Cruz launches his own ‘Fight the Smears’ website to deceive the public

Teddy Cruz in the tradition of Barack Obama’s Fight the Smears has launched a website dedicated to misrepresenting the facts concerning his eligibility. Teddy’s website

Here is the Teddy Cruz talking points

Is Ted Cruz Eligible to be President?

  • Ted Cruz was born to an American mother—born in Delaware—and was therefore a U.S. Citizen time of his birth.  That makes Cruz a natural-born citizen who is eligible to be president.
  • The top constitutional lawyers in the country under Presidents (Neal Katyal) and Bush (Paul Clement) conclusively agree that “[d]espite the happenstance of birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution” because he was born of an American mother.
  • No constitutional scholar believes Cruz is ineligible to be president.  Even Laurence Tribe and Thomas Lee, who are often cited as critics, believe he is eligible.
  • The threat of a lawsuit is not serious. Even if someone were to gain standing, a difficult first step, no legal expert believes that any court in the land would rule against Cruz.

 

Now here are the facts;

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Teddy Cruz was born in Canada. Here is Teddy Cruz’s Birth Certificate. In an attempt confuse the issue, they list where is mother was born and not Teddy’s birth location. Talk about deception. The United States Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray in 1898 stated it clearly.

“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress…” ~ Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray (1898)

Where was Teddy Cruz born? Canada.

Teddy Cruz attempts to equate a citizen at birth with a Natural Born Citizen. This is false misleading and again deceptive.

First off There is no evidence that any paperwork was filed after Teddy birth with the US Consulate, which would have been required.

In the following United States Supreme Court Case Rogers v. Bellei (1971), proving that like Belli, Teddy Cruz was born in a foreign country to a foreign father and a US mother. The court held that Belli was a ‘Naturalized’ citizen by virtue of someone who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequent to that citizenship.

The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. In 1964, he received a letter informing him that his citizenship had been revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.

“Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.” Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, 1971

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who 4 years earlier wrote the majority opinion in the citizenship case of Afroyim v. Rusk, said it in Rogers v Bellei (1971):

“Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, Sec 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, Constitutionally speaking, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.” (emphasis added)

In the United States Supreme Court case of Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913):

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

Another snippet in the same paragraph is “there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution” because he was born of an American mother.”

Again, outright lies and deception.

Here is what the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ means.

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Natural Born Citizen per the United States Congress in 1866

(Born in the United States) (US Citizen Parents, meaning BOTH Dad and Mom)

again, in 1875 The United States Supreme Court

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

-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

 

As for the:

No constitutional scholar believes Cruz is ineligible to be president.  Even Laurence Tribe and Thomas Lee, who are often cited as critics, believe he is eligible.

 

Cruz—was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Tribe wrote that originalists would argue the Constitution’s framers likely intended “natural born”—a constitutional prerequisite for becoming U.S. president—to mean physically born in the United States. By these standards, he continued, Cruz should be ineligible to hold the nation’s highest office.

 

In simple truth,

Was Ted Cruz born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty?

The answer is NO, and that can be the only answer.

Ted Cruz was born in a foreign country, to a foreign national.

 

  • The threat of a lawsuit is not serious. Even if someone were to gain standing, a difficult first step, no legal expert believes that any court in the land would rule against Cruz.

Really, if there were no issue and the previous points were irrelevant when why this talking point.

Answer. Because Ted Cruz like Barack Obama realizes that the only thing that can prevent an ineligible candidate from getting placed on the ballot in the first place is an educated electorate. The democrats have already threatened legal action against Ted Cruz if he’s elected and they will not only have standing, but the resources to eliminate any chance Ted Cruz has.

The most damning evidence is Teddy’s own Canadian Citizenship documentation Ted-CruzCanadianCitizenship

It is possible for a child to be born outside of the United States, and still acquire legal U.S. citizenship at birth through a parent, according to U.S. Naturalization codes pertaining to “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories.” If the related conditions are met, a child born outside of the United States to one U.S. Citizen parent, in this case, Ted’s mother, the parents can file for and receive U.S. Citizenship for the child by filing a CRBA form with a U.S. Consulate at the time of birth.

The statutes governing this naturalization process state;

“A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

 

So Teddy was able to renounce his Canadian Citizenship but can not prove that he was even filed for US Citizenship when he was born.

Ted Cruz, Barack Obama and the keystone

Imacon Color Scanner

People have been demanding that the courts remove Barack Obama, (who has occupied the Office of the President illegally) as he is not a Natural-Born Citizen as the United States Constitution requires. They have repeatedly  filed cases for redress of grievances and remedy due to his illegal and unconstitutional acts and usurpation of power. The same ineligibility that has stained the Obama presidency has now broadened to include the 2016 Presidential election with the latest travesty against the American people the Republican party is promoting Ted Cruz, who fails as a ‘Natural-Born Citizen’.

Again the people are going to the courts and election boards in a effort to seek relief and justice. This effort is ‘barking up the wrong tree’. There is a process and it has been used before.

The latest cases involving Ted Cruz and now Marco Rubio will continue to go nowhere and get lost in the shuffle. The courts and election boards will refuse to accept their responsibilities and kick the can down the road and when the dust settles and people realize that once again they not only have been denied a honest election but their past is also been hijacked and ruined.

That being the case, I have laid out the proper venue and remedy for the current mess that we are in and the reason why it may not get resolved.

The New York Board of Elections in their rejection of the case, stated it very clearly; “Objection is beyond the ministerial scope of the board. Objection is made in incorrect venue, as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.”

Let me be clear “Objection is made in incorrect venue, as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.”

“as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.”

The United States Electoral College is the institution that elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. Citizens of the United States do not directly elect the president or the vice president; instead, these voters directly elect designated intermediaries called “electors,” who almost always have pledged to vote for particular presidential and vice presidential candidates (though unpledged electors are possible) and who are themselves selected according to the particular laws of each state. Electors are apportioned to each of the 50 states as well as to the District of Columbia (also known as Washington, D.C.). The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the Twenty-third Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. Therefore, in total, there are currently 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 senators, plus the three additional electors from the District of Columbia.

People are under the impression that voting on election day equates to voting for the candidates directly. This is a misconception. It is their vote for the candidates electors.

Because of this the courts have stated that the citizens do not have legal standing.

Standing, or locus standi, is capacity of a party to bring suit in court. State laws define standing. At the heart of these statutes is the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.

