Pat Boone: Obama’s Birth Certificate Will Be Proven As Fake By September
Legendary crooner Pat Boone appeared on my radio show Monday night and told me he had a “bombshell” to report. That “bombshell” was his belief that the birth certificate President Obama presented to the country after years of birther requests will be shown to be a fake. Boone said, “I’m not a birther…I’m a questioner.”
Boone: What I’m going to predict here is by September of this year, the major smoking gun, which is a high crime, not just a misdemeanor, but a high crime, that supposed copy of the birth certificate that is displayed on the White House website as we talk, by many experts has already proven not to be not a copy of anything, of something that perhaps doesn’t exist, which is an actual birth certificate, but it is a Photoshopped fraud created to look like what they wanted it to look like. And I say “they” because I don’t think it was the President himself but those around him. But experts who understand the techniques of these things, including a guy in my own office who knows how things are Photoshopped, and knows the telltale signs of things that have been pasted on to other documents or other things. It is obviously to anyone who knows that process is a fraud. It is not a copy of anything and that is a high crime.”
COLMES: Tell me how you know this.
BOONE: Well I’m talking to some people that they are trained detectives and investigators and I’ve been trying to get people in Congress to pay attention to these things and create. We should have to be us citizens saying, “Wait a minute, this thing doesn’t look real.”
COLMES: The State of Hawaii said this is a legitimate birth certificate
BOONE: There are trained investigators who are finding out, and I can’t divulge any more than I will make a prediction that by September of this year, it will be proven that that is not the case. And look, if there was a hospital in Hawaii, in which the President had been born, and they had a birth certificate to prove it, do you think there would be a plaque, something to indicate they’re proud.
COLMES: What I don’t understand is though Pat is two different Hawaiian publications within weeks of the birth of Barack Obama in 1961 there were notices, which are now on microfiche, you can find them, how can have appeared in Hawaiian newspapers within weeks of his birth, how did that happen?
BOONE: Well, the things that appeared in the paper were juts blanket announcements of his birth but they didn’t name a hospital or a birth certificate.
BOONE: For instance, just as an example, what if he was born in Mombasa? To a woman who could not get on the plane because she was too close to birth and after she delivered the baby she came to Honolulu because she wanted him to be known as an American citizen. What if her mother was working in the documents department?
COLMES: You believe he was not born in the United States?
BOONE: All I can tell you is I was in Mombasa just after he was elected and everybody there said, “You know you’re President was born here.” I brought home a T-shirt that said “Birthplace of the President of the United States.” Either the whole nation was fooled or there was something else going on.
COLMES: You also used the phrase “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” So are you suggesting that with this revelation were it to occur as your predicting that it would be an impeachable offense?
BOONE: Look, I’m not a constitutional law expert so all I’m saying is I’m not going to try to draw, you know, either a judgment or a verdict. But I’m saying there are facts, smoking guns on the table that a Congressional committee ought to at least if nothing else settle all the doubt and the allegations that have been made and show substantive proof. But if this thing is a fraud if is a Photoshopped fraud, then there has to be some kind of reason for that.
BOONE: I’m not a birther
COLMES: But it sounds like it Pat, you know that based on what you’re saying?
BOONE: I’m a questioner
Stan Ubeki June 24th, 2014 at 10:49 am
Pat Boone will be outed by August.
Maxx44 June 24th, 2014 at 10:50 am
He’s not a birther. He’s not a questioner. He’s a blithering idiot.
DownriverDem June 24th, 2014 at 2:44 pm
And a hater. When I heard that he was going to be on last night, I turned off the radio. Can’t stand RWNJs with all their hate and lies.
arc99 June 24th, 2014 at 10:53 am
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case. Right wingers are idiots.
Ignoring the lunacy of the forged document argument for just a moment, the fact is that there is no doubt that Mr. Obama’s mother was an American citizen. Regardless of where she gave birth, her child is also an American citizen.
If President Obama is not a citizen, then neither is Sen. Ted Cruz.
How can people be so stupid and hypocritical at the same time? It is beyond comprehension.
granpa.usthai June 24th, 2014 at 1:44 pm
The son of Castro supporters doesn’t even have an Hawaiian birth certificate, much less an Hawaiian long form –
Dave B. June 27th, 2014 at 5:50 pm
It’s a failing and fallacious argument to compare the fictional foreign-born Obama to the genuinely foreign-born Cruz. The same law that made Senator Cruz a citizen of the United States at birth would’ve kept President Obama from being born a US citizen if he’d been born outside the US, its outlying possessions, or the Panama Canal Zone. It’s never been true that every child born to a US citizen parent, whether father or mother, will be born a US citizen.
Roctuna June 24th, 2014 at 10:55 am
Hey Pat, it’s been done
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp
Your “experts” need more than 3 years to study one pdf?
Ben Ghazi June 24th, 2014 at 11:01 am
He was such a good singer. How sad that he’s lost his mind. His family has my sympathy.
Becky Wiren June 25th, 2014 at 3:19 am
What a complete whackadoodle moron.
Foundryman June 24th, 2014 at 11:17 am
Pat Boone has been a wackjob, jesus freak bible thumper his whole life. What difference does it make what he has to say about anything? Whatever it is, it will be biased trash.
Dwendt44 June 24th, 2014 at 11:33 am
Yup, senility set in.
oneking90 June 24th, 2014 at 11:37 am
Sheriff Joe Arpaio formed this Cold Case Posse, under the command of Mike Zullo, after 250 local citizens asked him to determine if Barack Obama was qualified to appear on the Arizona presidential ballot in 2012.
Twice in 2012, the CCP presented findings to the public. They determined the birth certificate on the White House website was a forged electronic file. As one Adobe expert, employed by the CCP, stated: “The only time Obama’s long-form birth certificate image exists as a paper document is when a computer user selects Print from the File menu.”
The CCP would like to turn over its hundreds of pages of evidence to Congress for a Congressional investigation. However, at the moment, such an investigation has little or no support. And so there are potential constitutional problems ahead.
One problem is: If the CCP’s findings are true, who is responsible? Another problem, while connected to the first, is more obvious. The Constitution provides three requirements for president and vice president. Article II, Section 1, requires the president be 35 years of age or older, have lived 14 years in the United States, and be a “natural-born citizen.”
“Natural born citizens” are distinct from citizens who are native-born or naturalized. While native-born or naturalized citizens are fully citizen and may hold any other political office in the country, only “natural born citizens” are eligible to be president, because the founders wanted to guarantee the chief executive (Commander in Chief of the military) was loyal to the United States and to no other foreign sovereign or King.
The Constitution doesn’t define “natural born” (or “promote the general welfare” for that matter), but according to the 1758 book “Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel, and later, the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case “Minor v. Happersett”, a “natural born citizen” is someone born in the U.S. to citizen parents (plural). “Minor” clarified this definition and is the case most on point. In mid-2008, as Barack Obama was gaining the presidential nomination, references to the “Minor” case curiously vanished from 25 related Supreme Court decisions archived at Justia.com, a legal search engine used by journalists and the public. When attorney Leo Donofrio questioned this disappearance in 2011, Justia called it a “programming error”. The media failed to report about the matter.
So where does this put the president, the child of a U.S. “natural born citizen” mother and a British colonial subject from Kenya? Obama Jr. was born with dual American and British citizenship/subject-ship. And but for an apparently fraudulent birth certificate, there is no evidence of his Hawaiian birth; in fact there is more evidence in the public domain that he was born in Kenya than there is he was born in Hawaii. Such as, the biography Obama’s former literary agent used to promote him as an author stated Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii”. This biography, written in 1991 and updated several times over the years, remained on the agency website until April 2007 – two months after Obama announced his presidential run.
There is the matter of the Nordyke twins, Susan and Gretchen, were born in Hawaii (August 5, 1961) the day after Barack Obama’s alleged birthday. The twins were born about 5 minutes apart at the same hospital where Obama claims he was born. The twins released their official long form birth certificate – which substantiates Obama’s document is a forgery.
The discrepancies between these documents are many, but the most obvious is the file and certificate number on the upper right portion of each document.
In every county in this country, there is a County Clerk or Registrar whose job is to record births, deaths, marriages and other official documents. The documents are assigned an individual certificate number and entered into record books. The certificate numbers are issued in sequential order based on the date they were received. A clerk at the Department of Health office in Honolulu stamps each birth certificate with an automatic mechanical stamp that advanced one number each time it is applied to a certificate.
Susan Nordyke’s birth certificate was registered August 11, 1961 and has a certificate # of 61-10637.
Gretchen Nordyke’s birth certificate was also registered on August 11, 1961 and has a certificate # of 61-10638. One digit after her sister.
Barack Obama’s birth certificate was registered August 8, 1961 and has a certificate # of 61-10641.
See the problem? Obama was allegedly registered 3 days before the Nordyke twins, yet his certificate number is 3 and 4 digits after theirs.
This is impossible using the system described above. If Obama’s document was genuine, it would have a number lower than the twins, not higher.
The CCP attempted to examine Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filed out by airline passengers arriving on international flights from outside the United States for the month of August 1961. Those records are kept in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. All the records from the days approximating Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. How or why they are missing is unknown. This is the only week in 1961 where these immigration cards cannot be found.
Because of these unresolved facts and because Obama documents remain sealed, it’s not hard to see why many Americans are perplexed.
Many have heard of the two 1961 Hawaiian newspapers that published the announcement of Obama’s birth. CCP investigators learned that foreign-born children were likewise announced as Hawaiian births in these same papers, and they found adopted twins who were several years old when their “birth” announcements appeared in the papers.
As of 2008, according to an official Hawaiian government web site, anyone born in Hawaii who is 1 year old or older and whose birth has not been previously registered in Hawaii could apply for the issuance of a late birth certificate called a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911 during the territorial era and was terminated in 1972 during the statehood era.
The CCP learned that for decades and continuing today Hawaii has incredibly lax policies regarding birth records, who can acquire them and how they are disseminated. Those policies in State law are in opposition to U.S. Immigration law and policy. No other State in the country has birth records laws as lax as Hawaii.
In Hawaii, to register an out of State or foreign birth and obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate, one must merely be a resident of the State for one year (not necessarily a U.S. citizen) and have paid income tax to the State.
Mike Zullo has stated that at the time of Obama’s birth, during the State’s early years, Hawaii birth documents were routinely purchased by foreigners for children not born in the State.
Foreign nationals, primarily from Japan, would travel to Hawaii and buy birth registration for their son or daughter, not with the intent of them becoming President, but to obtain the benefits of U.S. citizenship.
Zullo stated when he was in Hawaii following up on leads (2012), he talked to older locals who “informed us about a syndicate operation, a Mafia operation if you will, being run in the early infancy of the State of Hawaii where birth certificates were being sold to Japanese refugees on a black market basis”.
Complicating Obama’s citizenship tale is an acknowledged school record from Jakarta which identifies young Obama as a citizen of Indonesia. With all of this, it’s difficult to brand Obama “natural-born citizen”. Yet, no litigant, so fare has persuaded an American court of this. But, almost every case has been dismissed (on standing grounds) before evidence could be presented.
Almost every case brought sought the same thing: release of Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate. This is the alleged document the White House website put on display in April 2011. Obama has spent millions of dollars to fight attempts to force him to release the document. Why did the president finally change his mind?
Two White House officials presided over the birth certificate’s presentation at a pen-and-paper, off-camera, no audio-recording, press conference. One journalist pointed out, “some people are going to remain unconvinced”. He continued: “They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper. You could have typed anything in there. Will the actual birth certificate be on display or viewable at any …”
The White House transcript breaks off with the word: “(laughter)”.
