Yepp, Trump is still a birther!!

[Redfish]

It's easy to find the answers, make an appointment with a psycho-therapist.

Oh, I see. Obviously, your mind is closed on the issue, and you clearly have done no serious reading on the subject and have no intention of doing so.

When you want to at least read the other side and attempt to explain the evidence, let me know.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

remember, natural born and the grandfather clause are unique and specific to exactly two jobs.

why are they so anxious to sweep all of this under the rug (along with the benghazi affair).

the obots make up shit. abercrombie makes up shit... even bill oreilly makes up shit to get past this... i have always been curious why.

both sides fear that the truth would damage the country. But just the opposite is true, the truth would make the country stronger.

You have the truth. You're simply ignoring it. And your willful ignorance is irrelevant to Obama's eligibility or the country's strength.

for the final time, if the truth is so evident why did obama pay lawyers to prevent the release of his college records?

 

[washamericom]

If obama's mother was under the age of majority when he was born in Kenya, he is not a US citizen. (and she was). So his father's nationality would take precedence, either UK or Kenya.

Show us any evidence that Obama's mother ever went to Kenya. In any year. Under any circumstances.

You can't, as there is none. There's as much evidence of Obama being born in orbit as in Kenya. You're offering baseless speculation and innuendo as evidence. Which you wouldn't have to do if you had actual evidence.

did stanley ann ever meet subud ?

 

[Skylar]

It's easy to find the answers, make an appointment with a psycho-therapist.

Oh, I see. Obviously, your mind is closed on the issue, and you clearly have done no serious reading on the subject and have no intention of doing so.

When you want to at least read the other side and attempt to explain the evidence, let me know.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

No citizen parents is enough if you're born inside the US. As natural born status follows place of birth. Even if the child had two alien parents.

See Wong Kim Ark and the USSC's discussion of natural born status. Specifically, their citation of English Common law as the lens through which this issue should be viewed. And cited place of birth as defining natural born status per English Common law.

Vattel is irrelevant. As The Law of Nations didn't even include the word 'natural born' until the 1790s, after the constitution was written. Making the Law of Nations an impossible source for the meaning of a term that it didn't use nor define.

You'll need a blue police box to make that argument work. Or a flux capacitor.

 

[washamericom]

Oh, I see. Obviously, your mind is closed on the issue, and you clearly have done no serious reading on the subject and have no intention of doing so.

When you want to at least read the other side and attempt to explain the evidence, let me know.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

remember, natural born and the grandfather clause are unique and specific to exactly two jobs.

why are they so anxious to sweep all of this under the rug (along with the benghazi affair).

the obots make up shit. abercrombie makes up shit... even bill oreilly makes up shit to get past this... i have always been curious why.

both sides fear that the truth would damage the country. But just the opposite is true, the truth would make the country stronger.

i think you are right rf, too big to fail, the cure is worse than the disease, the end of course, will justify the means.
and i agree, what doesn't kill our nice country, will makes us stronger.

congress will not grow balls until it is all women.

did you fail junior high biology?

did you see caitlin's speech ??

 

[Skylar]

It's easy to find the answers, make an appointment with a psycho-therapist.

Oh, I see. Obviously, your mind is closed on the issue, and you clearly have done no serious reading on the subject and have no intention of doing so.

When you want to at least read the other side and attempt to explain the evidence, let me know.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

remember, natural born and the grandfather clause are unique and specific to exactly two jobs.

why are they so anxious to sweep all of this under the rug (along with the benghazi affair).

the obots make up shit. abercrombie makes up shit... even bill oreilly makes up shit to get past this... i have always been curious why.

both sides fear that the truth would damage the country. But just the opposite is true, the truth would make the country stronger.

You have the truth. You're simply ignoring it. And your willful ignorance is irrelevant to Obama's eligibility or the country's strength.

for the final time, if the truth is so evident why did obama pay lawyers to prevent the release of his college records?

They're none of your business, but instead personal documents.

Can you offer us evidence that Obama went to college as a foreign student? If you can't, then your accusation that he went to college as a foreign student was a lie.

And you have nothing.

You said that Obama spent a million dollars preventing the release of his college transcripts. You've presented nothing to back this claim. The only link you did offer never even mentions transcripts. Let alone your dollar figure.

Either back the claim that Obama spent a million dollars to keep college transcripts secret....or admit you lied again.

 

[Faun]

Oh great, the moronic clueless birthers are back.

Did psychotherapy not work? Is Jimmy Hoffa still whispering sweet nothings in you collective ears?

