SHERIFF'S PROBE FINDS OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE 'FAKE' Years of forensics [W:3,129]

jamesrage · Dec 24, 2016

Excon said:
It was pointed out they would know by comparison.
Researching official Hawaiian records pertaining to their numbering system would also yield results as to numbering.
So nothing you said is even remotely relevant.

Pointing out that you think Obama had the power and money to do those things is making a birther argument.

And your thought on that is absurd because, as already pointed out, it isn't that easy. So no, it is not bunk.

Again those things would not be hard for someone with Obama's money and power.SO he wouldn't need a photoshopped birth certificate.

Taking elements from a known BC and placing them on a new one would be far more convincing if one were trying to make a certificate that appeared to be real.
So your thoughts about Photoshop is just nonsense.

Taking a blank birth certificate and typing the necessary info on it would be the most convincing because it would in a sense be real.

Excon · Dec 24, 2016

jamesrage said:
Again those things would not be hard for someone with Obama's money and power.

iLOL
There you go again making a birther's argument.
You are saying that Obama has the power and money to fake it.

jamesrage said:
Again those things would not be hard for someone with Obama's money and power. SO he wouldn't need a photoshopped birth certificate.

No.
You are making assumptions that you can not make.

jamesrage said:
Taking a blank birth certificate and typing the necessary info on it would be the most convincing because it would in a sense be real.

No.
Your argument was already refuted and you have not refuted that refutation.
It is not that easy.

Again.

They would need a birth certificate with a control number in the correct sequence and a typewriter from that time frame with the correct font.
The first would be impossible to get a hold of and would need to be manufactured, thus increasing the possibility that it could be detected as a fake.
The second would be a long shot.

Not to mention they would also need to manufacture the seal and signature stamp. Not necessary if merely manipulating images.

You also seem to be forgetting that what is being spoken about here is an image in a .pdf, not an actual hard copy.

So also again.

Taking elements from a known BC and placing them on a new one would be far more convincing if one were trying to make a certificate that appeared to be real.
So your thoughts about Photoshop is just nonsense.

ecofarm · Dec 24, 2016

Re: SHERIFF'S PROBE FINDS OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE 'FAKE' Years of forensics investiga

zyzygy said:
I know an American woman who had three children with a Dutch father. All three were born in Holland. All three now live in the States. They are Americans with American passports. All three are eligible to be president. Why don't birthers know the rules about these matters? You don't have to be born in the States to be American. It's not rocket science.

Another valid counter point to the troofin'.

zyzygy · Dec 24, 2016

Re: SHERIFF'S PROBE FINDS OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE 'FAKE' Years of forensics investiga

Excon said:
By law, no they are not.
They are citizens by legislation, not natural born Citizens.

:lamo

That was you showing that you do not know the rules.

He who laughs last laughs hardest.

Additionally, the first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens. Many members of the inaugural Congress were also authors of the Constitution.

Incidentally, this isn’t the first time the qualifications of a candidate have come into question. George Romney, the father of Mitt Romney who ran for president as a Republican in 1968, was born in Mexico. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, was born in Arizona before it was a state. Neither candidate’s campaign was derailed by citizenship challenges.
Is Ted Cruz, born in Canada, eligible to run for president? (Updated) | PolitiFact
eligible to serve as president of the United States as long as one of more of your parents were American citizens at the time of birth, it is commonly held.

The Congressional Research Service concluded in 2011:

"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term 'natural born' citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth,' either by being born 'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship 'at birth.'"

Does the President Have to Be Born On U.S. Soil?

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his dad was stationed there, and he ran for president (and I believe that Congress even formally acknowledged his status as a natural-born citizen, given that his parents were both citizens and his dad was actively in service to the US; it would be pretty ridiculous under the circumstances for him to not be regarded as a natural born citizen. Likewise Ted Cruz was born in Canada but is still eligible. Basically if you were born abroad but are a citizen of the US without having had to go through a formal naturalization process, you are a natural-born US citizen.

https://www.quora.com/Can-an-American-who-was-born-abroad-run-for-president

On the Meaning of ?Natural Born Citizen? - On the Meaning of ?Natural Born Citizen?

Excon · Dec 25, 2016

Re: SHERIFF'S PROBE FINDS OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE 'FAKE' Years of forensics investiga

ecofarm said:
Another valid counter point to the troofin'.

Except you are as wrong as that person is.
(See final reply to zyzygy further below.)

zyzygy said:
He who laughs last laughs hardest.

