I just want somebody to explain why if Mr. Maskell is supposedly right, the Founding Fathers felt the need to change the original language in the Constitution from "born a citizen", to requiring a "Natural born citizen" instead?
How does a person who is only born here of foreign citizen parents, have allegiance to only this country alone, as opposed to the country of which his parents are citizens of?
In reality, how could they not have dual allegiances, and what side would they back if a problem occurred between the country in which they were born, versus the country of their parents?
I will never believe that the Founding Fathers intended for those who were born here of foreign parents to be eligible to be the President of this country, since they do not have complete and sole allegiance to this country alone, due to not being the child of citizen parents of this country.
If they had meant for the requirement to mean only that the President be born here, they would not have changed the language from "born a citizen", to instead requiring that the President be a "Natural born citizen".
There is a distinct difference of sole allegiance.
We have given the codes and the keys to this Nation to someone that we really don't even know.
I am also sure that the Founding Fathers would not of have approved of that either.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
How can anyone accept the Obama narrative as proven fact?
Is he really American born?
Is he also a Natural born citizen?
The public has never seen an authentic original document of Obama's birth certificate.
Therefore, it has not been unequivocally proven that an authentic original document of Obama's birth certificate even exists.
All we have ever been shown are computer-generated copies of birth certificates instead of authentic original documents.
Computers that could create birth certificates didn't exist in 1961.
While Obama was in Hawaii, the state that he alleges that he was born in, he mistakenly said that he was in Asia. Don't forget he thinks we have 57 states with 2 more to go, despite being allegedly born in the 50th and last State admitted to union.
How are you born in the 50th State, college educated, and that stupid about your States history?
Can anyone explain how Fukino, who claimed to have seen the original birth document, incorrectly described it as being half handwritten and half typed, when what was released is clearly not as described?
Do you believe her?
How do you make that mistake, unless you are describing a completely different document, or just making it up?
How does Hawaii DOH release what was sure to be very closely scrutinized document, with a mistake in the registrars stamp, that has no raised embossed visible seal on it, and expect anyone to believe that the document is authentic?
How did those errors not get seen and corrected before being made available to Obama for public release?
Finally, is a person born in America, who has a foreign national as their Father at the time of their birth, a Natural born citizen according to Art 2, Sec 1, Clause 5, per the words and beliefs of the Founding Fathers, or are they merely just a citizen as they are born with dual citizenship and allegiance?
These are legitimate questions that deserve answers concerning this most important Constitutional issue.
Is Obama still a British citizen?
British legal experts believe Obama is still a British citizen...
A recurring rumor that Obama is still a British citizen keeps popping up. In 2005, Russia held Obama on suspicion of being a British spy.
In August of 2005, Senator Barack Obama was traveling with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar at a base near Perm, Russia, where mobile launch missiles were being destroyed by the Nunn-Lugar program. The Lugar delegation was detained for three hours in Perm after inspecting nuke weapons facility. Lugar was briefly detained but Obama was held longer. The Russian thought he was a British Intel agent but released him hours later. Why would they believe he was a British spy rather than an American spy?
On Obama’s own website, called “Fight the Smears”, it’s admitted that he was a British citizen at birth since his father was a British citizen. It is stated:“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama, Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
In addition, British legal experts agree that Obama may well be a British citizen. According to author John Charlton in a British legal analysis, he says "The Presumption is that Obama did not revoke his British Citizenship on Aug. 4, 1979....and, according to the British Home Office, U.K. Border Agency, to renounce British Citizenship, one must be at least 18 years of age and fill out a declaration, using form RN." Charlton goes on to say, "Therefore, upon reaching the age of 18, on Aug. 4, 1979, Obama could have revoked his citizenship. However, the British Government has never affirmed that he has. Therefore in law we must presume that he has not, if his birth story is true."
The issue of Obama's citizenship is constantly debated, and we’ll only know the truth when Obama’s records are finally opened. By Executive Order 13489, the President cut off all avenues of vetting him and his background by sealing his records.
http://www.examiner.com/obama-administration-in-los-angeles/british-legal-experts-believe-obama-is-still-a-british-citizen
A recurring rumor that Obama is still a British citizen keeps popping up. In 2005, Russia held Obama on suspicion of being a British spy.
