Official State Error & a non-citizen President

~vs Truth, History & U.S. Law

“Unknown” wrote: Blacks Law Dictionary, the preeminent reference on American legal terms, has for decades defined natural-born citizens as those born in the jurisdiction of a national government. The sixth edition goes farther; “Natural born citizen: Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.”
People make mistakes.  Experts make mistakes.  Lawyers and judges make mistakes.  Presidents make mistakes.  Doctors make mistakes.  Surgeons remove the wrong kidney, or operate on the wrong side of the brain because they, like their understanding, are fallible.  The Black’s Law Dictionary “expert”  was fallible and he, like Congress, like the Supreme Court, like Columbus, like Einstein, like theorists in every branch of science, were capable of error and being intellectually imprecise.
The description of  “a natural born citizen” in the Law Dictionary was the result of only one thing; the incorrect conflation of those words with the words “a natural born subject”.  It was made in error because the author failed to grasp the distinguishing principle of natural citizenship and subjecthood, -the one needed for an understanding that would produce a precise and accurate meaning.

It’s all too easy and natural for humans to unknowingly use ambiguous or imprecise language in everyday speech, and that tendency carries over into how one might write, -especially when writing in great volume.  I once read that Greek has about a half dozen words for “love”. while two-fingered English only has one.  That is an example of lack of precision of meaning.  That deficiency results in ambiguity.  Ambiguity results in one mentally picking a meaning in a process akin to that of the toss of a coin, -or in the case of the word “love”, several coins.

If a word or phrase has two meanings, then odds may be 50-50 that the listener or reader will make an incorrect presumption as to what was meant.  It would be a great travesty if a battle field message was sent to headquarters but it was ambiguous and the response was the incorrect one because its interpretation was the incorrect one.  Battles, wars, and kingdoms could be lost due to simple everyday ambiguity.

The ambiguity at the heart of the citizenship issue is found in references to children, -of foreign fathers, born in England.  No doubt, instances of discrimination had appeared against them when it came to rights or privileges, and so authorities had to defend them against such discrimination.  As a result, authorities ruled that their national and social standing was identical to that of natural born subjects, and so they would have ruled and written that alien-born subjects are indistinguishable from natural born subjects, or shall be considered as though they are the same.
With the full weight of the crown and the government behind such judicial opinions, and magisterial edits, or parliamentary mandates, one would hence be viewed as farting in the face of the national policy if one pointedly and prejudicially made utterances about the difference between the two.  And so it became accepted that the children of those foreigners made subject to the Crown by its own authority based on them living in the King’s domain, were to be considered as being the King’s natural born subjects also…(even though they technically weren’t).

Warping the language alters perceptions, -as was ably demonstrated by the Nazis and the Soviets, as also in writings such as Animal Farm and 1984.
If the authorities call alien-born subjects natural born subjects then the foreign alienage of the father will be ignored and not imputed to his children.  That was the goal and it was legally effective, but not socially effective.  I read somewhere that in America, even after an immigrant naturalized, the natural natives of the colonies and states still referred to such a person as a foreigner because they were born and raised as such.

The children of foreigners (unnaturalized) were never referred to as natural subjects or natural citizens in any colony or state.  Only in the rare colonies/states like Virginia, which granted subjecthood or citizenship to native-born “sons of the soil” (children of immigrants) were they even considered to be “born subjects” or “born citizens”.  None of the other colonies / states, nor the central government ever considered them to be fellow natives, -fellow blood-relatives (in a nationalistic sense), -fellow natural members of their state nor the American nation as an aggregate.

They were foreigner-born, -alien-born, -subjects of their father’s homeland unless  and until he became an American.

If he was unwilling to do so, then his children deserved no accommodation regarding the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the male adult Caucasian freemen of America.  His children would thus remain as domestic subjects of the state and central governments until, as adults, they themselves naturalized to become Americans.

They, thereby, were expected and required to swear before Almighty God that they renounced any and all allegiance to any foreign power, and would support and defend their “adopted” native-land, both state & nation, (by bearing arms if need be) as well as their laws and constitutions.  If they were unwilling to take the oath, then they indeed were foreigners at heart and undeserving of the title and position of “citizen”.

Recall what I wrote regarding experts and imprecise language which results in ambiguity.  The Black’s Law Dictionary definition is a glaring example of such flawed origin.  Where is the flaw you ask?  It is very subtle and hidden and easily overlooked, and that has resulted in an institutionalized error adopted by all those who are unaware of it.  It’s all connected to the wording of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, which reads: “All persons born in the United States, or naturalize, are citizens of thereof.”  If that is how it actually reads, then there would be no ambiguity.  But I left out the second requirement for citizenship.  It actually reads: “All persons born in the United States, or naturalize, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”

The flaw in Black’s definition is in the use of the word “within” (the jurisdiction)”.  That word resulted in the greatest of errors possible.  How?  By conflating two different meanings of “jurisdiction”.  It can refer to a specific area but it can also mean authority.  One can’t be subject to an area, (a physical jurisdiction) nor can an area exercise jurisdiction (political authority).  It is confusing but accurate to state that the government can exercise its jurisdiction within its jurisdiction.  Clearly, the word has two different meanings, and as with the flip of a coin, the defining authority in 1898 choose the wrong one.

Consider the use of the words “reed” and “read”, and also the words “red” and “read” (past tense).  Those are four distinctly different words and yet when reading the two different versions of “read” one may read the word incorrectly and then be momentarily confused because of mentally pronouncing it incorrectly.  A similar situation results when hearing the words and being asked to define “reed” or “red”.  One can’t know that the words meaning “read” are not intended because of the ambiguous pronunciation.  Only by using precise explanation can one distinguish the difference between two or more ambiguous possibilities.  The logical error to be avoided, but unfortunately easily made, is the equivalent of conflating “reed” with “red” based on the similarity of “read” with “read” (past tense).
A legal error of that sort occurred related to “jurisdiction” due to failing to comprehend that citizenship is not connected to the meaning related to area but to the meaning related to authority.
The correct language to use to avoid the ambiguity is “subject to the jurisdiction”, not “within the jurisdiction”.  Figure this out: “It is within the authority of authorities to make subjects of all born within the jurisdiction of the authority if their fathers are subject to the jurisdiction in authority within the area of jurisdiction.”
Yeah, you might say that the term “jurisdiction” is rife with possibilities for confusion and error of interpretation.  And error prevailed when it came to defining it as used in the 14th Amendment, which uses both meanings within the same paragraph.  It first refers to authority, mentioning those born “subject to the jurisdiction” but later refers to area, mentioning being within state jurisdiction (state borders).
The erroneous conflation occurred in the minds of those who failed to distinguish the difference between area and authority.  Hence the assumption that those “born within the jurisdiction” is equivalent to those “born subject to the jurisdiction”, when in fact they are very much unrelated.
Native Americans were born within the jurisdiction but not subject to the jurisdiction, (as were Gypsies and slaves, and probably the French) but such persons had no connection to the duties and responsibilities of citizens, -the first and foremost of which is the requirement to help defend the nation.  They had no stake in the American society that comprised the nation, and thus were not viewed as fellows in the obligation to be a part of national defense in time of emergency, -the most fundamental duty of citizens.
They were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States even though born “within the jurisdiction”, except as is expected of all “subjects” living under the rule of moral and civil law.

Transient, visiting foreigners, and their pregnant wives and the children they might deliver within U.S. national borders, are not and have never been “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. government even though they are “within the jurisdiction” of the government.  They remain subject to the father’s government because they are subject to him and he is subject to his own nation’s authority.
That is the natural order of things and is how it has existed for thousands of years.  Only the era of women’s rights has altered that order, but it has not altered the past.  It is still what it always was, but everyone fails to recognize what it was because the perception of reality has been distorted by the error of a presumption based on the incorrect definition derived from ambiguous concepts and language.

A coined was tossed into the air in the mind of Attorney General Griggs without him realizing it, and it came up tails.  He choose the wrong possibility of the two that were before him because he was unaware of the other possibility.  He choose the one that failed to distinguish between children of immigrants who are members of American society, and children of foreign transients who are not.
He choose the one that exalted the erroneous “within the jurisdiction” (related to civil law)  instead of the correct one “subject to the jurisdiction” that had always been based on a man’s national obligation to defend his homeland.  Transient foreigners are not subject to that obligation nor the jurisdiction that stems from it.

What is the unimpeachable authority behind the Black’s Dictionary author-definer’s claim that those “persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government” are natural born citizens?  There is none whatsoever.

He made an unfounded presumption based on the dishonest language adopted in Britain regarding its alien-born subjects.  His mistake of adopting the English bastardization of language was compounded by the baseless presumption that it could be transmuted to directly apply to the American federal government and it’s view regarding citizenship and its origin.
Just because Americans avoided calling children of immigrants “alien-born citizens” does not mean that they therefore are not precisely that.  Just because we choose to call them “native-born citizens” as is still the practice of the CIS (formerly INS) today does not in any way make them indistinguishable from natural citizens.
It is sloppy and lazy thinking that fails to consider that just because nearly all natural citizens are born in the United States, that therefore all who are born in the U.S. must therefore be labelable as natural born citizens.  The reality is that if a George Armstrong Custer Jr. entered this world on Sioux land, that would not make him Sioux, nor make him eligible to one day be the Chief of the Sioux nation.
Jus soli was never the policy of the central government, nor that of the most of the states, but the Black’s Dictionary word-definer was so infused with the misunderstanding of the Wong opinion of the Supreme Court (1898), -a misunderstanding promulgated by Attorney General John Griggs in 1898 or ’99 and universally adopted by the government ever since, that he simply assumed that the “common knowledge” origin of citizenship was correct, when in fact it is pure fiction.

The government, and “experts” such as Black’s citizenship-definer, have been living in a fantasy ever since that erroneous interpretation of A.G. Griggs was disseminated.  It is because of his error and it alone that Barack Obama is considered to possess U.S. citizenship.  But there is nothing in the Constitution, nor any Congressional statute, nor any SCOTUS opinion that provides citizenship to native-born children of transient aliens.  It exists solely are an aberration of law resulting from the Justice Department’s erroneous policy, which is based on a misconstrued interpretation of the Supreme Court’s misconstrued interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

That policy could, like Barack Obama’s “recess appointments” to the NLRB, go down in utter dismissal by federal courts or by an honest Attorney General.  Same with Obama’s supposed American citizenship.  He, like Hamdi the terrorist, was born of a transient foreigner and was never a legitimate citizen of the United States.  His citizenship is supported solely by the powerful weight of the executive branch strongly enforcing erroneous precedence.  It is his Achilles heal, and any reasonable examination of the truth, like any reasonable examination of his Certificate of Live Birth, will reveal him to be a fraud and a criminal forger.  The forgery was necessary not because he would be considered to not be a natural American if born abroad (as John McCain is considered), but because of the bastardized, erroneous and confusing view that by not being born in the U.S. he would not be a native-born citizen and therefore wouldn’t be eligible to be President.

