An African Original

TuskerAndObama

Advertisements

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

Constitutional Points to Ponder

As the US Constitution states as requirement for the Presidency.

Eligibility

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:

  • be a natural born citizen of the United States;
  • be at least thirty-five years old;
  • have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

Foreign-born Americans who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted were also eligible to become President, provided they met the age and residency requirements. However, this allowance has since become obsolete.

No we know the definition and intent of a “Natural Born Citizen” as per the Framers and Founding Fathers.

§ 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.

As I have stated before and will state here again.  Barack Obama, he has admitted being a British citizen at birth. From his own web-site,  “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.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Now ponder these Constitutional points as we review the above information.

“An Unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no rights: it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
– Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442

“It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution it is presumptively unconstitutional.”
– Harris V. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980) (USSC+)

“Anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.”
-Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury V. Madison,1Cr.137

“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
— John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802

“Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
— Alexander Hamilton

We do NOT need the birth certificate or certification of live birth, Obama is NOT eligible as per the US Constitution, and as such he IS nothing but a Usurper.  Nothing that has done, doing, or will do, will attempt is legal and binding, as per the United States Constitution.

Is a long form Birth Certificate fraud possible?

There is much speculation that Obama is working on a Long Form Birth certificate. That a typewriter from the period late 1950’s to the early 1960’s has been found, along with paper from the same era. That the forgery is waiting to be correctly “aged” to pass any forensic document specialist examination.

 A long form released by Obama will not answer ANY questions or validate what is already known. Let me explain.

 Obama has already admitted the following and this is not disputed;

 “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.

 Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

 Thereby admitting he was a British subject. Also from his own web-site the following and notice the wording.

 Hi everyone!

People who are determined to keep us divided start these rumors about Barack’s birth certificate to manipulate us into thinking he is not an American citizen.

The fact is Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Learn the facts and see the birth certificate for yourself:

http://my.barackobama.com/birthcertificate

 Together we can make sure these negative and divisive attacks don’t affect this election.

Thanks for your help.

The long form Birth Certificate would have the following information, including the Doctor, nurses, witnesses, birth order, # of siblings, place of birth, mothers and father’s residence and occupation.

This would only open additional questions, that would be harder to cover-up and manipulate.

 1. They would have to disclose their residence. The residence that has been disclosed has been proven to be in question, as neighbors who were there at the time, did NOT recall the Obama’s or an inter-racial couple. The Obama’s would have stood out in the early 1960’s. Unlike the current inter-racial acceptance, in the late 1950’s and 60’s the inter-racial couples stood out and would have been remembered.

 2. Race of Father, this is an official US document and again refering back to the US Natality doumentation, on what legal entries were exceptable. African was NOT an acceptable entry.  http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/ and the 1961 Guideline http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf  Refere to Section 5 for the Technical Appendix and look under Race.

Then why if the long form is different, why the short form that was supposed to be filled in from information on the long form is different?

 3. Age of mother? Was Obama’s mother listed a different age, then her legal age, to protect against a felony charge of rape. Remember this is the early 1960’s and not today.

 4. Signature of attendent? This can be crossed referenced to duty logs and employment records. The name can NOT be pulled out of the air. They already attempted this with a Dr that retired in 1956. If there is a different name, another re-flag.

 The State of Hawaii also allows for ONLY one, attendent verification, and it can be either a Mid-wife, Doctor, Doctor’s Oderly [sp], or even other.

 5. The name of the hospital would also have to be identided, again the staffing records, and employment records and Doctors Staff, would have records.  Both hospitals that Obama has stated where he was born, has denied that both his mother and he were ever a patient.