Who will laugh last? Obama? Arpaio? Politicians who keep their heads buried or citizens who take their Constitution seriously? Whoever laughs last, it’s safe to say the Obama birth certificate is a very funny (business) document.
arc99 June 24th, 2014 at 11:50 am
the only funny business is the work of the deranged lunatics who believe this garbage.
I take my Constitution very seriously which is why I will do all I can to make sure we never allow a twice elected lawfully eligible President to be removed from office based on the delusions of psychotic ideologues.
oneking90 June 24th, 2014 at 12:49 pm
Please look at the evidence with a critical eye. There is plenty of it available. I have and determined the evidence is clear and convincing that “something is rotten in Denmark.” You may see the same evidence differently. Juries do that every day. Obama may be as clean as the driven snow or as guilty as sin. That is a question the Congress should determine and I hope they do.
Chinese Democracy June 24th, 2014 at 1:06 pm
Heres the evidence a local county Sheriff is trying to determine if the President of the United States has a fake birth certificate
Thats about as far as I need to go
arc99 June 24th, 2014 at 1:32 pm
You birthers have made it very apparent that nothing will dissuade you from your fantasies. I am not inclined to waste time on conspiracy theories that should be filed in the same drawer with the faked moon landing, the 9/11 inside job, and Bigfoot.
Believe whatever you want. Just do not for an instant presume that people who do not believe in far right wing fairy tales are any less committed to the Constitution than you are. Although it is hard to escape the conclusion that we are far more committed to the concept known as reality, than the birthers.
And yes I am one of those who sees the very obvious element of race in this birther hoax since no white President or nominee of either party has been subjected to this kind of scrutiny.
oneking90 June 24th, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Why so angry. This matter must be very personal for you. It is not for me. If the arguments I presented are flawed, defeat them with better arguments. I’m willing to learn and be wrong. But thus far the comments I’ve read have been demeaning and vulgar personal attack. I’ve not seen one argument challenging what I presented. We are all American who want the best for our country. We don’t have to agree but we need not be vulgar and cruel to one another.
The Postman June 24th, 2014 at 3:10 pm
I suppose it would be different if you were presenting arguments and reasoned opinions with some tenuous connection to, you know, reality, but the stuff you post is the worst kind of fantasy-based, spittle-flecked tripe that would only appeal to the Orly Tatz’s of the world. So quit pretending to be reasonable because you aren’t.
BeeCone June 25th, 2014 at 1:49 am
You are not willing to learn, you don’t care about facts, you are blind to everything right in front of your face, but that’s OK you are obviously harmless, well at least to the rest of us.
oneking90 June 25th, 2014 at 11:54 pm
Good luck to you. Have a great life.
William Carr June 27th, 2014 at 9:36 am
Personal ?
No, it’s just that you’re insulting our intelligence.
This malarky goes back SIX YEARS.
It was a lie then, it’s a lie now.
But you pea-brained morons keep repeating the SAME LIES.
You know it won’t convince anybody with two functioning brain cells, so you’re trolling for idiots to convince.
You don’t even HAVE arguments.
You create convoluted delusions based on “natural law”… which conveniently isn’t ACTUAL Law that has definitions… and shovel BS in a pile so you will have a squishy podium to preach from.
Making up crap about “layers” in a converted PDF file… it’s as if you’ve never used a computer !
fahvel June 24th, 2014 at 1:40 pm
STOP babbling like a caged goof ball – you give headaches to fleas fella.
DownriverDem June 24th, 2014 at 2:49 pm
This Congress????? Get real.
Ted Cruz can’t run either.
Dave B. June 25th, 2014 at 9:25 pm
“You should know that evidence is not stuff printed from the internet.” — California Superior Court Judge Charles Margines, to birther “attorney” Orly Taitz.
Roctuna June 24th, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Would you raise these issues if his middle name wasn’t Hussein? If he were white? I wonder.
William June 24th, 2014 at 12:47 pm
Would you raise these issues if his middle name wasn’t Hussein?
Which brings up another point.
granpa.usthai June 24th, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Didn’t know the fake Italian Jesus was related to the Iraqi’s, Granpa Wil. Know the Jew Jesus was like a distant cousin to Iraqi’s, but the Italian one, ? – you may be right. Before any of the fake followers of the fake Italian Jesus are fit for public office, I think AMERICANS should DEMAND a long form copy of his birth certificate – not the fake one they put in the files 550 years ago, but the actual one that shows he’s a secret Muslim from Hong Kong. Americans have a rite to no a religious plastic RWNJ if their plastic Jesus originates from H.K.!
William June 24th, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Tell it brother. Can I get an Amen?
http://youtu.be/P2gDJ9PNqX4
Roctuna June 24th, 2014 at 4:05 pm
I always wondered. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Susan Wood June 24th, 2014 at 4:03 pm
The whole birther flap began because back in ’08, some blogger was trying to prove that Obama’s middle name was really “Mohammed.” Without bothering to check his facts, which would have shown him that Obama had in fact produced his birth certificate months earlier, he rhetorically asked “Why hasn’t Obama produced his birth certificate?” And that was all it took to get the crowd that now call themselves the “tea party” to start screeching “He ain’t got no birth certificate! He ain’t a American!”
The fat lady in the orange tee shirt who famously made a scene in one of those 2009 “Town Hell” meetings absolutely exemplifies the birther crowd. She stands there waving her own short-form birth certificate, of exactly the same type that Obama had presented, and had also made available on the web for examination, and screeched “I have a BIRTH CERTIFICATE! But he was born in Kenya!” When her Congressman tried to set the record straight, she and her friends in the Town Hell all stood up and drowned him out by reciting the pledge to the flag — the ultimate irony, if any of them could actually understand the words, because they obviously don’t know what “indivisible” means. (It means that it’s illegal for people like them to secede, or to arbitrarily decide who else does and doesn’t get to count as an American citizen).
Roctuna June 24th, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Fat lady in a t-shirt? Wasn’t Karl Rove in drag was it?
oneking90 June 24th, 2014 at 1:08 pm
The short answer is yes I would. Obama is either eligible to be President or he isn’t. I seek the truth where ever it leads. Your intimation that I’m a racist for pointing out anomalies in his BC does not reflect well on you. After all, you don‘t know what race I am. The charge of racism is the last refuge of those who have no arguments.
fahvel June 24th, 2014 at 1:38 pm
how about just plain stupid? Like the dope sheriff or the fine singing noodle head.
granpa.usthai June 24th, 2014 at 2:25 pm
NEWS FLASH!
(eligible or ineligible)
Barrack Hussein Obama has been the popularly elected POTUS since November 2008.
There is no ‘time machine’ that will transport US back to the epic FAILURES of John McCain’s choice for VP.
It’s a done deal for America and for Planet Earth.
Don’t doubt the WHITE RACIST might continue to pump the BC issue for as long as it’ll recruit ‘new blood’ – but for the record:
1. Obama is for real.
2. He actually was born
3. Numerous witnesses have actually met him
4. While some of US consider Michelle to be ‘computer perfect’
she may also be for real. Only one way to know for sure, if you’d like to contribute to granpa’s fund to ‘track her down’ and make some lip locked affirmations – (will probably take a lot of extra funding to ensure both the POTUS and granma are out of the country during actual affirmations).
5. Hell is an actual city in Michigan that DOES freeze over from time to time.
6. If man were meant to fly, he’d have been born with wings.
7. Geico Commercials confirm that pigs do fly -no mention of what class- but if I were Maxwell and found out the little green feller was traveling first and I weren’t, I’d be putting up a squeal!
8. the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain is a literary crock!
The rain in Spain falls where ever you’re at on vacation from start to finish.
9. Hurricanes are made for surfers who want to ride the ‘really big one’!
that’s what earthquakes are for.
10. Birth Certificates are issued to show where, when and to whom they apply. Citizens of the United States of America are natural born if they are delivered within the jurisdiction of the United States, or if one or more of the parents are Citizens of the United States. If Obama was born in a Kenyan mud hut with thatched roof during an electrical storm with an old bare breasted woman witch doctor appearing at the door in a flash of lightening and African drums with Zulu chants, he would be just as qualified as John McCain to run for the office of POTUS. (no need for any altered birth certificate/time travel to alter newspaper notices, or any other great conspiratorial RACIST hub bub).
11. who’s to say Ted Cruz is not a test tube baby (not naturally born)?
DownriverDem June 24th, 2014 at 2:51 pm
You seek it with RWNJ hate. Move on.
fratdawgg23 June 24th, 2014 at 6:16 pm
You must have mad cow disease to believe the agency still running on the fumes of J. Edna Hoover would allow a black man with forged birth documents to ascend to the White House.
oneking90 June 24th, 2014 at 7:02 pm
Hoover died 42 years ago. Most of the people reading this post were not even born yet. How could his “fumes” do anything to or for Obama?
Dave B. June 25th, 2014 at 9:22 pm
Says the guy who’s been cribbing gossip and bad law off of birther blogs.
smrstrauss June 27th, 2014 at 12:29 pm
Maybe your motive is not racism. Maybe it is just the same kind of extreme political leanings that led the far right wing to charge the President Eisenhower was a traitor in the 1950s (“None Dare Call it Treason.”) Whatever the motive, the notion that Obama could have been born anywhere else than in Hawaii is STUPID.
For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:
(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;
(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);
(3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).
(Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )
foxnewslieseveryday June 24th, 2014 at 1:42 pm
Spam.
Flagged.
granpa.usthai June 24th, 2014 at 1:49 pm
The US Congress has yet to ‘OFFICIALLY INVESTIGATE’ if you really do fall off the edge of the earth if you sail beyond the horizon!
Take a number and get in line – I’ve been wanting to no for years if ice is cold, or if it only feels that way because we’ve been told it is?
Dwendt44 June 24th, 2014 at 6:26 pm
“The theory of gravity proved wrong!’ I can see the headlines now. WorldNutsDaily stricks again.
Clavell Jackson June 24th, 2014 at 2:01 pm
You are a fucking idiot.
oneking90 June 24th, 2014 at 2:19 pm
If I wanted to kill myself I’d climb your ego and jump to your IQ.
The Postman June 24th, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Oooooo, BURN! I’m sorry, though. I gotta go with Mr. Jackson on this one. If you’re still swimmin’ around in the birther cesspool, you’re kind of a f ucking idiot.
DownriverDem June 24th, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Move on. We don’t need your babble.
The Postman June 24th, 2014 at 2:18 pm
I’m sorry. Were you saying something important? You lost me at “Sheriff” Joe Arpaio. I was a little busy, you know, laughing hysterically.
oneking90 June 24th, 2014 at 3:14 pm
Sheriff Joe is going to announce pretty soon that we now have definitive
proof that Barack Obama is an alien. Not a foreign alien. but an alien
alien. Arpaio has been doing digital analysis of Barack Obama’s ears.
Anybody who watches Star Trek knows what a Vulcan ear looks like, at the
very least Shrek,”.
The Postman June 24th, 2014 at 3:31 pm
So…Poe’s law?
mea_mark June 24th, 2014 at 3:33 pm
Does it really matter, he’s a troll.
Nikita Jo June 24th, 2014 at 3:33 pm
So you’re just as bigoted as ol’ pink drawers.
