Supreme Court to hear case on Obama's alleged forged documents

reply to post by micpsi


I'm sorry, but this is total honk. www.thefogbow.com...

Originally posted by kozmo

How can one "prove" otherwise when there has never been legal discovery ordered? Have you seen the original birth certificate? Nope - no one has! Have you reviewed his passport records? Nope - no one has! Have you reviewed his Social Security records? Nope - no one has! The "Evidence" presented on BOTH sides of this issue is suspect. That is why we have courts of law - to settle such conflicts.

To use a liberal argument - if Obama has nothing to hide, then why should he worry about it hitting the Supreme Court? BUT... he has spent millions in ensuring his "information" remains under lock and key. That doesn't seem the least bit suspicious to you? Occam's Razor states otherwise. Where there is smoke there is LIKELY to be fire and this issue has been smoldering for far too long!

Oh please, not these lies again. Yes, someone has seen the original birth certificate.

[ext]"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.[/ext]

usatoday30.usatoday.com...

But I guess she's lying because...... you say so?

No one has ever been able to show adequate proof that Obama has spent millions insuring his records remains under lock and key. Maybe you could be the first to do so?

reply to post by kozmo


I have never seen the birth certificate of ANY president. Nor their social security records, their transcripts, or their passports. I have no legal right to it. And neither do you. And my viewing it would not substantiate anything. I am not a documents expert.

On this issue, those who say "where there's smoke, there's fire" invented the smoke in the first place. There was no smoke, but people didn't like Obama (for whatever reason) so they invented smoke that simply isn't there.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by micpsi

 

Originally posted by micpsi
Barak Obama took the "Harrison J. Bounel" alias that his Connecticut social security number refers to from Michelle Obama's turn of the 20th century ancestor or close friend of the family.

Oh, my LORD! And people wonder why "conspiracy theorists" have such a bad name in the media... There is a recipe for it:

Make up a story.
Add a boatload of assumptions, mix well.
Toss with several chunks of extreme speculation.


Remove any critical thought or fact-checking that may get in the way.
Spread a generous layer of sensationalism on the top.
Fold in some spooky music.

And voila! You have your modern "conspiracy theory"! Enjoy! :shk:

Try doing some research about this discovery and then making some sensible comment afterwards. Perhaps then you will be taken seriously.

While you are at it, perhaps you should check who this was:
s3.vidimg02.popscreen.com...
Bounel was born in 1890, that is the very same year that the supposed owner of Obama's SS number was born....

Continue believing in your miracles of coincidence. It is a hilarious spectacle!

Originally posted by micpsi
Try doing some research about this discovery and then making some sensible comment afterwards.

I have been researching the "Obama is a foreigner" issue since 2007. Here on ATS. A variety of suppositions about his past and legitimacy have sprung up through the years, none of which have been proven to be true. Using birther phrases like "he spent millions of dollars to hide his identity" shows me who needs to do their research.

Originally posted by drmeola

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President. . .

4.-2. Persons born within the United States, since the Revolution, may be classed into those who are citizens, and those who are not.
5.---1st. Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens, and of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States.
6. The act to establish and uniform rule of naturalization, approved April 14, 1802, provides that the children of person who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States. But, the right of citizenship shall not descend to a person whose fathers have never resided in the United States.

I'm guessing the point you're making is in the last sentence of the above quotation, which states "right of citizenship shall not descend to a person whose fathers have never resided in the United States" (keyword: reside, NOT has never been a citizen), in which case your argument fails because Obama senior did in fact reside in the US even if he was not a citizen himself.

See the first line: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" [emphasis added]. Citizen of the the US.

Finally: "Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens, and of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States."

Therefore: children born in the US to non-citizens (aliens) who were residing in the US (Obama Senior) are citizens and eligible, unless you mean since he (Obama Senior) might not have physically been in the country for the actual "birth," that makes Obama ineligible due to a technicality (which is ridiculous to say the father has to be present in the country during his birth--by his mother who is a citizen in the country giving birth). This would only apply to non-citizens giving birth, "of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States," which confers citizenship and being natural-born to the country of birth.