In August of 2005, Senator Barack Obama was traveling with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar at a base near Perm, Russia, where mobile launch missiles were being destroyed by the Nunn-Lugar program. The Lugar delegation was detained for three hours in Perm after inspecting nuke weapons facility. Lugar was briefly detained but Obama was held longer. The Russian thought he was a British Intel agent but released him hours later. Why would they believe he was a British spy rather than an American spy?
On Obama’s own website, called “Fight the Smears”, it’s admitted that he was a British citizen at birth since his father was a British citizen. It is stated:“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama, Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
In addition, British legal experts agree that Obama may well be a British citizen. According to author John Charlton in a British legal analysis, he says "The Presumption is that Obama did not revoke his British Citizenship on Aug. 4, 1979....and, according to the British Home Office, U.K. Border Agency, to renounce British Citizenship, one must be at least 18 years of age and fill out a declaration, using form RN." Charlton goes on to say, "Therefore, upon reaching the age of 18, on Aug. 4, 1979, Obama could have revoked his citizenship. However, the British Government has never affirmed that he has. Therefore in law we must presume that he has not, if his birth story is true."
The issue of Obama's citizenship is constantly debated, and we’ll only know the truth when Obama’s records are finally opened. By Executive Order 13489, the President cut off all avenues of vetting him and his background by sealing his records.
http://www.examiner.com/obama-administration-in-los-angeles/british-legal-experts-believe-obama-is-still-a-british-citizen
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
What We Know
These are the facts.
Obama has never released a paper copy of his original long form birth certificate generated solely by Hawaii DOH.
What Obama has released is a PDF file of his original long form birth certificate created by Derek, and an exact copy of that particular PDF file that was transferred to paper.
The registrar and date stamps are in the exact same location on both documents, indicating that most likely both copies are exactly the same, in that one is an exact duplication of the other, and most likely not a separately created or generated document of the same image.
Both were created using the PDF as the master copy and original document.
Hawaii DOH did not send Obama any PDF files.
The PDF file was created for the benefit of Obama, most likely with his full knowledge of the creation of the file, if not actually based upon his own urging or order.
Hawaii DOH claims to have sent 2 separate paper copies created independently of each other to Obama.
What are the chances that 4 separate and independent actions taken on 2 different pieces of paper could produce an exact match.
Think about it, you stamp the date on the first copy and then the second copy, what are the chances that you will exactly match that location of the stamp both times?
50/50 at best.
Then you proceed to affix the registrars stamp to the documents on the first copy and then the second copy, what are the chances that you will exactly match that location of the stamp both times?
50/50 at best.
Remember, these are supposed to be manually applied stamps, not machine or computer-generated stamps, or are they?
If they were in fact computer-generated stamps, and I believe that they are, that would explain why they are in the exact same place on both copies.
In fact, this would create a 100% probability that the stamps would be located in the exact same place on each document as is clearly the case.
This is why we know that the copies are exactly the same, and that both were created from the PDF file, using the PDF file as the source document.
This is why we also know that neither copy provided by Obama to the public are copies of a scanned document provided to Obama from Hawaii DOH.
Now for my theory.
These facts are apparent because Hawaii DOH does not have that copy of Obama's original long form birth certificate on file, and did not send that document to Obama with an error in the registrars stamp.
If they did they most likely would have released a microfiche image like they did for the Nordyke twins.
Anyway, a 50 year old piece of paper kept in the best conditions would still have signs of aging, which Obama's does not, and would not contain the 2011 background security features image that Obama's does.
Why didn't Hawaii DOH just release a scan of the original long form birth certificate document in its original condition with its original background?
Answer, because one does not exist.
We know this because Hawaii DOH has not taken the responsibility for that error, because they did not create the error.
We know that the error has never been seen on any other released Hawaii DOH issued birth certificates, indicating that this would at best be as far as is known a one time error made twice by Hawaii DOH, but alas they will not admit blame for the error, and because we know that both copies are exactly the same, with one made from the other and that they are not separately generated and stamped documents, this is not plausible.
