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....
Someone here showed proof that there was a faint image of the “raised” seal on the [green] version of the BC. It just struck me...could the seal image have been on the green background layer, rather than on the form layer? Has anyone done any thinking on this possibility?
bookmark
The law that is applicable is at time of birth. Althought the law is different now, Obozo was only born once. So the law that determines his citizenship status is the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952...
He can play all kinds of games to dance around this, but those are the facts. If he was not born in the U.S. with his admitted parents, he is NOT a U.S. Citizen at all, unless he was naturalized. (he was not) He is a Fraud.
I think this stuff, on the tech side, hurts Obama in part because “techies” are part of his natural coalition.
Techies thought Obama was “smart” and Obama doesn't really know beans, and does not know how to hire anyone who can pull off a techie job like this?
I think the TECHNOLOGY GAP, shown by those in the White House is part of what we can use against them!
Native-born citizens are clearly natural-born citizens, but the dominant view of the legal community is that anyone who is a citizen upon birth is a natural-born citizen. Thus the two terms are not equivalent because there are natural-born citizens who are not native born, the obvious example being John S. McCain III, who was born a military base in Panama.
"Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad." -- Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
"The Constitution's rule that the president be 'a natural born citizen' focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date." -- Akhil Reed Amar, "The Constitution and the Candidates" http://slate.com/id/2183588/
Only serves to show how unhinged you, and many Birthers, have become.
I wish to be considered a “Birther” and defend “Birthers” on Liberal blogs. We have a right to ask Obama questions, to ask for documents, and to doubt his slippery and dishonest answers.
Obama became famous, rich, and the PRESIDENT of the United States due to a book written by a terrorist, and due to MYTHICAL BS about his life.
Yes, if you will have me, I defend the idea the Obama has not been honest with us about his past or his heritage.
However, if Obama was born on US Soil? I hold the position that he IS a Natural Born Citizen.
You wish to earn converts to your cause by insulting people who are not with YOU 100%?
How is that working for you?
Have you ever run a political campaign, in your life?
Have you ever won a Court case, in your life?
You don't win votes by kicking people out of your “club”.
You don't win a jury vote by ticking off, offending or ALIENATING the jury.
As LEADERS, you who insist on attacking me, personally, are failures, since nobody is following you.
I agree with you.
What gave you the idea that I don’t agree with you, on this post?
Hypothetical:
Let’s say you are a Founder, and your desire is to protect this country which you love, and which you know will be threatened by subversive forces. You write in the NBC requirement, and in your mind this is to rule out certain non-American, un-American or even anti-American (Manchurian) candidates from winning an election and fundamentally threatening the Republic from within.
Fast forward. Theoretically speaking, posit this scenario. Karl Marx, although already married, makes a legal visit to the US and ‘marries’ a 17 yo black girl [or so we are told; we have not seen the marriage license]. While the child is young, the mother divorces this man, moves to a foreign country and has her son adopted by a foreign national. The parents hate free market capitalism, and indoctrinate their son in the superiority of foreign cultures.
When eventually the son returns, he’s turned over to communists. They rear him with a virulent hatred for whites and traditional American values. When he gets to college he makes no secret of his affiliations: he selects radical Marxists and the most radical of all brands of feminists as friends, since these are the only people he feels comfortable with. Later he writes a book and dedicates it to the dreams he received from his father, Marx. This father supported the taking of 100 % of the citizens’ money by the state, and doling it out as the State sees fit. The son knows this, and writes a paean to his father’s ‘dreams’ because he shares them, and wants the world to know he shares them. He writes a second book in which he unabashedly offers his view of whites: “White men’s greed runs a world in need”.
Now he runs for POTUS. We have come to a time in our nation’s history when asking any kind of question whatsoever of a biracial man is considered racist, so he gets a complete pass during the election. When asked to show his original long form BC, he spits in our faces. (The evil whites have no right to question their biracial Marxist Messiah!) He rules in the kind of luxury and opulence enjoyed by tinpot dictators, and his executive orders further the impression that he’s not a president but a king. He runs the US down all over the world, apologizing for us in humiliating and demeaning ways while praising countries with wretched human rights records. He nationalizes banks, car companies, healthcare, etc. He subverts our interests to those of the UN. He pushes for, and gets, a treaty favorable to Russia and unfavorable to us. He seeks to destroy out military by homosexualizing/sodomizing it. There’s much more, but you get the picture.
Now as a Founder, can you honestly say that this isn’t precisely what you were trying to protect us from, with the NBC requirement? You wanted to assure that a US born and bred person, who knew and respected our culture and traditions, held the highest office in the land. Is not Obama EXACTLY the person the Founders feared, and tried to exclude? He is fast destroying the country they loved and sacrificed for. And it’s not a coincidence. He is not a NBC; he doesn’t understand us yet he hates us rabidly. And if the Constitution had been respected and honored, he would never have attained the sinecure from which to do his filthy work.
The alternative is that as a Founder, you wrote the NBC requirement (1) to insure that future British subjects could not be discriminated against, by being barred from siring US presidents, and (2) so that men like Marx, Mao, Hitler, Stalin—or worse—could spawn a future POTUS, so long as they ‘married’ an underage American girl in order to do so. If you can’t see the cognitive disconnect in that, then there’s nothing more I can say; you just don’t get it.
Posted on 05/01/2010 1:22:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
One of the constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency is that he be a "natural born citizen." This was put into place by the founders to keep foreigners or persons who do not bear a non-questionable allegiance to the US Constitution out. Obviously, and admittedly Barack Hussein Obama was born to a foreign citizen and is not 100% American. He's half-American, half-African and all Marxist. He obviously bears no allegiance whatsoever to the US Constitution and is working overtime to destroy it. He's a usurper and should be removed from office. He is exactly the kind of fraud/usurper the founders feared.
Yes, I did.
And when those same sycophantic drones are shown the proof that Barry Bassturd is still legally Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen and not a US citizen, they will again don their kneepads and worship at his ‘cirtizen of the world feet’. America no longer deserves to be a We The People are the sovereigns’ Republic, and it is being taken from them by leaps and bounds, with the pirate Roberts’ subPreme court in duplicitous support.
You lie
Further we have a body of historic articles discussing what Natural Born Citizen meant in reference to the Presidential requirement, these either reference the status as requiring either paternal allegiance or the allegiance of both parents. You can find those on your own if you are the knowledgeable scholar you'd claim to be.
Ever get that “Deer in the Headlight” (Pun intended) look from a liberal during an argument?
Libs don't get challenged, in the Media.
We challenge each other, and we get challenged by the Media and by liberals.
There are many good people on our side who just don't have all the facts, or all the arguments, to fight well.
Many who disagree with me, on this thread, do have some valid points, but I still disagree with them.
I think you are a bit presumptuous to post a JimRob link, as nothing I have posted, here, in any way works to undermine basic, conservative thought, policy or teaching.
This matter is unresolved, even in Conservative ranks.
I also believe that Congress can enact laws as to who is and who is not a citizen.
Regardless of what anyone wrote, years ago, the current legal climate seems to hold that “Natural Born Citizen” means Citizen at birth.
There are as many quotes and writings, from our founders, that agree with me, as you can find that agree with you.
I don't particularly like it.
I do believe that Obama is our first Anti-American President.
However, the ends do not justify the means, and I do not think we will get anywhere trying to remove Obama due to his father's loyalties.
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.