 6. The Doctor would be identified.  There was a story already that Rodney T. West, M.D. was the doctor that delivered Obama. However after only a few hours that story was debunked as false, as Doctor West retired in 1956.  However one important note would be the following;

 Rodney West, 97, died February 24, 2008. in his native state, Hawaii, where he lived and worked for his entire career. According to the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, West was born in Wailuku, Maui, and earned his MD from Northwestern University School of Medicine in 1934. He completed his internship and residency at Queen’s Hospital in Honolulu, the state’s largest private hospital . Called into active duty with the U.S. Navy in the fall of ‘1941, West was stationed at Pearl Harbor

 If Dr. West did in fact deliver Barack Obama on Aug 4th, 1961, why did he NOT confirm it when he was alive? Barack Obama was already campaigning and stating he was born there, and Dr. West could have been asked. Just like his grandmother a convenient passing at a time, when questions were being asked, and yes, I was one that debunked the story and it was pulled after only a few hours.

 Not to mention, with the doctor when identified, he would also have personal records, and documentation.

Anyone relating to this Doctor, would gladly go back into the records and prove they were the first to slap Obama around.

 Again these are just the tip of the iceberg. As they are still a smoke screen as Obama does not, can not, NOR ever be Constitutionally eligible.

 Obama as stated above, was British at birth. Adopted by a foreign national in a foreign country. Re-entered the US illegaly, used forged papers to gain employment in this country!

 Those that have been to this site, already know the difference between a “NATIVE BORN” and a “NATURAL BORN” citizen are. So for those who would like a short course, here are the definitions:

 “Native Born” Citizen – Anyone born in the United States

 “Natural Born” Citizen – Born in the United States of parents who are citizens. Notice the parents being plural. Read the expanded legal definition at https://nobarack08.wordpress.com

 So is a long form Birth Certificate fraud possible? Yes it is, but again it would only open more questions then it would answer.  Personally there is strong and compelling evidence not limited to the following; 

1. the actions of Barack Obama to seal all his records, spending close to $1 million at this time to prevent his long form from being released

2. the fact that Hawaii can hold a foreign birth certificate as a vault copy and register the birth, even a foreign birth in the State of Hawaii.  Section 7c on the Hawaii form is for this. 

3. the fact that there are documents in Kenya that have been sealed. Why would Barack Obama have any records or documents in Kenya.

 the birth certificate on file in Hawaii can easily be the Kenyan long form, with or withoput an affidavit. That affidavit only needs to be from one person.

The State of Hawaii has also maintained the following:

They have one on file

They have NOT released any information that it contains

They have NOT stated that it is a Hawaiian Birth Certificate that they have, nor have they stated that they have one document or several documents that comprise the record.

The State of Hawaii does not even state they have a request for the COLB that was handled by FactCheck,  where as again, multiple documents were photographed. One without the SEAL and another with a SEAL.  Again, impossible as the State of Hawaii can ONLY release the document with the SEAL and signiture. So how did FactCheck have two different documents. I believe that they printed out the COLB that was posted on Fight the Smears, photographed it and in the process applied the SEAL that is seen on it, not realizing that the SEAL was different. [As shown in another post here] and then released the images without realzing they posted evidence of document forgery.

Also as proof that the State of Hawaii requires an application for the request. Go to the following site: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html scroll to the bottom and see the request form. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf As a side note, the State of Hawaii would also have the request from Obama for the one that he released last year 2008. Maybe the State of Hawaii can confirm they have THAT request on file and can produce THAT request also.

Obama IS a foreign national and Kenya knows it

The following was obtained from the following site.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9606845/Kenyan-National-Assembly-Wednesday-5th-November-2008-51108A

 Updated working link; http://www.bunge.go.ke/parliament/downloads/Tenth%20Parl%201st%20Session/Hansard/5.11.08A.pdf

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT

Wednesday, 5th November, 2008

The House met at 9.00 a.m.

Dr. Khalwale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. You have heard none other than the Leader of Government Business acknowledge that because of Obama’s win in the United States of America (USA), the House is crippled.

Could we allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA? I humbly request!    *****[note – “having a Kenyan ruling the USA”!]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, Mr. Vice-President! We are citizens of the Republic of Kenya! This is a supreme institution of this country. Our responsibility is to our country, first and foremost.