We know this because there is no other plausible explanation for how 4 independent separate actions on 2 pieces of paper could logically produce the evidence that we have been provided by Obama.
Obama has never released a paper copy of his original long form birth certificate generated solely by Hawaii DOH.
What Obama has released is a PDF file of his original long form birth certificate created by Derek, and an exact copy of that particular PDF file that was transferred to paper.
The registrar and date stamps are in the exact same location on both documents, indicating that most likely both copies are exactly the same, in that one is an exact duplication of the other, and most likely not a separately created or generated document of the same image.
Both were created using the PDF as the master copy and original document.
Hawaii DOH did not send Obama any PDF files.
The PDF file was created for the benefit of Obama, most likely with his full knowledge of the creation of the file, if not actually based upon his own urging or order.
Hawaii DOH claims to have sent 2 separate paper copies created independently of each other to Obama.
What are the chances that 4 separate and independent actions taken on 2 different pieces of paper could produce an exact match.
Think about it, you stamp the date on the first copy and then the second copy, what are the chances that you will exactly match that location of the stamp both times?
50/50 at best.
Then you proceed to affix the registrars stamp to the documents on the first copy and then the second copy, what are the chances that you will exactly match that location of the stamp both times?
50/50 at best.
Remember, these are supposed to be manually applied stamps, not machine or computer-generated stamps, or are they?
If they were in fact computer-generated stamps, and I believe that they are, that would explain why they are in the exact same place on both copies.
In fact, this would create a 100% probability that the stamps would be located in the exact same place on each document as is clearly the case.
This is why we know that the copies are exactly the same, and that both were created from the PDF file, using the PDF file as the source document.
This is why we also know that neither copy provided by Obama to the public are copies of a scanned document provided to Obama from Hawaii DOH.
Now for my theory.
These facts are apparent because Hawaii DOH does not have that copy of Obama's original long form birth certificate on file, and did not send that document to Obama with an error in the registrars stamp.
If they did they most likely would have released a microfiche image like they did for the Nordyke twins.
Anyway, a 50 year old piece of paper kept in the best conditions would still have signs of aging, which Obama's does not, and would not contain the 2011 background security features image that Obama's does.
Why didn't Hawaii DOH just release a scan of the original long form birth certificate document in its original condition with its original background?
Answer, because one does not exist.
We know this because Hawaii DOH has not taken the responsibility for that error, because they did not create the error.
We know that the error has never been seen on any other released Hawaii DOH issued birth certificates, indicating that this would at best be as far as is known a one time error made twice by Hawaii DOH, but alas they will not admit blame for the error, and because we know that both copies are exactly the same, with one made from the other and that they are not separately generated and stamped documents, this is not plausible.
We know this because there is no other plausible explanation for how 4 independent separate actions on 2 pieces of paper could logically produce the evidence that we have been provided by Obama.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Why hasn't anyone from Hawaii DOH explained that one-of-a-kind mistake in the Registrars signature stamp?
X marks the spot of the evidence of fraud committed by Obama in regards to his fraudulent long form birth certificate.
How did this error occur, and how did the document go to Obama with the mistake undetected and uncorrected, and why hasn't someone came out to explain it?
Where is the statement from Hawaii DOH stating that the error was on the document when it was issued to Obama by Hawaii DOH?
This could indicate that the document in question containing the error is not an exact scan duplicate of the document that may have been issued by Hawaii DOH, or it may indicate that the document in question containing the error may not even exist in the Hawaii DOH records.
If that document did exist on file at Hawaii DOH, Hawaii DOH would have scanned and released it to Obama in its original document form, and Obama would have released it in a format viewable online that would not have allowed for any changes to have occurred to the document.
Why does this document Obama initially released have layers of information showing that the data was digitally manipulated or edited?
Obama would not have released the document in PDF format, which shows evidence that changes have been made to the document, and on which the apparent changes could be discovered, unless the document was either newly created or edited before its release to the public.