Oh and morons, I'm not a Democrat and I really don't like Obama all that much....... Pretty much tells ya how stupid you are.

Obama did say he was born in Kenya, but he was actually born in Hawaii. Here's the 411, he lied. Wow, a politician lying, didn't see that one coming, huh?

Stop kazzing. You have no proof Obama ever said he was born in Kenya.

 

[washamericom]

It's easy to find the answers, make an appointment with a psycho-therapist.

Oh, I see. Obviously, your mind is closed on the issue, and you clearly have done no serious reading on the subject and have no intention of doing so.

When you want to at least read the other side and attempt to explain the evidence, let me know.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

No citizen parents is enough if you're born inside the US. As natural born status follows place of birth. Even if the child had two alien parents.

See Wong Kim Ark and the USSC's discussion of natural born status. Specifically, their citation of English Common law as the lens through which this issue should be viewed. And cited place of birth as defining natural born status per English Common law.

Vattel is irrelevant. As The Law of Nations didn't even include the word 'natural born' until the 1790s, after the constitution was written. Making the Law of Nations an impossible source for the meaning of a term that it didn't use nor define.

You'll need a blue police box to make that argument work. Or a flux capacitor.

why would wong kim ark need to be natural born ?

 

[Redfish]

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

remember, natural born and the grandfather clause are unique and specific to exactly two jobs.

why are they so anxious to sweep all of this under the rug (along with the benghazi affair).

the obots make up shit. abercrombie makes up shit... even bill oreilly makes up shit to get past this... i have always been curious why.

both sides fear that the truth would damage the country. But just the opposite is true, the truth would make the country stronger.

i think you are right rf, too big to fail, the cure is worse than the disease, the end of course, will justify the means.
and i agree, what doesn't kill our nice country, will makes us stronger.

congress will not grow balls until it is all women.

did you fail junior high biology?

did you see caitlin's speech ??

why would I watch a freak give a speech ?

 

[Faun]

hurl all the insults you choose. There are many unanswered questions. Someday the truth will be known, just as someday we will know who orchestrated the JFK shooting. The Warren report will be unsealed in 2038. Why do you think those details were sealed for 75 years?

many, many, many... unanswered questions.

And when those questions are answered, not to your liking (as has happened already), you'll continue to believe your delusions over reality.

my questions haven't been answered sis, or madam as the case may be.

It's easy to find the answers, make an appointment with a psycho-therapist.

it hasn't been easy to find the answers, that's what we're trying to tell you. the shrink comment is off topic.

what stuns me most is that this thread survives on the big board.

What's not been easy to find? Obama posted his birth certificate online back in 2007 or 2008.

 

[Skylar]

he didn't you brain dead, toon.

Then who did, ya flamin dipshit? The publisher wrote the biographical piece on obama, are you saying obama never bothered to read what had been written about him? Do you see how stupid that claim makes you, and obama, look?

quiet, freak. his publisher never said the president said he was born in kenya. that is a rightwingnut lie as has already been pointed out to you.

damn, you're stupid, little boy.

then who wrote the biographical summary, ya flaming bitch? Did Bush write it? Cheney? Limbaugh? Who wrote it, idiot!

The publisher wrote it.

Did obama proof read it? approve it? or ignore it? its gotta be one of the 3.

Miriam Goderich indicated that the mistake was hers and Obama never said he was born in Kenya.

Do you have a better source than Miriam Goderich on the content of that pamphlet?

If no, then you're done. If yes, present it.

 

[kaz]

he didn't you brain dead, toon.

Then who did, ya flamin dipshit? The publisher wrote the biographical piece on obama, are you saying obama never bothered to read what had been written about him? Do you see how stupid that claim makes you, and obama, look?

quiet, freak. his publisher never said the president said he was born in kenya. that is a rightwingnut lie as has already been pointed out to you.

damn, you're stupid, little boy.

then who wrote the biographical summary, ya flaming bitch? Did Bush write it? Cheney? Limbaugh? Who wrote it, idiot!

The publisher wrote it.

Did obama proof read it? approve it? or ignore it? its gotta be one of the 3.

Yes, it does

 

[kaz]

Obama really pulled a boner when he started that whole ridiculous movement by telling his publisher he was born in Kenya, didn't he? Obama is the original birther, patient zero of the movement

he didn't you brain dead, toon.