We are not citizens of the USA! Much as we appreciate and we are all happy; nonetheless we are a country ourselves.

So, it is not an excuse for a Minister to be away from his own Parliament, because he is celebrating the victory of another presidential candidate in another country.

The Assistant Minister for Water and Irrigation (Mr. Kiunjuri): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as you can see, people are really celebrating.

However, I am wondering whether the Americans have not reported to work and yet it is their victory.

I am also hoping that there will be no homecoming for Obama. If there is one, the Leader of Government Business should alert us in good time so that we can set up a committee to organize for his homecoming.  *[note – Obama having a Homecoming to Kenya!]

Ms. Odhiambo:Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country.

*[note – Obama is soil of Kenya – birthright from his father]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: President-elect has not been sworn-in yet. The election of President-elect Obama is of utmost national importance to the United States of America. Ms. Odhiambo, you are a lawyer. You had better be very careful where you transgress between watching your own sovereignty and what can be
interpreted in some quarters as some form of treason
(Ed. note: the threat of “treason” is not directed to Ms Odhiamdo personally, but rather concern over how Obama’s “former” Kenyan Citizenship may be viewed by outsiders)

 Mr. Affey: … For the first time, we have a leader of a great country in this world whose blood is Kenyan.

*[Note – Blood is Kenyan – again Bloodright Citizenship]

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR CONGRATULATORY MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT-ELECT BARRACK OBAMA

Hon. Members, as you may be aware, the people of the United States of America have just had a historic election where the son of this soil, Barrack Hussein Obama, has been elected the 44th President of the United States of America…

*[Note- again – of the soil]

The Vice-President and Minister forHome Affairs (Mr. Musyoka):
As we do, as you said from the Chair, this is a sovereign country. We know we can learn a lot.

To be able to support that blood relation, I think we owe it to ourselves to make sure that we have a peaceful country as Kenyans; a country that will uphold the true principles of the rule of law, democracy and tolerance between ourselves

At the beginning of this year, Senator Barrack Obama called me at midnight and told me: “Mr. Vice President, could you make sure you sort out this problem?” I want to assure him that the problem has since been sorted out.

*[Note- What problem needed to be sorted out?, that he was born there?] 

The Assistant Minister for Higher Education, Science and Technology (Dr. Mwiria):…

Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to also congratulate Barrack Obama on his victory and also say that even as we look at that victory say it is possible, it is only possible because there are structures in place in the US that make it possible for any potential candidate to win, irrespective of whether they have a lot of money which they have gotten legally or illegally, they are from a different ethnic group and how old they are.

*[Note – illegal money contributed to the campaign of Barack Obama!]

 Mr. Chanzu:I highly congratulate Obama and salute Americans, Black, White and other races, for what they have done in showing the world that a leader can come from any community. I also want to congratulate Kenyans for the support they have shown. It showed the Americans that we were supporting our own.
*[Note- supporting THEIR own!]

Mr. Ethuro: … Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have done it! That is why I like this Motion coming at this time of Obama – yes we can! We did it with the Parliamentary Service Commission. We did it with the Leader of the Official Opposition. We are doing it
with the Official Opposition Bill. We are doing it with the establishment of the Budget Office and we are doing it with the Cabinet size! Yes we can!
*[Note – the same montra “YES WE CAN”]

Obama is an illegal alien in the United States, who has used forged documents to gain employment in this country!

Natural Born Citizen legally defined

There has been much debate as to whether the term “Natural Born Citizen” has ever been legally defined or will some court have to finally define it, such as the Supreme Court of the United States.  The term “Natural Born Citizen” is a requirement for only two positions within our government, President and Vice-President.  What did the Founding Father’s and Framers of the United States Constitution mean to do or accomplish by placing this requirement for the highest office?

First off, let us look at what the Framer’s used as a guide.