Pretty clear. Obama is eligible based upon the sources YOU provide.

reply to post by micpsi


No, what's hilarious are the endless theories that birthers come up with to try and prove their long-exploded claim that Obama somehow shouldn't be President (despite the fact that he is). Orly Taitz herself is hilarious. And more than a bit pathetic. But what the hell, that's her right of free speech.

reply to post by Liquesence


Statement by Justice Fuller in U.S vs Wong Kim Ark, referencing comments made by Justice Miller in another case: “Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the 14th A, made this remark: “The phrase subject to its jurisdiction was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the Unites States” 13 wall. 73.

As you can see with a father being of foreign citizenship clearly if you read the actual case itself shows that since Obama’s father was not a U.S citizen makes him a non natural citizen of the USA. The rabbit hole goes deep my friends, but as the USA is not nor ever was a country and never nothing more then a corporation since day one I could careless whom is its CEO ie President is. Much to learn start with these may help: www.abovetopsecret.com...

drmeola is citing definitions from the 5th Edition of the Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1854). Evil_Santa's post showing a discrepancy was using the 15th Edition published in 1883.

posted by drmeola
"Here is the link to the most used law dictionary in any court"

drmeola's above claim is no longer true for US Supreme Court and I'm sure the lower courts have followed suit. Bouvier's was the most cited dictionary, in its various editions, up until the '40s. In the '40s and '50s, it was cited equally with the Black's Law Dictionary. Since then, the Supreme Court has increasingly preferred Black's. In the period 1999-2010, The Supreme Court had 103 cases that cited Black's at least once and only three cases that cited Bouvier's. There were more decisions that cited Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary, 73, than cited Bouvier's. (Black’s Law Dictionary: The Making of an American Standard, Sarah Yates, Law Library Journal Vol. 103:2 [2011-12])

posted by drmeola
"its not that the law has changed its definitions they simple made them more confusing to the general reader:"

Actually, the law has changed its definitions over time. I'm pretty sure that the current legal definition of a US citizen does not take into account the following statement regarding the US Constitution: " That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white" ("citizen", para 3, pg 231, Bouvier's 5th Ed., 1854).

Originally posted by drmeola
reply to post by Liquesence

 

I could careless whom is its CEO ie President is.

As a "student of law", you would do well to brush up on basic English expressions.

It is "I couldn't care less" and not "I could careless [sic]". The second does not mean that you don't care at all.

Originally posted by drmeola
reply to post by Liquesence

 

Statement by Justice Fuller in U.S vs Wong Kim Ark, referencing comments made by Justice Miller in another case: “Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the 14th A, made this remark: “The phrase subject to its jurisdiction was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the Unites States” 13 wall. 73.

As you can see with a father being of foreign citizenship clearly if you read the actual case itself shows that since Obama’s father was not a U.S citizen makes him a non natural citizen of the USA. The rabbit hole goes deep my friends, but as the USA is not nor ever was a country and never nothing more then a corporation since day one I could careless whom is its CEO ie President is. Much to learn start with these may help: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you're in law school you should realize that it is proper to use v. not vs. in describing cases.

The case you reference, U.S v. Wong Kim Ark, allows that children born in the US to foreign citizens retain their US citizenship.

That said, just because a justice "made a remark" about his opinion on what the intent of the phrase "subject to jurisdiction," does not mean it's a valid legal opinion, unless in the majority opinion-and it wasn't made in regards to the majority opinion.

Let's read further, and get another legal opinion:

Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:

"The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

16 Wall. 83 U. S. 73. This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse

Page 169 U. S. 679 with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside

emphasis added

Source

And while a previous case, see also Lynch v. Clarke (1 Sand. Ch. R. 583,):

the question was precisely as here, whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn there, was a native born citizen or an alien; and the conclusion was, that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, he was a native born citizen, whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth.

