Posted on 01/14/2013 7:58:24 PM PST by Uncle Sham
now I know you’re just a dumba$$ troll
I guess I should be insulted, but you claim to know a lot of things that aren't true.
Name one.
You are the one making false claims, and you are being a dickhead about it too. What are your credentials? I have pointed out mine often on here.
I have done detailed explanations of how the birth certificate is fake- all you have said is “that’s bunk” and “only an idiot” belives it is fake.
What exactly is bunk in the analysis?
The different pixel sizes?
The statistical improbability of exact same pixels appearing more than once?
The incorrect date stamps?
The mix of font sizes?
The centering of text within a supposed typed document?
The failure text alignments to be correct?
Straight textr lines on a curved piece of paper?
The security page image data appearing UNDER text layers when they are moved?
The appearace of layers of different pixel sizes?
The appearance of layers AT ALL in a single scanned image?
Which of these are bunk?
You’re not even reading what it is that you’re contesting.
I said that in Minor v Happersett the SCOTUS acknowledged that there were doubts about whether children born on US soil to non-citizen parents are natural born. You flippantly said they didn’t say that. I provided the quote from Minor v Happersett and it is clear that this is what they were saying.
I never said that SCOTUS ruled on NBC in Minor v Happersett. I said that they said there was legal doubt as to whether children born on US soil to non-citizen parents are natural born citizens. Your knee-jerk reaction was to say I was wrong, even though the language in that decision is clear.
Stop with the knee-jerk reactions and listen for once. Look at the sources and comprehend. Engage with what is presented and stop with this childish “No, I didn’t”... “Yes, you did”.... “Did not”.... “Did too”.... garbage; it’s only clogging things up and wasting time. If you’re not willing and/or able to do those things, then just spare us all by staying out of the conversation.
The end decision that the Supreme Court had regarding the citizenship of Mrs. Minor was that she was a natural-born citizen by virtue of her birth on US soil to 2 US-citizen parents. She had that citizenship regardless of whether the 14th Amendment was in effect or not; it was given to her by NATURE, not by law. At that particular time, there were doubts about whether somebody born in the US to non-citizen parents could be natural born citizens. If the Supreme Court had given citations there we would know exactly what they were talking about and what was the basis for the doubts. They didn’t, so what we know is just that there were doubts.
And that’s all I said. You can argue that those doubts were later answered authoritatively by this or that ruling, but I never argued about that. I only said that Minor v Happersett was after the 14th Amendment was enacted (and M v H actually made reference to the 14th Amendment, as I noted above) and STILL said that there were doubts about whether being born on US soil is enough to make a person a “natural born” citizen, or even a citizen. Everybody born on US soil would clearly be at least a CITIZEN according to the 14th amendment, unless the word “jurisdiction” included some aspect concerning the parents’ citizenship. IOW, it seems to me that the court in M v H is saying that there were doubts over whether “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment concerns parents’ citizenship. Sorting that all out would be a mess, because Blacks were not only considered non-citizens, they were legally considered as non-persons because of the Dred Scott decision, and the 14th Amendment was meant to allow Blacks to be US citizens even though none of them had gone through naturalization and presumably at some point were citizens of a country in Africa. Deciding all of that was beyond the scope of M v H so they didn’t go into it. They left that issue with a simple acknowledgment that there was controversy over whether simply being born on US soil meant a person was a citizen.
All of it is nonsense. As I illustrated with the Daily Kos example (you aren’t going to start defending them, are you?!) is that there’s always a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo which sounds really, really convincing to people who don’t know better.
Here are my credentials: I’m God’s Personal Appointed Image Verifier. Prove otherwise.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter, there is overwhelming evidence that Obama was born in Honolulu. Case closed.
As do all the rest of us. This guy is not engaging with any of the evidence set before him. He’s wasting our time.
Alvin Onaka is the State of Hawaii’s legally-appointed image verifier. He is legally required to verify everything he can, and not verify anything he can’t.
He was asked to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. He wouldn’t verify it.
He was asked to verify that the information contained in the White House image is identical to the information contained in the original record on file. He wouldn’t.
He was asked to verify male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama. The only one he even MENTIONED was Honolulu (but not Oahu), and what he said was that the BC they have “indicates” (claims) Honolulu.
Every legally-foundational document that exists for Obama has already either been proven as a forgery, or is known to have been breached to allow for forgery.
So where is this “overwhelming evidence”?
What, specifically, is nonsense?
