The "Birthers" Win

In December two documents experts independently concluded that the Obama birth certificate posted online has digital cuts and pastes from another Hawaiian birth certificate belonging to one Johanna Ah'Ne. It's kind of fascinating to see the latest specific examples which are much more blatant than the older analyses probably because some real experts were brought to bear. One of the document experts, who had voted for Obama twice, was taken aback by what he found in his examination.

See video

*********************************************

I was not, however, aware that back in 2012 Obama's lawyers had already conceded that the document posted online was a fake. Their legal reasoning supporting Obama's lack of jeopardy anyway is something to behold (see link below.)
What is truly amazing is that the major media - even Fox News - continued up to the recent past ridiculing anyone evoking the birth certificate issue as being a conspiracy theorist and a "birther."

http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/...

“Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate,” the paper reported."

"According to the Tea Party Tribune, Hill went on to admit that the long form birth certificate released online by the White House in April 2011 is indeed a forgery that did not originate from an actual paper document and therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status."

Which then brings us back to the original problem - the need to see some sort of actual paper document. The Hawaii State Legislature claims they have "sealed" that document. Would Trump be able to demand an unsealing? At this point, this may seem like so much water under the bridge; but if we are in a new era of enforcing laws here is a legal precedent worth pursuing. Bo
Bo

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LastLoup's picture
Member since:
6 April 2010
Last activity:
1 day 46 min

...Google agrees with you because the ad at the top of my page right now as I type this is "Find Birth Certificates"

._____.

...I forgot how I got here but everyone seems to be heading off in that direction. I hope someone brought food. I have a feeling this is going to be a long journey................

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
2 days 7 hours

I do not understand this about President Barack Obama place of birth as a United States citizen; but it is this type of duplicity that drives these ultra-conservative and divisive arguments. Trump should not be investigating Obama's U.S. citizenship when the first lady, his wife Melania Trump is not a natural born American citizen, she is from Slovenian and his first wife Ivana Marie Trump was from Czech Republic. These are clear examples of double standards that are often denied in Eurocentric conversations. He is not in a position question Obama's American citizenship and he himself said he was satisfied with Barack Obama American birth certificate. If the truth be told all the Europeans that are here (are here illegally) because of grand theft, land robbery, genocide, and the decimation of the indigenous Native American people. So you all are not in a moral position to determine American birth rights.

Stay Awake Until We Meet
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
21 hours 13 min

This is purely a legal matter. Whatever anybody's "motive" is in digging it up again is entirely beside the point. A law was possibly broken, and the implications of this particular breach of law are huge. Just "letting it slide" would be yet another capitulation to the general slackening and shredding of law enforcement since 9/11 and especially of Constitutional law enforcement which you yourself, Mr. Knight, have been often decrying in your broadsides.
Whether or not Trump has in the past conceded anything on this matter has absolutely no bearing on the legal issue - more information has come to light since then.
When Obama's own lawyers conceded that the online document was indeed a fake the case was de facto reopened.

By the way, a spouse of a US president does not have to be a natural born US citizen or even a US citizen at all.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
2 days 7 hours

Emlong, you have been on the TDG forum just as long as I have, and I have had disagreements with you in the past. But you have always presented fair and sensible arguments even if I did not agree. I think this Birther argument continues to be a distraction and essentially hold no merit. Now, I am going to inject race into this conversation not as sweeping indictment, but to create a conversation of why I view the new Birther argument as being both politically and racially motivated.

I do not compare the 9/11 hoax to Barack Obama’s birth certificate controversy as being comparative to the art of deception pursuant to what the 9/11 Commission Report, corporate media and the government told us about the events that led to the 9/11 tragedy (that is liken to comparing apples and oranges). I think you would agree President Obama was one of the most publically disrespected commander-in-chiefs in the history of America; many of his attacks were racist and hate filled because of his race and skin color.