Then who did, ya flamin dipshit? The publisher wrote the biographical piece on obama, are you saying obama never bothered to read what had been written about him? Do you see how stupid that claim makes you, and obama, look?

quiet, freak. his publisher never said the president said he was born in kenya. that is a rightwingnut lie as has already been pointed out to you.

damn, you're stupid, little boy.

then who wrote the biographical summary, ya flaming bitch? Did Bush write it? Cheney? Limbaugh? Who wrote it, idiot!

The publisher wrote it.

Miriam didn't say that, she said she was too incompetent to fact check it. So why did someone sit down and write the words Obama was "born in kenya?" Based on what? Don't answer with a guess

 

[washamericom]

It's easy to find the answers, make an appointment with a psycho-therapist.

Oh, I see. Obviously, your mind is closed on the issue, and you clearly have done no serious reading on the subject and have no intention of doing so.

When you want to at least read the other side and attempt to explain the evidence, let me know.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

No citizen parents is enough if you're born inside the US. As natural born status follows place of birth. Even if the child had two alien parents.

See Wong Kim Ark and the USSC's discussion of natural born status. Specifically, their citation of English Common law as the lens through which this issue should be viewed. And cited place of birth as defining natural born status per English Common law.

Vattel is irrelevant. As The Law of Nations didn't even include the word 'natural born' until the 1790s, after the constitution was written. Making the Law of Nations an impossible source for the meaning of a term that it didn't use nor define.

You'll need a blue police box to make that argument work. Or a flux capacitor.

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[washamericom]

I ask again:

Why is there a huge difference between the Hawaiian officials' description of the long form in their "verification" and the long form that Obama belatedly produced after spending millions to keep it sealed?

1) Why is there a huge difference between the Hawaiian officials' description of the long form in their "verification" and the long form that Obama belatedly produced

What difference?

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai
‛
i State Department of Health, have seen the original vitalrecords maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.

How gullible and uncritical can you get? So in your mind this one statement settles the matter?!

Just go read the Hawaii "verification" and then look with your own eyes at the belatedly released long form. The Hawaii officials said that the long form that they examined was at least one-fourth in pen/pencil, which was common for birth certificates in those days. Now go look at the released long form. Do you see a document that a sane person could even describe as being one-fifth in pen/pencil? No, it's virtually all printed. Why is that? What long form were the Hawaii officials looking at?

The image of the document provided by the State of Hawaii of Obama's LFBC matched other LFBC of the era. Matching almost exactly the quantity of printed vs hand written information as say, the Nordyke Twins. Whose mother received copies of their LFBC in the 1960s.

Obama's LFBC is clearly consistent with LFBC of the age. And affirmed by the Registrar of Hawaii Alvin Onaka as matching the original records in an affidavit. Twice.

There's no question Obama's LFBC is legit. Nor is there a single forensic investigation anywhere that indicates that the original vital records are anything but legitimate. Even the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledged as much. As has every court to ever address the topic.

This is a double-edged problem because genuine birth certificates from that era typically had a lot more handwritten entries than modern ones do. That's because this was before the advent of computers.

Show us, don't tell us. Show us birth certificates from the same era with significantly more handwriting than Obama's LFBC. Obama's LFBC matches that of the Nordyke Twins who were born within a few days of the President. That's three 1960s LFBC that all show the same amount of handwriting. The Director of Health of Hawaii affirming the original vital records. The Registrar of Hawaii affirming the original vital records.

And you saying that they were atypical. Show us.

Look, it's very simple: It was common knowledge back then that in Hawaii it was very easy to get a fake birth certificate, especially if you flew you and your baby there soon after the baby was born. Over the years back then, thousands of parents flew to Hawaii to get their newborns a fake birth certificate.

If its common knowledge, then it will be remarkably easy for you to establish factually. If you're talking out of your ass, then you'll give us reasons why you can't back the claim.

And we both know you can't back the claim. So bring on the excuses.

While parents could fly to Hawaii to get birth certificates issued for their children, these birth certificates did NOT say that the children were born in Hawaii. But instead that they were born in whatever country where the child was actually born. And they certainly don't cite a Hawaiian hospital with an attending physician's signature.

You insist that foreign born children would have Hawaii listed as their place of birth.

Show us. If there are thousands upon thousands....show us a few. As you citing 'common knowledge' means exactly nothing.

Obama's parents may well have been one of those thousands. Perhaps that's why there is conflicting information about which hospital he was born at, where his parents "lived" in Hawaii at the time, why the certificate number is markedly out of sequence with genuine certificate numbers before and after his, why there are so many technical indications of forgery on both birth documents (yeah, that "layers thing"), why one or two of his Kenyan relatives and other Kenyan sources have said he was born there, why he spent millions fighting a lawsuit that he could have won by simply releasing his long form, etc.

