Evidence reveals Obama's "official " birth certificate was actually photo-shopped!

A statute does not trump the Constitution.

 

Here's some first hand testimony for ya!

2012 Vetting Obama ~ Kenyan Parliament ADMITS Obama is NOT a Native American:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8PC3oKAvA"]2012 Vetting Obama ~ Kenyan Parliament ADMITS Obama is NOT a Native American - YouTube[/ame]

 

It does not appear that you know what "first hand" means.

A statement of a member of the Kenyan parliament, especially one of a person in no position to actually know, is what we call "hearsay."

It is essentially the opposite of "first hand."

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence... it is not evidence at all.

 

(Start the video at 28:00 and there is Grandma Sarah saying Obama was born there)
Obama's REAL BC FOUND? ~ Kenyan Parliament: Obama NOT a Native American, he is Son of this Soil
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaiUEAssk0g"]Obama's REAL BC FOUND? ~ Kenyan Parliament: Obama NOT a Native American, he is Son of this Soil - YouTube[/ame]

 

Let me see you debunk this Supreme Court Precedent:

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."

 

DEBUNK THIS PLEASE!

Supreme Court Precedent BABEEEEE!

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Chief Justice Marshall:

“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject, rests on the law of nations as its base. It is, therefore, of some importance to enquire how far the 24 writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character, or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, '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 indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

 

Did you ever consider the reason this isn't going away is because it's the truth and the TRUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS!

DEBUNK THIS FOR ME PLEASE:

Everyone seems to forget the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", in the 14th amendment, which is why the law/amendment went astray. The Congressional records of the 14th amendment debates, give us Trumbull’s exact definition of the intent of his Citizenship Clause amendment to the bill.

Who would know the intent of the Citizenship Clause better than anyone, than the person who co-authored the clause himself? Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause into the 14th amendment is on record during the bebates saying:

"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. 'What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
(Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893)

 

Anyone on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction... except foreign diplomats.

 

DISPUTE THIS:

1862, Representative John Bingham Author of the 14th Amendment:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”

(Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)

 

Why do you keep faiiling for this dudes Alinsky tactics? He is just trying to keep you off the TOPIC THE MATTERS and keep to on something that is irrelevant and waste your time. The birth certificate means nothing, real or fake.

It's Obama's allegiance at the time of his birth that matters. He has already admitted that he was a british subject at birth, which makes it impossible for him to be a natural born citizen at birth.

Look over the Alinsky Rules for Radicals and whenever they use one of these tactics, just reply using the rule they are using on you and be done with it. Don't argue their far out nonsense that has nothing to do with the subject.

Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:
http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals

Rule #3 is one of their favorite, along with #5

* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

 

Obama wasn't a British citizen at birth.. you misunderstand.

He had the right to pursue dual citizenship.. which expires at some point.. I believe age 24 unless you act on it.

He was born in Hawaii, so that makes him native born or natural born citizen.

Plus his mother was a US citizen and his father was in the US on a student visa which also makes him under US jurisdiction.

 

of course he was a citizen. his father could have been fidel castro, but as long as he was born on US soil, he is a natural born citizen. that's why he's POTUS, and why you birthers have lost every single legal challenge to date.

you should try reading the 14th amendment some time.

 

What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter where Obama was born. To be eligible for the Presidency, you must be a natural born citizen and that is someone that is born to two citizen parents. That's already been proven!

So, no matter what any of these women said, they can not change the Constitution without an amendment! Article 2 Section 1, still stands and is the law, whether you like it or not! If you don't like it, try to amend the qualifications, like many Congressmen have been trying to do, but all efforts have failed!

 

ok..........wong kim ark v the US 1898.

that was easy

 

with ease........wong kim ark V the US.

 

I'll take it as a compliment, since no one has been able to debunk my evidence yet! If you care to debate me here, I'm ready to take you down!

 

the supreme court in wong kim ark, and more specifically in plyler V doe defined "subject to the jurisdiction of" to mean physical presence inside US territory.


you're making this too easy, all of these arguments have been presented, and refuted many times over.

 

Isn't that Richard Rockwell from UCONN? I've debated the Fogbow Obots MANY times and every single one of them have banned me from their websites because they can not handle the truth!

If Mr. Rockwell will let me speak, I'll take you on!

LOLOL, try if you can!

Not a problem, but can you handle it? I've never found an obot that could!

 

The 14th amendment OF THE CONSTITUTION was written solely to make the Civil Rights Act Constitutional, DOH.

That's also why Senator Jacob Howard said, when reading his Citizenship Clause amendment to the 14th amendment bill:

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

The law he is referring to is the Civil RIghts Act!

 

Many of the people speaking in Parliament are Obama's relatives, they should know!

 

You obvously didn't even read what you just replied to. Let me post it again. READ IT THIS TIME!

"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. 'What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
(Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893)

 

hahahaha oxy-moronic

He wasn't a British citizen at birth, yet at 24 he had the choice of being a British subject or a US citizen. How could he have a choice, if he NEVER WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT TO BEGIN WITH?

hahahaha open mouth insert foot!

 

Where is your proof that he was born in Hawwaii? Not that it matters because no matter where he was born he will never be a natural born citizen under natural law because his father was never a citizen!

That's actually not right. Supreme Court Precedent says otherwise. Make sure you read the last line, if you read nothing else!

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Chief Justice Marshall:

“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject, rests on the law of nations as its base. It is, therefore, of some importance to enquire how far the 24 writers onthat law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, asretaining their original character, or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, '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 indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsistand to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

 

Just a question for you....

Can a person who is here on a student visa be arrested, tried, and convicted of a crime in the United States?

Yes? Or no? Just answer that question.