Many social scientist thought that after the 2008 United States presidential elections that we as a nation had moved beyond race and had entered into a post-racial era and of course they were wrong, in fact racial tension became acerbated during Obama’s eight year presidential tenure. So if these negative racial implications were present throughout Obama’s presidential tenure, it is difficult to overlook the invoking of race and intent in the mindset of those who are still trying to possible discredit him as being illegally elected as the 44th United States president of America.

Some of them in their warp worldview believe that the presidency of America’s first African American president was illegal and in the white supremacy mindset America has not had a legal sitting black U.S. president and this is why they continue to raise these baseless arguments of legality about his citizenship.

These arguments have been legally adjudicated in the United States Courts in which the courts agreed that Obama in deed was a legal United States citizen. I think our jurisprudence system did its legal due diligence on this matter, but back to race in the United States, it disguise itself within these type conversations and allows us to continue create division and disharmony.

The United States has one of the most sophisticated intelligence apparatus in the world starting from the Pentagon, NSA, CIA, FBI and Homeland Security and trust me these agencies have the capabilities to reconstruct Obama’s birth past and none of them have presented any classified documentation to the contrary.

What continues to drive this foolishness is race. Now, if you want to relegate this false contention about Obama to a conspiracy forum and/or conversation, I have no problems (but be willing to separate fact from fiction), but there is no legal merit and no U.S. court is going to re-entertain his birth certificate and birth place argument, it has already met the rule of law (and the law sided with Obama).

Thus, what is illegal and against international law, was the colonization and imperialism in how Hawaii became the 50th state to our nation; now, to declare Obama’s birth certificate illegal you would have declare Hawaii as non-U.S. territory (foreign and sovereign government); but the racist do not want to go that far. What do you think?

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
21 hours 13 min

"These arguments have been legally adjudicated in the United States Courts in which the courts agreed that Obama in deed was a legal United States citizen." Fahim Knight

No, they have not. Listen to the wording again.

“Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate,” the paper reported."

"According to the Tea Party Tribune, Hill went on to admit that the long form birth certificate released online by the White House in April 2011 is indeed a forgery that did not originate from an actual paper document and therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status."

All that says is that the fake birth certificate posted on the whitehouse.gov site cannot be used to "disprove" Obama's legal citizenship. What it leaves totally unanswered is exactly what "does" prove it. I'll tell you what does prove it - the supposed birth certificate now "sealed" by the Hawaii state legislature. Presumably, Trump or Pence or whoever is our actual president in the future can "unseal" that document and settle this once and for all - legally.

I also beg to differ that a no longer sitting president is being "lynched" by a legal argument. Obama is in no danger of experiencing any real repercussions from this issue anymore aside from an insult to his reputation. It's not like he can be impeached, but these arguments are entirely beside the point. The US legal system is not supposed care who or what brings up a legal dispute - it it purely a matter of legality according to written law and in this case a very serious precedent being set legally. The most important legal precedent perhaps is that digital documents published online can never be "proof" of anything because they are so easily manipulated.

However, let's not forget yet another glaring fact - a now admitted hoax document was published on the whitehouse.gov internet site and shopped publicly as though it were the real thing, and it has remained posted to the site long after it has been admitted to be a hoax. Obama is legally insulated from that aspect of the case by claiming he doesn't know who altered the document, but it behooves the public - who pays the salaries of public servants - to find out exactly who perpetrated this hoax.

***********************************

Fahim Knights's rigorous defense of the US Constitution... until now:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fahim+knight+%...

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
2 days 7 hours

Thank you for the response; I disagree.

1.There is proof the Birther movement went on these vicious undocumented conspiracy theories attacks about Obama not being a legal United States citizen; these false accusations were baseless, but initially they were being issued by rightwing conservatives to invoke the United States Constitution as being violated by its 44th U.S. president not being a so-called U.S. citizen and it would be against the law for him to legally hold the position of U.S. commander-in-chief (the entire argument is shrouded in code language). This argument gained very little political attraction other than in conspiracy theory circles (why now?).