Again, there's no forensic source that says that the original vital documents were forged. None. So you have nothing to back that claim. Second, the Registar of Hawaii already affirmed that the information on the original vital documents matches the image of the LFBC presented by Obama. Including his place of birth as Hawaii.

Twice.

So you have no one saying that the original vital documents were forged. And the Registrar of Hawaii affirming that the LFBC and the original vital documents match. With the Registrar of Hawaii being the world's leading authority on Hawaii's vital documents. And acting as an authoritative legal source on the same.

The only person saying the original vital documents were forged....is you citing you. And you vs. the Registrar of Hawaii on the vital documents of Hawaii has the same winner every time.

Not you.

i think the nordyke examples are concocted for the cause.

 

[Skylar]

It's easy to find the answers, make an appointment with a psycho-therapist.

Oh, I see. Obviously, your mind is closed on the issue, and you clearly have done no serious reading on the subject and have no intention of doing so.

When you want to at least read the other side and attempt to explain the evidence, let me know.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

No citizen parents is enough if you're born inside the US. As natural born status follows place of birth. Even if the child had two alien parents.

See Wong Kim Ark and the USSC's discussion of natural born status. Specifically, their citation of English Common law as the lens through which this issue should be viewed. And cited place of birth as defining natural born status per English Common law.

Vattel is irrelevant. As The Law of Nations didn't even include the word 'natural born' until the 1790s, after the constitution was written. Making the Law of Nations an impossible source for the meaning of a term that it didn't use nor define.

You'll need a blue police box to make that argument work. Or a flux capacitor.

why would wong kim ark need to be natural born ?

Wong Kim Ark was about jus soli citizenship, where place of birth defined citizenship. As Wong was the child of 2 aliens born in San Francisco. A discussion about natural born status being based on location of birth is understandable and predictable. And among the first things the USSC did when discussing the ruling.

Why would you ignore the USSC on the meaning of natural born?

 

[Skylar]

I ask again:

Why is there a huge difference between the Hawaiian officials' description of the long form in their "verification" and the long form that Obama belatedly produced after spending millions to keep it sealed?

1) Why is there a huge difference between the Hawaiian officials' description of the long form in their "verification" and the long form that Obama belatedly produced

What difference?

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai
‛
i State Department of Health, have seen the original vitalrecords maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.

How gullible and uncritical can you get? So in your mind this one statement settles the matter?!

Just go read the Hawaii "verification" and then look with your own eyes at the belatedly released long form. The Hawaii officials said that the long form that they examined was at least one-fourth in pen/pencil, which was common for birth certificates in those days. Now go look at the released long form. Do you see a document that a sane person could even describe as being one-fifth in pen/pencil? No, it's virtually all printed. Why is that? What long form were the Hawaii officials looking at?

The image of the document provided by the State of Hawaii of Obama's LFBC matched other LFBC of the era. Matching almost exactly the quantity of printed vs hand written information as say, the Nordyke Twins. Whose mother received copies of their LFBC in the 1960s.

Obama's LFBC is clearly consistent with LFBC of the age. And affirmed by the Registrar of Hawaii Alvin Onaka as matching the original records in an affidavit. Twice.

There's no question Obama's LFBC is legit. Nor is there a single forensic investigation anywhere that indicates that the original vital records are anything but legitimate. Even the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledged as much. As has every court to ever address the topic.

This is a double-edged problem because genuine birth certificates from that era typically had a lot more handwritten entries than modern ones do. That's because this was before the advent of computers.

Show us, don't tell us. Show us birth certificates from the same era with significantly more handwriting than Obama's LFBC. Obama's LFBC matches that of the Nordyke Twins who were born within a few days of the President. That's three 1960s LFBC that all show the same amount of handwriting. The Director of Health of Hawaii affirming the original vital records. The Registrar of Hawaii affirming the original vital records.

And you saying that they were atypical. Show us.

Look, it's very simple: It was common knowledge back then that in Hawaii it was very easy to get a fake birth certificate, especially if you flew you and your baby there soon after the baby was born. Over the years back then, thousands of parents flew to Hawaii to get their newborns a fake birth certificate.

If its common knowledge, then it will be remarkably easy for you to establish factually. If you're talking out of your ass, then you'll give us reasons why you can't back the claim.

And we both know you can't back the claim. So bring on the excuses.