The courts are stating that the citizens are not directly harmed by the election of the President. Regardless of the burdens and unconstitutional acts. That being the case, and since the electors are the ones that directly elect the President and Vice-President, they are the only members who directly elects the President has standing. That being stated, one venue would be to start legal proceedings against the electoral college members that voted for Barack Obama as a violation of their Constitutional rights.

Below is some brief code on Electors;

Meeting and vote of electors

§ 7. The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.

Manner of voting

§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.

Certificates of votes for president and vice president

§ 9. The electors shall make and sign six certificates of all the votes given by them, each of which certificates shall contain two distinct lists, one of the votes for President and the other of the votes for Vice President, and shall annex to each of the certificates one of the lists of the electors which shall have been furnished to them by direction of the executive of the State.

Sealing and endorsing certificates

§ 10. The electors shall seal up the certificates so made by them, and certify upon each that the lists of all the votes of such State given for President, and of all the votes given for Vice President, are contained therein.

Return to 3 USC Ch. 1, Table of Contents

In a presidential election, the popular vote simply means an aggregate of all voters from all states in America. It is quite possible that a candidate wins the popular vote (i.e. gets more votes over all) and yet loses the presidential election. This is because although Americans vote directly for their chosen candidate in the presidential election every 4 years, the president is elected by the institution called the Electoral College.

That being said, what is the correct venue?

Congress has the authority, even if the Courts do nothing!

From the following link

Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?

The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.

Because the process of qualifying for the election and having a candidate’s name put on the ballot varies from state to state, you should contact your state’s top election officer for more information. In most states, the Secretary of State is the official responsible for oversight of state elections, including the presidential election. Visit the National Secretaries of State web site to locate contact information and web addresses for the Secretary of State from each state and the District of Columbia.

In this election of 2016, will it be a repeat of 1876? 1876 you ask.

The Electoral Commission was a temporary body created by Congress to resolve the disputed United States presidential election of 1876. It consisted of 15 members. The election was contested by the Democratic ticket, Samuel J. Tilden and Thomas A. Hendricks, and the Republican ticket,Rutherford B. Hayes and William A. Wheeler. Twenty electoral votes, from the states of Florida,Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina, were in dispute; the resolution of these disputes would determine the outcome of the election. Facing a constitutional crisis the likes of which the nation had never seen, Congress passed a law forming the Electoral Commission to settle the result.

The Commission consisted of fifteen members: five representatives, five senators, and five Supreme Court justices. Eight members were Republicans; seven were Democrats. The Commission ultimately voted along party lines to award all twenty disputed votes to Hayes, thus assuring his victory in the Electoral College by a margin of 185-184.

Electoral Commission

To begin, there needs to be a Constitutional Crisis

A constitutional crisis is a situation that a legal system’s constitution or other basic principles of operation appear unable to resolve; it often results in a breakdown in the orderly operation of government. Often, generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty. Most commonly, constitutional crises involve some degree of conflict between different branches of government(e.g., executive, legislature, and/or judiciary), or between different levels of government in a federal system (e.g., state and federal governments).

A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution or an unwritten constitutional convention, or it may occur when the disputants disagree over the interpretation of such a provision or convention. If the dispute arises because some aspect of the constitution is ambiguous or unclear, the ultimate resolution of the crisis often establishes a precedent for the future. For instance, the United States Constitution is silent on the question of whether states may secede from the Union; however, after the secession of several states was forcibly prevented in the American Civil War, it has become generally accepted that states cannot leave the Union.

A constitutional crisis is distinct from a rebellion, which is defined as when factions outside of a government challenge that government’s sovereignty, as in a coup orrevolution led by the military or civilian protesters.

A constitutional crisis can lead to government paralysis, collapse, or civil war.

A Constitutional Crisis leads to the creation of the Electoral Commission.

A Constitutional Crisis leads to the creation of the Electoral Commission. That Commission has the authority to not only vet the candidates but to disqualify those that as in the United States Constitution states ‘fail to qualify’.

The Courts will do nothing.

The arguments suggest that since the courts have determined they don’t have jurisdiction in such eligibility cases, and claim there is no effective procedure to qualify candidates in Congress, the logical result would be to have election officials, such as the Secretary of State, make such decisions.

And regarding the removal of a sitting official who is ineligible, there is state Supreme Court precedent, it was in the 1930s in North Dakota when Thomas H. Moodie was “duly elected to the office of governor,” the case explains.

Later, “It was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor,” it confirmed.

North Dakota’s historical archives document the case.

The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.

“As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed,” the state’s archives report. “After Moodie’s inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935,” the state reports.

A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution

The Democrat party in 2008 and 2012 violated the United States Constitution by knowingly running an ineligible candidate that did not meet the Constitutional requirements. The Republican party is knowingly doing the same in 2016, by running Rafael ‘Teddy’ Cruz and Marco Rubio. Both parties have violated the United States Constitution.

Violate (break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement) a Provision (a clause in a legal instrument, a law, etc., providing for a particular matter; stipulation; proviso.

In simple english, both the Democrats and Republicans have violated the United States Constitution, by providing ineligible candidates to occupy and use the Office of the Presidency and it’s Constitutional powers for the destruction of the United States.

Expecting Congress to do anything is akin to having the fox guard the hen house, but also going back and asking the fox the number of hens and  expecting them all to be there. When nothing is left, oh well, you trusted the fox.

Congress would have to impeach itself for dereliction of duty and treason against the United States for anything to happen. They are complicit to the usurpation of the Presidency and crimes against the American people.

Every single member of Congress, now sitting and since 2008, knows that Barack Obama is illegitimate and a domestic enemy of the United States and his removal was warranted the minute he took the oath of office under false pretenses.

Since the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Cold Case Posse who has exposed the Obama counterfeit documents and held multiple media press conferences and exposed them for what they are with evidence to back them up. The media has remained silent. The media has disenfranchised, ridiculed, mocked people for demanding that a Congressional investigation be done and to end the mockery against the American people regarding the illegal usurpation of their nation and it’s laws.

Every member of Congress is now open to legal prosecution for their crimes against the Citizens of their jurisdiction. That jurisdiction meaning Concurrent Jurisdiction (Federal or state courts could hear) for allowing unconstitutional federal laws to be enacted and enforced in their jurisdiction (such as ObamaCare), to Exclusive jurisdiction (Only federal courts have authority to hear , state courts cannot) federal crimes including failing to uphold their oath of office to protect the United States Constitution. 

 

 

Megyn Kelly – Faux Journalist/Faux Lawyer

Megyn;

I sincerely hope that you read this fully, as your ‘fair and balanced’ report on the Obama “birther’ issue was biased and unprofessional.