The Founding Fathers of the United States, used Vattel’s Laws of Nations as their guide and reference to meanings and definitions within our Constitution. 

The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz’s influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the world’s first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from Vattel’s The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America’s founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.

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”?

I am sure most reading this will know who Benjamin Franklin was. However one reference will not squell the unbelief that Vattel’s Laws of Nations, is not clear enough. So do a search on Laws of Nations and you will get HUNDREDS of responses. http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html This from the Library of Congress.  Another excellent post is the following; The concept of judicial review, which Hamilton had championed in Rutgers v. Waddington, was included in the U.S. Constitution. In {The Federalist Papers,} No. 78, “The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” circulated as part of the debate over the new Constitution, Hamilton developed a conception of constitutional law which was coherent with Vattel’s conception. Hamilton stated that it is a “fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.” However, the Constitution can only be changed by the nation as a whole, and not by the temporary passions of the majority or by the legislature. Both to protect the Constitution, but also to ensure just enforcement of the law, the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive branch is essential. The judiciary must be the guardians of the Constitution, to ensure that all legislative decisions are coherent with it. This idea championed by Hamilton, that the courts ensured that the Executive and Legislative branches followed the Constitution, was later established as a principle of American jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall

Again proving the Constitution, it’s meaning, it’s wording , and it’s definitions were clearly a result of being referenced to Vattel’s Laws of Nations. So what does the Laws of Nations say about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following. 

§ 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.

As I have stated before and will state here again.  Barack Obama, he has admitted being a British citizen at birth. From his own web-site,  “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.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

How can a British subject at birth, be free from any foreign influence as described by John Jay in the following; 

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3]
LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3
[Note 3: 3 Documentary History of the Constitution, IV, 237.]
New York 25 July 1787

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Again Alexander Hamilton (a signer of our Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 “The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that “the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the law of nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.”

“The Law of Nations” provides the Constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter.

Should any court finally decide that there IS ample evidence that Barack Obama is not qualified to hold the Office of the President of the United States, they will have to rely on Vattel as the defining definition and argument, and stare reality in the face that not only is Barack Obama unqualified, but that he is not even a US Citizen.

As a final note concerning the Supreme Court and Laws of Nations, I direct you to the following;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 3]
Saturday, June 21, 1788.

Page 564

There is to be one Supreme Court–for chancery, admiralty, common pleas, and exchequer, (which great eases are left in England to four great, courts,) to which are added criminal jurisdiction, and all cases depending on the law of nations–a most extensive jurisdiction. This court has more power than any court under heaven. One set of judges ought not to have this power–and judges, particular, who have temptation always before their eyes. The court thus organized are to execute laws made by thirteen nations, dissimilar in their customs, manners, laws, and interests. If we advert to the customs of these different sovereignties, we shall find them repugnant and dissimilar. Yet they are all forced to unite and concur in making these laws. They are to form them on one principle, and on one idea, whether the civil law, common law, or law of nations. The gentleman was driven, the other day, to the expedient of acknowledging the necessity of having thirteen different tax laws. This destroys the principle, that he who lays a tax should feel it and bear his proportion of it. This has not been answered: it will involve consequences so absurd, that, I presume, they will not attempt to make thirteen different codes. They will be obliged to make one code. How will they make one code, without being contradictory to some of the laws of the different states?

Allow me to make one more reference;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 4]
Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.
House of Representatives, February, 1813.

Mr. SEYBERT. The Constitution of the United States declares, Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States.” Sir, the rule only relates to the mode; it is only operative during the nascent state of the political conversion, and it ceases to have effect the moment after the process has been completed. Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every eight and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution Your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United states as native and naturalized. Our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified–that of not being eligible to the presidency of the United States. The only exception to the rule is expressed in the Constitution. If other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed. None other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen. All freemen, citizens of the United States, may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others. You cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep, the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right.

 

Mr. ARCHER. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.

In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.