While parents could fly to Hawaii to get birth certificates issued for their children, these birth certificates did NOT say that the children were born in Hawaii. But instead that they were born in whatever country where the child was actually born. And they certainly don't cite a Hawaiian hospital with an attending physician's signature.

You insist that foreign born children would have Hawaii listed as their place of birth.

Show us. If there are thousands upon thousands....show us a few. As you citing 'common knowledge' means exactly nothing.

Obama's parents may well have been one of those thousands. Perhaps that's why there is conflicting information about which hospital he was born at, where his parents "lived" in Hawaii at the time, why the certificate number is markedly out of sequence with genuine certificate numbers before and after his, why there are so many technical indications of forgery on both birth documents (yeah, that "layers thing"), why one or two of his Kenyan relatives and other Kenyan sources have said he was born there, why he spent millions fighting a lawsuit that he could have won by simply releasing his long form, etc.

Again, there's no forensic source that says that the original vital documents were forged. None. So you have nothing to back that claim. Second, the Registar of Hawaii already affirmed that the information on the original vital documents matches the image of the LFBC presented by Obama. Including his place of birth as Hawaii.

Twice.

So you have no one saying that the original vital documents were forged. And the Registrar of Hawaii affirming that the LFBC and the original vital documents match. With the Registrar of Hawaii being the world's leading authority on Hawaii's vital documents. And acting as an authoritative legal source on the same.

The only person saying the original vital documents were forged....is you citing you. And you vs. the Registrar of Hawaii on the vital documents of Hawaii has the same winner every time.

Not you.

i think the nordyke examples are concocted for the cause.

Can you back that with evidence? As the mother of the Nordyke twins has had her copies of the LFBC since the 1960s. Which means that the conspiracy would have to be nearly 50 years old.

That seems both unlikely and needlessly elaborate. And of course, utterly evidence free.

 

[Faun]

And notice that the Obama apologists here make no effort to explain the technical forensic evidence of fraud in the birth documents.

They do everything but seek to substantively engage that evidence. They just ignore it, or mock it, and act like it's an outrage to even bring up the evidence. That is the typical response when people simply don't know how to explain evidence they don't like.

Not true. You posted earlier how BCs back then contained a certain ratio of print vs hand written portions filled out and claimed Obama's didn't match that ratio. A poster challenged you on that by pointing out the ratio on Obama's BC matched the that of the Nordyke twins' BCs and the one doing the ignoring -- was you. You didn't even attempt to answer.

 

[washamericom]

It's easy to find the answers, make an appointment with a psycho-therapist.

Oh, I see. Obviously, your mind is closed on the issue, and you clearly have done no serious reading on the subject and have no intention of doing so.

When you want to at least read the other side and attempt to explain the evidence, let me know.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

No citizen parents is enough if you're born inside the US. As natural born status follows place of birth. Even if the child had two alien parents.

See Wong Kim Ark and the USSC's discussion of natural born status. Specifically, their citation of English Common law as the lens through which this issue should be viewed. And cited place of birth as defining natural born status per English Common law.

Vattel is irrelevant. As The Law of Nations didn't even include the word 'natural born' until the 1790s, after the constitution was written. Making the Law of Nations an impossible source for the meaning of a term that it didn't use nor define.

You'll need a blue police box to make that argument work. Or a flux capacitor.

why would wong kim ark need to be natural born ?

Wong Kim Ark was about jus soli citizenship, where place of birth defined citizenship. As Wong was the child of 2 aliens born in San Francisco. A discussion about natural born status being based on location of birth is understandable and predictable. And among the first things the USSC did when discussing the ruling.

Why would you ignore the USSC on the meaning of natural born?

why would wong kim ark need to be natural born if he wasn't running for president or vice. was he "natural born" before obama ran for president ??

 

[Skylar]

It's easy to find the answers, make an appointment with a psycho-therapist.

Oh, I see. Obviously, your mind is closed on the issue, and you clearly have done no serious reading on the subject and have no intention of doing so.

When you want to at least read the other side and attempt to explain the evidence, let me know.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

No citizen parents is enough if you're born inside the US. As natural born status follows place of birth. Even if the child had two alien parents.

See Wong Kim Ark and the USSC's discussion of natural born status. Specifically, their citation of English Common law as the lens through which this issue should be viewed. And cited place of birth as defining natural born status per English Common law.

Vattel is irrelevant. As The Law of Nations didn't even include the word 'natural born' until the 1790s, after the constitution was written. Making the Law of Nations an impossible source for the meaning of a term that it didn't use nor define.

You'll need a blue police box to make that argument work. Or a flux capacitor.

