the US are beginning to realise that the 'top' GOP candidates are so awful there is every chance Obama will be back for another 4 years...

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by manna2
Anthony, The Supreme Court of the USA has allready ruled that Obama is not a natural born citizen

Care to show us that ruling? Of course you cannot, as it is just another made up story!!

I do not make up stories, I rely on facts.

Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:
“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

Obama’s problem, by his own admission and records of the State Department is this:

Obama’s father was not a United States citizen.

Therefore, via Minor v, Happersett and the United States Supreme Court in 1875, Obama is ineligible because, since his father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

For a person to run, as his or her party’s nominee for President, the party must issue certification that the person named is eligible under the United States Constitution to become President.

Because the Constitution does not specify the definition of “Natural born citizen” it was left to the United States Supreme Court which, in 1875, defined it as a person born in a country of parents who were its citizens and, Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen.

reply to post by Rafe_

OK! Not to be the bad smell in the room. However, I have many reservations about the validity of these documents. I have a background in document forensics. Firstly, the certified copy of registration of birth. Looks like its missing the cover page. Notice the staple marks top right corner. So what you may say. This particular document very closely resembles a certificate or birth abroad. These commonly include a copy of the registration of birth, from the country in which the child was born. If this is the case he is an American citizen. As far as the "real-deal" birth certificate. This looks to be in swahil. Again the country of birth would register the child regardless of citizenship. As for the certificate of birth. This particular piece of paper is with out a doubt the most suspect of all. I'll explain. Remember where we are! This supposedly came from Kenya. Kenya was ruled by the British empire for nearly 120 years.

The dates on the document are all wrong. Those trained in the British style of English leave some very clear markers in their writing. Spellings are different, as well as the date format. Instead of 8/7/1964 it should read 7/8/1964. The day goes first not the month. Inches and not mm? Since the metric system wasn't completely adapted by the British until the late seventys, this might be a non issue. Although I'm fairly certain the metric system has been used in Kenya for a lot longer.

The letters in the words are inconsistant. There are additional artifacts in certain letters not in others(the same letter). Note: this is not difinitive proof of I credibility, just raises questions. The vertical and horizontal kerning of the words is also inconsistant. Kerning pertains the the spacing of letters. Typewriters don't lose alignment then regain then lose it again. The artifacting I the document looks like a texture added to the photo. The signatures also look over exposed, where the rest of the document has an even exposure.

Now the biggest indicator in my opinion. Is the footprint. Firstly, the image is too sharp the resolution on the footprint is higher than the actual document. However it is a real footprint. Most likely a Photoshop brush. Not to mention the fact that the color saturation is way to high,plus its grey. Where the rest of the text in the document is black. The Hilton Maganga stamp displaces the texture underneath. A common thing in photoediting software. This can be corrected if one knows how to do it. Given these examples, in my opinion. This document in particular in fabricated. However without access to the original its only my observation. Take it or leave it. This does not prove nor disprove his citizenship, but seriously the majority of people now days don't need concrete proof. They just need a reason to believe.

Originally posted by manna2
I do not make up stories, I rely on facts.

no, made up stories

Therefore, via Minor v, Happersett and the United States Supreme Court in 1875, Obama is ineligible because, since his father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

Wrong actually, Obama is naturally born.

www.scribd.com...

Because the Constitution does not specify the definition of “Natural born citizen” it was left to the United States Supreme Court which, in 1875, defined it as a person born in a country of parents who were its citizens

You left out a bit, that shows you are wrong. again.

As usual, the topic falls to worthlessness as people argue with few facts. And I am no different. However...I do know this. As someone who does not like Obama, I am open to him being legally able to be President. I think it is likely that he meets the requirements. But I am open to considering the information presented to me here, to the contrary. I am willing to consider evidence before determining fact.

However...liberals are open to nothing. They won't consider a possibility other than that they wish to believe, and demand others believe. The simple fact that those who "love" Obama refuse to believe that it is possible that he does not meet the legal requirements to be President proves (to me) the agenda. Deny, lie and condemn...as long as they get the outcome they desire...regardless of any truth. Their end justifies the means...even when the means are lies.

So...if I were religious...that would make Obama the King of liars (or lies) and them his blind (unwilling to consider evidence) minions.

