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....
Just keep ignoring Bingham. The truth is right there with him.
Actually I’m wrong about what the resolution states. It says that the Constitution doesn’t define NBC. However, it was defined several times elsewhere during the writing of the Constitution and during the hashing out of the 14th Amendment.
See images @ http://market-ticker.org/
The Resolution in the Senate, regarding McCain being eligible for POTUS, DID mention that both of his parents were citizens.
That Resolution did NOT state that this was required.
You are factually wrong.
The Resolution in the Senate, regarding McCain being eligible for POTUS, DID mention that both of his parents were citizens.
That Resolution did NOT state that this was required.
You are factually wrong.
“Welcome to New Kenya (Africa USA) Where the law of the jungle has replaced the Law of the Land” (I first stated that the week of his coronation -TF)
And this has what to do with U.S. constitution and U.S. citizenship? The U.S. does not care what Italy or any other country does. It does not affect U.S. law. Think about it.
Dead Horse!
The country knew this, and the country disagreed with you.
Sadly, that battle is lost.
Lets fight on a hill we might be able to win?
Dead Horse!
The country knew this, and the country disagreed with you.
Sadly, that battle is lost.
Lets fight on a hill we might be able to win?
The very fact that it was mentioned should tell you something. Are you familiar with the term, "read between the lines?"
The issue that has to be resolved is whether birthright citizenship (jus solis) is natural born citizenship per the Constitution and eligibility to be President.
Here is the 2008 joint opinion of Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson on McCain's eligibility:
The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United Suites v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
and
Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
and
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
Nothing. He will serve out his term. The point here is the depth to which dims will go to gain power. The Constitution doesn't matter, laws don't matter, honesty and decency don't matter. They even stoop to fraud. And their news minions help them. And like the dims to them the truth is irrelevant. This is what this issue has always been about. We are trying to restore the rule of law to this nation. The dims want the rule of men.
You are wrong. And your sixth double post allows me to say that it’s really annoying.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court could rule either way. There are many arguments including English common law that would define the place of birth as the deciding factor (including a speech by James Madison in Congress no less) while others would argue that parentage was the deciding factor.
Jewish custom is to follow the mother as to whether a child is Jewish. Since obama is already in, I would assume that the court would go with place. Since a tie goes to the runner, obama would probably win NBC status.
That said, obama is still the worst president in history and must be defeated.
save
He must have been reading FR. ;-) Why forge the document OBots since Obama was born in Hawaii right??
I would think the writer of the 14th would know better than you.
John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Natural Born means NOT NATURALIZED!
This is, for EVER MORE what it means, until we get a Constitutional Amendment or a Court ruling that says otherwise.
Done deal, its over, your side, and anyone in history who agrees with you, LOST!
I can't stand Obama but I think YOU are ridiculous.
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.