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....
>That’s not correct, is it? His mother was a citizen, and he was born in the US. That makes him eligible.<
If taken on it’s face that he was born in the us and she was able to confer citizenship - he would be a citizen.
To be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN .. which is the requirement to be POTUS, you have to be born of two american parents on us soil.
The 14th amendment only makes people citizens. It’s intent was to make people born of slaves citizens. No where in the law or discussions of the congress on the law is it even implied, let alone stated that it was meant to make someone Natural Born.
It is the intent that matters and there was never any intent, implied or express that they wanted to change the original context and definition of a natural born citizen by the 14th amendment.
You can tell me i am wrong until the cows come home. But that only means you haven’t read anything from the courts who have made that statement and argument - this was their ruling.
I don’t think the founders bought that idea. There is no point to the clause if that is all it means. The bill in the Senate to make McCain NBC was that he had citizen parents which obozo voted for. It is rather silly to think that illegal parents can produce a NBC. Oh, you may quote some black robed pol that has spent his life trashing the original intent of the founders, but the founders sought to protect us from such as this..
Madison, for one, felt that LOCATION of birth was the controlling factor.
The fact remains that REALITY castrates your argument. The Courts, the Congress, the Electoral College and the voters KNEW Obama had a foreign father. (Well, I was not sure, I still wonder about Frank Marshall Davis).
Anyway, this dog won't hunt.
I do think we need to put Obama on the spot. I do think the Birther movement, on balance, has been helpful.
However, we will NEVER remove Obama from office based on his Father.
It just won't happen.
I never said that birth in America, alone, granted Citizenship or Natural Born Citizenship.
I said that Natural Born Citizenship means you were a CITIZEN at BIRTH!
The majority of legal opinion is, sometimes, wrong, but -— right now the majority of legal opinion would be with me, not you. The matter, I grant you, has not been resolved as well as it needs to be resolved.
I hold the view that Congress can stop the “anchor baby” problem simply by exercise of its power to determine the jurisdiction of the courts, combined with the power of Congress to set the rules for citizenship.
I believe that the rules for citizenship are exactly the same as the rules for Natural Born Citizenship -— save one factor:
A “Natural Born Citizen” must be a Citizen at the exact moment of birth, and not due to any oath or naturalization process.
You wrote: “You know how many cities will burn if the truth came out? Civil War II would be under way, and the international community would side with the Obamites as we who presented the truth would be called ‘racists wishing to return to the days of slavery.’”
Bingo! And that is nothing more than Obama would want... “a scorched earth (USA)!” Then declare martial-law, suspend elections, etc, etc.
I also think that the release of the (forged) CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH on April 27th was a “Double Dog Dare.” He doesn’t give a rat’s pittuty that he’s ineligible per Art II, Section 1, US Constitution.
Finally, I think American Blacks, I’m sorry to say, have rioted for less than the possible removal of a president. Does that make me a racist?
Thank you for posting this. I would have missed it otherwise. Now if we could just get the usurpers and their RINO enablers to just stop what they are doing and support our Constitution.
Bingham did not seem to hold that.
Then too ...
There are many forces, lines of the intellectual reasoning of proud men and women, that have diluted and altered the original meaning and intents the Founders had in carefully crafting our US Constitution. In nearly every case, even perhaps in every case, the change has been harmful.
That the changes, the second-guessing, has been even harmful is a measure of the Providential Insight that our Creator granted Our Founders when this nation arose upon the stage of human history.
Take for one example: a cup of coffee. Coffee was the drink of the Patriot in the times of the original Tea Party. A famous song from the 1930's has the tag line "Brother can you spare a dime [for a cup of coffee]".
A good cup of coffee in 1930 cost one dime. It still does -- a good cup of STARBUCKS coffee costs one dime or less. Of course, I don't mean a 2011 dime, but the silver value of a 1932 dime will buy you today a 12 ounce cup of the most expensive Starbucks drink. I checked this at my local Starbucks: $3.55 for a 12 oz Caramel Macchiato.
The value of a 1932 Dime in silver melt as of 29 April 2011 is $3.47. Okay, eight cents plus a few more cents sales tax short, but close enough.
The Money Clause of the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, fifth clause, grants Congress the authority "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" Note the whole clause is includes "fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". The Constitution gives no direct authority for any kind of money excepting coin of standard weight and measure.
It is a dilution that we have permitted paper money, especially today's currency money, which for the most part is not even paper anymore, it is merely ledger entries! The Founders may have allowed a redeemable note convertible to coin, or fixed weight of precious metal, but certainly they were leery of paper money due to the utter failure of the paper money called Continentals, during the Revolutionary War period.
Thus today we are beyond "dilution" of our money, we have moved into change territory. The original intent and meaning of the money clause has been perverted, the authority to demand that official currency be wholly fiat at complete odds to what the Founders intended.
Although the Constitution allows the Congress the ability to set the value of coinage, the Constitution refers to a specific denomination of money: a dollar. The Founders intended that the average or representative silver value of the coin then known as a dollar be used for all time.
The Constitution uses the term "dollar" in two places. Article 1, Section 9, limits the authorities of Congress and the first clause in that section limits a head tax on imported slaves to a maximum of "ten dollars". The 7th Amendment provides the right to a Jury Trail for all claims over "twenty dollars".
The dollar of that era was a standard weight measure of pure silver, defined by Spanish Law as consisting of 387 grains of pure silver. That's 0.885 ounces. In common use as coinage the Spanish dollar was divided into "pieces of eight," or "bits," each consisting of one-eighth of the dollar weight.
