Posted on 04/30/2011 8:37:33 PM PDT by Triple
(Note:the HTML on the images was tricky for me - if they don't show up it is my fault)
Oh do come on folks.
There's an old saying: When the facts support your position, use them. When they don't, or when you get caught lying, throw crap at the wall and hope something sticks!
The latest is the National Review which had this to say about my analysis on the birth certificate:
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.
This is what happens when you don't bother actually watching the video I posted, or looking into the provenance of what you're arguing over - you just throw crap at the wall. Nathan goes on to post a PDF that he scanned which shows his "layers."
Unfortunately, in doing so, he proved that I'm correct.
See, the issue isn't layers. Yes, the layers are suspicious, but they're not the smoking gun. The smoking gun is that there are no chromatic artifacts in the Obama document, but the document is allegedly a color scan of an actual piece of paper, and we know it had to be a color scan because the background is allegedly color safety paper.
National Review's document, unsurprisingly, is a scan of a color document. How do we know? Because if you simply pull it up in your web browser (which will open the embedded Acrobat Reader) and zoom it up, you will see this:
Note the chromatic aberration. This document is in fact a color scan.
And here is a blown-up piece of the so-called "scan" of Obama's document:
Note the absence of chromatic aberration. The Obama White House document is not an unaltered color scan.
Folks, this is physics. It is "how things work." It is why you see rainbows. Light always is refracted slightly differently depending on wavelength when it goes through a lens - as is necessary to focus it so as to make an image.
Could I scan an image in color and then make this "go away" in an image program? Probably. Why would you? The intent of the release, remember, is to produce an actual image of a physical document and the claim made was that this was a copy of a physical piece of paper.
The Obots were all over me yesterday with the claim that "well, it could have been an electronic copy." No, it wasn't. Beyond the fact that certified copies are always printed to paper and then authenticated (e.g. with a raised seal) there is documentary evidence that Hawaii did exactly that. Look here. Hawaii produced photocopies - not electronic copies, photostatic copies of the original.
Well, that's even more troublesome, because if they were photocopies how is it that the Associated Press and the White House wound up with two very different-looking documents? How do you take a photocopy and have two different "versions" of that same piece of paper magically appear - one with a green safety paper background and the other not? Incidentally, we know factually that the green "safety paper" in question did not exist and was not used in 1961 as there are dozens of close-in-time actual birth certificates from Hawaii that have been floating around the Internet and have been posted. Therefore, given that Hawaii has stated in a public, signed letter that it issued photostatic copies of the original in the bound book the copy on the White House site has to have been - at minimum - "enhanced."
My next question (which I've tried to get answered without success) is where did the AP get the piece of paper that they put into a scanner? And note carefully: AP did, in fact, place a piece of paper into a scanner and published what came out. There is no evidence that AP tampered with the digital representation of what they scanned, while there's plenty of evidence that the White House did, and in fact what the White House produced does not appear to be an actual scan at all but is a created digital document.
The question, therefore, is what was the source and provenance of the document AP scanned? We know the apparent answer: It came from the White House, and had to, since the correspondence says that there were only two copies produced and both went directly to White House counsel. What AP presented is only as good as the source of the paper they were handed.
There are others who have noted a number of other problems with the document presented. Among them are that there are no apparent tab stops used on the Obama "birth certificate." 1961 was the day of the typewriter, and nobody hand-centered things like that. Production typists used tab stops and if you look at other, known-authentic birth certificates from the time, you'll note that they're tab-aligned. Obama's is not. Remember Dan Rather and his little forgery? 20-something idiots in the White House IT department have never used an actual typewriter in their life. 40-something bloggers and their girlfriends (and "Batgirl" deserves recognition for the catch on this one) most certainly did during our school and college years, and we remember how they worked too. Nobody ever manually centered or manually-aligned production documents in a typewriter. Can that be explained? Maybe the janitor typed Obama's birth certificate. Or maybe he was "really special" compared to the thousands of other births in Hawaii, and a lowly typist in 1961 "knew" he should have a "really pretty" typed certificate because he'd be President 40 years later. It's also entirely plausible that aliens really did land in Roswell, you know.
Other curiosities include the fact that the time of birth is exactly the same on the (now-discredited - or is it?) Kenyan birth certificate that has been floating around the Internet, and that registration dates on the long-form match the Kenyan "forgery" as well. How did a purely fraudulent document in a foreign nation happen to wind up with the exact same time of birth and certification dates as the alleged "real" certificate - if Hawaii never released the latter information until now? That's a hell of a coincidence. Yes, I know the time of birth was "out there." The certification dates were not, to the best of my ability to determine, public knowledge.
This debate is not, at this point, about whether Obama was born in the United States. There are plenty of people who question that, but this case simply isn't about that any more.
This case is about whether a sitting President presented an altered - that is, forged - document to the American public and claimed it was authentic. You cannot at the same time have Hawaii state that they made two PHOTOCOPIES of an original in a book and then have the White House and AP release "scanned" copies of that document which appear to have been printed on entirely-different paper, never mind that one of them is clearly not a simple scan.