The fact remains that Barack Hussein Obama has not established his credentials as required by the United States Constitution, for the Presidency.

Worse then that fact alone is the media, including Fox News to disregard the basic facts and misrepresent that “just being born in the US’ is qualification enough to be eligible for the Presidency.

Per the United States Constitution;

The term citizen is, however is used in the United States Constitution as in Article I – The Legislative Branch

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

“a Citizen of the United States”

Section 3 – The Senate

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

” been nine Years a Citizen of the United States”

Article II – The Executive Branch
Section 1 – The President
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. “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

House = Citizen
Senate = Citizen
President = Natural Born Citizen

The distinction is clear between a citizen and a natural born citizen,  and Obama fails that as a British subject as stated by himself.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

That is why the only thing they focus on is birth location, not the Constitutional requirement of a ‘Natural Born Citizen’, but then again Obama has not even establish that he was born in Hawaii, he was only registered in Hawaii. Registered and Born are different, like claims and facts.

Now you exclaim Neil Abercrobie as an authoritive source without realizing the conflicting information.  The newly elected Gov of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie has stated the biggest fopaux concerning the unblessed nativity of Barack Hussein Obama in that, as he stated ”Maybe I’m the only one in country that could look you right in eye right now and tell you, ‘I was here when that baby was born”…

So I wonder when Abercrombie was in Kenya, cause not only is he like he says ‘the only one in ‘THIS’ country?’ but it conflicts with the Ambassador to Kenya’s statement that the place that the newly elected President was born at was already a monument and that they we’re planning on placing a plaque there, which coincides with the Kenyan Government official stating “If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?”

So Abercrombie, is either lying that he was there when Obama was ‘BORN’ in Hawaii, or else Abercrombie was in Kenya when Obama was born.

Seeing an infant is not the same as seeing him born, just as claiming you were born in Hawaii.

Regardless of where Obama was born, he fails the Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen, based on a foreign father. His birth place is a distraction, and only those that believe that being born in country qualifies as being eligible for the Presidency, imagine Osama Bin Laden visiting here and getting a young girl pregnant. That child being even born here is not Constitutionally eligible. There is no difference between that and Obama Sr a foreign exchange student in Hawaii.

Obama was registered in Hawaii, Hawaii has not excepted the registration. It is filed, not accepted.
At the time of the adoption of the United States Constitution, citizenship flowed from the father, it was a brithright inheritance and children followed the condition of their fathers. It is that simple. Barack Hussein Obama was born a British subject, a subject is not a United States citizen.

 “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Now, Barack Hussein Obama has a political prisoner, and thanks to the media [including FoxNews] a decorated military officer is imprisoned for asking the very eligibility questions that the citizens are demanding answered.

The military in denying Terrence Lakin a defense, the military railroaded a career military officer in order to protect an illegal undocumented foreigner, Barack Hussein Obama.

I maintain, that Barack Hussein Obama was never a US Citizen. Born in Kenya as his grandmother stated, and brought into the marriage between Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham.

I have been investigating the Obama COLB issue since Aug 2008, I maintain a blog where I document the forgery and even have posted a video on YouTube detailing how to create an exact copy of the forgery.

My blog has detailed information and you are free to use it.

and my YouTube Channel

Fair and balanced Megyn, why not have others to actually debate the issue, instead of faux and biased reporting.

I would recommend CDR Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo as excellent sources to counter the lies and deceit of falsely claiming that an undocumented and illegitimate foreigner is eligible to the Office of the Presidency. In closing I would like to direct you to the CRO’s report that instructed Congress how to disregard the citizens questions during and after the campaign.

Nail in the COLB Coffin

The Barack Hussein Obama COLB [Certification of Live Birth] that has been posted on the internet, first the DailyKos and then Fight The Smears and finally at FactCheck now been proven to be a fake, fabricated, and forged document. There is no doubt that the original is not an authentic State of Hawaii, Department of Health issued document.

Here is an example of a Hawaiian long form issued in September of 2010, a date where the Obama liars claim that Hawaii no longer issues what is presented below.

The following is the second sheet requesting the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ not a Certification of Live Birth [COLB]

With some analysis work on the two images, here is what we can detect.  Using the same application as in the “Prove it to yourself series” Removing the layers, we can detect the underlying details.

and on the second sheet

The images [settlethebet] were what was posted on the following web-site
 
 
Direct link
 
 
I was attempting to analyze the documents when I noticed that I was able to detect the layering. The ‘redacted’ info, the persons private info. I then tried the same to the original ‘DailyKOS’ COLB that was posted, I then tried the same with the ‘Fight the Smears’ COLB and noticed that the similar lines were detected.
If the lines were full and across as in the DailyKOS image, that would be a good indication that the COLB that was presented as ‘authentic’ should have numbers [the same indications of the ‘settlethebet’ where the lettering was detected. But it does not, hence without the presence of ‘letters/numbers’ it would support my initial theory that the DailyKOS image was based on the ‘Hawaiian Blank Template’ that was on the internet, and then the area that was supposed to contain the certification number was blanked out, because there was no number there to begin with. If there was, it would have been simpler to confirm that number with the one Hawaii would have on Obama. The fraud would have been exposed at the beginning.
 
If you’d like to repeat the process, do the following
 
1. Download ‘Image Analyzer’ http://meesoft.logicnet.dk/Analyzer/
 
2. Install Image Analyzer
 
 
    Direct links;
 
 
 
Save the files to your local drive.
 
4. Open Image Analyzer and open one of the ‘settlethebet’ images
 
5. Open the ‘Color Mapping’, the 11th icon in the menu bar. (looks like a graph with a curve)
 
6. Use the drop down menu and select ‘Zero Point’ the setting will start at 127, move the slider to the bottom and
    notice the layering disappear and the lettering become visible. At 4 or 5 is the best for seeing that the lettering
   is evident.
 
7. Now attempt to try the same with the Obama COLB’s.
 
Here is the ‘original’ Barack Hussein Obama [COLB] displayed on the DailyKOS
 
 
Here is the same with the ‘redacted’ layer exposed.
 
The security ‘Ratan Pattern’ is clearly detected but no lettering or numbers are. Here is a composite with both areas togather.
Proof that the original COLB that was posted had no numer or lettering indicating that it was never issued by the State of Hawaii Department of Health. It was based on the following ‘Blank Template’ and nothing more.
 
Final question, How could Obama release a document that has no certification number from Hawaii?
 
UPDATE:
Here is another surpise that the Obot’s can attempt to refute.  Note that the three distinct marking on each the Obama COLB and the Hawaiian Blank match up. The odds are astronimical of two seperate images, having the same markings.