Thus by the "ten dollars" the Founders meant the value of 8.85 ounces of pure silver. As of 29 April 2011 that is $479 in current US (fiat) dollars. Thus a Jury Trial is a right where the disputed amount exceeds just a bit less than a thousand dollars.
That amount, $1000 in current dollars, still seems reasonable and that it does so is a testament to the Founder's wisdom in crafting the Constitution as well as to their understanding of the constants of human nature.
Yet today can I demand a trial for a disputed amount of $1000? No, at least not in all places. That's sad. It's another perversion of Original Intent.
The Founder's intended that all states joining the Union abide the especial protections provided individual rights in the Bill of Rights. However our moderns have changed that. A 1999 US Supreme Court ruling voided that protection of individual rights. That's bad, that's tyrannical, in the true sense of that word.
Your understanding of the meaning of "natural born citizen" today springs from the same tyrannical theory of law. Tyrants and their theories of law are ever changing, ever making alterations.
And ever getting it wrong. Ever making it worse. Ever tending to destruction, chaos and death.
By adding to such destructive forces, the way of the world is that it temporarily adds to their power and might over others.
No , you are wrong. Born on US soil makes you American, not Natural Born American...
Get your head of of your ass and stop being ignorant. A 3rd grader could tell you that....
According to you, Osama Bin Laden could father a child and as long as he is born in the US, he could be President?
And, the minority that voted for McCain?
The VAST majority of McCain voters agree with me and disagree with you.
You are in a small, fringe minority.
And, from your isolated position, on the fringe, you tell me that a child could understand what you are saying?
Your logic, or lack of logic I should say, is very evident in this latest post of yours.
IF your position is so self-evident that a child could understand your position, what of the voters, the Electoral College, the Congress and the Courts?
Your position is a loser, It won't go anywhere.
So could Ted Bundy.
So could Charles Manson.
What is your point? It is not the job of our Constitution to pick our President, only to set basic requirements for that office.
The real underlying issue here is what to do about the gutless RINOs who still control the Republican Party. It’s time those of us on FR take a stand and propose concrete steps to rid the GOP of “Boner” and the Bobsy Twins for starters. The decent Republicans in these guys districts need to start picketing their local offices. To date, Boner and company (nee gutless bastards all) have been getting a free ride from their constituents. They need to realize that time is short for making it very clear that unless they actually do something that supports their promises for change, that they are gone! This has to be done from the outside because as I see it, there are not enough new young Constitutionalists in the House to compel change from within.
Yep, I agree. We have a lot of house cleaning to do.
Cry Baby Boehner was the wrong choice just as McLame was in 2008. We don’t need a weepy crybaby as Speaker. Good Grief I’m tougher than him and I’m a girl. Until we get rid of every RINO,,, it’s like my tagline says, same old same old.
What naturalized citizens? At the time of our founding, there were no naturalized citizens. The US had no natualization process in place yet the day the constitution was adopted.
Here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2712478/posts
>However, we will NEVER remove Obama from office based on his Father.
It just won’t happen.<
I never said that they would. I don’t think that they could.
Not enough votes to impeach unless there is some other mechanism for a vote of no confidence or something.
But I will tell you this, It my *opinion* that this issue is helping to drive Obama’s numbers down, which is the only reason he even put out that certificate.
So I say turn up the heat. The law was written in 1790 - regarding a natural born citizen. It was never revised, edited or repealed. There are no foot notes in the 14th that indicate that it has any impact what so ever on the law of the first continental congress either.
generally, if a law is superseded, they state that in all law books.
TURN UP THE HEAT .. as gas prices rise, so will tempers. As food prices soar his numbers drop. Americans would hate to think that they are going broke from a man who may have duped them.
I've never put a document together in Adobe .pdf, don't know how yet, and am not familiar with all the different scanning techniques.
Somebody pulled a number on me and had papers of mine they shouldn't. It was in .tiff format and showed up as a single document on the thumbnail but was a large file. I opened it in Photoshop CS2 and it looked strange, very long and narrow, zoomed it up and the aspect ratio was all wrong. What to do? Tried my old Paint Shop Pro, and when I opened, there were 8 or so layered documents underneath flying open on my screen. I know who had it done, but I don't know what scanner or method would have done that. So that's how I found out .tiff can be in layers, too. So much for that.
It's true about the chromatic aberration in color documents, never worked on it or zoomed in with my scanned files because there was no point for my purposes. It was the noise that I could only do so much with; scanners are much better now with that. There are various techniques to get rid of CA, at normal viewing size it isn't noticeable if done well but you can detect the grayscale halos or gradations when zoomed; cleaning further an arduous task unless there is some software than can do it. I saw the Denninger video on that.
So back to the main point, I have no idea what kind of scanner was used on the BC, probably scanned when Hawaii went to the new archival system. The article at the Hawaii paper mentioned that they were printed on the green security paper. Why not just crop it to the margins?
I like puzzling things out, So all the rest of it aside, why put two different documents out there of essentially the same thing? I agree AP only scanned what they got but can't imagine what they started with, maybe layers merged without the security paper layers. I knew something like this would happen if he released it but sure didn't expect layers, assume it's true.
I assume you mean the WH version. That puzzled me too. Probably because they xeroxed it to safety paper directly from the archived "original". Copies, if they handed them out, were probably scaled up. Which could explain why the AP version is so off proportionally.
Why put two out? I'm starting to think the WH version is nothing but a baited hook.
Lol I would not have touched that file on that site with a 100,000 foot pole!!!!!!!
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.