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....
Natural Born Citizen = Born on U.S. soil, to two U.S. citizens.
Father was a foreigner, mother not old enough according to the laws at the time, to convey citizenship to anybody.
If Obama was not born on U.S. soil, not only isn't he an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, “Natural Born Citizen”, he isn't a U.S. citizen AT ALL. He would be an illegal alien who should be deported.
You need to go here http://www.birthers.org/misc/logic.htm
and study up on this topic. BE INFORMED. Most are not.
NONSENSE!
I understand “Natural Law” full well, and that is a BOGUS argument in this matter.
WRONG!! Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (which was the law when he was born), with one citizen parent and 1 alien (nationality) parent if the child is born outside the U.S. Stanley Ann Dunham is too young to effectively transfer citizenship to her offspring. He would not even be a U.S. Citizen. Much less a "natural born" U.S. Citizen as the Constitution requires....FACT!
Note the chromatic aberration! Obviously, it's a fake!
Have you noticed that you can’t back up anything you say and that I can? That I can logically articulate and you cannot. I’ll bet others have.
Father was a foreigner, mother not old enough according to the laws at the time, to convey citizenship to anybody.
If Obama was not born on U.S. soil, not only isn't he an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, “Natural Born Citizen”, he isn't a U.S. citizen AT ALL. He would be an illegal alien who should be deported.
You need to go here http://www.birthers.org/misc/logic.htm
and study up on this topic. BE INFORMED. Most are not.
I have studied this for over 2 years, there is no doubt in my mind that the founders meant Born on U.S. soil, to two U.S. citizens. NO DOUBT. Google Leo Donofrio and be prepared to spend some time.
A stealth troll is trying to bait you while laughing in your face. Let the scum float along on its own. Down in the South, when pondscum floats to the surface it’s time to treat the water. Sadly, FR is currently being choked by the pondscum floating out of Axelrod’s astroturf underwear. It wouldn’t matter what you post to show the troll the facts, the talking points are all such dishonest people care about ... leave the pondscum to recite their script. Their recitations don’t make them true and there isn’t a thing we cwaqn do so long as they’re allowed to triple and quardruple tems anyone. If you persist in responding to the scum they have fellow underwear drones who come out praising their cogent comments ... and you know the names of the ones surfacing the past few days to serve their halfrican little god.
So the founders intended that a child could be born to two foreign parents temporarily in the United States. Those parents could then leave the US and raise the child in some other country. That grown child could then come back to the US and become president. Is that what you are asking us to believe by your definition of natural born?
If so then what would be the point in putting it in the constitution in the first place. You are wrong. It was intended that the president always be loyal to the US and not some foreign country. The reasoning was clear. We can see the horrible effect of doing otherwise with Obama who’s loyalties are not with this country at all.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO SEARCH FOR STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS THAT ADMIT THEY AREN’T SURE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NATUIRAL BORN CITIZEN FOR PRESIDENTIAL eLIGIBILITY ARTICLE 2 PURPOSES...BEFORE YOU BLOW A FUSE
Just compare the hooking serif on the leftmost 1 digit to the rightmost 1 digit in the serial number regardless of how the images were digitized.
Here’s an example to back up your statement:
On my Mom’s side, both of her parents came from Italy. My grandfather became a US citizen before my Mom was born (in the USA), my Grandmother was not a US citizen at the time.
Italy will not grant my Mom citizenship because her father was a US citizen when she was born. They could care less that her mother wasn’t a US citizen (which she became later); it’s all about the Father.
http://www.birthers.org/misc/logic.htm
Natural born for dummies. Not making any assumptions about you.
I've noticed. :-)
The document was created on a computer, not scanned off a paper copy that Obama supposedly got from Hawaii. If you watch Denniger's video, you'll see that he talks about chromatic aberration, which is a red/orange color on one side of text and a blue color on the other side that is created whenever a document is scanned. You have to increase the magnification to about 800% to see it. The document on the WH website did not have any of this aberration, which means it was never scanned. Here is something I wrote on another thread:
I’ve personally increased the magnification on a document I knew was generated on a computer. No chromatic aberration present. Then I printed the document, ran it through a color scanner and increased the magnification on the resulting PDF. Chromatic aberration was present. The lack of chromatic aberration on the PDF posted on the WH website tells me (an amateur) it was never a paper document that was scanned, but rather a document that was created on the computer. Given that supposition, the OCR layer argument doesn’t hold water with me. If anyone more knowlegdable than me can tell me how to clean up chromatic aberration after a scan then I will be happy to re-evaluate my opinion. Until then, I think it’s a hoax.
Nope. Both parents have to be citizens at his birth. Read all the posts by rxsid. It’s quite a history lesson concerning the founders defining natural born citizen. They made a distinction between citizen and natural born citizen.
Even in the Resolution that congress wrote verifying that McCain was eligible it states that both parents have to be citizens and the hell of it is Obama signed that knowing that he himself is NOT eligible himself. Talk about the height of arrogance.
Even liberal Wikipedia got it more right than you:
"Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.The grandfather provision of the "natural born Citizen" clause provided an exception to the "natural born" requirement for those persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. (The first several Presidents prior to Martin van Buren, as well as potential Presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution and this grandfather clause would cover them.)[1]
Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase "natural born citizen". It does provide that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." [emphasis mine]
The constitutional requirement of a natural born citizen president has never been superseded by any other amendment or law.
NO, NO, NO! A natural born citizen is born of TWO citizen parents. He is INELIGIBLE.
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.