2).The precedent has already been set the Birther argument has been legally rejected and relegated to conspiracy theory forums and rightwing discussion boards. Non-factual argument.

3).The U.S. Congress did not entertain these birth certificate allegations of the president in hearings and it was definitely resolved that he was a documented U.S. citizen. May be you are missing something a lot of the municipal and state Halls of Vital Records and Statistics have gone electronic and into paperless systems as far as record providing. So you lost me on that rationale. If any agency felt that the birth certificate had been altered the U.S. government could have went directly to state Hall of Vital Records and got a sealed electronic disburse copy; so that argument is not making any sense.

4).Okay give us proof positive of his birth nation and present his so-called real authentic birth certificate from that nation and end this debate; you and Birthers cannot, but are willing to build undocumented conjecture that has no factual basis other than faming allegations.

5).This entire Birther argument started based on the premise of racism (the root of it was typical white supremacy argument of white entitlement), which now they want to disguise this new argument in legal discourse and you and I know it has no merit.

6).What is the hidden agenda, it is definitely not seeking truth? The precedent is to move towards creating an environment to revoke and bring into question all people’s of color U.S. citizenship and this is a dangerous course and space of where this new Birther rhetoric desire to take us by hiding behind irrelevant and disconnected legal jargon.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
21 hours 13 min

"So you lost me on that rationale. If any agency felt that the birth certificate had been altered the U.S. government could have went directly to state Hall of Vital Records and got a sealed electronic disburse copy; so that argument is not making any sense."

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Since a paper copy is alleged to exist then any entity desirous of getting at the truth would by rights demand a paper copy or that a paper copy be formally examined by a physical white glove type examination which is routine for paper documents disputes in the court system. In essence, that sort of examination is what the American people are entitled to and were demanding. A true forensic examination never happened.

Had the Obama administration had any confidence at all in their supposed paper copy they would not have posted on the whitehouse.gov site a now admitted digital hoax.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
2 days 7 hours

The Obama administration is/was fully satisfied with the president's birthrights so they had no interest in furthering this debate; they had no need to solicited a paper copy or electric copy to verify his citizenship legality (they have been real clear that the president was a legally U.S. citizen).

It was/is the Birther movement pushing whatever was unresolved in their worldview. This argument will not legally stand up. Man you can go on to something else, because it is nothing that you are presenting that have not been thoroughly talked about and covered on the Alex Jones and David Icke forums. It's essentially an old argument and I have been debating this garbage for the past eight years.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
21 hours 13 min

The question is really very simple - why did the White House post a now admitted fake digital birth certificate on the whitehouse.gov. site and leave it there even after it's lawyers admitted it was a fake?

All this other wandering about in the land of wails and sobs goes absolutely nowhere.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
2 days 7 hours

Here is a more simpler question, why do not the Birther Movement and Obama's lawyers present the American public with the authentic birth certificate from that nation that you all believe he is from and lets resolve this argument?

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
21 hours 13 min

No, we are not at that legal point yet, and may never have to be at that point. The legal question before the American people and its Constitution at this point is whether or not there was any certifiable proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. Whether or not he was born in Kenya or Tierra del Fuego doesn't matter if he wasn't born in the US, or rather there is no certifiable proof of that happening.
The first question is really the primal question. Why did the White House see fit to post a fake digital document on their web site and claim before they were busted that it was proof of Obama's legal citizenship?

It is a very simple question. If you think there is a legally justifiable reason for having done such a thing then let us hear it.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
2 days 7 hours

But now you are getting back to that racist focal point that was initially the premise of the Birther movement argument, which was does this African American president (who they had no credible documentation that he was born in Kenya or somewhere in southeast Asia in which holds no water or validity) was an American citizen.