In addition:

A valuable resource of both primary and secondary sources:

What's your evidence? The Natural Born Citizenship Clause

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by micpsi

 

I'm sorry, but this is total honk. www.thefogbow.com...

Nowhere at the link you give is the REAL issue addressed that I discussed. Instead, it refers to irrelevant claims made by others which I have no opinion about.

The issue at stake was NOT that Obama's social security number linked to Connecticut. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant to the amazing discovery that the name of one of the owners of Obama's house sharing his social security number turned out to be the name of someone who had lived in the household of a family with the same name as Michelle Obama's maiden surname. This issue is not even mentioned, let alone debunked, in the article you linked to.

As usual, debunkers of the Obama birth certificate issue always link to bloggers and websites that never address the real questions but, instead, debunk a version of the problem that "birth certiifcate truthers" and others questioning Obama's heavily sanitized history never promulgated. They present the illusion that they have debunked the claim, hoping that no one will bother to dig a little deeper and expose their argument as bogus because it created an Aunty Sally to knock down. This is what you have done. The honk is yours.

Originally posted by micpsi
that the name of one of the owners of Obama's house sharing his social security number turned out to be the name of someone who had lived in the household of a family with the same name as Michelle Obama's maiden surname.

No, that is just another silly birther claim.

This issue is not even mentioned,

Because it is simply not true, and only the really rabid birthers try and run with it, but keep tripping over.

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by micpsi

 

I'm sorry, but this is total honk. www.thefogbow.com...

Nowhere at the link you give is the REAL issue addressed that I discussed. Instead, it refers to irrelevant claims made by others which I have no opinion about.

The issue at stake was NOT that Obama's social security number linked to Connecticut. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant to the amazing discovery that the name of one of the owners of Obama's house sharing his social security number turned out to be the name of someone who had lived in the household of a family with the same name as Michelle Obama's maiden surname. This issue is not even mentioned, let alone debunked, in the article you linked to.

As usual, debunkers of the Obama birth certificate issue always link to bloggers and websites that never address the real questions but, instead, debunk a version of the problem that "birth certiifcate truthers" and others questioning Obama's heavily sanitized history never promulgated. They present the illusion that they have debunked the claim, hoping that no one will bother to dig a little deeper and expose their argument as bogus because it created an Aunty Sally to knock down. This is what you have done. The honk is yours.

Aha. Obsfuscation, denial and an attempt to point at something that you claim is more important. Sorry, still doesn't work.

reply to post by micpsi

Originally posted by micpsi
The only Harrison Bounel who ever lived in the USA was born in Connecticut

How in the world do you know that? Please prove.

Secondly, please prove that THAT William A. Robinson is related to Michelle Obama.

This was altered so that the exact name could not be traced with certainty to Obama's wife's family, for this would have proved fraud beyond doubt.

Ah! See, this is the part where you make up a story to fit your agenda. If the pieces don't fit, create "facts" of your own.

The "birther" issue aside, how can any conscionable American-born person defend this America-hating Muslim you refer to as "president" ? This video reveals plenty about him. But I'm sure the Obamanites here will be quick to come to his defense. In spite of the treason and harm he continues to inflict upon this dying country, day after day...BOHICA.

reply to post by Toots


whole discussion is moot, he won the election, I didn't vote for him either time, but he won, end of story, in 3 more years we vote for someone new..

That's how it works... he won the popular vote.. get over it, I did, so can you..

2016, start planning on how to defeat his agenda..

reply to post by Toots


"America-hating Muslim"??? Prove it. And I mean using real cites that aren't from Faux News.

reply to post by Toots


Not once does Obama admit he's a Muslim. Sorry.

And I can sing MANY hymns and quote the bible all day long, but am I a Christian? No. Far from it. But I will defend people's religious freedom to choose to be a Christian. Or a Muslim.

You clearly don't believe in religious freedom, though. I guess I take the US Constitution more seriously than you do...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


His ACTIONS are the PROOF.....