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.

Try again. This time addressing the issues involved.

 

[washamericom]

I ask again:

Why is there a huge difference between the Hawaiian officials' description of the long form in their "verification" and the long form that Obama belatedly produced after spending millions to keep it sealed?

1) Why is there a huge difference between the Hawaiian officials' description of the long form in their "verification" and the long form that Obama belatedly produced

What difference?

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai
‛
i State Department of Health, have seen the original vitalrecords maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.

How gullible and uncritical can you get? So in your mind this one statement settles the matter?!

Just go read the Hawaii "verification" and then look with your own eyes at the belatedly released long form. The Hawaii officials said that the long form that they examined was at least one-fourth in pen/pencil, which was common for birth certificates in those days. Now go look at the released long form. Do you see a document that a sane person could even describe as being one-fifth in pen/pencil? No, it's virtually all printed. Why is that? What long form were the Hawaii officials looking at?

The image of the document provided by the State of Hawaii of Obama's LFBC matched other LFBC of the era. Matching almost exactly the quantity of printed vs hand written information as say, the Nordyke Twins. Whose mother received copies of their LFBC in the 1960s.

Obama's LFBC is clearly consistent with LFBC of the age. And affirmed by the Registrar of Hawaii Alvin Onaka as matching the original records in an affidavit. Twice.

There's no question Obama's LFBC is legit. Nor is there a single forensic investigation anywhere that indicates that the original vital records are anything but legitimate. Even the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledged as much. As has every court to ever address the topic.

This is a double-edged problem because genuine birth certificates from that era typically had a lot more handwritten entries than modern ones do. That's because this was before the advent of computers.

Show us, don't tell us. Show us birth certificates from the same era with significantly more handwriting than Obama's LFBC. Obama's LFBC matches that of the Nordyke Twins who were born within a few days of the President. That's three 1960s LFBC that all show the same amount of handwriting. The Director of Health of Hawaii affirming the original vital records. The Registrar of Hawaii affirming the original vital records.

And you saying that they were atypical. Show us.

Look, it's very simple: It was common knowledge back then that in Hawaii it was very easy to get a fake birth certificate, especially if you flew you and your baby there soon after the baby was born. Over the years back then, thousands of parents flew to Hawaii to get their newborns a fake birth certificate.

If its common knowledge, then it will be remarkably easy for you to establish factually. If you're talking out of your ass, then you'll give us reasons why you can't back the claim.

And we both know you can't back the claim. So bring on the excuses.

While parents could fly to Hawaii to get birth certificates issued for their children, these birth certificates did NOT say that the children were born in Hawaii. But instead that they were born in whatever country where the child was actually born. And they certainly don't cite a Hawaiian hospital with an attending physician's signature.

You insist that foreign born children would have Hawaii listed as their place of birth.

Show us. If there are thousands upon thousands....show us a few. As you citing 'common knowledge' means exactly nothing.

Obama's parents may well have been one of those thousands. Perhaps that's why there is conflicting information about which hospital he was born at, where his parents "lived" in Hawaii at the time, why the certificate number is markedly out of sequence with genuine certificate numbers before and after his, why there are so many technical indications of forgery on both birth documents (yeah, that "layers thing"), why one or two of his Kenyan relatives and other Kenyan sources have said he was born there, why he spent millions fighting a lawsuit that he could have won by simply releasing his long form, etc.

Again, there's no forensic source that says that the original vital documents were forged. None. So you have nothing to back that claim. Second, the Registar of Hawaii already affirmed that the information on the original vital documents matches the image of the LFBC presented by Obama. Including his place of birth as Hawaii.

Twice.

So you have no one saying that the original vital documents were forged. And the Registrar of Hawaii affirming that the LFBC and the original vital documents match. With the Registrar of Hawaii being the world's leading authority on Hawaii's vital documents. And acting as an authoritative legal source on the same.

The only person saying the original vital documents were forged....is you citing you. And you vs. the Registrar of Hawaii on the vital documents of Hawaii has the same winner every time.

Not you.

i think the nordyke examples are concocted for the cause.

Can you back that with evidence? As the mother of the Nordyke twins has had her copies of the LFBC since the 1960s. Which means that the conspiracy would have to be nearly 50 years old.

That seems both unlikely and needlessly elaborate. And of course, utterly evidence free.

that's also the advertiser birth announcement theory. the ads were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president. nordyke came out too fast, with too much ready at the hand explanation. i wish we had a real copy of the newspaper, or his w2 from baskin robbins.