Vattel’s Law of Nations and the Founding Fathers

Vattel was the key in the United States Constitution in determining the Article 2 Natural Born Citizen clause. Here is a list of the references used by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington in regards to Vattel’s Law of Nations.  This should dispel any notion that the Founding Fathers did not use the Law of Nations as their guide.

 Vattel – John Adams

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=GEWN-search-1&mode=TOC

From Edmund Randolph, 6 May 1793

… refusal of him may bring war upon the U.S., because they cannot, without very particular reasons decline his admission—(See Vattel book. 4. section 65) That the expulsion of the prince is not one of those particular reasons will appear …

 Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on a Cabinet Meeting, 6 May 1793

… valid. E.R. declared himself of the same opinion, but on H’s undertaking to present to him the authority in Vattel (which we had not present) & to prove to him that, if the authority was admitted, the treaty might …

 Memorandum from Henry Knox, 16 May 1793

… against our sovereignty even to such a degree as to justify a declaration of War unless satisfactory reparation be made—Vattel is explicit upon this subject he says—in Book 3. Chapter 2d Section 15. “As the right of levying soldiers …

 From John Jay, 28 August 1790

… comprized within two Classes vizt cases of urgent necessity, and cases of convenience—The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel who well understood the Subject, says in the 7th chapter of his 3d Book— That an innocent Passage is …

 To the Cabinet, 3 August 1793

… United States signed with France in 1778, see Miller, Treaties, 3–44. An authority on international law was Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work Le Droit des gens: ou, Principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite & aux affaires …

 To Thomas Jefferson, 4 August 1793

… had with France, Great Britain, and other nations, see Miller, Treaties, 3–244. The other reference is to Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work The Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the Conduct and to …

 To Robert Cary & Company, 6 October 1773

… the Nature and Immutability of Truth; Thomas Reid, Inquiry into the Human Mind; Adam Ferguson, Institutes of Moral Philosophy; Vattel, Laws of Nations; Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli au Paces; George Turnbull, Principles of Moral Philosophy; David Fordyce, Elements …

 Enclosure Questions for the Supreme Court, 18 July 1793

… all with France, see Miller, Treaties, 3–47, 228–44. This is probably a reference to principles contained in Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work, The Law of Nations; or the Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the conduct and …

 Enclosure: Answers to Questions proposed by the President of the United States to the Secretary of the Treasury., 15 September 1790

… Law of War and Peace through Barbeyrac’s work, cited in n.3 above (see Syrett, Hamilton Papers 7:39, n.5). For Vattel’s Law of Nations, see John Jay to GW, 28 Aug. 1790, n.2. Hamilton’s footnote, “Puffendorfs Law of Nature & …

 Memorandum from Alexander Hamilton, 15 May 1793

… 26:197–99; see also JPP, 156–57, 159. Throughout the debates over U.S. neutrality policy, cabinet members referred to Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, first published in French in 1758 and in English in 1760. Although the Treaty of …

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=ADMS-search-1&mode=TOC

12th.

… with the other volumes. In the afternoon I took up Vattels’ law of nature and of nations. Emmerich de Vattel, Le droit des gens; ou, principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations …

 15th.

15th. Dined with Townsend and Thomson at Mr. Parsons’s. I finished this day the first volume of Vattel. The first book treats of the duties of a nation with respect to itself: the second of its obligations …

 22d.

22d. This forenoon I finish’d Vattel. The third book treats of War, and the fourth of Peace; much in the same manner as he treats …

 I. Reply of the House to Hutchinson’s First Message, 26 January 1773

… June 1680, Henings Statutes, 2:466–469. In his address of 6 Jan., Hutchinson had quoted this passage from Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature, applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations …

 III. Reply of the House to Hutchinson’s Second Message, 2 March 1773

… Mass., Province Laws, 3:118. For the background of this legislation, see Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay, ed. Mayo, 2:298–300. That is, Vattel. See No. I, note 12, above. These passages are taken from the second of John Locke’s Two Treatises of …

 From James Lovell, 1 January 1778

… been greatly wanted upon a most important transaction. We have had a call for your stores of Grotius Puffendorf Vattel &c. &c. &c. to support reason and commonsense or to destroy both, just as your Honour and Da– and …

 Editorial Note

… absolute. In a passage strongly reminiscent of his writs of assistance argument, Otis cited the Swiss publicist Emmerich de Vattel, as well as Bonham’s Case and other common law precedents, for the proposition that Parliament could not make a …

 To Richard Henry Lee, 15 March 1780

… I, f. 211–217; Morison, John Paul Jones, p. 355– 356). In support of his position Franklin cited Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations …

 To the President of Congress, No. 40, 10 April 1780

… on the law of nations, but it did no more than explicitly state what was already implied (Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations …

 Jean Henri David Uhl to John Adams: A Translation, 1 July 1782

… it was contraband, was free or not subject to seizure wherever found, even on an enemy ship (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations or the Principals of Natural Law, bk. 3, ch. 7, § 115–116). Thus when a …

 Editorial Note

… a specialized approach to the questions of prize: R. Lee, Treatise of Captures in War (London, 1759); Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (London, 1760). See Minutes, 13 Sept. 1783, DNA Microcopy 162, Case 30. No authorities appear in …

 Vattel – Thomas Jefferson

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-search-1&mode=TOC&#match

 To George Hammond, 29 May 1792

… choses dont le Traité ne dit rien, doivent demeurer dans l’etat où elles se trouvent lors de sa conclusion. Vattel. L. 4. §. 21. ‘De quibus nihil dictum, ea manerit quo sunt loco,’ Wolf. 1222. No alterations then are …

 Editorial Note: Jefferson’s Opinion on the Treaties with France

… But Randolph wavered when Hamilton offered to produce a citation from that formidable authority on international law, Emmerich de Vattel’s Le Droit des Gens (1758), in support of his position that a treaty might under certain circumstances be suspended …

 I. Notes on Washington’s Questions on Neutrality and the Alliance with France, [before 28 April 1793]

… free goods et econtre. free commerce to places not besieged. certificate of officer of convoy prevents searches. contraband defined. Vattel. 2. 157. the validity of treaties / 158. lezion does not annul them. / 159. duties of nations in …

 II. Notes for Opinion on the Treaty of Alliance with France, [before 28 April 1793]

… self-libern without just cause or compensn gives cause of war to France. Examine Authorities.—how far they weigh.—danger of understg. Vattel witht restrn. Grotius—Puff.—Wolf— Vattel Vattel . 2. 160.        158. <159.> 163. 219. 220. <233.> [Lengthwise in the …