All “common knowledge” concepts about Obama’s citizenship are wrong.  His birth certificates are counterfeits.  No one can demonstrate that he was born in Hawaii or anywhere else.  All possible evidence is under lock & key or has been destroyed, and all witnesses to that campaign are either on his side and part of it or are silenced by fear. The facts regarding the cover-up are multitudinous but are hidden from and by the members of the government and press corps in order to preserve the status quo and individual’s standing within it.
Furthermore:
His birth outside of the U.S. would not disqualify him nor any American from serving as President.
His birth inside the U.S. would not qualify him to serve as President.
His birth inside the U.S. does not qualify him to even be a U.S. citizen via actual U.S. law and court opinion.

If he had been born in Panama like John McCain, everyone would assume that he is ineligible to be President, yet all assume that John McCain was eligible, including the legal investigators for the Congressional Research Office.  What’s the difference?   A father who not only was not an American, but was not even an immigrant.   The consequence of that fact is that Obama was not born as an American citizen and has never become a naturalized citizen either.

America is Obama’s home and country, but only because he has chosen to adopt it as such.  And half of it has adopted him as one of them.  The other half have not because they see the ambiguity surrounding him.  He, by provisional law, would or could be a citizen of the Islamic nation of Indonesia.  He, by provisional law could have been a citizen of the nation of Kenya, not because he was born in either country but because he had fathers from both of them.

Just as Indonesia adopted Obama as a citizen through his step-father, so Obama adopted America as his country, a possibility solely because of 20th century law regarding his connection through his mother.  But natural citizens have no such choice.  They have no other alternate nationality that can replace or co-exist with their American political nature because it is the only nature that they have.  They are Americans by nature, and don’t have a choice to be so or not.  Just as children of Jews or Arabs or Chinese are inescapably the same as their parents.

Natural citizenship is citizenship without any choice involved, whereas every other form of citizenship involves choice and/ or law; -choice by parents, choice upon adulthood, or force of law regarding persons born to a father from a foreign nation, with the exception of someone like Obama.  He isn’t covered by nature nor law since no American law exists which provides him citizenship if he was born in the U.S. with a non-immigrant foreign father.
He would have had to have been born outside of the U.S. to have obtained U.S. citizenship through his mother.  So his supposed citizenship is not the result of natural inheritance, Congressional statute, constitutional amendment, Supreme Court opinion, nor international treaty.  It’s a vague, intangible, revocable thing that is, like petrified rock or pearl, a solid “legal” accretion based on a century old erroneous opinion regarding an erroneous opinion rendered by the personal will of six Supreme Court justices who choose to ignore all of the court precedence that preceded them, -and not based on legal, state nor national common law and tradition.
So if you want to say that Obama is an American citizen, you’d be right if referring to the stupid official Policy of the United State government for over a century.
And if you want to say that he is not an American citizen, you’d also be right if referring to the actual Law of the United State government.
But if you want to say that he is constitutionally eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief of all of the federal, and military forces, and all of the nuclear bombs of the United States, and the office of the President as well, well….you’d be wrong.

He is not eligible.  He was born ineligible.  He is President by fraud and treason against the Constitution.  His oath of allegiance to the Constitution was a total farce since by taking it he was breaking it.
He is the greatest fraud in American history regardless of whether or not the powers-that-be are willing to acknowledge that fact.  They can’t be expected to because it would put their whole world in jeopardy.
Obama sits as the supreme lord of the realm, -the Emperor of the Land of Oz, impervious to almost everything, possessing citizenship that is legitimized by nothing but his own illegitimate and unconstitutional executive authority.

It can’t be said to be legitimized by the Attorney General who is his brother-in-the-cause and beholden to him since if he declared the President to not be a true, legal American citizen, then he would also be rendering himself illegitimate by being the appointee of an unconstitutional President.

America, like Nazi Germany, has suffered a perfectly legal coup, -in both cases by ignoring their constitutions to legitimize ineligible leaders, -Hitler not being a natural born German as required by the German constitution, but a natural born Austrian, and in our case by Obama not being a constitutionally-required natural born citizen of any state, (nor of the federal government, nor any other nation).
The Democrat powers that accomplished his election are not the worst enemy that the founders feared because he owes no overt allegiance to any foreign power, (although he seems to place a high priority on the world-wide opinion of Muslims, possibly because he is still a closet Muslim -something that may have come about and  been revived during his guided tour of Pakistan in 1980 by his well-off Muslim room-mate at Occidental College), -but that doesn’t mean that the founders didn’t fear exactly what Obama has pulled off.
Their fear was of a very possible form of disloyalty, -one fostered by someone, -and his party, that “only wants what’s best for the country” (meaning what in his mind is fair and equitable from a warped philosophical historical perspective) and is willing to do anything to bring it about, including destroying the solvency of the future by limitless spending for “the General Welfare” (meaning those who will be inspired to vote for him and his party) and endless regulation based on no constitutional authority whatsoever, and in clear violation of the 9th & 10th Amendments.

Just imagine the magnitude of fear across the land  in the early 19th century regarding the untrustworthy tendency of those with ultimate power using it illegitimately.   That fear inspired the powerful impetus behind the authoring and ratification of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
IX.  The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.
X.  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That fear was regarding the very kind of over-reaching, all-powerful central government that Obama and his ilk are determined  to force on all of the states if possible, and all of the citizens of a once free, lawful, and courageous land.  That land now exists as only a shadow of its former self, having become the nightmare reality of one of the founder’s worst fears.

How dare I risk “exposing” such things?  -because I live far from any population center, and the federal government is merely an abstraction to me.  Similarly, Obama’s citizenship is also an abstraction based on nothing but entrenched institutionalized error.  The only thing semi-solid about it is the fact that it depends entirely on his own presidential authority and nothing else.  But Hell would freeze over before he would use his authority to declare the fact that national policy and citizens’ assumptions are based on error, and that he, in fact, is not an American citizen due to the devil in the details of American law and jurisprudence.

by a.r. nash  February 2013    obama–nation.com

The Bamboozling of America At The Highest Level

~the biggest political scam of all time

You’re about to read what to many unaware and uninformed Americans will sound like fantastic claims, -like crazy conspiracy theorizing, but sometimes “crazy” conspiracy becomes “factual” conspiracy when the truth becomes known.  Recall the office of President Nixon being involved with covering-up a crude break-in of the Democrat Party office in the Watergate Hotel?  And perhaps the President himself involved?  That’s just crazy talk!  But in the real world, often the truth is stranger than fiction.

Let’s begin.  One of the greatest, if not the greatest travesties ever committed against the American electorate occurred in the presidential election of 2008 in regard to the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.  It involved all five areas of the national election arena, beginning with the Press, -the main-stream-media.
It’s job is to ferret out the truth about candidates for elective office and share it with the American public.  We all realize what a great job they did in regard to one John Edwards and his mistress.  (No one would touch it with a ten-foot pole except the National Enquirer.)
Similarly, they stayed ten miles away from the issue of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office of the President.  Instead of vetting him they praised and adored him.  Not a peep was heard from any corner of the land on that vital issue, and that included conservative and independent media types alike.
He got a free pass because he was very inspiring, charming and charismatic, as well as being the first party candidate of color in our history.  So his candidacy was attended by only silence on the issue of whether or not he was even qualified to run for the office.
There are guardians in all 50 states whose job it is to guard against ineligible candidates being placed on their state’s ballot.  They constitute the second area in which the travesty took place.  Every single one of the officers, Attorneys General, or commissions that approved the placement of Senator Obama’s name on their ballots was either bamboozled by the DNC or were complicit in the conspiracy because they all went along with it.  And they’ll repeat that crime.

The third area is that of the Democratic Party leadership which conspired to alter the traditional wording of their presidential candidate certification document.  They secretly removed the language stating that their candidate was constitutionally qualified for the office of President, and instead substituted language stating only that he was legitimately certified as the official candidate of their party.

There was only one reason to do that, and that reason was because they knew that by making that omitted statement they would have been making themselves liable for charges of various sorts, including probably some form of perjury for making a false legal certification.  But they got away with it for four years, so the second time they’ve fearlessly reinserted that false qualifier.
The fourth area that assisted in the conspiracy was the United States Senate.  It had two members running for the presidency who had odd backgrounds.  It authorized a research investigation, but the results it produced contained both the solid truth but also a huge lie.  The truth was in regard to the citizenship of John McCain and the lie was in regard to one such as Barack Obama.  Both having quite different birth circumstances.  So the Senate knew the actual truth but embraced the lie also, and so remained silent.

The final area in which the conspiracy was allowed to transpire was that of the Supreme Court.  They all always knew the truth about Senator Obama’s constitutional ineligibility to run for the presidency but the buck stopped at no one’s desk so they all were silent en mass during the election period.  No one had the spine to speak out and warn all of the known violation of the Constitution that was a very possible outcome.  Then after it had happened, they continued to remain silent and even complicit by swearing into office a candidate that was not eligible for that office.  The five areas of American society meant to serve as watchdogs to defend the Constitution all failed to do their job, even though many of them had taken an oath to do so.

Like what happened at Chernobyl when the reactor managers illicitly allowed five or six processes/tests to take place which caused it to explode and its nuclear core to totally melt down, -when avoiding any one of them would have prevented the disaster, so the American political process saw five areas of society lead in unison to a melt-down (when any one alone could  have prevented it) and thus the process meant to elect a legitimate President, instead elected an illegitimate one.
The conspiracy involved three significant falsehoods.  Two are related but the third is completely apart from the other two.  The two related ones were connected to the proof of Senator Obama’s place of birth.  The third was related to the United States Constitution and its restrictions on who is allowed to be the President of the United States.  Efforts were made to falsify facts, manipulate fallacious ideas, promote untruths, and distort the significance of facts in evidence.  Let’s examine the constitutional issue first.

U.S. Constitution: Article Two, Section One, Clause Five reads:  “No person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,..”  If we ignore the issue of where Senator Obama was actually born, then we can presumptuously agree that he could be described as “a born citizen”, but the question remains as to whether or not he is a natural citizen. The meaning of the term “natural born citizen” is not provided anywhere in the Constitution.  That means one of two things, -possibly both, but not likely.

