Posted on 06/24/2011 9:38:55 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Since my last report, many people have asked why the definition in Minor v. Happersett of a “natural-born citizen” (as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens) is binding legal precedent. The answer is in the Court’s holding that Virginia Minor was a US citizen…because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. That part of the actual holding is listed in the official syallbus of the case.
And furthermore, Minor was the first case to hold that women are equal citizens to men. To this day, that case is still cited as the first US Supreme Court decision which recognized that women were, in fact, citizens. It is still precedent for that determination. Google [ "minor v happersett" "women are citizens" ] and review the results. A multitude of articles discuss the holding of Minor – that women are US citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
Please, point out the part I got wrong.
I couldn’t care less about eating “conservatives” that are not truth-seeking patriots, and posters that cast aspersions on truth-seekers deserve no quarter.
Then by your own definition, I should show you no mercy.
Honestly, I really think you've gone off the deep end.
And when it does, unless someone comes up with something big that we haven't yet seen, it won't be with Obama having been ruled ineligible.
I'm just wondering whether you and your fellows want to be remembered as people who were willing to devour your fellow conservatives who ended up being right about the matter.
It's not that "no forger would have made such a bad mistake," it's that no forger would have made the layered PDF at all.
You tell me.
You have in your possession a high-quality document that says exactly what you want it to say.
Why do you now go and hand construct a LOWER quality document, piece by piece, that says the exact same thing as the HIGH quality document you already have and can use?
Please explain that to me.
Criminals make mistakes all the time.
The fact that we see them is proof of their existence.
The AP LFCOLB, which I think was a print-out of the WH LFCOLB that was then scanned, says nothing as to the authenticity of the WH LFCOLB pdf. The WH LFCOLB has layers that are not OCR or compression/optimization related. I don’t know who put them there or why - but they are indications of human editing.
Unless you can demonstrated a compression process that produces similar results - which I asked you to do in support of your position, but you refuse to - pointing absurdly to the AP LFCOLB as your “proof.”
You can't come up with an explanation, yet you choose to label me a troll, because you don't like mine.
The WH LFCOLB has layers that are not OCR or compression/optimization related. I don’t know who put them there or why - but they are indications of human editing.
This is simply not the case.
Unless you can demonstrated a compression process that produces similar results - which I asked you to do in support of your position, but you refuse to - pointing absurdly to the AP LFCOLB as your “proof.”
Hardly anyone considers the layers proof of fraud at this point. As far as demonstrating a process that produces similar results - Nathan Goulding of National Review scanned and optimized a document ONE OR TWO DAYS after the LFBC was released - AND GOT LAYERS.
Yet you're so set on believing that the layers mean fraud you're willing to devour fellow conservatives (not just me, but anyone else who disagrees with you as well) to do so.
I even told you what it would take to find Obama ineligible, and spent quite a bit of my time telling you some of the reasons why I believe what I believe. Yet it's never enough.
Truth-seeking constitutionalist, that is how I will consider you from now on.
Carry-on seeking the truth - patriot!
263 posted on Thu Jun 30 2011 15:10:38
And apparently, "from now on" for you means, "for the next five days."
“Truth-seeking constitutionalist, that is how I will consider you from now on.
Carry-on seeking the truth - patriot!” - Triple
263 posted on Thu Jun 30 2011 15:10:38
And apparently, “from now on” for you means, “for the next five days.” - JW
I wrote that sarcastically in response to a long post/spin of yours - but then when you freepmailed I thought I would give you a chance to take on a serious set of issues with the WHLFCOLB. If you had been truly truth-seeking - everything would have been A-OK.
You are stuck on de-bunked OBOT responses, and attempt to position yourself as an objective analyst. That will not work.
Hasn’t your ‘further behind the scenes analysis’ shown you the the National Review analysis is pure hokum? -People keeping an honest score have
Later OBOT.
I think the AP LFCOLB is a print-washed scan of the WH LFCOLB (or a version of it). That is the third time I have said that to you.
