Posted on 05/01/2011 3:35:44 AM PDT by grundle
Expert says lack of "chromatic aberration" means Obama BC is computer generated, not photocopy
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
The PDF has chromatic aberration, so it is not scanned. We were told that Obama’s lawyers went to HI to collect two certified hard copies of the bc. The hard copies were created, then stamped, then given to the lawyers. If the document had been rescanned after the stamps were affixed, it would show chromatic aberration, since it had to be color scanned. Thw WH f’ed up when they placed a pdf online that had never been scanned, as it would have had to be after getting stamped. Are you getting this yet?
The PDF has no chromatic aberration, so it is not scanned. We were told that Obama’s lawyers went to HI to collect two certified hard copies of the bc. The hard copies were created, then stamped, then given to the lawyers. If the document had been rescanned after the stamps were affixed, it would show chromatic aberration, since it had to be color scanned. Thw WH f’ed up when they placed a pdf online that had never been scanned, as it would have had to be after getting stamped. Are you getting this yet?
Yes, I'm getting "it". "It" being that you apparently see conspiracies under every rock.
I don't care what nameless "internet experts" say about the "chromatic aberration" or any other electronic mumbo-jumbo.
Then you have no interest in evidence. Have a good day.
How about Congressman Darrel Issa subpoena the original from the state of HI....and not delivered by one of zero’s lawyers....conveyed electronically from HI to Issa’s committee.... Then we will find out the truth which may be that there is no real BC...or that it’s much different than what has been posted by the WH. At this point in time if those lying scoundrels in this administration said the sky is sometimes blue I would have a hard time believing them given their track record of lying about everything!
Here is the explanation. You can read it or continue to to defend the indefensible.
You in turned did not address the issue of why the founders and others use the terms "natural born citizen" and "citizen" distinctly if the two are interchangeable as you seem to assert.
Darrel Issa isn't going to touch this with a 10-foot poll. It is, as a political issue, a complete loser.
Got some actual evidence of that claim? So far everything I've seen claims that they flew somebody all the way out there in order to pick up supposedly certified hardcopies. To fly out the way out there just to copy to a flash drive something that could be sent electronically doesn't make practical sense, even for dumbocrats.
ping
I didn't "address the issue" because the issue as you frame it is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is how the law is interpreted contemporaneously.
Also, the Founders lived in a day LONG before the 14th Amendment and the case law that sprang from the 14th Amendment.
I'll repeat my statement, until such a time that the Court rules on the central legal question (which isn't not a discussion in dicta) on what difference (if any) there are between anchor babies and natural-born citizens, there won't be any difference between those two terms. Citizen at birth and natural-born citizen are, in the context of today's legal reality, completely interchangeable terms.
Officially-- they will say they scanned it, and converted it to pdf. This is normal process, but obviously this video puts serious doubt to that claim.
The hospital is only required to keep records 25 years.
Only a loser if it reflects what zero has showed the world....and then not much in that zero is now known to many as a pathological liar...
Wow. So the 14th Amendment was about erasing the distinction between "natural born citizen" and "citizen" in the Constitution, and granting citizenship to the offsping of criminal aliens? I thought it was about extending citizenship to freed negro slaves.
Now I am not a lawyer so I don't know how to read plain words and discover in them things they do not say. It does seem to me though that in every legal contest, fifty percent of the lawyers are wrong. I would submit that they are often knowingly so but argue for either financial or political reasons. They sometimes prevail too, so we end up with things like Wickard and this ridiculous assertion that anchor babies or the son a Marxist foreigner might be "natural born".
FWIW, I think old deck hand has a point regarding the NBC angle...it can be won in court by Obama if he just gets a favorable judge or puts political pressure on the Supremes. (regardless of who is actually right on the issue)
The only way to get Obama, and I believe Congress would not impeach him, is to prove this latest BC a fraud. Even then, I think they let him serve out his term and hopefully he loses in 2012. I think that’s the best we could hope for.
First, you're either intentionally or unintentionally tying this NBC debate to the debate about the citizenship status of the children born to illegal aliens. I'm not. They are two wholly separate issues, and I'm only discussing children born to parents who are in the country legally.
Having said that, tt seems that you can't quite grasp the concept of judicial review and that review's relevance on the written law.
Whatever purpose there was for initially passing the 14A is quite irrelevant to how that amendment was subsequently interpreted. For instance, Wong Kim Ark was NOT a slave, and he wasn't even black. That, however, did not keep the Court from extending the legal relevance of the 14A to his specific situation - a child born to foreign-national parents on American soil is an American citizen at birth. Since the Court is silent with respect to the parent's requisite legal immigration status, that particular issue is (for now) unsettled law.
What does this all mean in the context of "natural-born citizen"? Well, the decision(Ark) doesn't address it specifically in its central legal holding, but it is discussed in several places in obiter dicta. Most telling is a passage from Justice Fuller, when writing in dissent of the majority holding, he laments quite clearly what he believes to be a fundamental flaw and perhaps unintended consequence of that decision is and says about it...
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
He thinks that it's "unreasonable to conclude" it, but he recognizes that this is EXACTLY the conclusion that the majority opinion is reaching.
"It does seem to me though that in every legal contest, fifty percent of the lawyers are wrong"
I am unfamiliar with any polling that has been done of the legal community on this issue, but I think that the the position that Wong Kim Ark would have been constitutionally qualified to be president is BY FAR the prevailing legal opinion - something much greater than "50%".
Bump and ....
Busted: WH Now Claims They Ordered Short-Form COLB From Hawaii Department Of Health
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2712999/posts
And since Obama’s father was not a citizen at time of birth, Obama’s not qualified regardless:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2712868/posts?page=120#120
I’m still waiting on you to respond to my questioning of your supposed source for your claim the BC was copied to a flash drive, before I read any more of your claims. Here’s what Hawaii claims happened:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
On April 25, 2011, pursuant to President Obama’s request, Director Fuddy personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies. Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies.
President Obama authorized Ms. Corley to pick up the documents. On April 25, 2011, Ms. Corley appeared in person at the Hawaii State Department of Health building in Honolulu, paid the requisite fee, and was given the two certified copies, a response letter from Director Fuddy to President Obama, and a receipt for payment.
In 2001, the Hawaii State Department of Health began computer-generating vital statistics records. Since then, its longstanding policy and practice has been to issue and provide only the computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth, and to not produce photocopies of actual records to fulfill requests for certified copies of certificates.
Director Fuddy made an exception for President Obama by issuing copies of the original birth certificate.
I only mean to say that concluding the one implies the other, to our future detriment.
Didn't Gray write for the majority? Why did he cite Chief Justice Waite?
I am unfamiliar with any polling that has been done of the legal community on this issue, but I think that the the position that Wong Kim Ark would have been constitutionally qualified to be president is BY FAR the prevailing legal opinion - something much greater than "50%".
That may be true, and you always strike me a person who understands law well, but that doesn't reflect well on the legal community or standing jurisprudence. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, nor does it require mystics to divine its meaning. It does take dishonest people to pervert the words for contemporary political ends.
FReegards
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.