There is no definition for only one reason, -because the author’s, -the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution, all knew perfectly well what it meant and assumed that everyone else did also.  If so then there are still two possibilities.  It either had a set, clear legal meaning, or it had a set, clear non-legal meaning.  Or possibly the two were the same.  But it can reasonably be assumed that there was never a need for a distinct legal definition to develop in America because there was as yet no such thing as the presidency to apply it to.
Under British and colonial law, natural born subjects had no more rights than naturalized subjects, although appointments to certain critical offices which held authority, assets, or information which a traitor could exploit to great harm, were reserved to natural born subjects, but such an appointment was not “a right” anymore than being President is.

So if the meaning of “natural” isn’t found in American/Colonial legal history then it is found in common English, common sense, and “Natural Law”.  The Constitution was not written to be read only by legal scholars but by the common man whose acceptance was important in order to pass it and maintain national unity.  Therefore it can’t be argued that the meaning of the word “natural” is found only in esoteric, complex legislative and judicial documents, but is found instead in common language.  No one needs to tell you what natural means, anymore than you need a lawyer or legal historian to tell you what “unnatural” means.  Remember, the Constitution was written almost entirely in plain English, not legalese.

So the constitutional legitimacy of Senator Obama’s candidacy was dependent on the meaning of that one word  “natural” -what it means as well as what it doesn’t mean.  A “natural citizen” is also a “born citizen” but not all born citizens are natural citizens because they were born to immigrants, -foreigners, and not to Americans.
All Americans are U.S. Nationals, but not all U.S. Nationals are Americans because they do not possess United States citizenship (being Samoan).  Similarly, all persons born as citizens are Americans, but not all were born as natural Americans.
America has always had a divergence regarding citizenship from before the founding of the nation.  Some colonies ascribed citizenship to all born within their borders, even if they were born to foreigners.  The logic was that those children were going to live in and grow-up in America as Americans and therefore should be citizens just like those who came before them.
Other colonies required foreigners to become naturalized citizens first and only then would their children be automatically granted citizenship in that sovereign colony.  Which method became the law of the land after the Constitution was ratified?  The later.  That was the law of the land for over a century.
That changed forever in 1898 due to a Supreme Court ruling (Wong Kim Ark) in which the State Dept. had declared a San Francisco-born son of Chinese immigrants to not be an American citizen. The government prevail all the way up to the Supreme Court but the final court opinion altered the meaning of the citizenship statement of the 14th Amendment (1868) and reversed the government’s position.

But one must not confuse being a natural citizen with being merely a born citizen.  The distinction is best illustrated by two comparisons.  If George Washington was visiting Canada with his wife in 1787 and she brought forth a son while there, what would be the nature of his national status?  Would he be an alien? (-born outside the United States of America) Would he be a born subject of England?  Or would he be a natural born American?
There was no Constitution or 14th Amendment yet.  But that would have no bearing on the status of their natural born child because he would not have been registered as a foreign national at birth but recognized as a natural American by birth.

Even if Senator Obama truly was a born citizen, was he also a natural citizen?  The answer is “no”, -not by any principle that any imagination can come up with.  But the liberal legal scholars (Olsen & Tribe), hired by the Senate to research the matter managed to invent one anyway.  They rightfully determined that John McCain, having been the progeny of American parents, was therefore an American by birth and as such his citizenship was natural citizenship because he was born with it as his natural right.

But the matter didn’t end there because another Senator was running for the Presidency and he was not born to American parents, -in particular to an American father, but to an alien student here on a visa.  Those two legal “experts”, seeking to mitigate the impact of the accuracy of their McCain finding, therefore concocted the theory that both kinds of citizenship can be viewed as natural since historically both had been citizens from birth.
But that was deliberately fraudulent logic because it’s the circumstances of their births that distinguish the two from each other.  One with citizen parents is by nature a citizen also, but one with foreign parents is a legal citizen from birth only due to the Supreme Court’s re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment handed down in 1898.

Barack Obama’s citizenship has the law on his side, but the problem is that no one who is a citizen by law is also a natural citizen since natural citizenship is not granted by any law every written.  Nor by the Constitution, because it was viewed as a natural unalienable right that neither the government nor the people that it represents have any authority to grant or rescind.  It is a natural right that all humans are born with, and which government did not create.

Just as a baby tiger inherits its nature and species from its parents, so Americans inherit their parents’ national membership in the American family.  Just as a natural-born Chinese couple cannot produce a natural-born African child, -just as a natural born Jewish couple cannot produce a natural born Arab, so a natural born American couple cannot produce a natural born foreign child, nor can a foreign couple produce a natural American child

Either “natural” has meaning solely in relation to ones parentage, or it has no meaning at all.
One who is a “born citizen” via birth in America to immigrant parents is a constitutional 14th Amendment citizen, -not a natural citizen because their citizenship, though acquired automatically from birth, is not natural citizenship because it was not a natural inheritance from their parents.
The second significant falsehood is connected to the significance of birth within U.S. borders.  Much importance was place on the belief that Senator Obama was born in America but that importance was a sham.  It had no connection to presidential eligibility nor could it alone convey constitutional citizenship which requires one to be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government at birth.
All natural citizens are subject at birth because their parents are, but not all children born to foreigners are subject because some foreigners are not immigrants but instead are mere transients.  Transients are not legal permanent members of American society and thereby subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but instead are foreign diplomats, visitors, workers, professionals, and students. They are subject to their own government and protected by International Treaty, including Barack Obama Sr.

Therefore Senator Obama was not covered by the 14th Amendment through his father and thus his native-birth was not enough to convey 14th Amendment citizenship from birth.  Consequently he was not a natural citizen through his father, nor an automatically naturalized 14th Amendment statutory citizen through him either.  So the resulting importance of his Hawaiian birth was zero.  It didn’t relate to constitutional eligibility nor fulfill the requirements for 14th Amendment citizenship.

The third great falsehood regarding Senator Obama deals with the extensive evidence that both birth-document digital images posted online contain manifold signs of illegitimate creation and the fact that no hard-copies have ever been produced and shown to the public or document experts to verify that the images posted online were results of the scanning of real paper documents.
But even real paper documents cannot be verified as authentic because of the bastardized nature of the digital reproduction and alteration process used by the Hawaiian Vital Statistics Office which results in an unathenticatible “ABSTRACT” instead of a “TRUE COPY”.

How shall one respond to this, and what measures can be taken to insure that such a travesty is not allowed to transpire a second time?  Challenges to his legitimacy as a constitutionally qualified Democrat Party candidate in each state can be attempted if a legal channel is available for such a challenge.  His backers must get his name placed on the ballots of all 50 states one at a time, and that can be opposed one at a time across America.  But that won’t happen because of ignorance and indifference.  The travesty of 2008 will be blindly, stupidly, and deliberately repeated.
One challenge was mounted in Georgia.  Senator Obama’s attorney failed to appear as required and thereby should have lost by default.  That would have blocked him from appearing on the Georgia State ballot if the Secretary of State in Georgia concurred, but some underhanded chicanery took place out of sight. It appears the judge in the Georgia case, without explanation,  threw the verdict in favor of the defendant Obama even though his legal council failed to appear to offer any rebuttal to the charges of his client’s ineligibility. Even worse, both the Secretary of State and the Appeals Court and Supreme Court of Georgia followed the same pattern; they gave the appearance of impartiality and the supremacy of the law, then threw the case to the defendant that failed to appear! -There’s nothing suspicious about that; move along folks, there’s nothing to see here, just move along.

by a.r. nash  2012 obama–nation.com

~     ~     ~     ~     ~     ~

The Washington Examiner’s investigative reporting team conducted a four month investigation into Obama’s past, interviewing dozens of people across the country, and studying countless court transcripts, government reports and other official documents. Lead investigator Mark Tapscott summarizes the picture of Obama that emerges, “Beyond the spin and the polls, a starkly different picture emerges. It is a portrait of a man quite unlike his image, not a visionary reformer but rather a classic Chicago machine pol who thrives on rewarding himself and his friends with the spoils of public office, and who uses his position to punish his enemies.”

You can access the whole report from the links below:
Introduction: The Obama you don’t know
Chapter I: A childhood of privilege, not hardship
Chapter II: The myth of the ‘rock-star professor’
Chapter III: The 1997 speech that launched Obama
Chapter IV: Defense attorney for Chicago slumlord
Chapter V: Obama’s sells out to the Daley machine
Chapter VI: The poor people Obama left behind
Chapter VII: Myth of Obama as state reformer
Chapter VIII: Using state pensions to help friends
Chapter IX: Obama’s Arab-American network
Chapter X: Obama brings Chicago politics to Washington

 

SHOOT-OUT At The Obama BC Corral

Point / Counter-Point between A.R. Nash and “sentientstorm”:

You still have nothing to argue the claim that Obama was born anywhere else than in Hawaii!

[[WAKE UP! The claim, -the CLAIM, -the CLAIM is that he was born in Hawaii, but it is supported by nothing! -no witnesses! no physical document! no microfilm photo! no hospital record! and no pregnancy or post-delivery or even wedding photos!  Where are the photos of Ann Dunham in a wedding dress?  His "Hawaiian birth" is as solid and provable as a ghost. As visible as a Black Hole.  That doesn't mean he wasn't born in his mother's Hawaiian home but if he were, then we would not have to hide the birth certificate that he has used all of his teen and adult life.  Where is that birth certificate?  Why has he hidden it from everyone?  What does it show that would ruin his presumed eligibility to be President? Tell me about how silly these questions are.  About how a law degree graduate of Harvard, married with children, elected state and national Senator managed to get all the way through life without a birth certificate, and only had to order one because he chose to run for the unique office of the President of the United States!  Tell me about how unhinged, irrational and emotional it is to realize that that is totally impossible.]]

This whole approach is nothing but unhinged, irrational and emotional adherence to a conspiracy theory, and is why the birthers are such a hazard to this country, the issue of the qualification for the Office, and any hope of the real facts of this issue ever getting proper media attention.
[[There is no hope of the real facts about constitutional ineligibility ever getting proper "media attention" and you know that, but you want to divert attention from the crime of creating a counterfeit representation of an official state document because that offense, unlike being an unconstitutional President, is a felony.]]

Your argument not only has no facts of its own, but dismisses anything officially recognized as fact,
[[What? Officially recognized? by who?  Who is the official officially recognizing anything regarding Obama's birth, -other than the lying obama toadies in the Hawaiian government?  They have no credibility!  No one who proclaims him to be a "natural born citizen", as did the director of the HDOH, is honest because no one in government has the authority to do that, which you are well aware of.]]