Obewon June 24th, 2014 at 3:58 pm
What planet does Birther Arpaio say POTUS Obama is from? Is it a double, or a triple star system? They must have a Harvard Law school and a Kapiolani Maternity Hospital too! Via NBC. http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/well-today-stanley-had-a-baby/question-1694067/
DownriverDem June 24th, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Then Ted Cruz can not be president. Otherwise you are one sick man.
oneking90 June 24th, 2014 at 4:00 pm
I agree. Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President.
Obewon June 24th, 2014 at 4:05 pm
Breaking snooze: Calgary’s Ted Cruz’ mom wasn’t American. she’s from the Endor moon in the Star Wars mockumentary!
The Postman June 24th, 2014 at 4:15 pm
It’s a trap!
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 7:25 pm
Actually, no. Ted Cruz’ Mother was an American citizen.
She lived in the US for more than ten years, with five of those years being after the age of 19; thus she satisfied the legal requirements at the time.
Today those requirements are 5 years residency, with 2 after the age of 14.
So the lunatic Ted Cruz IS eligible to run for President.
It’s just he’s never going to succeed. There will never again be a Republican President.
Nixon cheated to win the Presidency by interfering with the Vietnam Peace talks.
Reagan cheated to win the Presidency by interfering with the Iranian Hostage negotiations.
G.W. Bush cheated to win the Presidency by having his brother strike 80,000 people from the voting rolls in Florida for having a “similar” name to convicted felons in Texas.
And of course, the Five Conservatives on the Supreme Court were finally forced to illegally stop the official State Recount to appoint him President.
G.W. Bush stole the 2004 election by Carl Rove’s hackers crashing the Election Server in Ohio.
When the backup server came online, it was hundreds of miles away, out of State, and in “safe” Republican hands.
So… the last legitimate Republican President was H.W. Bush.
And of course, he was somewhat tainted by being Reagan’s VP.
The GOP has used up all the tricks for stealing elections.
We’re wise to them.
Anonymous blocked Carl Rove’s attempt to flip Ohio in 2012.
They even warned him in advance. Check YouTube.
abbyjo2001 June 24th, 2014 at 2:55 pm
All the so-called proof through the years has proven to be fake. Faked, Im sure by some birther nut.
Susan Wood June 24th, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Hawai’i, like many states, went paperless years ago. Barack Obama is no different from any other American citizen born in Hawai’i in that his “long form” birth certificate exists as an electronic file. Please stop trying to pretend you don’t know that the last 30 years of electronic archiving advances ever happened.
Tell the truth, had you ever even heard of a “long form” birth certificate before this whole non-issue erupted? The “short form” certificate is the one you’ve probably presented to get your driver’s license, your passport, and any other documents you needed. And of course you’ve never seen the original paperwork from the hospital, because no archive ever EVER parts with an irreplaceable original document.
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 7:14 pm
The paper originals in 1961 were collated and bound into an archival book.
The scan they provided on request was in PDF form, yes.
Opening it in any program but OSX Preview or Adobe Acrobat may cause translation effects.
(Apple co-invented Postscript and holds an IP license for it)
Wells June 24th, 2014 at 4:25 pm
History will judge Barack Obama a more respectable president than the murderously misanthropic Bush Dynasty. Those who believe reincarnation think it may not be a coincidence that George W was born shortly after Hitler died.
oneking90 June 24th, 2014 at 5:41 pm
HIstory will judge.
JKess June 25th, 2014 at 12:28 pm
well for sure, king, history is going to judge you an idiot.
Dwendt44 June 24th, 2014 at 6:24 pm
the out of order registration number is meaningless. It works like this. The birth certificates are stacked in a pile as the hospital fills out the paperwork. The earlier one(s) end up on the bottom. The pile is then sent to the registrar’s office. The clerk takes the forms one at a time, off he top of the pile. That’s how a pair of twins born after President Obama were registered first. While it should have been the proper procedure to file them in chronological order, a lazy or uncaring clerk didn’t do that. No big deal for everyone UNLESS there is a conspiracy nut making a big deal of it. There was a weekend involved with the hospital to registrar’s office, so the date registered isn’t important either. Unless the facts are usable for a conspiracy case.
Nut jobs will go to any extreme to support their crazy ideas. If the printer skips a spot while printing, that PROVES there’s a conspiracy afoot.
oneking90 June 24th, 2014 at 7:28 pm
The Posse learned from Verna Lee that every LFBC issued was inspected twice for accuracy by two different HDOH clerks and signed by the registrar. All certificates received were stored in a secure room, by the order of birth, (date and time) until they were number stamped at the end of each month. Per Verna Lee, they were numbered correctly and not allowed to get out of order. She stated no mistakes occurred on her watch.
Dwendt44 June 24th, 2014 at 9:29 pm
Ya sure.
Dave B. June 25th, 2014 at 9:21 pm
According to serial LIAR Jerome Corsi.
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 7:11 pm
“not allowed to get out of order”.
Excuse me, but … if a mistake occurred, and she didn’t notice… how would she know?
You are mentally deficient.
oneking90 June 26th, 2014 at 8:06 pm
Well you’re a big poop head.
William Carr June 27th, 2014 at 9:38 am
Ah… brings back memories of Robotics class.
A Tea Bagger kept bringing up paranoid conspiracy memes, and I would sigh and patiently explain the actual facts to him.
Eventually, he flipped out and said “I look forward to your funeral”.
And that was when I knew he was beaten.
smrstrauss June 27th, 2014 at 3:01 pm
Besides, Verna Lee DID NOT SAY that birth certificates received their numbers from the chronological order in which they were issued. Apparently they were issued in batches.
Dwendt44 June 24th, 2014 at 6:35 pm
There is NO evidence what so ever that President Obama was born in Kenya. None, zero, nada, zip. the claim otherwise is stupid.
oneking90 June 24th, 2014 at 7:47 pm
I don’t know where he was born but to say there is no evidence he was born in Kenyan is not true.
In 2012, records at the British National Archives (BNA) revealed Barack Obama Sr. had a son born in Kenya in 1961, the same year President Obama was born. Obama Jr. is the only known son born to Obama Sr. in 1961. The BNA is an agency of the United Kingdom and is an official archive containing 1,000 years of records and documents.
The line records don’t specify the name of a child, only gender. But the line records provide index numbers for microfilm copies of documents in the archives. Obama Sr.’s line records were found in Series RG36 of the reference books. Access was requested for the microfilm of Obama Sr. birth registrations but the records were unavailable under “privileged access” status. That means they were denied under Chapter 52, Sections 3 and 5 of the British Public Records Act of 1958.
On April 3, 2010, in a Youtube video during a speech she gave to the LGBT community Michelle Obama referred to Kenya as Barack Obama’s home country. The comment happens at 40 seconds into the video.
Miriam Goderich, the literary agent who wrote the description, works with the Dystel & Goderich agency and listed Obama as a client. Its not surprising then that Goderich quickly claimed that listing Obama’s birthplace as Kenya was “nothing more than a fact checking error.”
Yet, facts that show Obama was born in Kenya are plentiful and precede the 1991 edition of the brochure.
Though claiming Obama’s Kenyan birthplace was a mistake, the brochure continued to maintain that claim until after he was a U.S. Senator. “Goderich’s doesn’t explain why the “fact checking error” persisted for sixteen years, in three different versions of Jane Dystel’s website and four different versions of Obama’s biography.
The literary agency updated the bio in June 1998 and the part about Obama’s Kenyan birth was kept.
The text was updated in February 2005, when Obama became a Senator, and Kenya was still claimed as his birthplace.
An April 2007 change to the bio still stated Obama “was born in Kenya.”
It was revealed, the Dystel & Goderich agency asked clients to prepare their own biography, making it impossible the Kenyan birthplace was a “fact checking error”. Was Obama lying then or he is lying now?
Mia Marie Pope knew Obama when they both were teenagers hanging out at Waikiki Beach. Obama’s name then was “Barry Soetoro” and he said he was a foreign student from “Mombasa”. He attended the very expensive private Punahou School in Hawaii. How “Barry” was able to afford that school she didn’t know. His family (grand-parents) lived in a modest apartment building in Honolulu and didn’t appear to have a lot of money. Pope suspected since “Barry” was a foreign student, he received some special deal and was able to go to Punahou. She and other teens in their group considered “Barry” a braggart and “pathological liar” of deficient character and deduced he was involved in cocaine usage and homosexual interactions, for compensation (money and or drugs), with older (mostly White) men. She observed him entering and exiting vehicles containing these men. “Barry was not interested in girls at all.” Obama in his book “Dreams from My Father” admitted to his drug usage as a teen.
Pope, as a teen, did not know where “Mombasa” was located. She has since learned it is a city in Kenya.
On Nov. 6, 2008, two days after the presidential election, Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike in the Morning” called the Embassy of Kenya in Washington, D.C., to speak with Ambassador Ogego.
The radio hosts were surprised when their light-hearted interview with Ogego reignited suspicions that Obama may have been born in Kenya.
An assistant to the ambassador, referring to herself only as “Trudy,” confirmed that Ogego had participated in the radio interview.
Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”
Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”
Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”
Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”
Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”
Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born – but a video posted on YouTube features Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, Sarah, saying she witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya.
The following excerpt is from a story written by Jim “Race Bannon” Bancroft, former by U.S. Marine and published in Gathering of Eagles: NY on December 3, 2009, titled Barack Obama sighting Hawaii revised.
Barack Obama Sighting Hawaii 1980 Revised
While back in Hawaii by late June of 1980, we went back to Honolulu for liberty. I don’t remember the exact address, or the exact business, but one August night, early August 1980, I stopped at a small shop that was either on Kalakaua Blvd or the street just north of it, one block north. I struck up a conversation with a young man, Mulatto, about 18, all teeth, smiling, skinny, short hair that I remember, at least short for the year we lived in.
He told me he lived in Hawaii. Not too many black Americans lived in Hawaii at all, now or then, so he being there was an oddity. I asked if he was in the service and he said no. I told him that I was a Marine and had recently gotten back from float. We spoke of world travel at this time and I told him the places we went to.
What strikes me most is what he said as to where he grew up: Indonesia. He told me he wanted to be President of the US someday. I remember lightly smiling and commenting that maybe by the time he gets to be 40 or so, America will be ready for a Black man to be President and I wished him luck. We spoke of the racial tensions I saw at home while growing up and I asked him if he ever saw that overseas or since he returned back to Hawaii. I don’t remember his answer, but we spoke more of his time overseas and his thoughts on life and philosophy of government. He made some strange comments to me, it was obvious he never set foot for any time in the continental United States and I told him he better realize that he is making judgments about the United States when he himself never actually lived there. I told him, “Hawaii aint the United States!”
He also told me something that I never forgot, for it caused me to do some other things in an effort to be nice to him and possibly a favor. We spoke of where I had been and the world as I saw it. I told him I had been to Africa, Mombassa specifically, and he said to me abruptly, “I was born there”. I told him he is not eligible to be president if that was true, but I remembered he said his mom was an American, so, maybe it was okay. But it was what I did after that makes this a true memory: I went back to the barracks and told others of this guy and suggested we all grab our photo albums and visit him again and show him pictures of Mombassa so he could see where he was from.
No one wanted to go, and at that time, my camera had failed me weeks before we hit Mombassa and it was late August or early September until I had borrowed someone else’s pictures to develop myself so I had copies of where I was. But I never forgot meeting that man for those reasons. I was going to do him a favor and show him his home country of birth. And I never went back for some reason, most likely I forgot to or just felt that a one time chance encounter would be meaningless to both of us and didn’t mean we were friends.