Are you being paid to be a troll here?
He was asked to verify male,
So Obama might not be male?! I've heard some rumors, but this one is new.
Are you being paid to be a troll here?
Yes. You got me. Man, nothing gets by you, does it?
He might not have been born male. Actually, Onaka confirmed that Obama used to be a chick.
This is an expected result of using certain scanning software settings, which is true of almost everything else on your list.
Google Books does something similar. For example, I took this image from page 12 of a PDF of a scanned copy of Extraordinary Popular Delusions from Google Books.
Notice that the N's are pixel-for-pixel identical copies. This is true of many other letter pairs across the book. These things only seem improbable if you don't understand the software behind it.
geez you present an example of a black and white image to refute a grey-scale forgery with different pixel depth and sizes?
And yes, I kinda do know the software behind it- I was writing image software before JPEG and MPEG came into prominence. We CREATED moving images by transmitting only changed pixels which later became MPEG
Not only is there different pixel sizes but there is also 8-bit vs 32-bit greyscale variations within the different layers- info that is in the layers themselves (not subjective) The layers have to contain this info to tell the software how to render that part of the image.
AND there is data BELOW the removed layers... how would a scanner know what was below a layer?
This would be impossible in a single scan image for purposes of making a simple copy.
And this is not even a good forgery- All they would have had to do is compress the image down to a single layer at the end and ALL of this would go from real image date to speculative and subjective interpretation of visual signs. (somethign that LOOKS like a fake -vs- something that tells you it is a fake within its own layer data info)
Either you are too stupid to know what you are talking about or a willing participant in the coverup.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parentsLet's have a look at this amazing case from a state court in Indiana...
1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 (i.e. paragraph)" say?
Here's what it says:
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.What does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?
Sure, that could be splitting hairs. The following, however, isn't:
2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born Citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14What does footnote 14 say?
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling.
So, this decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents (who were, [Key phrase], perminatly domociled here) was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they somehow find Barry (who's father was a visiting student & not perminantly domociled here), they find him NBC anyway?
If they really were using WKA as guidance, they'd have to note that BOTH of WKA's parents were perminatly domociled here...not just one parent. Furthermore, they'd have to find Barry a "citizen" (not a "natural born Citizen) as that is what Wong Kim Ark was declared to be. Fine...Barry, the "citizen" can be Senator or Rep (or Governor, etc).
That state, so called, "decision" is an embarrassment to the state of Indiana...and I say that with all due respect to any clear thinking Hoosier's out there.
Onaka can’t verify male because that claim is not found on a legally-valid birth certificate.
Male is claimed on the birth certificate they have at the HDOH.
What are your computer graphics qualifications?
The Indiana Supreme Court refused to overturn the Ankeny v Governor Mitch Daniels decision.
The Ankeny decision has been cited by judges in their rulings in eligibility decisions in other states, notably in Georgia’s Farrar, Swensson, Powell & Welden v Obama “trial on the merits.” The Georgia ruling was upheld by the Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta and by the state Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court Justice Thomas denied an application for a stay to stop Georgia’s Secretary of State from placing Obama’s name on the ballot.
The full US Supreme Court denied a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to have the appeal heard before the Court. Thus Ankeny stands until reversed.
While the Ankeny decision has been derided by some laypersons, judges have found it to be sound legal reasoning.
But there IS a DIARY entry on Daily Kos which is a DENIAL. And Israeli Insider blog does exist, but the archives no longer include the article posted on FR to which I provided the link.
Don't bother to reply.
What are your computer graphics qualifications?
I invented the XBox. Now, if you ask Microsoft, they'll deny that, but the important thing is what they DON'T deny. For example, they won't deny that I used psychic powers to control the people who did invent the XBox. That's PROVES I did it. I mean, unless you're brainwashed by the MSM.
Onaka can’t verify male because that claim is not found on a legally-valid birth certificate.
So... we'll never know for sure. Duuuude. This is HUGH! I'm SERIES! You should start a blog on this.
I thought you were reading the footnotes. If so, you should have noticed their footnote 9, which reads
The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. See also Ind. Code § 3-8-1-6.This is because the original Clause 3 was superseded by Amendment 12, so it's not counted in the numbering anymore.
The rest of your argument depends on the assertion that "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen" is not the same thing as "is a natural born citizen." I know that's an article of faith for some people, but no court seems to agree with you. (I know, I know, that just means all the courts are wrong...)
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.