“A non-standard format, in a non-standardized digital form, is still not a “counterfeit representation” of a any sort of birth certificate form.” [[Apparently you aren’t cognizant of what constitutes “standard”. Whatever a state government issues is the standard it follows, but no standard includes issuing pdf files so I’m still unclear exactly what you are referring to as being non-standard since Hawaii didn’t issue anything to Obama’s people. The pdf is certainly a non-standard image since it purports to be the image of a scanned document but it wasn’t made by a scanner since they don’t produce 9 random layers. Any such image which pretends to be something it isn’t is by definition a counterfeit.]]

“the format itself is not what HDOH attests to and ascertains, but rather the facts themselves are.”

[[You need to grasp the truth about the history and purpose of birth certificate certification. It is NOT what you think is the purported policy of today. Before the total bastardization of the digital age, subsequent to the development of the various forms of photographic reproduction, it was NOT the facts that were attested to, it was the reproduction itself that was certified as a “TRUE AND CORRECT COPY” of the original. The state was not in the business of certifying the information, -that judgement was left to those examining the certified copy of the original birth documentation. All the state did is certify that the copy was TRUE. Anything less than a certified true copy is open to alteration and fraud. The state seal is meant to prevent any other party from making any acceptable certification since they would not have a seal that is valid. So the assertion that the state could certify info on a napkin, while true, is a bastardized modern degradation of true certification and as such is deserving of no respect.]]

“but HDOH can send those facts in any format and they are still valid and in no way “counterfeit”.
[[ While having abdicated their responsibility to provide a certified true copy of the original, and taken it upon themselves to be the judge and determiner of what is factual information rather than the persons examining their certified copy of the original, that issue isn’t relative to the Obama situation since Hawaii has provided nothing that anyone has ever seen except Obama's lawyers, but they won’t share it with anybody. Hence the need for the pretense of requesting a birth certificate when he already had one all along just like every other adult American. But he can’t show what he has because it reveals something which disqualifies him from being President in the minds of the American people. But the pretense was an opportunity to substitute a counterfeit image of a real birth certificate for one that he already possessed but couldn’t show.]]

“no document released by Hawaii is a fake. -it cannot be said to be a “forgery”, nor a “counterfeit”. Once the Arpaio investigation admitted the ‘document’ to be from Hawaii,…”

[[NO DOCUMENT WAS RELEASED BY HAWAII!  The image released by the White House was a counterfeit representation of a real Hawaiian document. The correspondence released by the White House was a fraud and a part of a fabricated story of events that never transpired except in the minds of gullible children. Nothing that any Obama-lover working in the Hawaiian government says is credible, even under oath. They will lie for him til the cows come home.  Would accept the word of the fox that guards the hen house when it comes to explaining where the missing chicken went?
Evidence is not needed to figure out that the text elements and document form shown in the pdf appears too genuine in general to not have come from actual files in possession of some dept. of the Hawaiian government. But the separate layers scream that one is beholding a computer creation. One that Arpaio reported and did not “admit” was from Hawaii. Only the guilty can admit to something.]]

“Again, those layers being “curious” and even “suspicious” does not provide any evidence of forgery,”
[[Wow! As previously stated, Hawaii DOES NOT DISSEMINATE PDF IMAGES! The very existence of multiple layers is testimony of fraud and counterfeiting.]]

“a public authority which is entitled to release documentation in whatever form it might deem necessary”

[[Wow! Hawaii only releases certified documentation is standard formats, as does every other state in the union. There is no non-standard certified documentation released, though you might love to convince folks that Hawaii alone was behind the making of the pdf monster,  IT WASN’T.  Still, it's very possible that someone in the HDOH concocted it or supplied its source imagery to an outside counterfeiter.]]

“It was a public statement, made by Hawaii”

[[“It” was NOT a statement made by Hawaii, but by the Counterfeiter-in-Chief in order to convince the gullible that he was born in the United States. You complain about “arguing” over the birth certificate when the issue of natural citizenship is primary, but you know full well that the nation will remain ignorant of the constitutional issue but not of the counterfeiting issue.
Being an unconstitutional President is not a crime of any type, so focusing on that in any arena other that a federal court is a waste of time. But…counterfeiting and false representation are felonies and that is where Obama is vulnerable because the evidence is incontrovertible. That’s why it is NOT GOING AWAY! even though you’d like to see the public focus shift away from the provable to the disputable.
But the mistake of hastily saving and releasing the image as a nine layer pdf instead of exporting it as a flat jpg will haunt Obama for the rest of his life and eventually lead to a constitutional crisis. Or not, depending on the subservience of the RINOs in Congress. ]]

sentientstorm says:

We see in the correspondence, referenced below, between Barack Obama, Obama’s legal counsel Judith Corley, and the Hawaii Director of Health Loretta Fuddy, that a “waiver” was granted to HDOH policy in producing a non-standard non-short-form birth certificate, so as to make this information “publicly available”. Mrs. Fuddy also affirms that she has the “legal authority to approve the process by which copies of such records are made.”
[[THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDENCE! -THERE WAS A BRILLIANT DISINFORMATION SCHEME THAT GULLIBLE DUPES FELL FOR]]
Thus far, there is no indication that this non-standard information release was in any way “illegal”, or somehow improper, much less fraudulent.  [[THERE WAS NO HAWAIIAN FRAUDULENT RELEASE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RELEASE PERIOD. THE FAKE PDF WAS MADE BY OBAMA'S COUNTERFEITER, NOT HAWAII]]
My point is this was non-standard policy, and a non-standardized form, and therefore it cannot be a forgery, and the facts support this. [[FACTS? IN FACT THERE ARE NO FACTS! WHAT YOU CALL FACTS ARE IN FACT FALSEHOODS DESIGNED TO DECEIVE THE UNSUSPECTING]]

Ref:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-correspondence.pdf

No, the term “TRUE COPY” does not constitute it being a “duplicate”, but rather that the facts themselves are true.

[[NO, YOU ARE A DOLT, THE STAMP STATES WHAT ALL CERTIFICATIONS ONCE STATED, "THIS IS A TRUE COPY or abstract OF THE RECORD ON FILE.  IT DOES NOT STATE THAT IT IS A RECORD OF FACTS.]]

Prior to that “bastardization of the digital age”, a “True Copy” might be issued as a photocopy, but generally documentation has  since been computerized, with the birth data being entered into a database wherein various fields are filled in and then used to provide computer-generated standardized documentation. Generally, it has been recognized that the data fields in Hawaii’s “short form” certification, are sufficient for most legal standards. The problem in this instance clearly is, that both a “short form”, and apparently whatever Hawaii has, or does not have, on file “in the vaults”, do not seem to indicate the actual place of birth.

[[THAT WHICH IS TOTALLY UNKNOWN CANNOT INDICATE ANYTHING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, INCLUDING HIS PLACE OF BIRTH. A FOREIGN BIRTH LOCATION IS INFERRED BY THE UNWILLINGNESS TO REVEAL THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT HE'S USED ALL OF HIS ADULT, AND TEENAGE LIFE, EVEN NECESSITATING SUBSTITUTING COUNTERFEIT IMAGES SHOWING A HAWAIIAN BIRTH.]]

This is generally sufficient for most applications, to establish citizenship in Hawaii, but not to establish natural born citizenship status. While one might be born out-of-state, and still achieve recognition of citizenship status through Hawaii by having residence there, such a condition is insufficient to establish natural born citizen status. Could Hawaii be hiding the fact of a foreign birth? Sure, that’s possible, but there is no evidence on-hand to indicate this to be the case. [[THE EVIDENCE ON HAND IS THE EXISTENCE OF TWO COUNTERFEIT IMAGES IN OFFICIAL HAWAII DOCUMENT FORMAT]]

Your frustration seems to be fueled by wanting to see the original full-form application to register a birth issued by a hospital, however it is becoming increasingly evident that such a hospital-provided application to register birth does not exist in a more expansive form than what was scanned in from the ledger. Whatever frustration you might have with this ledger scan, in and of itself, does not indicate “fraud”, nor “forgery”, nor “counterfeiting”.

[[THERE IS NO SCAN OF A LEDGER. YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO ADDRESS MY TESTIMONY THAT THE BC FORM TEMPLATE WAS DERIVED FROM A MICROFILM PHOTO IMAGE IS EVIDENCE OF YOUR STRICT ADHERENCE TO YOUR "TALKING POINTS" MESSAGE ABOUT THE PDF BEING THE RESULT OF 3 SCANS, (ONLY ONE OF WHICH DEFINITELY TOOK PLACE), IN ORDER TO PUSH THE FALLACIOUS ASSERTION THAT HAWAII DID ALL OF THE LAYERING AND NOT OBAMA'S PEOPLE WHO USED 7 DISTINCT LAYERS TO BUILD THE COUNTERFEIT]]

To establish such claims requires the existence of credible contradicting birth documentation, which does not seem to be in evidence. “Absence of evidence” is not evidence evident of fraud, and certainly not forgery,

[[WHY IS THERE AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE? IT'S BECAUSE OBAMA WON'T ALLOW ANYONE TO EXAMINE THE ORIGINAL MICROFILM BECAUSE IT WOULD DESTROY ANY BELIEF IN HIS PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY]
given that, yes, Hawaii DOH is entitled by law to issue information to the appropriate parties, in whatever form it deems necessary.

[HAWAII HAS RELEASED NOTHING EXCEPT TO OBAMA'S COUNTERFEITERS. THEY HAVE NOT AND DO NOT RELEASE TRUE COPIES BECAUSE BY MOVING TO ONLY DIGITAL RECORDS THEY'VE BASTARDIZED THEIR ROLE OF BEING A PROVIDER OF TRUE COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL HOSPITAL BIRTH RECORDS. THE ABSTRACT COPIES THEY PROVIDE ARE UNATHENTICATIBLE BECAUSE ALL DIGITAL INFORMATION CAN BE VERY EASILY MANIPULATED, AND ABSTRACTS ARE NOT AUTHENTIC COPIES OF ANYTHING. CERTIFIED DATA IS NOT AUTHENTICATED DATA BECAUSE THE CERTIFIER CAN BE ACTING IN A CRIMINAL MANNER]]

You state, “NO DOCUMENT WAS RELEASED BY HAWAII”, and that “the document released by the White House was a counterfeit representation of a real Hawaiian document” and that the correspondence with the White House is a “fabricated story of events that never transpired.”