In the light of what is called “The Birther” movement, these memories are still foremost in my mind concerning this. While I cannot swear it was Barak Obama, all the details I do remember of that chance encounter fit the profile of the man who some people claim is born in Kenya and others claim he was born in Hawaii. The man I met was about 18, thin, Mulatto, told me he was born in Mombassa, raised overseas, was living in Hawaii and hadn’t yet been to many places in the world outside of those places, mostly, hadn’t been to the mainland of America for any long time period if at all. And he openly told me he
wanted to be President.
And I remember that face, the face of a young man who sat on a table to my right front, his hands resting on the edge of the table, him leaning forward, his smile, all teeth. It was Barak Obama. I don’t know if I’d bet my life on it, but I am willing to tell people openly at the risk of my ridicule. I was there, and saw him, spoke to him, and he openly told me he was born in Mombassa, Kenya, not Hawaii.
Dwendt44 June 24th, 2014 at 9:38 pm
As has already been pointed out, it doesn’t matter where he was born since he has an American mother. But the so called evidence is, at best hearsay and speculation. The mistranslations and misinterpretations of the conspiracy nuts only show the depth to which they’ll go to keep from admitting the truth.
Does the term ‘sons of the Confederacy’ ring a bell? Does that mean that those who, for what ever reason, claim that title or description are REALLY sons of the Confederacy? I think it means the our ancestors, way back when were rebels against the United States of America. Similarly, Kenya claiming Obama as one of their sons is no different. His ancestor was from Kenya, via his father. Doesn’t mean HE was born there since all the realistic evidence says he was born in Hawaii. His name was never legally Soetoro, and no matter how much Corsi stretches the truth, and he’s known to stretch it to the breaking point, it’s not evidence. It’s little more than opinion.
Filing errors, out of order logging and mistakes in the registry office DO happen. The same goes here.
Again. anyone who’s so lacking in intelligence to believe Obama was not born in Hawaii (it IS a state and was one when Obama was born, are truely pathetic.
oneking90 June 24th, 2014 at 10:12 pm
The book bio is not hearsay since Obama wrote it. The statements made to Pope and the Marine are hearsay but would be admitted in court as “statements against interest”. Those are three pieces of admissible evidence. The claim was there was none.
Linda June 25th, 2014 at 12:46 pm
And yet again, another copy and paste. Do you even understand what you are claiming to know?
smrstrauss June 27th, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Obama did NOT write the book bio. A publicist for his literary agent wrote it, and she admitted to making the mistake all by herself and that she did not check with Obama and that she did not receive information from Obama in writing the bio and that she did not tell him when she put it online so that he could not check it to fix it.
JKess June 25th, 2014 at 12:28 pm
yeah that supposed british birth certificate was proven a fake, child.
Linda June 25th, 2014 at 12:44 pm
Again, another copy and paste. Stop reading and believing every blog you read.
Dave B. June 25th, 2014 at 9:19 pm
You sure do love you some gossip, don’t you?
smrstrauss June 26th, 2014 at 5:55 pm
Re: “In 2012, records at the British National Archives (BNA) revealed Barack Obama Sr. had a son born in Kenya in 1961,”
Answer: None of that is true. What is true is that a birther site quoted an unnamed person from an unnamed organization that SAID that it had gone to the records and found what you say. But nobody else has. Now I wonder why a birther site would quote an unknown person from an unnamed organization claiming that there was a record of a birth of a son to Obama’s father in Kenya?
BTW, the Kenyan government has said that it checked and that Obama was NOT born there.
http://washingtonindependent.com/53654/forged …
Terry Hatch June 24th, 2014 at 7:00 pm
You need help!
Bill Santagata June 24th, 2014 at 11:01 pm
Minor v. Happersett did not rule that natural born citizens must be born to two citizen parents. The Supreme Court said that, whether or not “natural born citizen” meant born to two citizen parents or simply born in the country, it didn’t matter because Minor would be a natural born citizen even under the more restrictive definition.
A few years later, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court definitively ruled that, under most circumstances, any person born within the United States is a natural born citizen of the United States regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents (under the 14th Amendment).
oneking90 June 24th, 2014 at 11:58 pm
Wong Kim Ark was the son of resident Chinese aliens, who claimed U.S. Citizenship and was justified by the court based on the 14th Amendment. In the case Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
“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.”
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, the majority coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a new interpretation to jurisdiction and extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not redefine the term “natural born citizen.”
0
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 12:37 am
Birthers impaled by reality: Obama is the 7th POTUS with a foreign-born parent. 76 years ago (R) Herbert Hoover had a Canadian-born mother. Woodrow Wilson’s mother was English. Chester Arthur and James Buchanan both had Irish fathers. ThomasJefferson’s mother was born in England, and Andrew Jackson’s parents were both born in Ireland.
Along with Panamanian Born (R) John McCain, presidential contender (R) Mitt Romney’s father (R) George Romney was born in Mexico, and 2008 candidate Bill Richardson’s parents were both foreign-born, his father from Nicaragua and his mother from Mexico.
And why are all of these people eligible for the presidency of the United States? Because the Supreme Court, after citing many, many precedents, ultimately decided in US v. WONG KIM ARK (1898) that the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all persons born in the United States, regardless of their ethnic heritage.
oneking90 June 25th, 2014 at 11:59 am
During the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, the principal author of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, defined ‘natural-born citizen’ on the House floor and no one disputed his definition. In fact no one has disputed his definition on the House or Senate floor since. The definition of ‘natural-born citizens’ remains as follows:
“The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural-born citizen of the United States’ occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that ‘Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.’ To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth – natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion say more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions becomes naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens.”
The 14th Amendment produced a division among native-born citizens and statutory native-born citizens. A 14th Amendment native-born citizen is one who was born in the
United States and subject to U.S. authority at birth. In contrast, a statutory native-born citizen does not
qualify for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, but obtains U.S. citizenship by laws enacted by Congress. For example, foreign-born children of U.S. citizen parents don’t obtain citizenship from the 14th Amendment; these children gain citizenship, at birth, by statute.
The 14th Amendment was calculated to achieve the following purposes:
To retroactively define as U.S. citizens former slaves whose citizenship was not acknowledged by the States in which they lived;
To stop States from claiming former slaves were not citizens of States in which they lived, even if they were US citizens.
There is no evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to change the requirements for President.
In the history of the United States 44 men have been president. Of these, 34 were born after 1787 and subject to the “natural-born Citizen” requirement. With two exceptions, these 34 presidents were born in the U.S. of parents who were both U.S. citizens. The exceptions were Barack H. Obama and Chester A. Arthur. President Obama’s situation is well known. President Arthur’s situation is less so.
It was discovered that President Arthur was not a natural-born citizen and hid that fact from the nation. Arthur was born in Vermont in 1829. His mother, Malvina Stone, was also born in Vermont. His father, William Arthur, an anti-slavery Baptist clergyman, was born in Ireland in 1796, immigrated to Canada about 1819 and finally the United States about 1821. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after the birth of Chester Arthur. This made President Arthur both a U.S. and British citizen at birth.
In 1880, while running for Vice-President with President James A. Garfield, Arthur P. Hinman made a charge that Chester Arthur was ineligible to be Vice-President because in was born in Ireland or Canada. The charge was discredited but Hinman went on to write a book called, “How a British Subject Became President of the United States” Arthur was not a natural-born citizen, but not for the reason claimed by Hinman. He was ineligible because his father was a British Subject at the time of his birth. Arthur, a lawyer, repeatedly gave false and misleading statements to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper concerning his father’s heritage, immigration status and age. Later, Arthur burned most of his family documents. He even lied about his own age. He claimed to have been born in 1830, the date recorded on his gravestone. His attempts to conceal his father’s history suggest he was aware of his ineligibility, per Article 2, Section 1 and the Law of Nations, to be President or Vice-President.
Note: Justice Horace Gray, wrote the Wong Kim Ark decision, and was appointed to the Court by President Arthur. The Opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is tarnished, since Gray received a personal benefit from the result. By conferring birthright citizenship on Wong, the Court also conferred it on President Arthur, legitimizing his presidency and his appointment of Horace Gray to the Supreme Court.
Eligibility challenges to be President have occurred in the recent past. Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican of Arizona, and candidate for President in 1964, received a challenge to his eligibility because he was born in Arizona in 1909 when it was still a territory.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, an eligibility challenge was made against Senator John McCain because in 1936, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, a U.S. territory at the time. Senator McCain submitted his eligibility status to the U. S. Senate for examination. Legal scalars Laurence H. Tribe and Theodore B. Olson were commissioned to write a memo on the matter and determined McCain was eligible. The Senate approved a non-biding resolution (511) stating McCain was eligible to be President though the resolution. It stated, “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now therefore it be resolved that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.“ Interestingly, then Senator Obama, supported the resolution in favor of McCain. However, Senator Obama did not suggest or request his eligibility status be examined.
The eligibility status of Goldwater and McCain became mute because they were not elected President. However, if President Obama, or any president, is not ineligible to hold Office, a constitutional and political quagmire is created. What is the status of any laws or treaties the President signed? Is the military required to obey his orders? Are Judges he appoints to courts legitimate? Are executive orders issued by him in effect? How would he be removed from office? Who removes him? What if he refuses to go? Has any crime been committed?
Historically there are 4 types of U.S. citizens.
(1) Natural-born citizens, born in the U.S. to citizen parents (eligible to be President or Vice-President).
The authority comes from Article 2, Section 1.of the Constitution.
(2) A U.S. citizen born to one U.S. citizen parent on U.S. or foreign soil (by act of Congress).
(3) A U.S. citizen born to foreign parents on U.S. soil (Wong Kim Ark decision)
(4) Naturalized citizens, born somewhere other than the U.S. and made a citizens (by act of Congress).
Note: Congress can make anyone a U.S. citizen by statute. But no act of Congress can make a natural-born citizen. That authority comes only from the Constitution.
Over time word meaning may change. For example: “gay” once meant “jovial” and “cute” meant “bowlegged”. Two hundred years ago, if someone spoke of a “cute gay man” he was not speaking of an “attractive homosexual guy” but a “joyful bowlegged fellow“. To understand the meaning of any word or text in a document, it must be viewed as used in the time written. Otherwise how can the understanding of the document be known? Original intent is the foundation of a document and must not depend on the whims and agendas of future politicians, journalists, Courts or Congress.
Linda June 25th, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Do you have to copy and paste EVERYTHING you post? It’s not hard to figure out if your writings are your thoughts or the writings of another. Proof that you will believe everything the RWNJ tell you.
mea_mark June 25th, 2014 at 1:33 pm
You really need to make shorter comments and provide links to credible sources for additional info. Extended comments that look like cut and paste without links to credible sources may get deleted. And may very well get you banned if you are doing nothing more than wasting our time if unverifiable garbage.
smrstrauss June 26th, 2014 at 5:50 pm
The original intent of the writers of the US Constitution was clearly to use the meaning of Natural Born from the common law, and there is clearly no intent of any kind in the 14th amendment to revise that original definition. And what is the original definition?
There were two friends of the writers of the Constitution who wrote books about it. Both were legal scholars and both had friends among the members of the Constitutional Convention, Tucker and Rawle. And BOTH of them use the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way Natural Born was used in the common law.
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting
the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
In short, the US Supreme Court was right in the Wong Kim Ark decision. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen really does come from the common law, and it really does include every child born in the USA.
oneking90 June 26th, 2014 at 7:36 pm
This is a deep subject and I have a tooth ache but I will attempt to clarify my side of the debate. I will try and keep it as brief as I can but it will still be long. Just warning you.