Right. Which is why I will be laughing the hardest.
You clearly are ignorant of this issue which was demonstrated by providing what you did.

Your links are not authoritative, none of them are a definitive source of information regarding this issue, and all lack information and are just opinion just as the opinion obtained through the Congressional Research Office is.

If you would like to argue their arguments point by point please feel free to do so. But simply pointing to someone else's opinion doesn't cut it.

Because of character limit I have to reply to the other points individually.

Excon · Dec 25, 2016

Re: SHERIFF'S PROBE FINDS OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE 'FAKE' Years of forensics investiga

zyzygy said:
Additionally, the first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens. Many members of the inaugural Congress were also authors of the Constitution.

Why would you provided something no longer in effect?

1. That Act you mention was replaced shortly after, the error removed and never again seen in legislation.

2. Legislation calling them "natural born" does not mean they are natural born for constitutional purposes.

The Court has even made it clear that Citizenship by legislation is the Congress exercising it's powers under their power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
(See further reply below for proof of this.)

To point #2 above.

What our State Department recognizes.

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs

Bottom of page 7.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON - 68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

We're sorry, that page can't be found.

Did you catch that?

In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

You do realize why that is right?
A Constitutional requirement is not beholden to Legislation unless explicitly required.
It is Legislation that is beholden to the Constitution.

Excon · Dec 25, 2016

Re: SHERIFF'S PROBE FINDS OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE 'FAKE' Years of forensics investiga

zyzygy said:
Incidentally, this isn’t the first time the qualifications of a candidate have come into question. George Romney, the father of Mitt Romney who ran for president as a Republican in 1968, was born in Mexico. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, was born in Arizona before it was a state. Neither candidate’s campaign was derailed by citizenship challenges.
Is Ted Cruz, born in Canada, eligible to run for president? (Updated) | PolitiFact
eligible to serve as president of the United States as long as one of more of your parents were American citizens at the time of birth, it is commonly held.

No it is not commonly held.
It is something that has never been decided by the Supreme Court.
Cruz was a citizen by legislation, not by being naturally born and was therefore ineligible. Romney wasn't eligible either.

A citizen created by legislation is a citizen by naturalization and only attaches after birth. That is not being born a natural born Citizen.

The law is pretty clear on this issue.
Citizenship by legislation has been recognized by the Court as the Congress exercising their Constitutionally granted Power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
The controlling definition of said legislation also recognizes it as "Naturalization" and establishes it as attaching after birth by any means whatsoever.

Naturalization in the US is a legislative product (a citizen by law) and attaches after birth.

8 U.S. Code Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

Subchapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 1101 - Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter—

[...]
(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
[...]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101

This is SCOTUS acknowledging that it is "Naturalization"

As the Court acknowledged in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

[...]

The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

[...]

And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent. As hereinabove noted, persons born abroad, even of United States citizen fathers who, however, acquired American citizenship after the effective date of the 1802 Act, were aliens.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

Excon · Dec 25, 2016

Re: SHERIFF'S PROBE FINDS OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE 'FAKE' Years of forensics investiga

zyzygy said:
John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his dad was stationed there, and he ran for president (and I believe that Congress even formally acknowledged his status as a natural-born citizen, given that his parents were both citizens and his dad was actively in service to the US; it would be pretty ridiculous under the circumstances for him to not be regarded as a natural born citizen. Likewise Ted Cruz was born in Canada but is still eligible. Basically if you were born abroad but are a citizen of the US without having had to go through a formal naturalization process, you are a natural-born US citizen.

John McCain?
iLOL
John McCain was born outside of the US and was not even born a citizen.
Our Congress passed legislation later giving those born in the canal zone Citizenship because they were not born with it.

His citizenship was created by legislation after he was born.
"By legislation", therefore the previously provided information applies.

John McCain, born August 29, 1936

The legislation creating his citizenship 15 years later.

8 U.S. Code § 1403
Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 303, 66 Stat. 236.)

8 U.S. Code § 1403

To your original argument about the three children born in Holland being natural born Citizens. Not even the children of Service members born overseas are.
They are all Citizens by legislation.

Many of our Service Members just don't know.

(Page 5)

7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF "IN THE UNITED STATES"
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)

c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:

(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

(2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America. (See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol.1, Sec. 466, Comment a and c (1987). See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

We're sorry, that page can't be found.

jamesrage · Dec 25, 2016

Excon said:
iLOL
There you go again making a birther's argument.
You are saying that Obama has the power and money to fake it.