If it were a valid authentic document, it would have been released to the Media and public as a TIFF or Jpeg scan upon which no changes could have been made or detected.
There was no need for Obama to re-create the document as a PDF document file, unless changes needed to be made the document, or the document was a newly created document that was created by someone other than a Hawaii DOH employee.
Obama then took the released copy down from the White House website after it was discovered that it contained layers.
A new PDF copy was then created and placed on the White House website.
The new PDF copy had been flattened and no longer showed any layers after Obama's fraud was discovered.
All this drama after the LIE told by Hawaii DOH for more than 2 1/2 years spent denying that Obama could even get a copy of his long form birth certificate.
Why?
Why wouldn't Hawaii DOH want to put this issue with Obama's birth certificate that they allegedly released to Obama, to rest as quickly as possible?
Give us some answers, because Obama, nor Hawaii DOH, will not.
Got some?
How did this error occur, and how did the document go to Obama with the mistake undetected and uncorrected, and why hasn't someone came out to explain it?
Where is the statement from Hawaii DOH stating that the error was on the document when it was issued to Obama by Hawaii DOH?
This could indicate that the document in question containing the error is not an exact scan duplicate of the document that may have been issued by Hawaii DOH, or it may indicate that the document in question containing the error may not even exist in the Hawaii DOH records.
If that document did exist on file at Hawaii DOH, Hawaii DOH would have scanned and released it to Obama in its original document form, and Obama would have released it in a format viewable online that would not have allowed for any changes to have occurred to the document.
Why does this document Obama initially released have layers of information showing that the data was digitally manipulated or edited?
Obama would not have released the document in PDF format, which shows evidence that changes have been made to the document, and on which the apparent changes could be discovered, unless the document was either newly created or edited before its release to the public.
If it were a valid authentic document, it would have been released to the Media and public as a TIFF or Jpeg scan upon which no changes could have been made or detected.
There was no need for Obama to re-create the document as a PDF document file, unless changes needed to be made the document, or the document was a newly created document that was created by someone other than a Hawaii DOH employee.
Obama then took the released copy down from the White House website after it was discovered that it contained layers.
A new PDF copy was then created and placed on the White House website.
The new PDF copy had been flattened and no longer showed any layers after Obama's fraud was discovered.
All this drama after the LIE told by Hawaii DOH for more than 2 1/2 years spent denying that Obama could even get a copy of his long form birth certificate.
Why?
Why wouldn't Hawaii DOH want to put this issue with Obama's birth certificate that they allegedly released to Obama, to rest as quickly as possible?
Give us some answers, because Obama, nor Hawaii DOH, will not.
Got some?
Friday, July 1, 2011
What the hell is going on here!
I want to know how you can scan a document and end up with a PDF file in which the date and registrar signature stamps are in 2 different layers separate and independent from the complete document?
Remember, both the date and registrar signature stamps were scanned at the exact same time from the original copy.
This is not possible unless OCR has been used, and that has already been ruled out in the case of Obama's fraudulent birth certificate.
Then there is that pesky little one-of-a-kind error in the registrars stamp that has never been seen on any other Hawaiian long form birth certificate issued by Hawaii DOH, and no forthcoming explanation from them concerning this anomaly means that this mistake is therefore owned solely by Obama.
X marks the spot of the evidence of fraud committed by Obama.
Remember, both the date and registrar signature stamps were scanned at the exact same time from the original copy.
This is not possible unless OCR has been used, and that has already been ruled out in the case of Obama's fraudulent birth certificate.
Then there is that pesky little one-of-a-kind error in the registrars stamp that has never been seen on any other Hawaiian long form birth certificate issued by Hawaii DOH, and no forthcoming explanation from them concerning this anomaly means that this mistake is therefore owned solely by Obama.
X marks the spot of the evidence of fraud committed by Obama.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Obama's Ineligibility
The truth is that, "On April 27, 2011 pResident Barack Obama posted a PDF copy of his alleged original Certificate of Live Birth."
Obama did not post a scanned copy of the original document, but instead released a computer-generated digitally manipulated copy with layers indicating that changes had been made to what was actually posted.