They like you just echoed (a long with these ultra-conservatives) were trying to upstage his presidential legitimacy by throwing out allegations about his birth that has been unsubstantiated and then conveniently trying to hide behind the United States Constitution.

Okay lets say your allegations about the posting on Government website is truthful; my deductive reasoning will automatically ask you to present and provide the so-called real proof for the nation of Obama's nationality origin. This will end this ongoing argument.

Do you and the Birther movement have that proof?

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
21 hours 13 min

Again, the question is very simple - why did the White House publish online a digital fake document purporting to be a copy of Obama's birth certificate knowing that it was fake?

All of this other stuff you are trying to bring to the table would never be admitted in a court of law, and for good reason - it has nothing whatsoever to do with the letter of the law.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
2 days 7 hours

Trust me none of these baseless allegations that you are attempting to inject will ever make its way into U.S. Courts. This is a settled issue President Obama has served as the 44th U.S. president and he served this country as a U.S. citizen (that is a fact).

Since you have invoked the U.S. courts; have any U.S. court that you know of, have deemed Obama's birth certificate to be 'fake'? I do not know any recognized legal forum that have sided with this conspiratorial argument (just admit that Birther argument is laced with a heavy dose of conspiracy theories and all them have proven to be flawed).

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
21 hours 13 min

I don't know of a court that has ruled either way. It is still at the federal level an unsettled question - in limbo. The White House published the fake document - up came a coordinated cheer from the MSM that the question was settled, and that is where it ended - until now.

If there are courts that have accepted the legal argument made by Obama's lawyers:
“Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate,” the paper reported."

Then those courts have made unconstitutional rulings, and they will be challenged on those grounds, and they will lose. You understand, this case has been in effect re-opened based on information of varying degrees of newness to varying legal and governing bodies. Whatever may have taken place in the past does not have legal primacy in this situation. We have as they say in criminal law "new information that warrants re-opening the case," but I don't think it ever got as far as a real legal case in the first place - only the appearance of one.

I should also point that I voted for Jill Stein and am not an "ultra-conservative" though I feel like an idiot even having to interject that here.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
2 days 7 hours

Once the legal briefs are filed and a U.S. Attorney in a judicial district decides to weigh-in; I would want to have public access to reading the discovery and the rebuttal argument, but none of this is going to occur because essentially the new information is the same old argument that has no legal merit.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
21 hours 13 min

The new information is not at all "the same old argument." The new information is that the online published document was a calculated legal deception as admitted by Obama's lawyers. The new information is that the only legal argument made by them in defense is unconstitutional. The new information is that the issue was never even settled in any court. It can't be any any plainer than that.

Look Fahim, I am glad you gave me the opportunity to elaborate on what i think is at stake here. I am confident that I have the law on my side if we are going to continue to uphold the law. I hope that the same standards of legal accountability are applied to Hillary and to Trump when we bring the full brunt of the legal system to bear on their many legal breaches past and present. I done counted to three. Good night. I am off to Texas.

See video

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
2 days 7 hours

Okay Emlong: I appreciate the discussion and the conversation and we will see how this eventually play out from a constitutional and legal perspective, if this new information that you claim exist has warrant new legal attention to the Birther argument (please have a safe trip and do not take any wooden nickels because they aren't worth a dime). (LOL).

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

Greg's picture
Member since:
30 April 2004
Last activity:
19 min 16 sec
emlong wrote:

If there are courts that have accepted the legal argument made by Obama's lawyers:

“Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate,” the paper reported."

Then those courts have made unconstitutional rulings, and they will be challenged on those grounds, and they will lose.

After following links to many idiotic right-wing websites (I mean, seriously...the 'Tea Party Tribune' as a source?), the best clarification I found was on Snopes: there is no actual legal requirement "to provide evidence of natural born citizenship status in order to appear on the New Jersey ballot as a presidential candidate". Thus the lawyer for Obama simply used the quickest and simplest move to shut down a frivolous court action.