The birther argument is that Obama got a fake photoshopped birth certificate. I am merely pointing out that if Obama got a fake no one would be able to to tell. The fact that Obama has power and money means its a hell lot easier for him to do those things and get it done quickly than you or I.

No.
You are making assumptions that you can not make.

So you are saying he couldn't get a blank birth certificate and have all the necessary info typed into it?

No.
Your argument was already refuted and you have not refuted that refutation.
It is not that easy.

Again.

They would need a birth certificate with a control number in the correct sequence and a typewriter from that time frame with the correct font.
The first would be impossible to get a hold of and would need to be manufactured, thus increasing the possibility that it could be detected as a fake.

You do realize that if that is the case then it would be impossible for anyone as well to know that and therefore unable to detect that the control number as a fake?

The second would be a long shot.

No it wouldn't.You would just need the font type, not the type writer itself.Typewriters were very common back when Obama was born.So that means there are a lot of those floating around in thrift stores and antique shops.Like you said they could look at birth certificates from the time,which means it wouldn't be hard for them to find the font type and recreate it should they be unable to find the type writer the font type on it.

Not to mention they would also need to manufacture the seal and signature stamp. Not necessary if merely manipulating images.

Those things wouldn't be hard to do for a forger and I can't imagine a seal changing all that much in 55 years..

You also seem to be forgetting that what is being spoken about here is an image in a .pdf, not an actual hard copy.

So also again.

Taking elements from a known BC and placing them on a new one would be far more convincing if one were trying to make a certificate that appeared to be real.
So your thoughts about Photoshop is just nonsense.

Taking a actual blank birth certificate and typing in the necessary info would be impossible to detect. Because even you admit it would be impossible for someone to get a birth certificate with the correct control number in the correct sequence, meaning it would also be be impossible for someone to be able to know if that control number on Obama's birth certificate is a fake.

Excon · Dec 26, 2016

jamesrage said:
The birther argument is that Obama got a fake photoshopped birth certificate.

That is a birther argument.
And you are saying it is possible because Obama "has power and money" to do it.

jamesrage said:
I am merely pointing out that if Obama got a fake no one would be able to to tell.

Which is simply not true.
That is your assumption and nothing more. An assumption that is irrelevant.

jamesrage said:
The fact that Obama has power and money means its a hell lot easier for him to do those things and get it done quickly than you or I.

More assumptive bs.

jamesrage said:
So you are saying he couldn't get a blank birth certificate and have all the necessary info typed into it?

I am saying you are making assumptions.

jamesrage said:
You do realize that if that is the case then it would be impossible for anyone as well to know that and therefore unable to detect that the control number as a fake?

You are not paying attention to what has been said or thinking through your arguments.

What the heck do you think I have been saying?

First of all your argument was an assumption and pointed out that it wasn't necessarily true and why it wasn't necessarily true.
Because ...

They would need a birth certificate with a control number in the correct sequence and a typewriter from that time frame with the correct font.

I even went on and said the following shortly after.

A BC with an inline sequence number would be near to impossible to obtain as the number would be registered to someone else.
To manufacture a passable one you would have to know the sequence of numbers at the time and know which ones were discarded as mistakes in order to have an unassigned sequence number.

The possibility exists for a fake control number to be detected.

jamesrage said:
No it wouldn't.You would just need the font type, not the type writer itself.Typewriters were very common back when Obama was born.So that means there are a lot of those floating around in thrift stores and antique shops.Like you said they could look at birth certificates from the time,which means it wouldn't be hard for them to find the font type and recreate it should they be unable to find the type writer the font type on it.

:lamo Wrong.
You do not know what you are talking about. You don't just need the font.

You would need to same type of typewriter they were using with the same font. Using a different typewriter would result in difference in appearance such as spacing regardless of the font.

jamesrage said:
Those things wouldn't be hard to do for a forger and I can't imagine a seal changing all that much in 55 years..

More irrelevant and assumptive bs.

jamesrage said:
Taking a actual blank birth certificate and typing in the necessary info would be impossible to detect. Because even you admit it would be impossible for someone to get a birth certificate with the correct control number in the correct sequence, meaning it would also be be impossible for someone to be able to know if that control number on Obama's birth certificate is a fake.

Wow. Simply wow. :doh
Wrong. Simply typing in information would not be impossible to detect.

Not to mention you are totally out of the context we are speaking about.
An image in a pdf.

SHERIFF'S PROBE FINDS OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE 'FAKE' Years of forensics [W:3,129]

global liberation