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

I provided links three times but you don't like them. I also provided other historical evidences that you don't like either.

Show me the evidence you lied about and show me a document and explain how it is impossible to alter any computer graphic.

Until then I'll just stand by.

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325

This is the case of the girl born in the US of Swedish parents (at least one was Swedish).

The decision includes reference to the case of a man born in the US of Prussian parents. The father moved his son back to Germany and the son requested relief from having to join the German military.

The case states that the kid was born in the US and is a "natural born citizen" who could run for the office of US president.

 

it really is remarkable.... all the birthers have is more and more birthers claiming to be experts making more and more youtube videos from their mother's basements that makes the birthers more and more convinced that Obama must be a fraud. It's like incestuous intellectual cannibalism being performed by retarded children. They tell one another that Obama is a fraud, they post videos that the can watch with one another that restate the position ad nauseam and with each new video, they reinforce one another's vehemence and sense of righteousness. It's like a mobius strip for morons. Around and around they go and with each pass across the one dimensional landscape they seem to be more and more amazed with each seemingly new revelation - which is merely yesterday's revelation repackaged into yet another youtube video made from one of their mother's basements that makes the birthers more and more convinced that Obama must be a fraud. It's like incestuous intellectual cannibalism being performed by retarded children. They tell one another that Obama is a fraud, they post videos that the can watch with one another that restate the position ad nauseam and with each new video, they reinforce one another's vehemence and sense of righteousness. It's like a mobius strip for morons. Around and around they go and with each pass across the one dimensional landscape they seem to be more and more amazed with each seemingly new revelation - which is merely yesterday's revelation repackaged into yet another youtube video made from one of their mother's basements that makes the birthers more and more convinced that Obama must be a fraud. It's like incestuous intellectual cannibalism being performed by retarded children. They tell one another that Obama is a fraud, they post videos that the can watch with one another that restate the position ad nauseam and with each new video, they reinforce one another's vehemence and sense of righteousness. It's like a mobius strip for morons. Around and around they go and with each pass across the one dimensional landscape they seem to be more and more amazed with each seemingly new revelation - which is merely yesterday's revelation repackaged into yet another youtube video made from one of their mother's basements.

and round and round we go. lol

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=325

From the majority opinion:

"The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants."


now... once and for all...either admit that you have been bested here and that you don't know what you are talking about, or go crawl under a rock. One of the two. And, don't ever call me a liar again. Unlike you, obviously, I value my integrity quite highly.

 

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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162

 

You'd think they would be embarrassed to have been such willing dupes for the likes of Orly Taiz and Appuzo. They could so easily read the statutes.. but they just can't get enough of appearing like morons... and telling lies. Some "Christians"....

 

Linky no worky.

Ruling or dicta, not third party opinion.

Do you know the difference?

 

Youtube isa sourcenow?

 

With You tube one can see and hear press conferences and other evidence. Difficult to forge. A single image is easy to forge.

Wikipedia is used as a source and is the worst source for anything for any political truth. It is operated by leftist political hacks and is censored immediately anything negative of the left is uploaded.

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325

PERKINS v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
307 U.S. 325

PERKINS, Secretary of Labor, et al.
v.
ELG.

ELG
v.
PERKINS, Secretary of Labor, et al.

Nos. 454, 455.
Argued Feb. 3, 1939.
Decided May 29, 1939.

[307 U.S. 325, 326] Messrs. Frank Murphy, Atty. Gen., and Robert H. Jackson, Sol. Gen., for Perkins et al.

Mr. Henry F. Butler, of Washington, D.C., for Elg.

[307 U.S. 325, 327]

Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

.....

Fifth.-The cross petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

That's a direct quote from the case document that contains the Chief Justice's opinion. Those are his words.

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

One can not lose nor gain "natural born" citizenship. That by definition is a ruling by fiat, by law and not natural. Scheesch! Talk about not having a grasp of the English language and contorting facts to fit a narrative.

 

Forget wiki and youtube.. Read the statutes.. There's no excuse for a US citizen to be ignorant of the law.

 

Regarding what type of &#8220;citizen&#8221; the child&#8217;s parents have to be, the American &#8220;common-law&#8221; definition confirmed by Minor only required a &#8220;citizen.&#8221; Our U.S. Supreme Court in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), confirmed that the child&#8217;s parents can be either &#8220;natural born Citizens&#8221; or &#8220;citizens of the United States.&#8221; This means that the child&#8217;s parents can be born either in the United States or out of it, provided that they are at least &#8220;citizens of the United States&#8221; at the time of the child&#8217;s birth.

You need to read the WHOLE opinion and not just a section some Obot took out of context. Scheesch!

 

The reason I am posting YouTube videos of many different people performing the same proof that the birth certificate is a fraud is so that people can see with their own eyes that it is in fact a fraud. Here's another couple of self-described "techies":

[video=youtube;u1YdQ8uwxXQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1YdQ8uwxXQ[/video]​

 

the Supreme Court agrees with you and with me. Miss Elg was born in the USA... she is declared to be a Natural Born Citizen. Even though he father was Swedish and even though, after she was born, he then became naturalized and later denounced HIS citizenship, the court ruled that the Secretary of State was WRONG and the actions or nationality of her father had no bearing on her citizenship. You are wrong. You called me a liar and said, This is false, another lie. Provide the case and show "natural-born citizen ANYWHERE within the ruling or dicta. I provided you just such a case. Now...when are YOU going to provide your supposed SCOTUS decision where the majority opinion states that to be a natural born citizen, one's parents need to also be citizens. I've been waiting patiently while you tap danced and wiggled, but now it's time to put up or shut up.

and you've NEVER talked about that colon in your yellow paragraph. Why IS that?

 

your quote is not from the Supreme Court Opinion. Mine was. What crazy website did yours come from? Mine is a direct quote from the Court document... yours? not so much.

Your quoted phrase "citizens of the United States" is never used in the context you suggest, and "natural born Citizen" is only used once in the entire opinion, that being the quote that I provided. It never is used in reference to Miss Elg's parents, so your link is clearly a pack of lies. What ELSE ya got?

 

According to conspiracy theory moon bats.

 

The links don't support your make believe definition. I directly refuted your claim with 2 court rulings

 

You understand that minor v happerset was not a citizenship case, did not define natural born citizen, and does not support your made up definition right? And you also understand the case cited in the post above yours specifically defined natural born citizen and refutes your made up definition right?

 

Only 2 types of citizen defined in US law. Natural born and naturalized. That's it. There is no mysterious third type.

 

Not an expert. Never seen the document.

No expert has ever declared it a fake. 3 experts authenticated it.

 

so .... people laugh at you because you post stupid youtube videos made in the basements of birther's mom's, and your response to that criticism is to post more homemade youtube videos made in some birther's mom's basement?

profound stuff.

 

This is a good point too. I wonder if a handwriting expert has ever looked at the signatures. This looks fake too for the reason this person gives:

 

Well I seem to be the only one presenting evidence of any sort at all. If you would like to provide evidence that the fraudulent computer-generated birth certificate posted by the White House is not a fraud, feel free to do so. You and everyone else have failed to do so, so I guess we can assume that there is no evidence that the birth certificate is real. When you do find some evidence that it is real, I will gladly retract my statements that it is fake.

 

Nope. Your claim was refuted on the first page with the Hawaiian officials authenticating the BC. There's nothing left to provide for you.

I have personally done so over 20 times so far.

Deliberate lie.

You keep saying this, and fail to do so every time your lie Is refuted.