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....
Make clear that all divorce, child custody and property rights will be decided by the host country.
They are NOT, then “under the jurisdiction thereof” and therefor, NOT citizens.
Congress DOES have power to set the jurisdiction of the Courts.
Besides, Congress ALREADY has the right to set rules for citizenship.
“You cannot use anything on what Obama releases to prove something FOR or AGAINST him unless it is in original certified form as generated by the State of Hawaii.”
Well then read it right from hawaii.gov:
“On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
6. [do NOT match]
(correction)
=8-)
I’ll agree that by itself with the complicit congress and SC the father’s being an alien might not/probably will not fly on it’s own to remove him. However, it is another arrow in the quiver so to speak when all the hunting is done. The more factual arrows to shoot and available the better the chance of removing Obama from the POTUSA.
Hawaii officials are quoted saying they produced a photocopy on safety paper. If the photocopier was a black and white one...
The question still remains for me how the background of the orginal was removed.
His parentS were citizens THEREFORE he is a natural born citizen.
That is what it says. They are wrong. He wasn't born on a military base, he was born in a part of the canal zone that the U.S. had no jurisdiction. And being born in a FOREIGN COUNTRY, he can not be NBC.
The, parents in service to their country, idea gives you citizenship by birth, not Natural Born Citizenship.
They, like children , do what we allow them to do.
There are many Freepers that support Obama.
He states what is, not what is not.
Also, to use the word “parents” is not a problem to me, as he never made clear that BOTH had to be citizens, did he?
Again, you contradict yourself, as you have said that ANYONE of ANY PARENTAGE who is born on US soil is a citizen, and you wrongly cite the 14th Amendment. Well, dude, if that's the case, it would take another Amendment to undo it.
BTW, the latest Amendment to take effect took over 200 years to get there.
Oh, and if birthright citizenship was abolished no matter what the method, cities would go up en fuego.
The country was and is IGNORANT. We are trying to change that. Not a dead horse.
He most certainly did.
Now you've hit bottom. You're flat out lying.
Yes we do have something new. We have a document that Obama swears is real, is official, that states that his father is Barrak Obama. Now we can officially state that he is ineligible. If there really had been something unseemly such as an American citizen father (Frank Marshall), a man who was not Obama Sr., actually shown on the BC, there would only be a challenge to the authenticity of the document.
As it is now, the document may or may not be real, but the official declaration of Obama Sr. as the father makes Obama Jr. ineligible.
Accurate and correct. The resolution for McCain’s eligibility was a stalking horse for Obama and his enablers.
And it would be immediately challenged and go to the Supreme Court for final resolution.UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898) and the 14th amendment would be among the precedents in such a case.
Ireland, the last country in Europe to have birthright citizenship had to pass a Constitutional amendment to abolish it. I suspect we would probably have to do the same. I certainly support Congress passing a law against it, but it would not be the final word.
I just don't want to fight on exactly the same hill that you want to order all of us to take.
At least, that is not the hill I wish to die on.
I think the birther issue has merit, on the location of birth, and the broader issue of Obama’s mysterious past and hidden documents.
However, I do not think the issue of his Father's Kenyan or British citizenship amounts to a hill of beans.
This is what it says using the opinion of Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson.
“Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964.”
HMMMMM what operative condition do these guys share?
THEY WERE BORN ON U.S. SOIL. How is this a relevant example.
“We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.”
He would have fulfilled the jus soli part because Hawaii was a U.S. Territory. WHO CARES, he wasn't born in 1958, he was born in 1961.
And Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson are just WRONG.
No, you got the crap kicked out of you.
However, I do not think the issue of his Father's Kenyan or British citizenship amounts to a hill of beans.
We can't be held responsible for your ignorance.
McCain's mother, well both parents as both were citizens, were BOTH old enough to pass on citizenship at birth, even if born outside the United States.
McCain was a citizen at birth and therefor a Natural Born Citizen.
Obama can swear anything he wants...so long as it is not presented in “certified” form...it is simply a lie or hot air - not a forgery or fraud or perjury.
This is why he keeps releasing scans or copies of, NOT the actual DOH of Hawaii document that is generated with a seal when requested.
He can’t...because he would have to alter it to do so and THAT would put him under legal jeopardy.
=8-)
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.