Consider again Article II, section 1, pa. 5: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” That limits who may be President to persons who meet the following requirements:
Those who are 35 years old or older; and
Those who have been a resident of the U.S. for 14 years or longer; and
Those who are natural born citizens; or
Those who were U.S. citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted. Why include that last exception?
Before answering, consider the situation of Congressman Smith. He was born in South Carolina before the Revolution. During of the Revolution, he was minor. His parents were Tory’s and fought against the Americans. After the adoption of the Constitution in 1787, he was elected to Congress. His right to serve was challenged on the theory he was not a citizen because his parents were Tory’s.
James Madison defended Mr. Smith claiming he was a citizen.
Madison argued Smith was a citizen because of where he was born and because he was a juvenile when his parents sided with the British. Madison maintained adults who fought on the side of the British would not qualify to be citizens, in spite of where they were born. The Constitution allows naturalized citizens to serve in Congress, there is no requirement one have “birthright citizenship.” Madison argued Smith was a citizen from birth, because of his birthplace, not because off his parents. Madison maintained Smith’s parents were never U.S. citizens.
Madison prevailed and Smith was seated as a Congressman. Congress accepted Madison’s argument that Smith had birthright citizenship due to his birth in South Carolina—when it was a British Colony and not a State. By that logic, most residents of the U.S. were native citizens by place of birth alone.
Per Madison’s argument, citizens of a State became citizens of the U.S. by operation of natural law and the law of nations the moment two events occurred: (1) The social order, they were part of, came under the sovereignty of the United States and (2) they were adults who accepted loyalty to the United States. Citizenship began then and not before. Madison’s rule was if anyone was born on U.S. soil and didn’t rejected that citizenship, they were a citizen of the United States (though he didn’t say what kind). Most people alive when the Constitution was adopted had parents who were not U.S. citizens because the United States didn’t exist until 1776 at the earliest.
Children born on U.S. soil when the Constitution was adopted and whose parents were U.S. citizens when they were born would have been 13 years of age, at most, in 1789. Most citizens when the Constitution was ratified met the requirement to have been born on U.S. soil— as the British colonial soil which they were born on became U.S. soil the moment the Constitution was adopted, if not before (per Madison’s rule).
Based on Madison’s argument if “natural born citizen” meant “native born” or “born a citizen” or “born on soil where the United States is sovereign”, then any citizen when the Constitution was adopted would fulfill the “natural born citizen” requirement and there would be no need for the exception in the Constitution since a large number of U.S, residents were still potentially British subjects, per British law, and their loyalty to the United States would be under suspicion (as shown by the case of Congressman Smith).
If “natural born citizen” meant “born on U.S. soil, of parents who were U.S. citizens when the child was born,” then no one older than 13 years of age could have met the “natural born citizen” requirement in1789, when the Constitution was adopted and there was reason for the exception. Without that exception, George Washington wouldn’t have been eligible, or Presidents after him until well into the 19th century.
English common law was the origin for law in the original thirteen colonies, and the thirteen States, but was not the source for the law of the United States government. The framers discarded the idea that the United States follow English Common Law. George Mason a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention stated, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States”.
James Madison wrote a letter to George Washington, after the Constitutional Convention. The letter was a defense to the work of the Convention in opposition to criticisms by George Mason. One criticism was that “the common law was not secured” by the proposed Constitution. Madison’s response to that charge was contained in the following:
“The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions [of the several States] equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virga. [Virginia] drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The “revisal of the laws” by a Committee of which. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they would have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution“.
In Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (Pet. 8) 591 (1834), the Supreme Court held: “It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The Federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs and common law. There is no principle which pervades the Union and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the constitution or laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of our Federal system only by legislative adoption.”
In a speech to the Federalist Society, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed that English common law did not “control” at the Federal level after the United States gained its independence from Great Britain:
The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now. (Audio/Video: Justice Scalia speech, Nov 22, 2008)
It is an exception to the words of the Founders and Supreme Court precedents which reject the position Federal laws are based on English common law.
English common law was discarded because the U.S. was a Constitutional Republic, not as a kingdom. The values were widely divergent and a rejection of the philosophy of English law and government. Each colony was founded at different times, adopted English common law at their beginnings because that’s what they knew, then evolved their own common law separately. There was no collective “common law” amongst the States—not even on the topic of citizenship.
Words and terms developed based on their usefulness in the society that uses them. These words and terms are crafted with specific meanings and existing words and terms change, as new meanings better serve the purposes of those who use them. The Founders wanted a new legal tradition, based on ideologies of government they believed in and not those of Britain the realm whose political traditions they fought and died to be shed of.
Severing their allegiance to King George, the ties of history and country, establishing a Republic based on new political values required new doctrine, new words and new definitions. Even if English common law was the bed rock for the Constitution, the Founders made needed changes to the legal doctrine and semantics they integrated from English common law.
The War of 1812!
A significant factor that led to the War was the policy of impressing (drafting) American sailors (even passengers), on American (and other) ships at sea, into the British Navy. Impressing men into military service was lawful based on the English common law definition of “natural born subject.” Under that law, a man born on British soil or to British parents was a “natural born subject,” and owed allegiance to the Crown.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, many U.S. citizens were either born on British soil (when American colonies were British) or had parents who were British subjects at the time of their birth. The U.S. government vigorously objected to American citizens being impressed from ships at sea and rejected claims Britain had any right to do so. The U.S. government proclaimed that on American ships, American law applied and on non-British ships, the “law of nations” applied. That protest would be reasonable only if the U.S. rejected the British definition of “natural born subject,” and that rejection concerned matters in addition to the differences involving subjects and a citizens.
In addition to waging war on Britain, the U.S. dealt with its sailors being impressed by doing the following:
On February 9, 1813, the House of Representatives passed a law requiring all officers and three fourths of seamen onboard U.S. ships to be natural born citizens. Whatever “natural born citizen” meant to the founders, some of whom were still in Congress, they believed requiring an American sailor to be such would halt the British definition of “natural born subject” from applying to them—which meant a U.S. “natural born citizen” could not be born on British soil, or have even one British parent.
smrstrauss June 27th, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Re: “Why include that last exception?”
To include Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the island of Nevis in the Caribbean, which was NOT one of the 13 original states, and James Wilson, born in Scotland, and other American leaders at the time who were NOT born on US soil (and soil in the 13 colonies was always US soil despite the legality that they were at one time British).
I suspect that you will disagree about the soil point. Well, do your research. Like the USA there have been a LOT of British colonies which became independent. A few are Australia, India, Ireland, Etc. Etc. Your job is to find even one former British colony that did not consider its soil before independence to be its soil and not Britain’s. There isn’t any. At the stroke of the time when the colony became independent, the people who were born in that colony became automatically citizens of the new nation. They did not have to have parents who were citizens. They became citizens because of their place of birth, and their place of birth was on the soil of the country EVEN BEFORE IT BECAME A COUNTRY.
In any case, the historic reason for the grandfather clause was to make people who were NOT born on US soil, like Hamilton, eligible to become president. It was not to make George Washington and Tom Jefferson, who had been born on US soil eligible to become president.
Still don’t believe? There is a grave in Lexington Massachusetts of a soldier killed in the French and Indian War, which ended thirteen years BEFORE 1776. Every year on July 4, there is a US flag on his grave.
He fought for America, but not for the USA—since he could not even have thought the USA possible, but he was for sure an American. If he had lived, he would have been a Natural Born US Citizen regardless of the citizenship of his parents. (BTW, I’ve never seen a British flag on that grave.)
So forget the convoluted birther theory about the grandfather clause. Tucker and Rawle were right. George Washington was a Natural Born Citizen. Alexander Hamilton wasn’t. The grandfather clause was for Hamilton and Wilson and others like them, not for George.
smrstrauss June 27th, 2014 at 11:58 am
Excellent points. the Wong Kim Ark decision is the legal basis for the definition of Natural Born Citizen. In addition, there is the historical basis, and that includes the quotations from Tucker and Rawle, both of whom knew some of the members of the Constitutional Convention, and both of whom used the term Natural Born Citizen in their books just the same way that the common law uses the term Natural Born Subject. So that even before the Wong Kim Ark decision, the historic basis of Natural Born coming from the common law was well known.
So well known, in fact, that the very first Republican candidate for President, John C. Fremont, PROCLAIMED in his campaign biography that his father was French and had never been naturalized, and did not intend to be naturalized but had intended to go back to France when he died. Well, when a candidate for president writes openly that his father was NOT a US citizen, it is pretty obvious that that candidate is darn certain that his father’s citizenship does not affect the candidate’s Natural Born Citizen status, and of course, he was right.
So, while the Wong Kim Ark ruling is key, there is a LOT of historical evidence too.
JKess June 25th, 2014 at 12:27 pm
you’re aware that Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico, right? And that John McCain was born in Panama.
and yet I’m willing to bet you voted for them.
Obama was born in Hawaii you dimwitted conspiracy nutjob.
Dave B. June 25th, 2014 at 9:00 pm
And as Justice Gray pointed out in that same case,
“Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at
rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt
that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the
adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least,
born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of
citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or
public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of
the United States.”
The Fourteenth Amendment affirmed that, other than Native Americans, no one born in the United States would be excluded from citizenship on the basis of race. There was NO “new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States.” There was NO “new interpretation to jurisdiction.” Again, from Justice Gray:
“This sentence (the citizenship clause) of the fourteenth amendment is declaratory of existing
rights, and affirmative of existing law, as to each of the
qualifications therein expressed,—’born in the United States,’
‘naturalized in the United States,’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction
thereof’; in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of
citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States.”
You are correct, however, that the case “did not redefine the term “natural born citizen.”” Both before and after Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court has consistently conflated citizenship acquired by birth in the United States– native citizenship– with natural born citizenship and presidential eligibility, as opposed to naturalized citizenship, acquired under a statute provided by Congress in exercise of its naturalization power. Your purported natural born citizens “distinct from citizens who are native-born” are a figment of birther imaginations.
BeeCone June 25th, 2014 at 1:43 am
You are truly a very sad and sick person, get some help please.
JKess June 25th, 2014 at 12:26 pm
the state government of Hawaii and its governor, a Republican, said the birth certificate was genuine you dumbass.
oneking90 June 25th, 2014 at 2:02 pm
Get this through that septic tank on top of your shoulders, you PETER PUFFING JACKASS: I DON’T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK.
But For the benefit of others I offer the following:
The CCP was curious to find out whether the Obama LFBC PDF, with all the flaws, might still be genuine. They found a forensic document examiner Reed Hayes with over 20 years of experience providing document expertise to legal, law enforcement, corporations, financial They found a forensic document examiner Reed Hayes with over 20 years of experience providing document expertise to legal, law enforcement, corporations, financial service.
The CCP wanted an impartial review by Hayes regarding the long-form birth certificate image. At the conclusion of his analysis, Hayes issued a 40-page report in which he verified the findings of the CCP and was in full agreement with their conclusions: Hayes stated:
…based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.
In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated.
Note: Reed Hayes has worked frequently for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has defended President Obama in the various birth certificate court challenges over the past five years. Mr. Hayes is a Democrat whose business is based in Hawaii. His Curriculum Vitae is 9 pages and available online for review.
Linda June 25th, 2014 at 12:37 pm
You honestly believe this crap? Wow, it doesn’t take much to convince a bigot.
William Carr June 25th, 2014 at 3:47 pm
An Arpaio butt-kisser ?
Listen, moron. Can I call you moron?
Obama didn’t spend a DIME “fighting the release” of his Birth Certificate.