That correspondence between HDOH and the White house is on official letterheads, and has been made public on the White House web site, and references “two certified copies” so it appears some actual physical documents did exchange hands.
[[IT APPEARS THAT YOU ARE TOO NAIVE TO GRASP THAT THE CONSPIRACY EMANATES FROM THE WHITE HOUSE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT, OR ORDERS OF OBAMA HIMSELF.]]

If you want to believe that none of this happened, and that HDOH is entirely complicit in this supposed fraud, then none of the information coming forth from HDOH can be valid. This then leaves those expectant of some other information to be forthcoming from Hawaii, entirely without any possibility of future reward of their expectation,
[[ EXACTLY. THERE IS NO THERE THERE, THE ARCHIVE IS EMPTY. THE ONLY RECORD IS DIGITAL ("ON RECORD ACCORDING TO POLICY AND PROCEDURE") while their claims of "fraud" are not supported by the existence of other more credible information. That makes this nothing but a faith in a conspiracy without any cause to believe in such.
[THERE YOU GO AGAIN, PRETENDING THAT THE 7 LAYER COUNTERFEIT IMAGE DOES NOT EVEN EXIST! IT IS EXHIBIT #1. AND MAY SOMEDAY SEND PEOPLE TO PRISON. IT DIDN'T CREATE ITSELF, A PHOTOSHOP COUNTERFEITER DID.]]

While there is an unanswered question as to whether the digital copy pdf was created by HDOH or the Obama administration itself, this is really a moot consideration.
[[IT IS MOOT TO THE EXTENT THAT WHO GOES TO PRISON IS MOOT]]

We know for a fact, as I’ve previously indicated, that the HDOH undeniably [SO...ANYTHING YOU ASSERT IS UNDENIABLE?] created a computer compilation of 3 digitized files to create the non-standard form on pubic display.
[[THAT IS AN ACCUSATION THAT HAWAII CREATED THE COUNTERFEIT]]

Either HDOH gave Obama et al that original digitial file, [[HAWAII GAVE OBAMA THE ELEMENTS USED TO CREATE THE FILE, -THEY DIDN'T STICK THEIR NECKS ALL THE WAY OUT BY MAKING IT THEMSELVES. THEY WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO DO THAT]]

or a scan was made of the physical document to create yet another digital file for display on the Internet.
[[WHAT? THERE IS NO PHYSICAL DOCUMENT EXCEPT IN YOUR PIPE DREAMS] [NO SCANNER IN EXISTENCE WILL CREATE THE LAYERS SEEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE PDF IMAGE. YOU KNOW THAT BUT PRETEND THAT YOU DON'T IN ORDER TO DECEIVE THE GULLIBLE INTO BELIEVING THE BS YOU'RE FLINGING ABOUT]].

Given the fact that the tabular port of the PDF digital document contains hand-written signatures, even of the physician, as well as typed information, we can conclude this information is as was provided by the hospital or attending physician in application for a birth registration, and then became bound in HDOH’s ledger.

[[YOU CAN ALSO CONCLUDE THAT THE TOOTH FAIRY IS REAL, THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. BUT THEN, IN YOUR LA LA LAND PHOTOSHOP DOES NOT YET EXIST. SUCH BLISSFUL IGNORANCE HAS NO PLACE IN THE REAL WORLD.]]

Baring proof that this data is somehow inaccurate or fraudulent, [[THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA IS IRRELEVANT]] no claim can be made by mere examination of the pdf layers alone, that it is a “fraud” or a “forgery” [[EXCEPT THAT IF THE PDF IS A TRUE IMPOSSIBILITY AS BEING THE PRODUCT OF A SCANNER (WHICH IT IS), THEN IT IS IRREFUTABLE PROOF OF COUNTERFEITING BECAUSE IT SURE DIDN'T MAKE ITSELF]].

Such claims require actual contradicting direct proof. Having only supposition regarding circumstantial evidence is an insufficient argument, and involves no sort of real evidential proof.
[[WOW, YOU ARE SUCH A GREAT LAWYER! BUT HEY MR. LAWYER, GUESS WHAT? WE AIN'T IN NO CRIMINAL COURT! WE'RE IN THE COURT OF COMMON SENSE AND PUBLIC OPINION. AND PUBLIC OPINION IS VERY UNKIND TO COUNTERFEITERS]]

You state that the elements of the PDF appear “too genuine”, and that the separate layers “scream that one is beholding a computer creation.” Yes, we know for a fact that the overal “document” was a computer creation, done compiling information from 3 separate sources: 1) the bound ledger page, 2) the signature and seal page, [[SEAL? WHAT SEAL? YOU MUST HAVE X-RAY VISION]] and 3) the green security background originally not a part of the ledger page, but now seen to continue consistently across the ledger page and the signature/seal page. It is undeniably a “computer creation”, but neither this fact, nor the existence of various layers, establish any sort of “forgery”, nor fraud.
[[CLEARLY, YOU EITHER HAVE NEVER VIEWED AND MANIPULATED THAT BASTARDIZED CONCOCTION OR YOU DID BUT ARE DISHONESTLY REFRAINING FROM SPEAKING OF WHAT YOU DISCOVERED. YOUR CHARACTERIZATION IS DEFICIENT BECAUSE YOU ARE PRETENDING THAT THE THREE DATE-STAMPS AND none LAYERS DON'T EXIST. THAT DELIBERATE OVERSIGHT SERVES YOUR AGENDA WHICH IS NOT TO SPREAD THE TRUTH BUT TO BURY IT]]

You respond to my comment regarding parallax by referencing the horizontal lines being more curved the closer they are to the top. The curvature of these horizontal lines has nothing to do with parallax, but rather is a result of the amount of page curl expression from the ledger book increasing up the page. The lower portion of the scan has less page curl, likely as a result of the ledger being held in place there during the scan, while the upper portion has more page curl, which also corresponds with an increased shadow from that curl along the left hand margin.

[[THERE WAS NO PAGE CURL CAPTURED BY A SCAN. IT WAS CAPTURED BY THE MICROFICHE CAMERA LENS WHICH WAS USED TO PHOTOGRAPH BOUND LEDGER PAGES AS AN ARCHIVAL BACKUP IN CASE OF A FIRE OR FLOOD. THE MICROFICHE OR MICROFILM IMAGE OF PAGES WERE PROCESSED IN FUTURE YEARS TO EXTRACT THE INFORMATION THEY CONTAINED AND STORE IT IN AN EASILY ACCESSIBLE DATA BASE.]]

You state that “Hawaii only releases certified documentation [in] standard formats”, yet from the correspondence between the White House and HDOH, we know this to not be the case.
[[THE LONG FORM IS A STANDARD FORM. A STANDARD FORM DOES NOT IMPLY ANYTHING REGARDING COMMON USAGE OR LACK THEREOF. IT IMPLIES THAT IT IS A FORM THAT IS STANDARDIZED IN ITS CREATION, AND NOT SOME ONE OFF]]

We also know that HDOH can, and likely has, issued certified statements to various authorities when necessary, such as to a court of law.
[[LIKELY HAS? FOR WHAT CONCEIVABLE REASON? NONE. OH,...TO JUSTIFY THE SCENARIO IN WHICH THE LONG FORM BC (WHICH PURPORTEDLY DIDN'T EXIST) WAS ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW AVAILABLE BECAUSE HAWAII HAS THE DISCRETION TO CERTIFY INFO ON TOILET PAPER IF THEY WANT AND MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO SOP, SUCH AS A 7 LAYER PDF WHICH CAN'T BE BLAMED ON THE DEAR LEADER AND THEREFORE MUST BE GENUINE AND A CREATION OF A DEPT. THAT HAS NEVER ISSUED A PDF IN ITS ENTIRE EXISTENCE. YOUR LOGIC IS LAME AND HAS WORN VERY THIN]]

You state that I “know full well that the nation will remain ignorant of the constitutional issue but not of the counterfeiting issue.” There is not reasonably any sort of counterfeiting issue. The document provided is not intended to mimic any official form,
[[WHAT A BALD-FACE LIE, IT'S A COUNTERFEIT SO INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM AN IMAGE OF THE REAL THING THAT IF THE PDF HAD BEEN EXPORTED AS A FLAT JPG INSTEAD OF SAVED AS A 7 LAYER PDF, NO ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ASSERT THAT IT WAS FAKE]
but rather provides testament as to the facts of birth. [IT PROVIDES TESTAMENT TO THE FACTS OF COUNTERFEITING AND NOTHING ELSE. THERE ARE NO "FACTS OF BIRTH" THERE ARE ONLY LOGICAL AND REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS]]

We can challenge those facts of birth, but that would involve an assertion of “fraud”, and not counterfeiting. Overall, the real issue is one of Constitutional requirement, and not having a birth certificate, so this is a red herring and enormous waste of time, that does nothing but distort the fact of that actual constitutional requirement.

[[THIS ENORMOUS WASTE OF TIME SURE SEEMS WORTH A WHOLE LOT OF YOUR VALUABLE TIME. THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE YOU ARE WELL AWARE OF THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF CREDIBLE VOICES SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN AN UNAVOIDABLE WAY WHICH WOULD IGNITE LIKE A WILD FIRE ONCE IT TOOK OFF IN THE MEDIA, AND NOT JUST IN THE SILENT BLOG-O-SPHERE.]]

And, no, the pdf document currently available at the White House site, is not compressed, and does still have the layers. I downloaded it yet again last night, and examined the new download in Adobe Illustrator.
[[DID YOU PRINT IT, AND THEN SCAN IT, AND THEN EXAMINE THE SCAN? I THOUGHT NOT. YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT IF YOU DID THAT YOU WOULD FIND IT HAD ONLY ONE OR TWO LAYERS, NOT SEVEN (ACTUALLY NINE SINCE THERE ARE TWO INVISIBLE ONES IN THE SECURITY PAPER BACKGROUND IMAGE). YOUR DISHONESTY ABOUT THE LAYERS INDICATES THAT YOU DIDN’T EXAMINE IT EXCEPT IN AN OBLIGATORY SUPERFICIAL MANNER, AREN’T INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO GRASP THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT YOU SAW OR ARE AVOIDING HONESTLY DISCUSSING IT. YOU’RE ALSO PRETENDING THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING OF THE EXPOSE THAT IS UNMISSABLE ON MY HOME PAGE, -WHICH YOU NO DOUBT HAVE EXAMINED AND ARE UNWILLING TO DISCUSS OR DISPUTE. YOUR PRETENSE OF HONESTY, LOGIC, AND REASON IS VERY SERPENTINE, -SMOOTH AS A SNAKE. AND WE KNOW WHO THE SNAKE REPRESENTS (THE FATHER OF LIARS AND DECEIVERS). BUT WHATEVER YOUR MOTIVES ARE, YOU’RE CONVINCED THAT THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS, SO NO INTELLECTUAL TRICK IS TOO DISHONEST TO IMPLEMENT. BUT YOU’RE WASTING YOUR TIME HERE BECAUSE NO NONFACTUAL STATEMENT IS GOING TO GET THROUGH UNCHALLENGED AND UNREFUTED.]]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

You state that “NOTHING BUT SEPARATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ELEMENTS WERE SUPPLIED TO OBAMA’S TOADIES FOR USING IN THE CREATION OF THE PDF COUNTERFEIT”, but you have nothing whatsoever to support this, except your own belief! Nothing!