 IV. Opinion on the Treaties with France, 28 April 1793

… Certainly not when merely useless or disagreeable, as seems to be said in an authority which has been quoted. Vattel. 2.197. And tho he may under certain degrees of danger, yet the danger must be imminent, and the degree …

 List of Books Sold to James Monroe, [10 May 1784]

… Oeuvres de Mably. 4.v. 1. 1. / Entretiens de Phocion 4. / Recherches sur les Americains. 3.v. 16. / Vattel 1. 16. / Epoques de la nature 2. v. 11. / Maniere de jouer aux echecs 6. / Oeuvres …

 From Edmund Randolph, with a Memorandum by Jefferson, 9 February 1781

… a Memorandum by Jefferson Sir February 9. 1781. As your excellency and the council probably have not access to Vattel, on whose doctrines this hasty answer is founded, I shall inclose the paragraph from his work, which treats of …

 Report on Negotiations with Spain, 18 March 1792

… and without having declared any: but on the contrary, conducting herself in other respects as a friend and associate. Vattel. L. 3. 122. It is an established principle that Conquest gives only an inchoate right, which does not become …

 To James Madison, 28 April 1793

… have been seriously proposed to declare our treaties with France void on the authority of an ill-understood scrap in Vattel 2.§.197. [‘toutefois si ce changement &c—gouvernement’] and that it should be necessary to discuss it?—Cases are now arising which …

 From Edmund Randolph, 9 February 1781

… made by the unarmed countrymen, I am inclined to think, that I was inaccurate. As well as I recollect, Vattel was said to be against their claim; but that daily usage was in favor of it. So far perhaps …

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-search-2&mode=TOC&#match

 To Thomas Newton, Jr., 8 September 1791

… 202–3). In laying down general principles only, TJ had the support of three wellknown authorities—Abraham de Wicquefort, Emmerich de Vattel, and Wyndham Beawes—among whom only Vattel argued that consuls “must be accorded, to a certain extent, the …

 II. Arguments by James Wilson and William Samuel Johnson before the Court of Commissioners, [14–23 December 1782]

… made to the Dutch possessions. We must discover the thoughts of those who make Contracts 2 Blacstone 295. 2 Vattel §270. 2 Hutchinson history Massa. 387. Interpretation must be rational 2 Rutherford—chapter Interpretation. 1 Blacstone 59. 2 Bacon abrid. …

 From Thomas Pinckney, 27 August 1793

… Court of Admiralty’s dismissal of Wilson’s suit against the Centurion’s captain was presumably based on the principle expressed by Vattel that the captain had acted in ignorance of the cessation of hostilities, even though Vattel maintained that …

 Alexander Hamilton’s Notes on Jefferson’s Letter to George Hammond, with Jefferson’s Response, [20–27 May 1792]

… have a knowledge of the transaction from it’s first embryon to it’s perfection. They are the ‘parties contractantes’ of Vattel and the ‘paciscentes’ of Wolf cited §. 48. Tho’ they do not transact the business in person, but by …

 Edmund Randolph’s Opinion on the Grange, 14 May 1793

… a country in order to settle there, it possesses every thing included in it, as lands, lakes, rivers” &c. Vattel. b.1.c.22. §.266. To this list might be added Bynkershoek and Selden. But the dissertation of the former de dominio …

 To Edmond Charles Genet, 17 June 1793

… what that law and usage is. Let us appeal to enlightened and disinterested Judges. None is more so than Vattel. He says L. 3. §. 104. “Tant qu’un peuple neutre veut jouïr surement de cet état, il doit montrer …

 To Edmond Charles Genet, [ca. 16 July 1793]

… unfortunate in your estimation. You are pleased to consider us as bringing forward diplomatic subleties, and the aphorisms of Vattel, to justify infractions of positive treaties. I shall agree with you that reason is the only rightful umpire between …

 XII. Opinion of the Chief Justice, 28 August 1790

… within two Classes vizt. cases of urgent necessity, and Cases of Convenience. The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel, who well understood the subject, says in the 7th: chapter of his 3d. Book: That an innocent Passage is …

 XV. Opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, 15 September 1790

… Peace Book II Chap II § xiii No. 1.2.3.4. Book III Chap: VII § 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. Vattel Book III Chap VII Section 127. France has made us one loan since the peace. MS (DLC: Washington Papers). …

 Notes on Washington’s Questions on Neutrality and the Alliance with France, [6 May 1793]

… valid. E.R. declared himself of the same opinion, but on H’s undertaking to present to him the authority in Vattel (which we had not present) and to prove to him that, if the authority was admitted, the treaty might …

http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-search-3&mode=TOC&#match

  From James Madison, 8 May 1793

… at the time have been put on them. The attempt to shuffle off the Treaty altogether by quibbling on Vattel is equally contemptible for the meanness and folly of it. If a change of Government is an absolution from …

 To William G. Munford, 27 February 1799

… in the catalogue [you sent me] as could be found here. these are Stewart’s philosophy of the human mind. Vattel’s law of nations. Smith’s wealth of nations. Nicholson’s philosophy {}to these I have added Chipman’s sketches on government Condorcet’s …

 Notes on John Jay’s Mission to Great Britain, [1797 or after]

… He says also that in conformity to what was mentioned by Mr. Jay he has used the words of Vattel. As to the article about impressment he says ‘he sees no reason whatever to object to this article.’ / …

 To James Madison, 3 August 1793

… vulnerable points, well struck, stab the party vitally.—3. lights from the law of nations on the constructions of treaties. Vattel has been most generally the guide, Bynkershoeck often quoted, Wolf sometimes. 4. no call was made by any power …

 IV. Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 16 August 1793

… law of nations, founded on the general sense and usage of mankind, we have produced proofs, from theJune 17. Vattel L.3.§.104. most enlightened and approved writers on the subject, that a neutral nation must, in all things relating to …

 To Ferdinando Fairfax, 25 April 1794

… to discuss the opinions of Home and Young, than my friend Genet did the worm-eaten aphorisms of Grotius and Vattel. In the mean time I have the honor to be with sentiments of great esteem Dear Sir your most …

 Enclosure II: Considerations on a Convention with Spain, 22 March 1792

… One writer extends the exception to atrocious criminals, too imminently dangerous to Society. Namely to Pirates, Murderers, and Incendiaries. Vattel. L. V. § 233. The punishment of Piracy, being provided for by our law, need not be so by …

