Reality Check – President Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Not a Forgery – Part 2

Reality Check has added a second video exposing how a simple scan generates all the ‘artifacts’ which ‘so called experts’ claimed were clear and unimpeachable ‘evidence’ of a forgery. It is not hilarious that all these experts failed to pursue the workflow proposed by John Woodman and now are unwilling to admit to their errors?

 

8 thoughts on “Reality Check – President Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Not a Forgery – Part 2

  1. @Paul Smith

    How did you reach that conclusion? It’s Obama not his father who is our President.

    By virtue of his birth on US soil, President Obama is fully eligible.

  2. Paul, Obama’s father was a subject of the British Empire. Just like George Washington’s father was.
    In the Old World, it was extremely important who a leader’s father was, because they choose Kings by family tree. We had a revolution that did away with all that. We go by merit, not genealogy. In America, it does not matter who your father was.

  3. Sorry but the Constitution mentions natural born but does not define it. As the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark found, its meaning is to be found in common law which defined it as birth on soil regardless of the status of the parents.

    Your hypothesis therefore has to be rejected. So now all you have is your ad hominem about Obama. Well done my friend.

    And if you want to argue the meaning of natural born, then I suggest you read the relevant cases as well as the briefs filed. Just making sure that you do not embarrass yourself any further.

  4. Interesting point. But that by itself is not going to convince those who are poorly informed about the meaning of natural born.

    I hope Paul Smith will present his best arguments, or is he just misled by bad information? Time shall tell.

  5. I think that Founding Father, co-author of the Constitution and 4th President, James Madison put it best:
    “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

  6. Of course, the jus soli foundation of our Common law was well explored and settled in Wong Kim Ark. I am still fascinating to hear that some people are arguing that it also should include jus sanguinis, which according to Wong Kim Ark was not part of common law but rather was part of explicit laws on this issue.

Comments are closed.