[[The possibilities are that the separate bc elements were supplied by Hawaii to obama's people to create the counterfeit bc image, or it was created as a counterfeit by Hawaii.  There's no reason to blame Hawaii for a crime that should have only been committed by clandestine operatives working for obama.  Which do you chose to believe and who do you choose to blame?]]

And this claim the PDF was fabricated and the physical “document” was fabricated by Obama’s crew… [what bizarro planet are you living on?  THERE IS NO PHYSICAL DOCUMENT.  ONE HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN AND NEVER WILL BE SEEN. A print-out of a counterfeit digital image is not a "document" because it documents nothing!] is undermined by the fact of that stamp and signature being clearly seperate from the ledger page itself! What did they do, provide him all the elements, and tell him to fabricate whatever document and history he might desire to do?
[[Exactly. Yes and No. They didn't tell the obama people anything other than "here they are, taken them and leave by the back door."]]

You then go on to claim there was no correspondence, despite the public information to the contrary.
[[There's NO public information! All that exists is disinformation prepared as a background story to explain the release of something that was claimed to not exist as a matter of Hawaiian policy.  A good birth certificate counterfeit was needed but they also needed an explanation as to how it was acquired.  They couldn't say the truth of how they created it.  They had to make up a story, so they made up a good one involving, of course, LAWYERS.  Attorney-client-privilege sealed all the criminal details in privacy.  Anyone who believes those letters were not a creative PR invention is wonderfully but dangerously naive.]]

That’s not only profoundly ridiculous, but leaves you turning everything upside down, with nothing at all having any credibility,
[[You naively fail to grasp that obama lost all credibility with the release of the 2nd birth certificate image.]  and you do this so that you can support your own fixation with the “birth certificate” and birth in another country at all costs!
[You know very well that I have no emotion invested in this matter, and in fact e-mailed to the White House my initial supportive conclusions after examining the anomalies of the pdf so that they could defend it.]]

-with  birthers arguing nothing but convoluted conspiracy theories, which become more and more flakey and far-reaching, and draw more and distinctions without any point (such as your “true copy”), as time progresses.

[[Let's see now, so you feel a need to lump me in with any and every extreme theorists who ever uttered a discouraging word about obama's birth certificate or eligibility?  Why has the conversation degenerated to that base sort of spin?  And why mention the fact that Hawaii no longer issues true copies but only abstracts unless you can show that the COLB or LFCOLB are images/photos/or scans of actual original hospital-issued birth documents and not mere digital computer creations?]]

Then the distinctions, where warranted, are totally ignored. For instance, there can be no “counterfeit” when the document is not attempting to mimic any specific form. THis is why monopoly money is not a counterfeit of real American currency.
[[If you create a computer-fabricated imitation of monopoly money you have created a counterfeit.  Anything that imitates something real is a counterfeit. The pdf is certainly a counterfeit of a real, "specific" Hawaiian form.  Or are you implying that Hawaii does not have a long-form birth certificate form at all?]]

MAYBE the image from the ledger was taken from microfilm, however you yourself are not able to provide any sort of “Testament” to that fact, as to do so you would be claiming a false authority and knowledge of something you could not reasonably know.
[[True, I don't claim it as "my truth", I state it as the only logical explanation because all states needed to preserve their records by having backups, and backups in the form of paper would be impractical, hence the creation of the microfilm/microfiche industry which served all large corporations and government departments.  Read about it's history in the blog page in my archive or at wikipedia.  It's very fascinating.  The history of microphotography was pioneered back to the mid-1800s.]]

Beyond that, the distinction is irrelavant.  The point was the birth documentation (from the hospital, complete with physician’s signature) was bound in a ledger, and then “a copy” of that was used to make a 3-part digital compilation which is the PDF.

[["You are not able to provide any sort of "Testament" to that fact, as to do so you would be claiming a false authority and knowledge of something you could not reasonably know".  The birth documentation consisted only of what the Hawaiian officials claimed, namely something half written and half typed, -no doubt an affidavit by the mother or grandmother confirming obama's birth, in hand written form and also a typed version.  To assume that a hospital record exists in a ledger is the height of imagination, based on nothing, not even any assertion by a Hawaiian official.
All that's been written by them is the legally crafted statement that his birth certificate is on record according to official policy and procedure, meaning in a digital data-base, but no statement has ever been made that what is on record is a microfilm image of a HAWAIIAN birth certificate, nor that one exists in a ledger in an archive.
Why would Hawaii avoid saying that obama has a Hawaiian birth certificate?  Because it would be a lie.  That fact was known by the attorney the state used often, the one who probably refused to certify for the DNC that obama was constitutionally qualified to be President because he had served as the divorce attorney for obama's mother and had seen his birth certificate, the one torn out of the divorce record (missing page 11).  She knew something that disqualified him from serving as President.  What could it be other than his birth location.  The foreign father fact was not hidden so that can't be it even though it absolutely disqualifies him.]]

Your implication about “true copy”, that its absence somehow allows that the document might be a fraud, is also ridiculous. What should the document be a “true copy” of, in your mind, the original application from the hospital? That’s what is shown! It is the hopsital’s statements, with physician signature, that was supplied to the HDOH to register the birth. Not only is that original form able to be verified as a true copy in your claimed “microfilm”, but also it is in a bound ledger labeled with Obama’s birth year, and sequentially numbered. This then allows for the stamp on the pdf indicating, “I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file”, and signed by the current Registrar of Vital Statistics for the State of Hawaii, Alvin T Onaka. They are, in fact, “authentic copies”, and can be verified.

[[If you truly believe what you're saying then I feel sorry for you because your comprehension of the facts is sorely lacking.  I'll try to explain what you should have already read in my explanation titled "The Bastardization of Certification".  Nothing is a copy of something unless it is an actual replication of something real.  An abstract is something that is not a copy of something real, but is an abstract version of what the original contains. The Registrar's stamp makes an illegitimate claim because a certification certifies facts only, NOT possibilities ("True Copy OR Abstract").  The stamp of certification certifies either that the document it appears on is a True Copy or else it certifies nothing.  Abstracts cannot be certified as true copies of anything because they are not copies of anything.  They are abstract creations.  It is not mere information that certified birth certificates exist to validate, it is the copy itself that is being certified as being a "TRUE" copy, and not an abstract, counterfeit, or manipulated copy.  Hawaiian abstract birth certificate images are cobbled together by Hawaiian Health Dept. software.  They no longer issue TRUE COPY print-outs of the microfilm photos of the hospital birth record.  They used to do that but not anymore since they went all digital.  Also, the registrar's signature is an uncertified abstract representation of an actual signature.  It is in other words, a counterfeit signature since it accurately imitates the real thing.  No counterfeit abstract imitation signature certifies anything since it is signed by no one.  No certificate is a certificate unless it certifies something via the signature of the certifier.  So it can be said that all Hawaii issues is abstract uncertified imitation copies of original birth records.]]

I am quite aware that there is a conpspiracy from the White House to promote Obama as qualified, but this does not necessarily involve fabricating that he was born in the state of hawaii, and quite definitely does involve distracting attention from the fact that he was born a British citizen, which is something the birther-certificate obsessives fascilitate.  You’ve got no credible evidence whatsoever to claim he was born anywhere else other than Hawaii,..

[[Will you listen to yourself?  There is no "credible evidence whatsoever" of where he was born.  The question you assiduously are avoiding asking is why that is. Why is there no real evidence?  No real birth certificate?  The answer is not needed to prove someone committed a felony by creating a false representation of an official state identify document. The nine layers of the PDF prove that.  Why do you insist in only mentioning three layers when there should be only one or two, and there should be no pdf at all?  There should be a glass case in the Press room holding an official Hawaiian birth certificate, certified by the actual signature of the Registrar, (without an actual signature nothing is actually certified unless no other person in the Hawaiian government has access to the Registrar's stamp except him, which we know to not be the case.)  It would need to contain the embossed state seal, and be authenticated in writing by an expert in document forgery.  Nothing else except the actual strip of microfilm can provide true certification.]]

You yourself have said on this blog that “John McCain was natural born”, despite the fact that he was not born on American soil, and did not even receive mere CITIZENSHIP until 8 Title 1403 was enacted nearly a full year after his birth! John McCain, like Obama, was only promoted as a candidate through fraud.

[[So you have read none of the 100,000 words or so that I've written explaining the principle of natural membership?  I don't believe it.  You've read and understood the truth about the unalienable right of natural membership but must strive to pretend you don't know the truth.  Neither you nor anyone else can possibly raise any counter argument and that's why no one has.  The facts are the facts.  John McCain's native country is the United States, just as would be a child of President George W. Bush,(-himself the son of a President) even if born anywhere in the world outside of the boundaries of the United States government. Obama's native country is Kenya, or else he has no native country. Every child is a natural member of his father's country.  American parents produce American children. Citizen parents produce citizen children the world over.  It is a child's unalienable right to be a member of his parent's group.  That right is far above the authority of government to grant or rescind.]]

If you imagine Hawaii gave Obama “the elements” to make the final product, then why the hell is it such a reach that Hawaii gave Obama’s attorney a disk with those elements compiled into the form of the final digitial document?
[[that isn't a reach, it's a real possibility, physically speaking, but not logically.  A digital file is not a certified birth certificate. If one states they did that then they are including the Hawaiian DOH people in the conspiracy and laying the felonious blame all on them, thereby leaving the White House White Knight free of any guilt.  But guilty he is and the date stamps and the split word "none" are pronounced evidence of fraud.  If the date stamps were whole, and not missing digits, and the word "non"(e) did not exist, then one could assert that the layers were unremarkable digital additions to a digital document, but their nature is clear evidence of counterfeiting.  You would know that if you had read my essay "The Significance of None" and "The Smiley Face Anomaly  http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/none/   http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/6_smoking_guns3b_txt.pdf or examined my large graphic expose of the added layers.]]