You sadly believe every Right Wing Paranoid Fantasy you read, including the long-debunked claim that Obama spent millions fighting to keep his documents private.
THAT hoax was about his college records.
It was debunked immediately, because the 1974 law making College Records private meant that Obama never had to spend a dime in court keeping his private records private.
The only records that CAN be released by Court Order are Public Records that were under seal at some point.
Obama’s College transcript, and MINE, for that matter, are protected by Law and no Judge in America could order our schools to release them.
But, you tied the “Obama spent millions of taxpayer dollars protecting his secrets” hoax in with the Birth Certificate hoax.
Really, there’s no other explanation than this; Birthers are either Racist or simply Insane.
And Racism is a form of Insanity, so…
You’re Nutz.
Quackers.
Round the bend.
Arpaio will drop dead of sheer hatred one day soon. And no doubt they will Breitbart him and claim Obama had him killed.
You have my pity.
Dave B. June 25th, 2014 at 8:42 pm
Good grief. The Cold Case Posse is a co-production of WorldNet Daily and Joe Arpaio’s re-election campaign. It’s not anything remotely like a good-faith investigation.
The term “natural born citizen” doesn’t come from any Swiss philosopher’s book– it descends directly from the “natural born subject” of English common law. And Chief Justice Waite’s opinion in Minor v. Happersett has been cited to by judges ruling in eligibility cases because it REFUTES your claim that “a “natural born citizen” is someone born in the U.S. to citizen parents (plural).”
None of your birther discrepancies amount to a hill of beans.
No way out June 24th, 2014 at 12:30 pm
He needs to go on his Glen Campbell tour. Poor fellow is done.
MaryfromCT June 24th, 2014 at 12:37 pm
Ahhhh … can’t wait until the purported BooneBomb fails to explode in September and these poor guys are gonna have to face the fact that OUR POTUS is legit. 😉
Rand Balls June 24th, 2014 at 12:57 pm
What an asshole…cites “facts on the table” but can’t say what they are…almost annoying that Mr Colmes would give this stopped-up dickslit the platform to puke bullshit
fahvel June 24th, 2014 at 1:35 pm
completely agree with your thoughts and you so very very appropriate language – well said RB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fratdawgg23 June 24th, 2014 at 6:10 pm
That was worth choking on the iced tea I was drinking while reading your comment. Brilliant, mate!
granpa.usthai June 24th, 2014 at 1:28 pm
I for one cannot believe that it would take ‘experts in the field’ six years to ‘figure out’ any darn thing. I think the whole fake birth certificate GOP crap is just that. A fake investigations racket to fleece idiots like Sheriff pink panties anti Hawaiian crowd. The ‘facts on the table’ are just that. It’s a whole lotta facts that anti Hawaiian WHITE idiots have done nothing for six years but waste time, money and tried to screw up POTUS Obama from the get go. Ferget your ‘I’m a christian BS hat, Pat, you’re just another WHITE RACIST idiot who just can’t handle a non WHITE POTUS -same as the whole crowd you hang with. If in fact there ‘was’ proof that now shows the actual Hawaiian Birth Certificate that has been on file since 1961 ‘was’ a fake, it is only another indictment of the complete and utter incompetence of the Reagan Administration.
Linda June 25th, 2014 at 12:34 pm
Right!? Exactly. So sick of the fools.
fahvel June 24th, 2014 at 1:35 pm
curious, does the same apply to the cruz guy who seems to have been born in Canada?
PubOption June 24th, 2014 at 2:18 pm
Or the McCain guy who was born in Panama.
JKess June 25th, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Or that Mitt Romney’s father, who also ran for President once, was born in Mexico.
Susan Wood June 24th, 2014 at 3:49 pm
Well, that’s different. You see, most people who like Ted Cruz will tell you that Canada isn’t really a foreign country. Whereas I’ve seen a Tea Partier carrying a sign that says “Hawaie [sic] is not a state.” There you have it — American citizenship is whatever they say it is. And if you have white skin and a name that sounds Anglo enough for all practical purposes (after all, “Cruz” does sound kinda like “Cruise,” as in Tom, doesn’t it?) you’re in.
Bunya June 24th, 2014 at 1:42 pm
“…I was in Mombasa just after he was elected and everybody there said, ‘You know you’re President was born here.’”
There ya have it folks. He heard it from a bunch of kids in Mombasa, so it MUST be true!
I hope everybody remembers this and, come September when no “proof” presents itself, Pat Boone will be branded the dememted old fool that he is, crawl away and die.
Barb Capra June 25th, 2014 at 10:51 am
What was Pat Boone doing in Mombasa? Performing?
polliwogg June 24th, 2014 at 2:02 pm
They’ve been saying they have the “proof: for 6 frickin’ YEARS. When are they going to show it? Crawl back under your rock, Pat, this crap is nothing new.
Susan Wood June 24th, 2014 at 3:47 pm
And his “proof” is that he talked to a guy who heard something about a document expert from his cousin who knows someone in the . . .
Look, if they’re going to challenge the citizenship of ANY American, shouldn’t the burden of proof be on THEM?
Robyn Dorn Schwartz June 24th, 2014 at 2:20 pm
The only think I would consider taking advice from Pat Boone on is white bucks!
DownriverDem June 24th, 2014 at 2:53 pm
Not even that.
DownriverDem June 24th, 2014 at 2:43 pm
One thing of sure is that Pat Boone is a hater.
janetmamajo4 June 24th, 2014 at 8:27 pm
I don’t know about hater, but he is a militant christian who preaches nothing but hate and exclusion… and fire and brimstone… so, I’m sorry, Downriver… I stand corrected…pat boone is a hater….
musikfanat22 June 25th, 2014 at 3:34 pm
remember him laughing at a racist joke when he was traveling with some
republican politicians a few years ago. a real babylonian…
Maxx44 June 24th, 2014 at 2:44 pm
On the day that Pat proves his case, Orly Tate is going to blow him on live national TV. So you’d better start buying Pfizer stock, ’cause it’ll take a ton of Viagra for ol’ Pat.
Jonathan Arndt June 24th, 2014 at 2:57 pm
Because some guy in my office who knows about photoshop, lol. Thanks for the bombshell you racist fool.
Lanore June 24th, 2014 at 3:09 pm
Even if Pres. Obama wasn’t born in the US he was born to a woman who was a citizen of the US and that’s all that’s necessary. McCain was born in Panama, Ted Cruz was born in Canada–just to name a few.
Dave B. June 25th, 2014 at 8:34 pm
That’s never been “all that’s necessary.” There have been many thousands of children who didn’t acquire US citizenship at birth in spite of having a US citizen parent. Since President Obama WAS born in the United States, why worry about some fictional foreign-born Obama who doesn’t even exist?
Susan Wood June 24th, 2014 at 3:45 pm
Oh yeah, we should really sit up and take notice of a great authority like a singer with a history of alcoholism who was famous 50 years ago and who’s trying to get a little more publicity before he shuffles off to his grave. What do Pat Boone, Donald Trump and Camille Paglia all have in common? Their 15 minutes of celebrity is long gone and they’ll say anything, ANYTHING, to get it back.
fratdawgg23 June 24th, 2014 at 5:47 pm
Instead of retiring with some dignity, the old minger is going on chat shows talking a nutter.
janetmamajo4 June 24th, 2014 at 8:25 pm
It’s sad, really…Poor old fox-deluded Pat…. sigh
deb June 25th, 2014 at 1:54 am
Pat Boone has always been a right wing religious nut. He needs to keep his mouth shut. I’m embarrassed for him. He sounds delusional.
William June 24th, 2014 at 6:44 pm
including a guy in my own office who knows how things are Photoshopped….
Well, it’s pretty hard to argue with the boilerplate and long respected “a guy I know” evidence.
Obewon June 24th, 2014 at 7:00 pm
If Birther Pat Boon could pay attention, would he claim the looniest RWNJ’s at SCOTUS were covering-up by ruling ‘No valid evidence exists with any merit’ re Birther Queen Orly Taitz Smacked Down By Supreme Court! Upholds $20,000 ‘Frivolous’ Litigation Fine. -Alito June 16, 2010 rejected Taitz’s second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/birther-queen-orly-taitz_n_683188.html
Shades June 25th, 2014 at 12:08 am
Any day now … they’re going to release the bombshell … any daaaaay noooooow.
Dwendt44 June 25th, 2014 at 12:31 am
Just don’t hold your breath waiting.
Linda June 25th, 2014 at 12:31 pm
Actually, I wish Pat Boone and all of the birthers would hold their breath waiting.
William Carr June 25th, 2014 at 3:33 pm
We’ll have a working Fusion Reactor long before they come up with anything.
I wonder if they’re going to forge a forgery and claim that was an early draft of Obama’s BC ?
It worked for Bush’s AWOL charges.
Mary Elizabeth Doman June 25th, 2014 at 12:14 am
Obama’s mother was an American. That makes Obama an American, no matter where he was born.
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 25th, 2014 at 12:54 am
And that is the most infuriating part. They knew the birth certificate meant NOTHING all along but we had to hear this birther crap for SIX YEARS…and they STILL haven’t shut up about it. I would LOVE to be the one to rub it in his smug, wrinkled old face. Maybe it will give him a heart attack and he can finally leave this world, thus doing us ALL a favor…:P
Dave B. June 25th, 2014 at 8:28 pm
It might be infuriating if it were true. President Obama is a citizen of the United States because, and only because, he was born in the United States. If he’d been born outside the US, its outlying possessions, or the Panama Canal Zone, he wouldn’t have been born a US citizen in spite of having a US citizen mother.
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 25th, 2014 at 11:56 pm
I do not believe that is true. You’ll have to show me where that is in the Constitution, which covers this subject in detail. And don’t forget where John McCain was born and how it NEVER came up. No problem for the GOP thugs, at ALL, because HE isn’t black. And regardless, it IS infuriating because all along they knew this birther bullshit wasn’t true, yet Donald Trump and the rest of the racist assholes have been making a fucking fortune spreading this UTTER bullshit. And WE had to hear about it CONSTANTLY. And we STILL ARE. Yes, INFURIATING.
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 2:12 am
Oh geez. What possesses people to say such things?
You show me where the Constitution covers the subject of citizenship through parents “in detail,” and I’ll eat the internet. The Constitution doesn’t say ONE WORD about citizenship by descent. Not…one…word. You know, you could just try reading it BEFORE making claims about what’s in it. It’s readily available online.
Nobody born outside the US can be or become a US citizen unless Congress has provided a statute for it, and then only if the requirements of that statute are perfectly met. This is the law that would’ve applied to your fictional foreign-born Obama, former Sec. 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act:
“(The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:)
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirements of this paragraph.”
As of August 4, 1961, Ann Dunham Obama, who was born on November 29, 1961, had not yet satisfied that statute’s requirement of physical presence in the United States or its outlying possessions, and could not have transmitted US citizenship to a child born outside the US or its outlying possessions (or the Panama Canal Zone, for which there was no requirement of prior physical presence). So returning to where we started, the claim that
“Obama’s mother was an American. That makes Obama an American, no matter where he was born”
is erroneous, as is your accompanying assertion that
“the birth certificate meant NOTHING all along.”
The birth certificate that the President’s campaign made public before he was even nominated should’ve settled the matter for any rational, objective person. Mere facts aren’t enough to sway committed birthers, but if you go outside the facts, you’re on their home court. Why would you want to go there just to construct a failing argument?
