Evidence reveals Obama's "official " birth certificate was actually photo-shopped!

I've done it in 2 consecutive posts.

 

Can you show me the law that proves this!

 

Show me the part of Wong Kim Ark that proves Obama is a natural born citizen! Thanks, I'll be waiting!

 

The issue isn't that he was born in Hawaii. The issue is he was not a natural born citizen because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen.

Supreme court case Minor vs. Happersett, 1874, defined natural born citizen as born in the U.S. of parents who were U.S. citizens.
This disqaulifies Obama and quite possible McCain who was born either in Panama or the U.S. controled Panama Canal zone.
The birth certificat issue has been kept alive for years to draw activist attention away from the real issue.
Obama and his crew are slick.

http://www.learn-usa.com/of_assistance/~commentary.htm

 

That case is about voting rights, not citizenship.

Obama's father didn't have to be a US citizen.. He was in the US and under US jurisdiction.

McCain is native born as are Rubio and Jindal.

 

The opinion in Wong Kim Ark was given by Justice Horace Gray. The opinion in Elk v Wilkens is ALSO given by Justice Horace Gray. So Justice Horace Gray has a difference of opinion OR as I said WKA does not say that Wong was a natural born citizen.

In Elk v. Wilkins, Gray IS talking about Natural Born Citizens, unlike WKA!

Besides, Justice Horace Gray was appointed by the original usurper Chester Arthur, so once we prove Obama is not a natural born citizen, it was also prove that neither was Chester Arthur and WKA will be VOID, as it should be!

So again, read it and weep!

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) Justice Gray cites Chief Justice Taney:

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which “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," and "The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8.

By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases,16 Wall. 36, 83 U.S. 73;Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303,100 U.S. 306

 

Here it says he's not. Minor vs Happersett 1874

"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
Page 88 U. S. 168
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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the

(also see http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-express-lane-to-natural-born-clarity/

 

Dan, he doesn't have diplomatic immunity or yes he/she can be arrested. However he/she is afforded additional rights and most all visa's require a "Sponsor" of some kind and can in some cases be held responsible.

KBO; This forum has a very bad habit of locking threads at about 500 post, can be restarted but rarely done. Anyway I've followed you short visit and you're making some good points. My take is represented in part on this link and if another thread starts up I'll elaborate. Good Luck....

http://marionvalentine66.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/subject-fwd-obama-may-have-a-criminal-past/

 

Read my later post. Within Minor v Happersett

The judge defines natural born citizen.

"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..."

 

The 14th amendment was authored by the Honorable John Bingham. The original bill did not include the citizenship clause. The bill passed the House, but would not pass the Senate, until Senators Howard and Trumbull offered their amendment which was adopted into the bill. Their amendment (the citizenship clause) said:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

During the 14th amendment debates, other Senators wanted to know what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant. Trumbull is on record telling them EXACTLY what his provision meant and I QUOTE:

"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means."

He wrote the law, so he would know best the intention behind it!

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

 

There's more. Left wing legal reference site caught red handed deleting references to Minor v Happersett.



"I have documented two incredible examples where Justia.com has been caught in the act of taking a hatchet job to US Supreme Court decisions by removing, not just the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, but whole passages related to Chief Justice Waite’s statements on the citizenship issue which were cited favorably in BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).

I have published my complete investigation into this fraud perpetrated by Justia.com – including snapshots and evidence collected from the Way.."

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...rsett-in-published-us-supreme-court-opinions/

 

14th amendment, title 8 of the US code.

 

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...rsett-in-published-us-supreme-court-opinions/
It's never got to the supreme court. The courts know this is the hottest political potato ever to threathen them.
If they ruled according to Minor V. Happerset, you could have civil war in the streets. Think OWS, think ACORN, think New Black Panther Party!

The smoking gun passage from Minor V. Happerset:


"...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... "

That's why justica. com delted all reference to M V H months before the election.

 

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Barack Obama - twice - indicating that he agrees Obama is a natural born citizen.

Or is he in on the conspiracy too?

 

LOL... What the hell makes Justia a "left wing" site?


Anyone who thinks Obama is not eligible to be President is, plainly, a complete and total idiot. How else can you explain thinking that a person could reach the most scrutinized, public, job on the face of the Earth while hiding their origins?

 

start a new thread this one is over!!

 

Think guys! Why did my founding fathers put special restrictions on the natal origins of presidents and vice president?

Because they wanted to be sure the man was an ethnic American.
Both parent had to be citizens at the time of the childs birth and he had to be born in America.

 

The answer is YES, as explained in the 14th amendment debates.
Go to 7:34 in my video and it all explained there!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTnJDuVNifQ"]2012 Vetting Obama: BARRY SOETORO ILLEGAL PRESIDENT ~100% SOURCED W/ GOVT DOCUMENTS - YouTube[/ame]

 

Because they tried to hide the court references. They are a, maybe the, premier site for legal research. Subscriptions to their reference service can run to hundres of dollars.

Read again the passage in Minor V Happersett were the court defined natural born.

"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..."
Page 88 U. S. 168


And here's were the Obama backing law firm got caught red handed deleting references to Minor V Happersett months before the election.


JUSTIA.COM CAUGHT RED HANDED HIDING REFERENCES TO MINOR v. HAPPERSETT IN PUBLISHED US SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...rsett-in-published-us-supreme-court-opinions/


The whole "was he born in Hawaii thing " was a red herring to keep people from researching "natural born"

Remember the speculation 18 months ago in the meida " Why is Obama not just setteling this birther issue? Why doesn't he just put his birth certificate out there." One guy speculated it was becaue maybe he was listed as
"white' on the certicifacte.
Now we know, if was to keep every body chasing their tails about Hawaii, and not do the legal research on Natural Born!!

 

Just saying Wong Kim Ark does nothing. WKA was not about Natural Born Citizenship!

YOU FAIL!

 

this has been covered hundreds of times across hundreds of idiotic birther threads.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html

 

minor v happersett had exactly nothing to do with citizenship. the relevant case precedent is wong kim ark v the US.

 

nowhere in elg does the court say you must be born to citizen parentS in order to be a natural born citizen.

like I said, you are making this too easy.

 

minor v happersett is not a citizenship case. they specifically say they are NOT addressing the issue, so I can't imagine why you would use a case that has nothing to do with citizenship as an argument.