I also don’t believe you’ve ever used OCR software, and the fact that it seperates out on distinct layers recognizable characters and letters, and other detail as graphics, and the degree with which it does varies dependent upon adjustments in the software itself.  But this is irrelavant, because those layers themselves dont prove “forgery” nor “counterfeit”, and none of those varied layers in evidence even imply the perpetration of any sort of fraud.

[[You are not grasping what you are seeing, which is imagery of actual typewriter typed text, -NOT computer generated digital-font text.  Original text was extracted from one or more documents by deleting all pixels surrounding black and grey-scale pixels, (i.e., deleting the background paper (rendered pure white by boosting the contrast to a very high level, -something normally done to enhance grayish images of documents) leaving the text on a transparent background. Optical Character Recognition software was not employed because its output is digital text which can be manipulated in any word-processor, -changing fonts, sizes, color, etc.  But text imagery is not digital text anymore than photo imagery is digital text.]]

Yes, a standard does imply something about a standard usage — that’s why it is “standard”. [OK, we're both right.  Usage can be standard usage and the form and be a standardized form] When the birthers got the original jpg image, they claimed they wanted a  “long form”, and wanted a doctor’s signature, and the like. They got that doctor’s signature, and now they claim they want a standard form.
[They know and realize that an abstract is highly vulnerable to counterfeit manipulation because it is a digitally created product; -and the nature of the layers, if not their very existence, is the reason that they understand that manipulation took place.]

For almost 4 years I allowed that some evidence of foreign birth might surface, and recognized that the means existed to establish citizenship in Hawaii despite that foreign birth. However, in such a foreigh birth,  there would be no local doctor’s signature in the ledger (or microfilm) on Obama’s original application, if he had such a foreign birth. And to get that citizenship recognized, despite foreign birth, there would be no need to provide a doctor’s signature. You’re not suggesting that Obama is such a deep Manchurian Candidate, that upon his birth in 1961, they even then knew to make him President that he had to have a doctor’s signature to validate his birth on American soil, are you?
[[a Manchurian Candidate theory has no logical beginning until after obama hooked-up with the parents of bill ayers in Chicago and they thought so much of him that they funded his college education.  But that doesn't hold water either because he convinced them that he was a foreign-student, from Kenya, so they would not have thought of him as presidentially eligible.  But then who convinced him at that time that his future included becoming President, as he stated to that mailman serving the Ayers community?  Lots of questions, few if any answers.  The theory about the Dr. signature is that it was extracted from another person's hospital record, along with various other elements, such as the "Received" and "Registered" date stamps.]]

Unless you have some credible, compelling evidence that he was actually born somewhere else, it is time to “let it go”.
[[HA! That's funny.  The burden of proof is not on the one being given a highly important and highly questionable assertion, it's on the one making the unverified and unverifiable claim, which is that obama was born in Hawaii.  No PROOF!, and yet we've given him the launch authority for thousands of nuclear bombs when his form of citizenship would not qualify him to even guard himself as President, much less have access to and control of nuclear weapons.  I suspect that the most likely fact is that there's a birth record for him somewhere in Vancouver, unless it's been purged, which would be likely.  It's likely his mother was living in Seattle in the Spring & summer of '61, gave birth in Canada because no American family signed-up to adopt her mixed-race child, and a possible Canadian adoption didn't happen either, then she flew back to Hawaii after his birth, wasn't warmly welcomed, so she quickly returned to her place in Seattle and began college classes.]]

My argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the “ends justifying the means” (which is just an irrelevant strawman you’ve introduced), but rather with distinguishing the difference between facts, and supposition. My goal is to promote an understanding of the Constituiton, and specifically the Article II requirement, which results in Obama being undeniably unqualified to hold office, no matter where he was born.  However the same is true of McCain, and Marco Rubio as well.
[[Your confusion is noteworthy.  If McCain in ineligible, then Obama is not ineligible, and vice versa because eligibility results from fulfilling the requirement of a single principle (natural citizenship via patrilineal descent) not two principles! (U.S. birth and citizen parents)]]

Then you have another nonsense graphic pronouncing that jus soli has nothing whatsoever to do with natural born (ignoring all the numerous Supreme Court decisions to the contrary),
[[Don't look to men to ascertain truth because they come with preconceptions and ignorance that facilitates erroneous conclusions.  No judge is less fallible or biased or opinionated than any other person who isn't a judge.  Higher rank doesn't come with infallibility or else there would be no such thing as a split decision.  Don't farm out your thinking to others, rely instead on reason.  Unbiased logic is the only thing that does not lead one into error.  Without it you will fall into the trap of believing Chief Judas Robert's redefinition of the words "Tax" and "Penalty"  Let's see...both involve handing money over to the government so they must be synonymous, just like "Ocean" and "Lake" both involve bodies of water so lakes must be oceans and oceans must be lakes!  But when is a tax every considered to be a penalty?  Are people required to pay their annual income penalty or their income tax?  Is the tax-penalty a punishment for the crime of earning an income?  Can one conflate an arrow and a rock, both of which can be hurled at a target, and call an arrow an arrow-rock, or a rock-arrow?]]

…recognition of a thorough membership in a specific society, with that society being established and recognized by its specific location (ie jus soli).
[[wrong, the NATION is recognized by its location, the society is recognized by its population.  If they are all dead, the location still exists, but the society and its nation no longer does. Apparently you're oblivious to the fact that "natural born" fundamentally involves recognition of NATURE! -not borders.  They aren't natural!] ]

Thus the idea that a natural, “self evident” membership in that specific society might be established by birth to previous members of that society anywhere outside that society, is fundamentally ridiculous.
[that is true, but not for the reason you think.  It's because you said "previous" members. Being and living outside of one's homeland is irrelevant to one's membership in their country.  One is still subject to its jurisdiction, via taxes and military conscription, and bans on trade with certain nations, and violations of U.S. laws even though outside of its territory.  You are ignorant if you think that one becomes a "previous member" without being naturalized into another nation or losing one's U.S. citizenship.]

At this point, i am done with this exchange. I originally thought it might be a productive discussion, [[that wasn't possible because of your inability to grasp new facts due to ingrained bias.]] but your ever-increasing ad hominum attacks do not begin to cover for the evidence absent in your argument, failure to grasp even most fundamental terms and processes, and now less than respectful editing of my previous post to insert your own comments.
[[respect is something easily lost when obfuscation is the main purpose of the dialogue.  The correction of erroneous and uninformed assertions has a higher priority than politeness.  You can't believe that the stakes aren't high enough to warrant a full-force push-back against falsehoods that serve to defend, -not the Constitution, -not the truth, but one's Marxist hero.]]

The Beautiful, Blissful Blindness of Obama’s True Believers

 

The Beautiful, Blissful Blindness of Obama’s True Believers

In the on-going war against the falsehoods of the Obama-embracing Left, the battles concerning his presidential eligibility and birth certificate have always elicited the perception of deliberate deceit on their part, but while that is true of some, it appears that it isn’t true of all, because some are true believers. And not just any true believers, but very intelligent, astute, insightful, analytical true believers. Upon reading many comments by such bright people in regard to erroneous conclusions about the nature of Obama’s birth certificate image, and their illuminating analysis of the mind-set and biases of Obama-haters, it became clear that something very strange was going on, -something almost inexplicable, but reflection has revealed the truth of the matter.

What’s going on with them is an invisible kind of blindness, -bias blindness. Human beings develop from the womb with different potentials, -some with little potential and some with great potential, -including in the area of cognitive perception. Some have a much greater innate capability, which they develop through the education process, of being able to engage in the higher function of insightful parsing and analysis of facts, claims, beliefs, inferences,and biases. They can see to the heart of a matter while others are in a fog of subjective feelings. Nothing can block the penetrating power of the logical, electron-microscope-like X-Ray vision of their insight, except one thing. And that thing is a self-defense mechanism that they are unaware of, not on guard against, and misled by.

Their thinking process proceeds perfectly until it comes to a juncture where a threat is encountered, and it’s at that juncture that a blockage appears, but it is invisible because its manner of operation is to turn off the penetrating power of their analytical thought. The level and caliber of their analytical ability drops markedly, -back down to a normal, unfocused level. Kind of like a sniper looking through his rifle scope, -seeing people in great magnification until he aims it at his own family. When aimed in their direction it only functions at normal magnification. But he doesn’t think anything about it because of his built-in bias in favor of his family.

The same thing happens in the minds of Obama’s intelligent supporters and it happens because they are idealists. They are not wicked deceivers, as are some others. They are Pollyannas, and are blissfully innocent embracers of the sunshine. The bliss and warmth of sunshine is much preferable to the cold harsh loneliness of the dark shade and so that is where their built-in self-defense mechanism works unseen to protect them.

Protect them from what? We are all aware that we all want to be protected from lies, falsehoods, misrepresentations, and wishful thinking, but what we aren’t aware of is that we also want to be protected from the truth. It’s not our intellect that has a problem with unsettling, illusion destroying truth, -it’s our hearts. We don’t want to acquire knowledge that will hurt us, -to learn that Santa isn’t real, -that mommy and daddy will soon divorce, -that we were adopted, -that our spouse is cheating on us, or our pet or child has been killed.

The first instance of being protected from the truth is in the very first tale presented in Genesis, -the first book of the Bible. God warns Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil, but the Serpent encouraged them to not listen to him because he is hiding the truth from them. That was true, but the truth he was hiding was truth that was very bad for them because learning the truth about Evil includes being hurt by that truth. After eating of that tree and having their eyes opened, their innocence and bliss were destroyed. Having one’s bliss destroyed is always a painful thing and that’s why the higher-function analysis of the logic center of the intellect shuts-off when a threat to one’s bliss is detected, -even if that detection is mostly subconscious.

Obama’s ability to inspire a sense of hope and optimism engendered an idealistic view of him as one who would be a savior and solve many of our problems, and that view of him came with the innocent assumption that someone like that has only good intentions, good motives, and people with good motives and intentions have a good heart. And everyone knows that people with good hearts don’t act disreputably. Their high moral motivations are accompanied by high ethical standards of behavior.