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 6:56 pm
“As of August 4, 1961, Ann Dunham Obama, who was born on November 29, 1961, had not yet satisfied that statute’s requirement of physical presence in the United States”
That law was amended:
“3. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and Foreign National Parent[8]
A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:
One parent is a foreign national and the other parent is a U.S. citizen; and
The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.”
That means Ann Dunham could have a child at 16 and still give birth to an American Citizen if she emigrated to the MOON.
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 8:10 pm
No, sport, the amendment only applies to persons born on or after its effective date, November 14, 1986.
smrstrauss June 27th, 2014 at 11:46 am
Since Obama WAS born in the USA is there any useful purpose served in discussing a hypothetical that he wasn’t?
Dave B. June 27th, 2014 at 12:51 pm
There certainly isn’t when one has to construct a fallacious argument in doing so.
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 7:02 pm
Lincoln had the silly expectation that people would know “Natural Born” meant “not adopted”.
Imagine his dismay to find his own Party inventing rationales about “native born”.
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 8:03 pm
Huh?
William Carr June 27th, 2014 at 9:41 am
“Natural born”. As in, a child of natural birth, not an adopted child from a foreign country.
America’s laws for adopted children inheriting are based on the laws of ancient Rome, IIRC.
The Founders were being specific; born in THIS country, OR born to American parents in a foreign country, but NOT a child adopted from a foreign country.
For example, John McCain’s “black” adopter daughter can be Naturalized, but she can’t, regrettably, be President.
She can run for Congress though.
Dave B. June 27th, 2014 at 12:50 pm
“Adopted” may not be the most well-chosen word, because adopted, native born US citizens are, beyond doubt, eligible for the presidency.
There’s nothing novel, or singularly partisan, about “inventing rationales about “native born”.” I don’t have a problem with the eligibility of persons who acquire US citizenship by being “born to American parents in a foreign country,” but it does require inventing some rationale to allow for it.
William Carr July 2nd, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Adopted, AMERICAN born children are eligible for the Presidency by default.
I didn’t think I needed to address that.
Adopted, foreign born children of foreign born parents will be naturalized, but they are not “natural born” American citizens and can never run for President.
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 26th, 2014 at 8:43 pm
http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm
http://ivn.us/2013/08/13/defining-natural-born-citizen/
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582
Now, would you like to continue arguing, although we are on the same side? I hate people who think they know everything. They really annoy those of us who do. 😉
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 9:28 pm
Good grief. If we’re “on the same side,” why are you using BIRTHER sites as references?
Your first reference refers to the President’s birth certificate as “an obvious forgery.”
Your second reference is an uninformed mishmash by an author with no authoritative credentials.
Your third reference not only DOESN’T support your point, it argues against President Obama’s eligibility, even if taking for granted that he was born in the United States.
And none of your references indicate where citizenship through parents is covered “in detail” (or AT ALL) in the US Constitution.
The comment that got us started here:
“Obama’s mother was an American. That makes Obama an American, no matter where he was born,”
is ERRONEOUS in its conclusion. That kind of misinformation does not go without serious consequences. I know of numerous cases in which persons lost their best chance at easily becoming US citizens because, believing as the commenter above does, they thought they already WERE US citizens. These cases can result in great hardship– family separations, economic losses, deprivation of rights, deportation and permanent inadmissibility to the United States. So yeah, I will agree that people who think they know MORE than they actually do can be pretty annoying.
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 27th, 2014 at 4:34 pm
FFS, you really love hearing yourself talk, doncha? Are you claiming that Obama was born out of this country? Then STFU, dude, no one cares what you think. Argue with yourself, it’s more entertaining to the rest of us.
Dave B. June 27th, 2014 at 5:46 pm
Of course I’m not “claiming that Obama was born out of this country.” You’re the one going along with that birther fantasy, not me.
Look, if this is how you react to the FACTS, how are you that much different from the birthers?
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 29th, 2014 at 6:21 pm
Where the hell did you get the stupid idea I was claiming that he was born in another country? Or that I believe the birthers? Reading comprehension much? You have really got a problem that might need professional help. Or the services of someone to help you understand what the hell you are reading. Know any 1st grade teachers?
Dave B. June 29th, 2014 at 6:43 pm
Let me get this straight: you have this kind of angry, over-the-top reaction to somebody pointing out that you’re mistaken about something, and I’M the one who “might need professional help”?
JP June 29th, 2014 at 10:52 am
Ann Dunham Obama was born in 1942 in Wichita, Kansas. She graduated from high school in1960 from a school near Seattle, Washington
Dave B. June 25th, 2014 at 8:30 pm
It’s NEVER been true that every child born to an American mother will be born an American citizen; and on August 4, 1961, Ann Dunham Obama couldn’t have given birth to an American citizen anywhere in the world outside the US, its outlying possessions, or the Panama Canal Zone. Since she WASN’T outside the US, why worry about it?
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 6:48 pm
Nope.
If an American Citizen that has spent at least 14 years living IN the USA has a child, that child is an American Citizen by birth.
That’s how it works.
Now… if THAT child grows up and has a child, but NEVER returns to live in America, the grandchild will not be an American citizen by default.
For example, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
The fact he had two American parents is immaterial. There’s literally nothing in the Law that says two parents is a lock-in for Citizenship.
One is sufficient. And no, being born on an Army Base isn’t a qualifier.
There’s nothing magic about the Panama Canal Zone. It’s not American Soil.
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 8:01 pm
No, that’s NOT “how it works.” That “at least 14 years living IN the USA” isn’t reflected in ANY US nationality law, past or present. Knowing that an American citizen parent “has spent at least 14 years living IN the USA” is not sufficient by itself IN ANY CASE for establishing that citizenship can be transmitted, and there’s case after case that demonstrates the point.
By way of illustration, under current law a person who has been continuously present in the United States for the first 14 years of his or her life, then leaves the United States and has a child in wedlock with an alien before returning to the United States will NOT transmit US citizenship to that child.
Under current law, a US citizen mother who has RESIDED in the United States (or its outlying possessions) for at least 14 years, but who has traveled abroad on an annual basis, thus never being physically present in the US or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one full year, will NOT transmit US citizenship to a child born out of wedlock, outside the US.
Under current law, a US citizen father who has continuously resided in the United States for ANY length of time, no matter how long, will not transmit US citizenship to a child born out of wedlock outside the US unless certain additional requirements are satisfied.
Concerning the Panama Canal Zone– you’re right, it wasn’t American soil. It was, however, the ONLY place in the world outside the United States where there was EVER no requirement in addition to citizenship in order for a US citizen parent to transmit citizenship. To this day, a US citizen employed by the US government need not have ever been a resident of or physically present in the US or its outlying possessions to transmit US citizenship to a child born anywhere in Panama– an artifact of the law providing for citizenship at birth in the Canal Zone.
William Carr June 27th, 2014 at 9:47 am
“By way of illustration, under current law a person who has been continuously present in the United States for the first 14 years of his or her life, then leaves the United States and has a child in wedlock with an alien before returning to the United States will NOT transmit US citizenship to that child. “
I don’t know how you got so confused on this issue.
3. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and Foreign National Parent[8]
A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:
One parent is a foreign national and the other parent is a U.S. citizen; and
The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.”
Dave B. June 27th, 2014 at 12:35 pm
I don’t know how you confuse someone “who has been continuously present in the United States for the first 14
years of his or her life, then leaves the United States and has a child in wedlock with an alien before returning to the United States” with someone who was “physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.” Speaking of confusion, may I remind you that I was replying to your original, UNEDITED comment, which read,
“Nope.
If an American Citizen that has spent at least 14 years living IN the USA has a child, that child is an American Citizen by birth.
That’s how it works.
Now… if THAT child grows up and has a child, but NEVER
returns to live in America, the grandchild will not be an American citizen by default.
For example, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
The fact he had two American parents is immaterial. There’s literally nothing in the Law that says two parents is a lock-in for Citizenship.
One is sufficient. And no, being born on an Army Base isn’t a qualifier.
There’s nothing magic about the Panama Canal Zone. It’s not American Soil.”
You want to rethink that “confusion” thing?
William Carr July 1st, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Let’s try again.
“I don’t know how you confuse someone “who has been continuously present in the United States for the first 14 years of his or her life, then leaves the United States and has a child in wedlock with an alien before returning to the United States” with someone who was “physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.””
The Residency Requirement is so people whose parents were American Citizens, and were raised in the United States, will be American Citizens themselves.
BUT… if the offspring doesn’t emigrate to the United States themselves, and live there for at least five years, the GRANDCHILDREN will not be American citizens.
It’s not that complicated, darn it !
You could go on this way forever.
A person raised in America goes to live in Japan; he has a child there.
He returns to America, and the child, an American citizen, resides in America for five years, at least two years of which are over the age of 14.
Then the adult, AMERICAN child returns to Japan, marries, has a child there, and THAT child is an American Citizen.
Which in turn, comes to America, puts in the Residency Requirement, and goes back to Japan to get married and continue the cycle.
Residency Requirements are a safety check.
We wouldn’t want a third or fourth generation Japanese American raised only in Japan to come to America and run for President without having ever lived here.
It’s like Massachusetts, and their seven-consecutive-year Residency requirement to run for Governor.
Which Mitt Romney simply bought his way out of, when he returned from Utah after living there for years and ran for Governor.
It’s an “anti-carpet-bagger” rule.
Yes, I edited my post. I’d gone with something similar to your original quote, but then I looked it up and discovered the Law had been amended.
As written, the original policy would mean that an American woman couldn’t marry before the age of 19 and still have an American child on foreign soil.
It’s moot; being born in Hawaii clears the deck entirely.
Dave B. July 1st, 2014 at 2:26 pm
To begin with, that particular requirement is not a “residency requirement”; it’s a requirement of physical presence in the US or its outlying possessions. It’s possible for a person to satisfy the ENTIRE physical presence requirement without ever being a resident of the US or its outlying possessions. If the statute’s proviso applies, a person can satisfy the requirement without ever so much as setting foot in the US or its outlying possessions. Conversely, a person who has had a residence throughout the specified period may not necessarily satisfy the physical presence requirement. And I understand its purpose perfectly well.
You misstated the requirement in your original unedited comment, which is why I disputed what you said; and the law has NEVER been what you originally stated it to be. It certainly didn’t “mean that an American woman couldn’t marry before the age of 19 and still have an American child on foreign soil.” You might want to edit that one, too.
The hypothetical cases to which I referred are all valid and accurate illustrations of the effect of the law– and it IS complicated, far more than you think. A person who would be a US citizen if his or her parents were married may be an alien if they were not married. Another person who would be a US citizen if his parents were NOT married may be an alien if they were. Whether or not a person is born a US citizen can depend on whether the sole US citizen parent is the father or the mother. Whether or not a person is born a US citizen can even depend upon where that person is living when they apply for proof of citizenship.
But going back to where we started, what error do you see in my original comment on this thread, to which you made your first reply? I assure you, what I said is entirely in accord with US law.
William Carr July 2nd, 2014 at 8:59 pm
If it was a requirement of physical presence, it would SAY so.
“Jane Smith cannot give birth to a Native Born child unless her butt is sitting inside US Borders or the Panama Canal Zone”.
It’s not “physical presence” because it is a required waiting period.
You seem to think this is all so complicated, but I read the website concerning the law.
There are only a few variants on the theme.
This is a residency period, just as people applying to be naturalized have a residency period.
AFTER the period is over, they can go where they like.