Further - the absence of issues in the AP pdf does not explain away those issues in the WH pdf.
Is that clear enough for you?
I have no idea what you mean by a "print-washed scan."
You can't scan a low-quality document, and get a high-quality one. You can't print out the PDF, scan it, and get the AP document.
Therefore, you've GOT to have a MUCH higher quality document than the PDF.
And since you indisputably and unavoidably have this much higher-quality document than the PDF, there is no reason whatsoever for anybody to go to all the effort to hand-construct layers of forgery in some much-lower-quality PDF.
i am really not concerned with the AP LFCOLB. The WH LFCOLB is the one that I am concerned about.
However, I think it is possible to clean-up the WH LFCOLB - to create the AP LFCOLB.
My concern is that the WH LFCOLB has clear signs of human editing - and the layers are one of them.
Absence of an anomaly in the AP LFCOLB does not clear the issue of that anomaly occurring in the WH LFCOLB.
This is a clear example of you brushing aside evidence in an effort to white-wash the issue. Layering, as it appears in the WH LFCOLB does not happen without human intervention.
If you hold otherwise - SHOW the evidence. Using the WH LFCOLB or a process on a similar document create a similar nested but limited layering pattern. (You can’t.)
OBOT.
I've already given you the evidence. Nathan Goulding. You won't accept it.
Here's more. But I've no doubt that you won't accept that, either. Better to live in a world of your own creation than accept reality.
i am really not concerned with the AP LFCOLB. The WH LFCOLB is the one that I am concerned about.
So, since it's inconvenient, let's just sweep the AP document under the rug.
However, I think it is possible to clean-up the WH LFCOLB - to create the AP LFCOLB.
You're right. Throw in maybe a hundred hours or so of graphic editing, and it'll clean right up.
So your theory now is: First, someone spent a few dozen hours hand-creating a PDF forgery (instead of the obvious explanation that someone scanned a document in two minutes and got the same result Nathan Goulding and others have gotten).
Then, they spent, oh, maybe another hundred hours or so "cleaning up" the PDF document to produce a much better-quality document.
Then, they released BOTH documents to the public.
And if someone doesn't agree with the theory, they're a "troll."
OBOT.
Thanks for making my point: You'd rather devour your fellow conservatives, than accept reality.
Oh, okay.
Now I understand.
I was giving you credit for recognizing the truth, when what you said was all simply extreme sarcasm on your part.
Well, I guess that explains it.
Apparently, I was a bit naive to take you at your word.
“So, since it’s inconvenient, let’s just sweep the AP document under the rug.” JW
Since it is irrelevant to what the White House is responsible for publishing, ignore it. It proves nothing. It is clearly at least a second generation copy, an d not a color scan of one of the 2 originals hand carried back from Hawaii by Obama’s personal lawyer. It has a white background.
Now, your link to youtube was a decent attempt at analysis- but still has issues. (He did not do a color scan and his samples did not have security background. He also uses OCR to explain away color aberrations, and we all know no OCR was performed.
The Nathan Goulding scan was worthless.
The AP pdf could be many things, but one thing it is not - a fIle the WH is responsible for publishing.
You are a talking point spouting nay-sayer. It’s not my fault you have a tin ear for sarcasm.
but after that I did give you a chance to show you were truly interested in the truth. - but instead you stick to talking point BS like Goulding’s.
but after that I did give you a chance to show you were truly interested in the truth. - but instead you stick to talking point BS like Goulding’s.
Yeah. I guess I should stop reading liberal propaganda like National Review Online.
I have news for you - BS is determined by its stink - not by the label carried by the party that produces it.
ROTFLOL
My sides are aching!
I did not realize people get so worked up about that construction. In any case, I understand what people mean when they say it the other way, but I prefer the straight-forward, ‘couldn’t care less’ construction, meaning my level of care is zero.
So, I guess there is one thing in common between me and the fogbow types. (I doubt that there are many.)
Regards,
3
This was my favorite line: “According to everything I hear, I’m an idiot.”
Hahahaahaha
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.