The evidence strongly supports this allegation. The obvious next question is this: What, Mr. President, are you trying to hide, and we then must turn to whether a sitting President should be permitted to erase the tapes that document his knowledge of a break-in to a hotel....
“there is no “magic” in the words, “Natural Born Citizen”
That’s it. You are a MAROON! You don’t know WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
There is MAGIC in those three words. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.
I hope no one pays attention to your post as it is disinformation at best, out right LIES at worst.
You sir, are TOTAL IGNORANCE ON DISPLAY
If not born on U.S. soil he is not a U.S. Citizen at all....
John Bingham, “father of the 14th Amendment”, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.
The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”
No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.
Even Biden knows that minorities would hang him from a lamp post.
It was not an issue in the campaign. No State challenged it.
Already answered the question to you.
Not your bogus “Natural Law” fantasies.
Again, already answered the question to you.
Only something that the people did NOT know, before Obama was elected, will even come close to harming Obama, at this point. Yes, that is a political, not a legal argument, but I make it in the hope it might persuade you to drop a stupid legal argument.
Now now I wouldn't be saying "stupid" after reading your recent posts.
And oh yeah, Denninger which this thread is about..he is correct. Obama's "new" Hawaiian COLB that he showed to the public is a forgery.
I'm not doing your research for you, but being born on a U.S. Ship or plane doesn't give you ANY KIND of citizenship. You probably think being born in a U.S. embassy abroad make you a citizen. SORRY.
I have literal first hand knowledge. I was born in Boston to an American citizen father and a Canadian citizen mother. I am not a natural born citizen. I cannot become president. I had a US Customs officer and a professor of law at Northeastern University tell me that 30 years ago.
You are wrong sir:
Here is the law, chapter and verse:
The U.S. Immigration Law that covers the issue of children born abroad to 1 citizen and 1 alien.
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf
the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Public law 82-414 Chapter 1 Section 301 (7)
This applies to Obozo (it was the law at the time of his birth), assuming he is the son of Barrack H. Obama, Sr. and that he was born abroad.
If born abroad with the stated father, he is not even a U.S. Citizen.....
If he was born in the U.S. he would be a citizen by birth, but not a “natural born” citizen.
We need to take the Obama case to the courts for final resolution, but the decision is not cut and tried.
“There is no magical meaning for “Natural Born Citizen” it just means that you were a citizen at birth.”
YOU ARE WRONG. The constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. You can’t just brush it aside and IGNORE it.
LoL. Gee why is that OBots? No color?? Do we have a composite image. Yes we do.
Obama always said his Father was from Kenya.
The Country voted for him, sadly.
The States and the Electoral College did not protest.
Congress accepted the Electoral College results.
The Chief Justice swore Obama in as POTUS!
Get real!
YOU LOST YOUR CASE IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION and in all the legal forums that matter.
Now, if we can prove he was not born in the United States, GREAT!
Save that?
All you have is the historical opinions of some, not all, of our founders. And we don't even know how the 14th Amendment effects eligibility for POTUS since no Court has ruled on the matter.
Obama always said his Father was from Kenya.
The Country voted for him, sadly.
The States and the Electoral College did not protest.
Congress accepted the Electoral College results.
The Chief Justice swore Obama in as POTUS!
Get real!
YOU LOST YOUR CASE IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION and in all the legal forums that matter.
Now, if we can prove he was not born in the United States, GREAT!
Save that?
All you have is the historical opinions of some, not all, of our founders. And we don't even know how the 14th Amendment effects eligibility for POTUS since no Court has ruled on the matter.
For all you folks who believe “citizen by birth” is the same thing as “natural born citizen”, I’m curious to know why you think the founders included the grandfather clause in the eligibility requirements. Seems rather redundant if your definition is correct. Yet the grandfather clause was joined to the natual born citizen clause by the word “or”, as if a person had to be one or the other to qualify. Please enlighten me.
Do you really think that if the shoe was on the other foot, if George Bush had this problem in his background, that the democrats would never use it against him?
Oh wait they did try it against McCain who did not have such a clear cut case of ineligibility as Obama does.
I assure you if any republican had this problem, if Jindal was in office right now, if Marco Rubio was in office and could not prove that their parents were citizens when they were born here, the democrats would be moving heaven and earth to remove them from office and discredit the republicans.
The let’s make nice, can’t everyone just get along, go along to get along republicans can’t seem to get the courage to do what is right and defend the Constitution. Every last one of the cowards needs to be given walking papers. Trump, either comes around and starts emphasizing these problems with this BC and the info on it or he’s part of the problem.
We need people in office willing to stand up for the Constitution. We don’t need people who believe they can take pieces of the Constitution they like and override the portions they don’t like. Also, anyone who enables them and provides them cover is no better than the usurpers.
So it looks as if the last digit of the number was added in.
The series:
151-61-10640
151-61-10641 <————
151-61-10642
151-61-10643
151-61-10644
151-61-10645
151-61-10646
151-61-10647
151-61-10648
151-61-10649
Any one of those could have been used, and had the last digit substituted.
Whose 1961 HI birth certificates have the real numbers in this series?
Thank you, I really needed that laugh. You were made my evening with your prose. LMAO
Obama’s “new” COLB that he put on line is a forgery. You got a hiccup sport.
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.