Why do they let birthers keep going with Obama's Birth Certificate?

That's where that Springsteen song camefrom.

 

you did not get your original anything. What you got is a "certificate" which means someone is hold the originating document. Your parents merely forgot to "seize" it at birth. Much like a "certificate" of ownership for your car. You don't really own it, your state does. Since it is the property of the state, they can acquire that vehicle for a wide variety of reasons. I don't know of any state that allows you to hold the actual deed for your property. If you doubt me about your birth certificate, go to your Sec of State and review it for yourself. I have done this. You would be amazed at what is on the back of the originating document.....
sorry, I forgot you don't live in the US anymore, but your state of birth still holds the originating document.

 

Or when your boy said, "I am not a dictator."

 

You've done nothing but dodge. Where is you expert that says it is authentic? I mean a certified document examiner. The one on the website is a fake. All the experts say so.

 

A computer generated form? Have you ever heard of Photoshop? Do you understand that anyone with a computer and a little software savy can create or alter any computer generated form to read whatever they want it to read? Do you understand that?

Second, you are the one complaining about the lack of a glossary with the U.S. Constitution, I was pointing out that NONE of the language in it are defined. Do you understand that?

 

Was it a photo copy of your original birth certificate or did they sent you a computer-generated forgery? That would be funny.

 

the officials of the state of Hawaii say he was born there. to suggest otherwise is to suggest a 50 year conspiracy that involves fraud on the part of a sovereign state's elected officials.... for no apparent reason.

so...please tell me how it is that you feel you get to decide what the definition of "natural born citizen" is?

 

they sent me a computer generated form that was populated with data from the state's data storage system. It is accurate in every respect. To suggest that Hawaii somehow started to perpetrate this 50 year fraud by first printing fraudulent birth announcements and then fraudulent birth certificates fails the straight face test... but not to the koolaid soaked believers, it would seem.

 

Actually I directly refuted your claims on the first page.

Same place they were when I first showed them to you.

Fukino, fuddy and Onaka.

Proven lie n

Not a single expert has ever said so.

 

They gave you a computer-generated form? Weird. I could go to the county of my birth today and get an actual copy of my original birth certificate. But since it is 600 miles away, it's easier to go to the county where I live and get a certified copy of a copy of my original birth certificate, which my mother put on file with this county when I was 10 years old. Or I could get a copy of my son's birth certificate in this county, even though he was born overseas. I put a copy of his into my local county's records. They will actually give us actual copies.

 

Prove "the officials of the state of Hawaii say he was born there". I know officials in the U.S. who say he wasn't born there. What does that prove anyway?

I am only reporting what the Founding Fathers, and the U.S. SUpreme Courts have defined as a 'natural-born citizen'. You don't like it, but that is your opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you ever heard of Photoshop?

 

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/abraham_lincoln.html#hd0jZLlokfmoF0Qf.99

 

The computer-generated form was generated in 2011, not 1961.

 

What fails the test is the fake birth certificate on the White House web site. Every expert says it is a fake. A fraud. A forgery. A ten year old can pull apart the layers in the published document and prove it is a fake. I don't know what is so hard to understand here.

 

I'll go through the thread later and make a list of experts that I have posted.

Fukino and Onaka and the late Fuddy are just government employees. The are not certified document examiners.

You can refute my claim over and over, but unless you have the proof to back it up, it's meaningless. I've provided proof, you haven't.

 

I was living in Maine... I wrote a letter, sent a check, they mailed me back my birth certificate. I used it to get my passport, because I couldn't locate my expired official diplomatic passport when it came time for me to get a new one.

- - - Updated - - -

you have something from SCOTUS that defines Natural Born Citizen in such a manner as to preclude Obama?

So... you are suggesting the state of Illinois photoshopped my birth certificate? For what reason would they do so? For what reason would the state of hawaii do so?

- - - Updated - - -

are you suggesting that Abe Lincoln did NOT say those things about racial amalgamation?

- - - Updated - - -

and mine was generated sometime in 2005, not in 1950. what is your point?

 

Was it the state or the county you were born in? In my state, the state doesn't hold the copies of birth certificates. The counties do. Where else it this true besides Hawaii and Illinois?

 

I have read conspiracy theorists claim the BC is a fake, not any real "experts".

- - - Updated - - -

Mine is issued by the state of Illinois. Not the county of Rock Island. I have no idea where else this is the case, nor do I care to find out.

 

Now as to the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” here it is: A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. This is the settled definition of the clause under America national common law. See Emer deVattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758 (“The natives, or natural-borncitizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshallconcurring); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99(1830); Shanksv. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857) (J. Daniel concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168-170 (1875); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal.1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649, 679-80 (1898 (all confirmed Vattel’s Section 212 of the The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758 definition of the “natural-born citizens” who “are those born in the country,of parents who are citizens&#8221. This is the only definition of the clause that has ever existed and which has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court. The conditions of being born in the country to “citizen” parents are both necessary and sufficient conditions of being a “natural born Citizen.” The definition of a “natural born Citizen” therefore excludes anyone who is either not born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent)or not born to parents (both parents) who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth or both.

 

Then I'll point out they aren't experts nor have they seen the document to make the determination.

Who are document experts. Specifically vital records.

They are the most qualified experts concerning Hawaiian vital records.

I have.

Provided the official statements from the state of Hawaii.

You've provided birther stupidity, which is demonstrably false.

 

No founding father or Supreme Court case defined NBC they way you and appuzzo have fabricated. Your definition does not exist anywhere in U.S. law or in any court decision.

I can give you 2 off the top of my head which prove your claim false. US v wong Kim ark and ankeny v Daniels.

 

It was proven authentic.
.

No expert has ever declared it a fake. Not one.

No they can't.

What's hard to understand is the complete detachment from reality birthers suffer from.

 

Vattel never once uttered the words natural born citizen in his book. It was added 10 years after the constitution was written.

US v wong Kim ark and ankeny v Daniels define NBC.

 

Yes, he did. And you have taken what he said out of context from a much longer speech against the Dred Scott decision. That is very deceptive of you. Which is why I quoted Lincoln, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

He also said this in the very same speech that you quoted,

 

this is a paragraph claiming that the 1758 definition has been recognized by SCOTUS, not a quote from any SCOTUS ruling that would indicate that. He said she said they said. BS.