Dave B. July 2nd, 2014 at 10:26 pm
Uh, read the statute–it DOES say so. That’s a pretty big DUH.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
I suggest you start bringing yourself up to speed– because you seem like a nice enough guy, and I’d hate to see you go on embarrassing yourself by saying things like “I read the website concerning the law– by reading pages 17-25 of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1130, “Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parent.” You also might want to read the section on “Guidance for Determining Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Children Born Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents Under INA 301(c),” beginning on page 35, for some further explanation of the difference between residence and physical presence.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
And if you still think it’s not complicated, I suggest you read this:
http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/47-2/47arizlrev313.pdf
And maybe these:
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2013/MAY132013_01E2309.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2013/MAY202013_02E2309.pdf
Read all that, and get back to me about how “uncomplicated” it is.
eracer_x June 25th, 2014 at 1:22 am
Well that was amusing. Expert = a guy in my office who knows how things are Photoshopped.
BeeCone June 25th, 2014 at 1:36 am
Why September, why not right now?
Jeffrey Samuels June 25th, 2014 at 11:22 am
When I first saw this headline, I thought it read that Pat Boone’s birth certificate would be proven a fraud by September. ” a difference that makes no difference is no difference” I guess
Linda June 25th, 2014 at 12:30 pm
If he’s a questioner maybe he should ask himself how on earth he can believe such bs. There are people who would pay $$$$$$ to have verifiable proof that the president’s birth certificate is fake. It’s been six years. Wise up, bigot.
Elliot J. Stamler June 25th, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Who cares what this washed-up has-been who’s been blabbering the radical religious right baloney for 25+ years says or thinks?
William Carr June 25th, 2014 at 3:32 pm
Actually, no, Pat: you’re a Birther.
You ignore the Hawaiian State authorities that verified BOTH Birth Certificates.
Are you REALLY willing to blow your reputation on this delusion?
Do you think the Republican Party didn’t rush somebody over to Hawaii to check this out in 2008 ?
Why is the only explanation for how this could happen … Republican Incompetence?
PlacidAir June 26th, 2014 at 5:26 pm
His reputation has been “blown” for a long time.
musikfanat22 June 25th, 2014 at 3:32 pm
I
remember him laughing at a racist joke when he was traveling with some
republican politicians a few years ago. a real babylonian…
Becky Kapust Lillicotch June 25th, 2014 at 3:54 pm
And to think that I used to like Pat Boone when I was a teen! What a creep he turned out to be!!
Jim Valley June 26th, 2014 at 8:40 am
He made his money in the early days sanitizing hits by black artists and “whitening them up” so they would be palatable to his lily white audience. Now he is apparently a sad, washed-up right-wing fool, like Victoria Jackson, Ted Nugent, Dennis Miller, and all the rest of them.
Becky Kapust Lillicotch June 28th, 2014 at 8:23 am
The songs I enjoyed hearing him sing were “Love Letters in the Sand” and “April Love” and other ballads in the days when he was known for wearing white buckskin shoes. I quit following his music after I got out of high school.
Tony June 25th, 2014 at 7:12 pm
I think the copy they pulled off the web and looked at had some deliberate irregularities. Stuff to keep the idiots busy. I mean Really,,,,NSA, CIA, FBI…If they wanted an undetectable fake, they’d have one. The problems that are obvious to home Photoshopers are deliberate…it’s like a bunch of stupid dogs chasing a laser pointer! And ol Pats one of them.
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 6:42 pm
If the CIA wanted to fake a Hawaiian birth certificate, I’m sure they have sixty year old paper, official seals, and the techniques to make an undetectable forgery.
Why can’t the bobble-heads on the Right realize this? They think AMATEURS can pick up a mistake by the CIA ?
smrstrauss June 27th, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Excellent point. In fact, Dr. Conspiracy has a couple of articles on the subject showing that the imperfection of Obama’s birth certificate is proof of it NOT being forged. One of the best examples is this:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/ame-o-ospit-or-nstitution-not-in-ospit/
craig7120 June 25th, 2014 at 7:32 pm
BOONE: “All I can tell you is I was in Mombasa just after he was elected and everybody there said, “You know you’re President was born here.” I brought home a T-shirt that said “Birthplace of the President of the United States.”
Alan is such a decent guy.
Me on the other hand, would of had little patience with this has been, believing in some stranger in Africa than accepting the word of state officials.
Pat, Nigeria has several princes who need a few extra dollars to get to their rightful inheritance, you will be rewarded handsomely.
Pit-t-ful
Jim Valley June 26th, 2014 at 8:40 am
This guy is as crazy as all the others.
Eric Meckes June 26th, 2014 at 11:13 am
What’s so crazy is not that there are so many raving Koolaid drinking Obama-Loving crack sniffers, what’s totally crazy is that even when you put visible evidence in front of their face, they still REFUSE to acknowledge that AKA Barry Soetoro is a fraud of the highest order. Back when it became appearant that George Bush was breaking with the Constitution, even his Republican base turned against him because even though they hated to admit it, the evidence was clear, and much less clear than this evidence. That’s why Bush ended his reign in the sub 20% range. But the Liberals just can’t admit that Soetoro/Obama is a fraud no matter how much evidence is produced. I’m no birther and never have been, but I’ve been in computer graphics for many years and I can say with 100% certainty based on opening the document myself in illustrator that this supposed document was NEVER a real document at all, but a digitally created forgery. If it were a copy of a real 1961 Birth Certificate, it would be one single layer, you wouldn’t be able to lift and move the Signature Stamp and State Seal completely off the page as separate layers, it would be ink embedded in the original 1961 paper document. These two items are meant to authenticate the entire document. They didn’t even have photoshop or illustrator back in 1961. It wouldn’t be caused by scanning or an OCR because if you use your brain you would know that a COPY is just that, a single layered copy period. So you liberals keep on defending this liar, but at the end of the day, his lawless destruction of America will affect you just as much as the rest of us. No need for name calling, if you were a professional mechanic and someone said your engine was not original, you would go to a professional in order to verify, but you wouldn’t call him a whacko for stating his professional opinion, same here, I’m not a birther, just a professional advertising person who has used computer graphics for 3 decades. I never believed any of it back when it started, but a friend approached me knowing my computer background and begged for me to look at it, I said “if you promise to never bring it up again I will” so I did and I thought it would turn out real and that it would shut my friend up, but when I opened it, I knew within 5 Seconds it was fake. Be Your own judge, but judge on the facts, not on your emotions. If you don’t care that your President is a lying fraud, so be it, but calling others names just because you don’t want to see or admit the truth based on factual hard evidence is ridiculous.
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Why are you so ashamed of being a birther?
All that nonsense about the digital image of the birth certificate is just a way to make technically unsophisticated persons like yourself– OBVIOUSLY technically unsophisticated persons like yourself– think they’re superduper junior forensic investigators. It has absolutely NO significance as evidence of forgery.
smrstrauss June 26th, 2014 at 4:26 pm
Re: ” I can say with 100% certainty based on downloading and opening the
document myself in illustrator that this supposed document was NEVER a
real document at all, but a digitally created forgery.”
Answer: Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… 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.”
And as for other “anomalies”:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/
PlacidAir June 26th, 2014 at 5:24 pm
Your revisionist history would be amusing if it weren’t so dangerous.
Grigori Som June 26th, 2014 at 6:06 pm
Ever heard of paragraphs?
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 6:40 pm
You are MENTALLY ILL.
The original paper Long-Form Birth Certificate was bound into a volume and kept in the Hawaiian Archives.
The Hawaiian official in charge of their Health Department, Loretta Fuddy, verified the digital copy matches the paper copy.
“They didn’t even have photoshop or illustrator back in 1961″
You pitiful fool.
The scan was done of the paper original, at the request of Barack Obama, in THIS Century !
The Hawaiian Archivist is NOT going to cut the original document out of the 1961 Archival book.
But they laid it on a scanner and digitized it as a PDF.
That created a vector-based file.
If you open it in Acrobat, there won’t be any layers because Acrobat is designed to view PDF files correctly.
But opening a PDF in Illustrator explains the layering perfectly.
After all, it’s not a native .ai file, it’s PDF. So the conversion process creates layers.
If you WERE experienced at all in Computer Graphics you’d realize this.
Face it, you ARE a Birther.
You’re just one of the second-generation Birthers that pretends to know something about Computer Graphics.
You started off as a narrow-minded Bigot, and you went in search of something to validate your Bigotry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Your rant is so familiar… it sounds like a copy/paste job from InfoWars or The Blaze.
Susan Wood June 27th, 2014 at 8:13 am
Isn’t it hilarious (in a depressing sort of way) to listen to these rank amateurs pose as document experts, trying to analyze a document they’ve never seen in person? When Karl Rove planted that fake memo to try to discredit Dan Rather (knowing full well that Rather had a hefty stack of absolutely valid evidence about Bush’s failure to fulfill his cushy draft-evading National Guard stint) he didn’t know what a plague he was unleashing. Now every high school dropout thinks he can analyze paperwork he’s never seen except in digital reproduction. Well, it keeps them off the streets I guess.
smrstrauss June 27th, 2014 at 11:35 am
Actually it is slightly more complicated. The original long form was photocopied onto security paper and the current seal and signature affixed to it, and two paper copies were given to Obama’s lawyer who took them to Washington. It was the White House that put one of those paper copies on a scanner and created the PDF image that was put online by the White House. There are also images of the black and white copies of Obama’s long form, which were made by the AP using the black and while photocopies of the two documents from Hawaii (the White House passed the two official documents around, but then they had to be handed back; the press got to keep the photocopies), and there is a jpg image of one of the two originals made by the cell phone of NBC correspondent Savannah Gutherie, who also stated that she had “felt the seal.”
And not only Fuddy but Fukino and Onaka also stated that they had seen the birth certificate in the files in Hawaii, and in court papers they also stated that all the facts on the long form put online by the White House are exactly the same—that they MATCH—the facts on the copies in the files.
Oh, and the White House pdf images were generated using a Xerox WorkCentre station, which created most of the “anomalies” that birthers comment about. (Multiple layers are generated automatically when a complex document scanned into PDF is opened in Illustrator). Here is the Xerox WorkCentre research:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org…
jezebel June 29th, 2014 at 8:45 pm
#LOL I love you William 🙂
jezebel June 29th, 2014 at 8:46 pm
Good grief how do you kooks have jobs? HOW?!? I DEMAND TO KNOW WHAT IT IS YOU DO!
Shades June 26th, 2014 at 11:43 am
Sheesh, another crazy forged-bc, I’m a graphics expert because of a jail break on photoshop download I did back in the 90s, who thinks he can BS the community … and it’s not even a full moon.
PlacidAir June 26th, 2014 at 5:23 pm
Good grief, a lack of a plaque in a hospital — THAT is his “proof”? And since when are the imaginative ravings of a lunatic a “bombshell”? What a freaking nutjob.
Grigori Som June 26th, 2014 at 6:12 pm
Yo, Pat: 2009 called, they want their hysteria back.
kat June 27th, 2014 at 2:29 am
Pat Boon is still alive? Darn!
Rhonda McCaskill June 27th, 2014 at 7:09 pm
Boone, you are a very sad, bitter old man. Instead of trying to make positive changes in the world, and encouraging respect and fairness, you are cultivating hate. You will reap what you sow.
BarryTheMuslim June 27th, 2014 at 11:51 pm
Clint Eastwood: Obama Is ‘Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated On The American People’
arc99 June 28th, 2014 at 12:07 am
I used to be a Republican until they lost their minds
— Charles Barkley —
Chinese Democracy June 29th, 2014 at 9:05 pm
Clint Eastwood? He had a debate with an empty chair and lost lol