Snopes goes on to say that the allegation Obama's lawyers admitted the existing birth certificate was a forgery is baseless:

Quote:

Controversy over Hill’s arguments at the April 10 hearing began after various Internet posts erroneously reported that Hill stipulated during the hearing that the Obama long-form birth certificate was a forgery.

What precisely Hill had stipulated was that the birth certificate had never been presented by Obama’s presidential campaign to the New Jersey secretary of state or to Judge Masin as evidence Obama was eligible to be president.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bir...

Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
@DailyGrail

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
21 hours 13 min

It was never presented to any court as evidence of citizenship. That is is why the veracity of the document is in limbo. It is all the more so now that there is much clearer forensic evidence that the online posted document is digital pastiche. There is only one way to clear this up and that is to subpoena the alleged paper document sealed by the Hawaii state legislature for forensic examination, and don't reply to that with the Snopesian reply that Hawaii freely releases digital copies of said birth certificate. Those are just more ofthe same evasion. Produce the paper copy.
By the way the birther question was not initiated by "ultraconservatives" It was begun by the Clintons

See video

I am currently on the road and hampered my Android, so not very adroit at parrying.

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
21 hours 13 min

"Okay lets say your allegations about the posting on Government website is truthful; my deductive reasoning will automatically ask you to present and provide the so-called real proof for the nation of Obama's nationality origin. This will end this ongoing argument."

Sure, let's go looking for birth certificates in Kenya and Indonesia.(I think they already tried that) If we don't find anything it does not legally mean that Obama then must have therefore been born in America by some sort of process of elimination. That would just mean that his records has been removed or lost. Obama would still be in the same fix - no proof of birth on US shores as per the constitutional demand.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
2 days 7 hours

It says that the evidences based on western legal standards does not support your allegation and our jurisprudence system has evidentiary standards and this is how legal arguments are constructed and built. I do not think you would want to be accused or found guilty of something based on the lack of evidence or shoddy evidence.

Emlong stated: "Sure, let's go looking for birth certificates in Kenya and Indonesia.(I think they already tried that) If we don't find anything it does not legally mean that Obama then must have therefore been born in America by some sort of process of elimination. That would just mean that his records has been removed or lost. Obama would still be in the same fix - no proof of birth on US shores as per the constitutional demand"

I take him to be an intelligent man; I would motion to the court to have these allegations tossed out and demised with prejudice based on your above statement (insufficient evidence).

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
21 hours 13 min

"Insufficient evidence" of what? In this case the burden of proof is clearly on the accused - to produce a necessary legal document - a legal document that the accused says resides within the sanctum of the Hawaii state legislature. Ok, lets go have a look see. What are you saying - that there is insufficient evidence of a legal document, and that therefore the law demanding such a document be voided? No, there is evidence of a legal document in place in Hawaii - the accused says it is there.

LastLoup's picture
Member since:
6 April 2010
Last activity:
1 day 46 min

Neither do I and I agree with you Fahim

And that's all I am saying I don't want to get involved in this hated argument.

...I forgot how I got here but everyone seems to be heading off in that direction. I hope someone brought food. I have a feeling this is going to be a long journey................

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
21 hours 13 min

There is nothing "hate" about the legalities of the issue. That sort of nonsense was dragged in originally to obfuscate the legal deception - typical political smokescreen.
If you really want to live in a democracy that tolerates Obama's lawyers entirely illegal argument that: "Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate” then you are going to have to change the Constitution. Until then you are living in a banana republic.

LastLoup's picture
Member since:
6 April 2010
Last activity:
1 day 46 min

That was supposed to say heated not hated. I swear! I'm so sorry for the confusion I didn't notice.

...I forgot how I got here but everyone seems to be heading off in that direction. I hope someone brought food. I have a feeling this is going to be a long journey................

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
21 hours 13 min

Cool, or rather...hot. LOL