For example, you would have full confidence that a donation made to Mother Teresa would not have been used by her to gamble or buy a thousand dollar pair of shoes, nor would she have used your credit card numberto fatten her bank account. Her actions would be as reputable and as beyond suspicion as were her motivations. Since that is true in general, many make the mistake of assuming that it must therefore be true in the particular case of a person by whom they are enthralled, like Jim Jones, David Koresh, the leader of Heaven’s Gate, Jim Baker, and Jimmy Swaggart.

“Good people” don’t do bad things, and people with honest motivations don’t do dishonest things. That’s how people are read by those who trust them, but some people aren’t as simple as they seem. Europe and Russia discovered that in spades with Adolph Hitler, and more recently, America discovered it with Bernie Madoff.

Obama’s intelligent true believers believe that they’ve pegged him correctly as one who is honest and straight-forward, and wouldn’t engage in underhanded, deceitful, disreputable behavior of any sort for any reason. Many true believers in televangelists felt the same way, until their heroes were charged with rape, hiring prostitutes, using drugs, and embezzlement. They were “God’s servants!”, -how could anyone suspect them of such behavior?

But anyone with the ability to objectively assess people would have seen through them because they would be aware not just of what they say or how they say it, but of their situation and position in relation to the finances of their operation, -as well as the nature of human nature and how it responds to possessing a great amount of power over others, and over money.

Obama’s true believers believe him to be an honorable man, -a man who would not deliberately lie, deceive, nor act in a disreputable manner because they see him through the lenses of idealistic motivations. If those motivations are viewed as all good, then his character and actions must also be all good, since actions spring from motivations, and motivations determine one’s character. This Woodstockian, naive, innocent, ignorant view of human nature provides them with a wonderful, warm cocoon of blissful certainty that their messiah would never act unethically, and therefore it must certainly be an incontestable fact that a real Hawaiian birth certificate exists in the Hawaiian archives and therefore that he has certified copies of it .

When an intelligent person has that assumption as a starting point, then everything is colored by it. They can and will astutely analyze the flawed analysis of those who, assisted by their expertise in one area, inexpertly pontificate in another area. (that’s what humans have always done since they lack a self-limiting mechanism, -just as government lacks such a mechanism when it comes to spending). Thus, they are able to expose the flaws of the analysis of the birth certificate debunkers and that gives them an even greater sense of certainty that it is legitimate.

That correctness places then on a righteous high-ground from which they view all below them as ignorant Kool-aid drinkers, all the while totally unaware of and blind to their own bias blindness which is working to protect them from the truth, -from thinking about facts that are painful bliss destroyers. Those two factors in combination are an impenetrable wall that won’t allow in any thoughts that upset the foundation that their true-believing intellects have constructed for them, -which serve to support and defend the reputation of one whom they believe to be above reproach, -above using underhanded methods and means to achieve his ends and protect his presidency.

They believe him to be above and more moral than the behavior that Richard Nixon displayed to defend his reputation. But he is not more moral that Richard Nixon. He is equally capable of lying, deceiving, deflecting, obfuscating and misrepresenting. He is perfectly able and willing to employ whatever tools are necessary to defend his illegitimate presidency, including, it would seem, serious intimidation against potential truth forums such as Fox News and the courts of various states. But it’s all done invisibly and there’s nothing concrete that one can point to, -like surface ripples from something moving under the water.

An example of the invisibility of his complicity is the fact that when he appeared at the press conference on April 27, 2011 to acknowledge the release of his long-form birth certificate he instead did no such thing. He never mentioned it even once. He instead only mentioned that he had already released his birth certificate back  in 2008. End of story, -then on with a pathetic plea for everyone to forget about the birth certificate issue entirely. He knew that that was his only means of using the prestige of his bully pulpit to derail people from doing any critical analysis of the image, which he reasonably feared due to what was uncovered when Dan Rather reported on a military reserve document detrimental to the re-election of George Bush but which turned out to be a demonstrable fake.

He knew his new long-form birth certificate was also a fake and in case it contained some undetected evidence of that fact, he would need to be protected from the fall-out, and so in furtherance of that motive he never mentioned the thing once. He was confident that nothing further damaging would come to national media attention regarding the short-form BC because it had been around since 2008, but he wasn’t so confident about the new and much more complex one. His fears would have proven to be unwarranted if only the forger hadn’t forgotten at the last minute to save the image as a flat jpeg file instead of a pdf file which still retained the seven layers used to create the thing.

Everyone would have been silenced indefinitely if they had not been able to open the pdf in a pdf reader and discover that they could move the multiple composite layers in any way they chose, delete them or save them individually, change their color, reverse them, layer them on other backgrounds, etc. [see http://photobucket.com/obama_bc%5D.  His lawyers had removed a print-out of it from the room before he entered it. It was never allowed in his presence. He never touched it, held it, was seen with it nor referenced it. He therefore possesses plausible deniability that he had anything to do with what might become evidence of a falsified State issued vital record.

Even more suspicious is the fact that the very next day his White House lawyer resigned and left to serve as his “personal attorney”, further protecting him from connection to the lies of how the White House supposedly came into possession of “two copies” of his Certificate of Live Birth direct from Hawaii -supposed hand carried by his other personal lawyer at a cost of perhaps $7,000.

Since there were no “two copies” made (due to there being no original that could be copied) it was necessary to fabricate the entire story and the supposed correspondence between Obama’s lawyer and the Hawaiian Dept. of Health and in doing that it was necessary to seal the whole conspiracy in the inviolable cloak of attorney-client privilege, otherwise lesser people could testify as to what never happened, -as to the flight to Hawaii that was never taken (if they dared transferring the sources of the fake via the internet or mail, -if not, then they had to be acquired in person by a lawyer, -not an aid or assistant).

Attorney-client privilege surrounds Obama’s invisible connection to the fake pdf BC image and there is nothing that ties it to him directly. He is safe as long as he doesn’t have to show and have validated a hard-copy certified copy. If he did, then he’d be in serious trouble because one doesn’t exist, and for that reason he can’t let anyone inspect it, -not even one single person who could verify its authenticity. One can’t authenticate a document that doesn’t even exist. Hard-copies of the image exist though since all it takes is a printer to print them.

A test that Obama’s blissfully ignorant media & political acolytes would find instructive would be to see him holding the supposedly real document in his own hands, inviting any expert in Adobe pdf software development to analyze the nature of his pdf image. That will never happen. He will never be in the same room with a print-out of it because that would impute culpability which he must avoid entirely. But without something even so simple being allowed, they trust him fully and will believe that an original birth certificate, and two certified copies, like Santa Clause, do actually exist. Messiahs do not lie and if they do, it’s better not to know about it because that knowledge would come at the high price of having one’s blissful illusions destroyed. And no one wants that. Subjective and objective denial, evasion, deflection, and distortion are much preferable and so that is what their response is and will continue to be. You can lead a horse to water….(but you can’t make him think).

But the most unexplained aspect of the birth certificates issue is the fact that the issue even exists. There’s no logical reason for it to exist in the first place because no mature adult natural born American who’s married with children ever needs to request a birth certificate upon seeking the presidency because they already have one. They, just like every other native-born American, acquired one when they were children. No parent in any advanced nation in the world is lacking a certified copy of the birth certificate for each child. That certificate is needed for various things, and obtaining various things, -the most important of which is a driver’s license or identification. Then there’s Social Security and military enlistment, as well as obtaining a U.S. Passport. Just as he possesses the certified copies of his daughters’ birth certificates, so also he possesses the copy of his Hawaiian document that his mother acquired for him when he was a child. He mentioned it in the book “Dreams From My Father” that was ghost written for him, serving to give him the appearance of intellectual weight, talent, and substance which his absent, missing, hidden college writings certainly fail to do.

There is no one of presidential age, with children and a wife, with a previous law, and college lecture career, with official State ID from multiple States, with a Social Security card who does not possess a copy of their birth certificate, -a copy that’s been around for decades, unless they suffered a catastrophic flood, fire, or tornado. Freak accidents happen but Obama has never claimed that his dog eat his birth certificate, or that it fell in the toilet, or was lost or misplaced. He has provided no explanation whatsoever as to why in the world he would not have his when everyone else in America has theirs.

Any explanation he would give would be a lie, and he isn’t that good of a liar because he isn’t some career criminal. He’s an ordinary guy but with an extraordinary voice, deliverance, and assortment of secret socialist backers. But keeping disagreeable facts hidden is much easier than lying to people’s faces and so he avoided doing that, but now he is quite practiced at it, along with his intellectually corrupt supporters, as they gain ever greater experience at it by giving speeches and speaking to news anchors and reporters who rarely object that the smell-o-meter has gone off quite loudly.

But the sheeple were blindly led to believe that he, like no one else in modern presidential history, didn’t have his and therefore had to request a copy. In what alternate, Bizarro world would that be likely to be true? Only in the one in which he was not born within the United States and his original birth filing provides no evidence that he was since it’s solely an affidavit submitted by his mother which stated either that he was “born at home” or that he was born abroad but possessed the legal right to be registered as Hawaiian born because she was a U.S. Citizen and had lived in Hawaii for a year as required by Hawaiian law.

What his mother received from the Hawaii Dept. of Health years later after she applied for a birth certificate in order to obtain a passport for him for traveling to Indonesia, is unknown, but it was a “TRUE COPY” of whatever “facts” they had in micro-film and not an unathenticatible, digitally manipulatable, computer-extracted “Abstract” image of document text such as they produce in the current digital age. It was as accurate as the information it was based on, (garbage in=garbage out) like the IDs obtained for people in the witness protection program. It says only what they allowed it to say. Obama is in an ID protection program and it’s administered by his inner circle and his co-conspirator sycophants of the Hawaiian government.

Obama has needed and has provided his birth certificate several times in his life and used it as needed like all Americans, so why has he not shared it with the American public? Because the information it contains would not reveal him to be eligible to be President. There is no other logical reason. The crazy thing is that if his father had been an American and not merely a Visa Card foreign student then he would be eligible to be President even if born on the Moon because natural citizenship, unlike 14th Amendment citizenship, is not dependent on birth within the the borders of the United States, and that fact is why Obama, and the U.S. Senate passed resolution 522 declaring John McCain to be a natural born citizen eligible to be President even though born in Panama. But anyone born of a foreign father, -whose citizenship is dependent on the 14th Amendment, is not eligible because being a native-born citizen does not make one a natural born citizen.

See “The Kenyan Scenario”: http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/the-obama-conundrum/the-kenyan-scenario/

and “The Vancouver Scenario”: http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/the-vancouver-scenario/

Six Smoking Guns; the long-form bc expose: http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/six-smoking-guns/

by A.R. Nash April 2012 http://obama–nation.com