 From Edmund Randolph, 30 January 1784

… be convinced of Hancock’s guilt before they could deliver him up. This scruple originated from the 76th. section of Vattel’s 2d. book. But the quotation of a practice in Switzerland which deprives the canton, within whose reach an offender …

 To John Garland Jefferson, 11 June 1790

… Spirit of laws. / Blackstone. / Virginia laws. Smith’s wealth of nations. / Beccaria. / Kaim’s moral essays. / Vattel’s law of nations / Should there be any little intervals in the day not otherwise occupied fill them up …

 From Thomas Pinckney, 5 July 1793

… was justifiable when there was a hope of reducing an enemy by famine (for a translation, see Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations …

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-search-4&mode=TOC&#match

 Course of Reading for William G. Munford, [5 December 1798]

… Practice in Chancery / Wythe’s reports. Schomberg’s hist. of [Civ. 1.] / Washington’s reports. Molloy de Jure [Mar.] / Vattel. / [Fine Arts] from [XII.] to II. Moral Philosophy [from?] […]& [night?] / Lowthe’s grammar Condorcet’s Progress of the …

 A Course of Reading for Joseph C. Cabell, September 1800

… human life. 12mo. Gregory’s legacy. 12mo. Gregory’s comparative view. 12 mo. Ld. Bacon’s essays. 12 mo. L. of nations. Vattel. Droit des gens. 4to. Droit des gens moderne par martens. 2 v. {12mo. Religion. Paley’s evidences. 8vo. Middleton’s Miscelli …

 From James Madison, 9 January 1785

… contended that such surrenders were unknown to the law of nations, and were interdicted by our declaration of Rights. Vattel however is express as to the case of Robbers, murderers and incendiaries. Grotius quotes various instances in which great …

 To John Jay, 21 June 1787

… sang répandus pour venger l’injure faite a quelqu’un de ces hommes revêtus d’un ministere national.” Grotius, Bodin, Montesquieu, and Vattel were appealed to in support of the view that the ambassador, representing his sovereign in a foreign state, must …

 To Edmond Charles Genet, [15–22 November 1793]

… are worm-eaten, or hired. It will be acknoleged that you have never troubled us with quotations from Grot. Puff. Vattel or any other authority antient or recent. Had you endeavored to learn from these respected authors what the rest …

 Vattel – George Washington

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=GEWN-search-1&mode=TOC&#match

From Edmund Randolph, 6 May 1793

… refusal of him may bring war upon the U.S., because they cannot, without very particular reasons decline his admission—(See Vattel book. 4. section 65) That the expulsion of the prince is not one of those particular reasons will appear …

 Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on a Cabinet Meeting, 6 May 1793

… valid. E.R. declared himself of the same opinion, but on H’s undertaking to present to him the authority in Vattel (which we had not present) & to prove to him that, if the authority was admitted, the treaty might …

 Memorandum from Henry Knox, 16 May 1793

… against our sovereignty even to such a degree as to justify a declaration of War unless satisfactory reparation be made—Vattel is explicit upon this subject he says—in Book 3. Chapter 2d Section 15. “As the right of levying soldiers …

 From John Jay, 28 August 1790

… comprized within two Classes vizt cases of urgent necessity, and cases of convenience—The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel who well understood the Subject, says in the 7th chapter of his 3d Book— That an innocent Passage is …

 To the Cabinet, 3 August 1793

… United States signed with France in 1778, see Miller, Treaties, 3–44. An authority on international law was Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work Le Droit des gens: ou, Principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite & aux affaires …

 To Thomas Jefferson, 4 August 1793

… had with France, Great Britain, and other nations, see Miller, Treaties, 3–244. The other reference is to Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work The Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the Conduct and to …

 To Robert Cary & Company, 6 October 1773

… the Nature and Immutability of Truth; Thomas Reid, Inquiry into the Human Mind; Adam Ferguson, Institutes of Moral Philosophy; Vattel, Laws of Nations; Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli au Paces; George Turnbull, Principles of Moral Philosophy; David Fordyce, Elements …

 Enclosure Questions for the Supreme Court, 18 July 1793

… all with France, see Miller, Treaties, 3–47, 228–44. This is probably a reference to principles contained in Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work, The Law of Nations; or the Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the conduct and …

 Enclosure: Answers to Questions proposed by the President of the United States to the Secretary of the Treasury., 15 September 1790

… Law of War and Peace through Barbeyrac’s work, cited in n.3 above (see Syrett, Hamilton Papers 7:39, n.5). For Vattel’s Law of Nations, see John Jay to GW, 28 Aug. 1790, n.2. Hamilton’s footnote, “Puffendorfs Law of Nature & …

 Memorandum from Alexander Hamilton, 15 May 1793

… 26:197–99; see also JPP, 156–57, 159. Throughout the debates over U.S. neutrality policy, cabinet members referred to Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, first published in French in 1758 and in English in 1760. Although the Treaty of …

Vattel – Ratification

http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=RNCN-search-1&mode=TOC

 Convention Debates

… a confederation of states. (8) Sovereignty is in the states and not in the people in its exercise. (9) Vattel’s description of sovereignty—it belonged originally to the body of the society (Vat. page 9. of the Sovereign). (10) …

 Convention Debates, A.M.

… marginal notes] Sovereignty Vat. p. 5. s. 2 Lock, p. 2, s. 149, 227. Bl. 245. 161. 162. Confederacy, Vattel p. 11. s. 10 Mont. b. 9. c. 1. A general inconsistency between this reasoning and that against the …

 Convention Debates, A.M.

… 2. [Montesquieu, I, 11–18.] “The People, in whom the Supreme Power resides.” (51) Vat. b. 1. s. 1. 2. [Vattel, 15–16.] “Sovereignty.” (52) The sovereignty is essentially in the people; but is vested in a senate or a monarch. …

 Convention Debates, A.M.

… closed his arguments in opposition to the proposed federal system. [Dallas’ Debates, Pennsylvania Herald, 15 December] Findley: Sovereignty. Vat. [Vattel] p. 9. 19. Locke, on Gov. [II] c. 13 [chapter XIII]. There is but one supreme power, viz., the …

 Symbols

… Ithaca, N.Y., 1930–1971). Thorpe Francis N. Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions … (7 vols., Washington, D.C., 1909). Vattel Emerich de Vattel , The Law of Nations … (Dublin, 1792). Cross-references CC Commentaries on the Constitution: Public …

 George Clinton’s Remarks Against Ratifying the Constitution, 11 July 1788

… persons, having a will of their own and equal rights—that these rights are freedom, sovereignty, and independence. The celebrated Vattel treating on this subject, observes “that power or weakness does not in this respect produce any difference. A dwarf …

A Blog Response

Recently on another blog: The Right Side of Life posted the following;   Rep. Deal Wants Obama’s Birth Certificate; Let the Blowback Begin!