It did NOT have a raised embossed seal visible to the naked eye, but did contain a never seen before mistake in the registrars signature stamp that has not been explained by Hawaii DOH yet.
In other words, it is a fraudulent birth certificate.
How do you scan a document and end up with a PDF file in which the date and registrar signature stamps are in 2 different layers separate and independent from the complete document?
Remember, they were both scanned at the exact same time.
The only way they become independent layers within the document in question is if they are digitally added to a computerized image through the use of photo/document-editing software.
The PDF file released tells us that these were additions/changes/corrections/ manipulations made to the document.
We need to know what these additions/changes/corrections/ manipulations made to the document were.
It also tells us this is not an authentic copy of an unaltered Hawaiian long form birth certificate issued by Hawaii DOH as has been represented.
It is not a true copy or abstract of txe,(sic), record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.
No other known birth certificate issued by Hawaii DOH contains that error in the registrars stamp.
Yep, Obama has himself a one of a kind fraudulent birth certificate and he owns it.
Hawaii DOH doesn't have a copy of that one.
How do you scan a document and end up with a PDF file in which the date and registrars signature stamp are in different layers?
They were both scanned at the exact same time.
The only way they become independent layers within the document in question is if they are digitally added to a computerized image through the use of photo/document-editing software.
The PDF file released tells us that these were additions/changes/corrections/ manipulations made to the document.
We need to know what these additions/changes/corrections/ manipulations made to the document were.
It also tells us this is not an authentic copy of an unaltered Hawaiian long form birth certificate issued by Hawaii DOH as has been represented.
It is not a true copy or abstract of txe,(sic), record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.
No other known birth certificate issued by Hawaii DOH contains that error in the registrars stamp.
Yep, Obama has himself a one of a kind fraudulent birth certificate and he owns it.
Hawaii DOH doesn't have a copy of that one.
Why don't you SHEEPLE answer the question and refute the claims?
I don't think that you can, because you never have yet.
Obama did not post a scanned copy of the original document, but instead released a computer-generated digitally manipulated copy with layers indicating that changes had been made to what was actually posted.
It did NOT have a raised embossed seal visible to the naked eye, but did contain a never seen before mistake in the registrars signature stamp that has not been explained by Hawaii DOH yet.
In other words, it is a fraudulent birth certificate.
How do you scan a document and end up with a PDF file in which the date and registrar signature stamps are in 2 different layers separate and independent from the complete document?
Remember, they were both scanned at the exact same time.
The only way they become independent layers within the document in question is if they are digitally added to a computerized image through the use of photo/document-editing software.
The PDF file released tells us that these were additions/changes/corrections/ manipulations made to the document.
We need to know what these additions/changes/corrections/ manipulations made to the document were.
It also tells us this is not an authentic copy of an unaltered Hawaiian long form birth certificate issued by Hawaii DOH as has been represented.
It is not a true copy or abstract of txe,(sic), record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.
No other known birth certificate issued by Hawaii DOH contains that error in the registrars stamp.
Yep, Obama has himself a one of a kind fraudulent birth certificate and he owns it.
Hawaii DOH doesn't have a copy of that one.
How do you scan a document and end up with a PDF file in which the date and registrars signature stamp are in different layers?
They were both scanned at the exact same time.
The only way they become independent layers within the document in question is if they are digitally added to a computerized image through the use of photo/document-editing software.
The PDF file released tells us that these were additions/changes/corrections/ manipulations made to the document.
We need to know what these additions/changes/corrections/ manipulations made to the document were.
It also tells us this is not an authentic copy of an unaltered Hawaiian long form birth certificate issued by Hawaii DOH as has been represented.
It is not a true copy or abstract of txe,(sic), record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.
No other known birth certificate issued by Hawaii DOH contains that error in the registrars stamp.
Yep, Obama has himself a one of a kind fraudulent birth certificate and he owns it.
Hawaii DOH doesn't have a copy of that one.
Why don't you SHEEPLE answer the question and refute the claims?
I don't think that you can, because you never have yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)