You misrepresent, or completely misunderstand, the comment in Minor v. Happersett. First, the case was about women's right to vote, not a question of citizenship. The court noted that the plaintiff was born in the US to parents who were both US citizens so it was undoubted that she was a natural born citizen .... and then said, rather pointedly, it was NOT going to talk about any other situations of birth/parentage because such were not involved in this case. So it very clearly did not decide the issue of someone born to alien parents.

On the other hand, Wong Kim Ark very explicitly involved someone born here to two non-citizens and the US Supreme Court made it clear that he was born a citizen, even using the terms "native born" and "natural born".

reply to post by manna2



I'm sorry, but a minute google search will allow you to find that was overruled by the 19th amendment, in 1920.

Thread number 1,416,863 on Obama's birth certificate.

I DON'T CARE ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's President....DEAL WITH IT!

Originally posted by Shoonra
You misrepresent, or completely misunderstand, the comment in Minor v. Happersett.

No surprises there...

and then said, rather pointedly, it was NOT going to talk about any other situations of birth/parentage because such were not involved in this case.

Funny how birthers ignore that part....

Nice this was just called rubbish on ATS Live!!!!!

Originally posted by manna2

I do not make up stories, I rely on facts.

Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:
“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

Which does not actually say that someone born of a single US citizen parent is NOT a natural born citizen at all.

In fact the judgement went on to say:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

- supreme.justia.com...

So your so-called "fact" is just another case of selective quoting - leaving out that part of the judgement that does not suit you.

In fact this case DID NOT decide who was or was not a natural born citizen at all.

And anyone saying it does is either ill informed (if they were taking someone else's word for it) or a liar (if they knew what it contains and still did said it does determine who is and who is not a nbc)

Therefore, via Minor v, Happersett and the United States Supreme Court in 1875, Obama is ineligible because, since his father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

completely and utterly false.

And hte case law that establishes it is United States v. Wong Kim Ark - in which a person born of 2 immigrant Chinse parents who were not citizens was deemed to be a born citizen of the USA.

Because the Constitution does not specify the definition of “Natural born citizen” it was left to the United States Supreme Court which, in 1875, defined it as a person born in a country of parents who were its citizens and, Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen.

You may now retract this error of yours.

Wong Kim Ark dates from 1897, so is later and supersedes the earlier case if there was actually any conflict.
But since you are simply wrong, and there is no conflict, that is not actually an issue

Decision from Wong Kim Ark

The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States.

reply to post by David9176


Be careful what you ask for....

Jaden

Originally posted by David9176
Thread number 1,416,863 on Obama's birth certificate.

I DON'T CARE ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's President....DEAL WITH IT!

This is what is wrong in the USA now a days everything we get is crap, we get crap from China and accept it, we get crap in the service we are given and we accept it, crap from the banks, crap from the pigs, so why not accept a President that is not eligible to be President, everything else in The USA a is going down the tubes, it's all the same crap ,let it go. Swish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Hey man I'm dealing with it, can ya spare some crap paper, brother.

reply to post by anthonygillespie2012


Obammy was born In what today Is Kenya.

Originally posted by BRIGHT STAR
Obama was born In what today Is Kenya.

And your source for that stupid claim is what exactly?

This topic has been going on for 4 frickin years. Plenty of other things to worry about.

I'm sorry folks but even the GOP freakshow candidates won't even sign on to the fake birth certificate nonsense...and they will damned near say anything to slander him.

You can kick this around all you like, we all know he's a usurper and not a u.s. citizen, but it doesn't matter. I don't like it either, but that's the way it is. At best he's nothing but a joke, put in office by his handlers.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


The case of Wong Kim Ark CANNOT apply to the status of natural born citizen as listed as a requirement to become potus as it is in reference to the 14th amendment and solely gets it's power from the 14th amendment which only grants one the status of citizen and not "natural born citizen". So it cannot supersede a supreme court case in which a distinction is authenticated of natural born citizen being born of two citizens.

The 14th amendment grants that one who is born within the United States of alien parents becomes a citizen, that would mean that if he/she has children with another citizen, then that child becomes a natural born citizen.

Therefore, obama's children would be eligible but not obama himself.

Jaden

p.s. There was a purpose in making the distinction that to become POTUS that you must be a "Natural" born citizen and that was to ensure that no allegiance through paternity to any other country could be inferred upon the highest office and the commander in chief of these United States of America. .

look guys ATS live ruled on this. It bunk. Settled