Apparently Rep. Deal knew he was going to stir up quite the proverbial hornet’s nest by seriously suggesting that he was going to ask the President to see his birth certificate. So, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (h/t PeachPundit), the castigations are now beginning.

As you read through what I post from the article, below, I’m going to interject my own commentary into what the included public figures say, because I think most of them are seriously full of it; the idea that somehow someone is considered to be, essentially, other than rational for daring to question the President is, itself, asinine:

“I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available and it leaves many things to be desired,” Deal said in an interview Friday.

Deal’s statement came a day after he noted in an online chat that he would join other U.S. House members in writing the president and asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate.

a poster that goes by siseduermapierdra posted again the flawed Wong Kim Ark decision in his rantinmgs. I posted the follwing reply. Posted here for you all to read.

I hate to break the news to you, but I have been saying the following LONG before Leo.

Quote; Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown.

The 14th Amendment and Title 8 state that NOT only being born in country, but that you have to have the Jurisdiction.

You attempt to solve a math problem with only half the equation, it does not work.

Citizenship + Jurisdiction + Allegiance = Natural Born Citizen

Even SR511 that allowed McCain, was flawed as it clearly stated the requirements for NBC status.

 Senate Resolutions is a resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.
What Constitution are they refering to that protects the NBC requirement.

“””Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it…”””

Note BORN TO TWO (2) US CITIZEN Parents, but OUTSIDE the Country.
Which we know McCain was NOT born in a US Military hospital on base, as there WAS no hospital on base.

Please state who are Barack Obama TWO (2) US Citizen parents?

Now, lets take a look at John Bingham, ‘author’ of the 14th Amendment of which you attempt to use a flawed decision of KWA.

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

Note: that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.

Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown.

I believe Obama fails, based on John Bingham

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z

Now Justice Waite;
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.

Again born in country to parents who are citizens

Please state the US Parent(s) of Barack Obama, both of them.
Oh, that’s right his father was a foreign national, or ‘as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.’

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy
-Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 03, 2008) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

Again, please provide the names of both the United States citizen Parent(s) of Barack Obama.

that’s right, his father was a foreign national. He was from a foreign country.

Since you like to use KWA, here is another
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
-Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=1

Where is this other resort that the Supreme Court and other cases used to determine.

E. Vattel, the Law of Nations.

 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

It’s hard for Obama supporters to face facts.

Natural Born Citizen- Visual Guide

Here is the Natural Born Citizen. explained visually.

NBC vs ObamaFinal

An African Original

TuskerAndObama

FactCheck’s Forged Barack Obama COLB

  The “FactCheck” COLB’s has been an issue since they were posted. In an attempt to backup the original forgery posted on “Fight the Smears”, there are glaring issues with both the “FactCheck” Colb’s. I reference that there are two separate and individual documents as one clearly shows an embossed SEAL while the other does not. The one that does contain an embossed SEAL, however is not an official SEAL from the State of Hawaii – Department of Health, and hence the document itself is already in question.

Here in an attempt to identify an additional ink markings from the Statement and Signature Stamp applied to the back of an authentic Certificate from the Vital Records Department, I will be using the “FactCheck” images and developing a composite image based on several layers, and seeing if any additional indications can be detected.

First let us provide an over-view of the images posted on FactCheck.

 FCComposite

FactCheck posted nine (9) images none of which are head-on and provide clear reference points. If you look at the image in the upper right hand of the composite, you will notice one glaring issue. The area where there should be an embossed SEAL is shaded by the arm of the person taking the picture. Other images are similarly deceptive in angle or contrast.

However their attempt, they failed to resolve the issue of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth.

Issue #1. There are two separate COLB’s posted. As noted before one COLB has an embossed SEAL and the other does not.

Below are the images of the COLB’s

Here is the COLB with an embossed SEAl. The image has been resized and rotated to the correct orientation. We will call this COLB 1 for reference.

 birth_certificate_2Resized

Now the second COLB without the embossed SEAL. We will call this COLB 2 for reference.

 birth_certificate_3Resized

Let’s examine individual close-ups of the area and.

Here is COLB 1 cropped with the SEAL clearly visible and measurements in the area indicating the location of the embossed SEAL from points on the COLB that can be identified between different documents. I have increased the contrast of the image.

 COLB1Closeup

Now let’s look at the same area on the second COLB [COLB 2]

First let’s increase the brightness of the image to increase the light in the shaded area of the arm.

 birth_certificate_3NOSEAL2Resized

Now let’s crop into the area of where the SEAL should be. Again using the same area as COLB 1, below is the image of what we see. NOTHING there.

 COLB2Closeup2

Notice that the Rattan Security lines are CLEARLY visible and solid. No breakage is seen. I then altered the image using the Hue and Saturation settings to change the coloring to be able to bring out the lines.

 COLB2Closeup1

Again, using the same orientation points that we did for COLB 1, you can clearly see that there is NO line breakage indicating an embossed SEAL was ever applied to the document.  This is a high resolution image, here are is the info on both images.

 picinfo

Now let us turn our attention to the date stamp in the FactCheck COLB 1. Here again we will use the original COLB posted by Barack Obama on ‘Fight the Smears’ and compare it to COLB 1 on FactCheck.

Below is the “Date Stamp of the Barack Obama COLB”

 2

 We have adjusted the Hue and Saturation for bleed-through on the Date Stamp.

6

Notice that there is NO additional ink markings within the entire region.

 Since we have detected NO additional ink markings in the region, we will use the original image as our reference. We then took the Official stamp off another “FactCheck” image and super-imposed onto this image.

 

 1

Note how we have aligned the overlay to the Date stamp, all reference lines are now based on this orientation. Below is a minor off-set to show that the Date is actually in fact lined up.

 7

 

From this image we will now use the FactCheck image. Image 8 for reference. We will create a transparent image of the background leaving the Black border and lettering to orient this image to the original one above.

 FC1

And another from FactCheck. This is resized to show the entire image here.The next image that we will use is the one below. We will again, create a transparent background leaving the Date, statement, and the signature, as to align them with the original.

 birth_certificate_9Resized

Now using the “State” letters as our reference point. Notice the large area under it.

Using the third image above, reposted here, notice that the “State” letters are inside the Border in the word ‘INVALIDATE’

 1

Now, lets refer to the following image and see how far the bottom of the image is to the letters “State” I have added the Blue lines as a reference guide.

 Meas2

 

We will add the additional references. Here I will use the Letter ‘S’ from the word State and to the edge of the image there is space for at least four (4) additional S’s.

 M2RS

 

We will now apply the above Image 8 to the original. The one that we removed the Ratan Background [Security feature – see my blog posting on Security Features], leaving the Black border and lettering. Note that the alignment can be seen and the I in the word INVALIDATE shows the separation between the original image and the overlay.

 8

 We will now use the layering tool to move this layer back one and then have the Date/Signature overlay on the top. Note that all are aligned very nicely.

 9

 Now we even apply the second signature overlay to show that they do indeed line up. Notice that the “State” in the ‘INVALIDATE lines up correctly along with the words on all the other lines. All aligned off the “Jun -6 2007’ date.

 10

 I have added the additional “S’s” to the overlay in an attempt to find the location to the bottom of the “FactCheck” COLB. As FactCheck did NOT photograph the entire back like they did for the two separate COLB’s they posted. IE: One COLB with a SEAL and the other without a SEAL. Hence two separate COLB’s. “FactCheck” only posted close-ups of the stamp area with any orientation points.

 12

 

 There is NO additional ink bleed through in the ENTIRE area. It appears that the original “JUN – 6 2007” Date stamp was applied to the top of the ‘FactCheck” COLB and was not applied on the back. On the front, as if it was printed when the COLB was printed.

However with the absence of any other ink bleed through and being able to identify WHERE the additional lettering from the Statement/Signature Stamp if any impression was available.

With all these overlays and switching back and forth under the layering tool. No indications were detected. No increase of the brightness/contrast or hue and saturation brought out any additional markings or indications that any ink or impressions were applied to the back of ‘either’ document. However there is clear indication that an image of the date ‘Jun 6- 2007’ was copied and applied to the original COLB posted on ‘Fight the Smears’ and this was transferred to the FactCheck document when it was printed out. 

 2

 

My original conclusion stands, that the Date on the COLB was printed on the top when the document was created, by printing out the ‘Fight the Smears’ COLB and then attempting to apply an embossed seal to the document in an attempt to produce a forged Birth Certification. However they produced two completely different documents one with a SEAL and the other without one. I believe they noticed that during the process that the document was missing a SEAL, applied one, and did not catch the image without one till it was too late and already posted.

 They are forgeries, plain and simple.

Forgery #1 – The COLB posted on ‘Fight the Smears’ – No Stamp, No Seal, evidence of tampering and forgery. Sandra Ramsey Lines, Ron Polirak, and myself, among others.

Forgery #2 – FactCheck – Two different COLB’s one with a SEAL, however NOT an Official State of Hawaii Department of Health SEAL

Forgery #3 – FactCheck – COLB without a SEAL, image of COLB being held up. High resolution and NO indicating of a SEAL.

So how can there be three versions of a document that Hawaii NEVER issued?

Natural Born Confusion – Only for Obama supporters

 After posting the Constitutional Points to ponder, I was flooded with comments. I decided to pick the worst comment that was sent and dicest his illogical and clearly labeled lies.  My responses in RED

Now lets look at how far the Obots are trying to confuse the truth.

 Author : smrstrauss (IP: 70.19.198.241 , pool-70-19-198-241.bos.east.verizon.net)

E-mail : smrstrauss@aol.com

URL    :

Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=70.19.198.241

Comment:

Re: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ”

 The quotation is from a translation of Vattel that appeared 100 years after the Constitution was written. No translation of Vattel before the Constitution used the term “natural born citizen” (Vattel himself wrote in French.) What were his words? “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”

The version that I have been quoting is  The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) Emmerich de Vattel.

Clearly there is no “citoyens” (citizens) in the phrase “Les Naturels.” The translation that was made before the Constitution said: “The natives, or indigenes [whatever that meant] are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

Again I will correct [whatever that meant] (sure sounds like he’s is confused)

“The term ‘indigenous people’ can be used to describe any ethnic group of people who inhabit a geographic region with which they have the earliest known historical connection”

 So the authors of Article II in the Constitution could not have been thinking of Vattel when they wrote “Natural Born Citizen.” What were they thinking of: The common law of Britain (and of America too), that had held for decades that someone was a “Natural Born Subject” if she or he were merely born in the country and not to a foreign diplomat.

 Again, states miss-information.

Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

And James Madison said: It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

The commonly used term in the law at the time was “Natural Born subject.” There was no use in law or common discussion that “Natural Born” required two US parents and being born in the country. Since the reference “Natural Born” can only have been to the common law, the common law definition applies, and that merely requires birth in the USA.

 Again, miss-quoting and miss-leading remarks.  Again, I will correct him.

 All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
-Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)

 And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

 Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

 “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

 Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

 “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

 Senators Hatch and Graham are NOT correct. But is this the first time Senators or Congressmen have been wrong.

 As a case in point I refer to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

This Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004 refers to the following; S.2128 Natural Born Citizen Act.  That act never passed and hence as of this Judiciary Hearing in Oct 2004, the meaning and Constitution had never been amended.

So let’s look at the Natural Born Citizen Act

 S. 2128: Natural Born Citizen Act

A bill to define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

(About the paid content on GovTrack)

Navigation

> Overview

– Summary (CRS)

– Full Text

– Committee Assignments

– Related Legislation

 Track S. 2128 [108th]

Because this bill was introduced in a previous session of Congress, no more action can occur on it.

 Primary Source

See S. 2128 [108th] on THOMAS for the official source of information on this bill or resolution.

 Overview

Sponsor: Sen. Don Nickles [R-OK]show cosponsors (2)

Cosponsors [as of 2008-11-10]

Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK]

Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]

Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why?

Text: Summary | Full Text

Status:  Introduced Feb 25, 2004

 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments

 Reported by Committee (did not occur)

 Voted on in Senate (did not occur)

 Voted on in House (did not occur)

 Signed by President (did not occur)

 This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven’t passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session. 

Last Action: Oct 5, 2004: Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.

Related: See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

Now lets fast forward to Feb 2006 and look at the following.

 SARAH P. HERLIHY  2/22/2006 AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE

 The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,1 “undecidedly un-American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.” Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligi-ble for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:

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 Of-fice who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.6

Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.

 Again, no amendment has ever been passed to alter the Founding Fathers and Framers definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”. However Obama and his supporters have continued to attempt to not only disregard the United States Constitution, but to alter it’s meaning.

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
-Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)
http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-na…

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
-Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=1…

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy
-Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 03, 2008) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. -110th Congress, SR 511 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text