Posted on 08/02/2011 4:21:47 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Detailed technical analysis of the PDF file the White House released April 27 indicates it is not a scan of the original document, as claimed by the White House, but instead is the final form of an electronic file used to forge the birth certificate on Adobe software, according to reports by experts.
Failure to demonstrate how a simple computer scan can produce the effects observed in the Obama birth certificate PDF lends support to arguments that the Obama birth certificate is a forgery, the experts contend.
OBOTs jump to defend Obama birth certificate
The radical Obama supporters known as OBOTs have repeatedly asserted that experts cited by WND have ignored evidence that the effects observed in the White House-released PDF can be explained by utilizing various tools, such as running Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software and by optimizing the PDF.
Frank Arduini, an OBOT who works at CareFusion and frequently posts argumentative pro-Obama comments on WND forums, made the charge in a recent WND-published article, as seen in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1: OBOT poster accuses WND of ignoring evidence
Arduini's LinkedIn.com profile lists him as an IT Business Partner at the health industries company CareFusion, headquartered in San Diego.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I agree. Obfuscation is the order of the day for these people.
Here is another when he was younger. This photo has specifically been claimed by Mark Davis to be a picture of himself and his father Frank.
Compare it to the photo of Obama when he was about this age. (Those airport photos will do.)
Something is hardly axiomatic and treasonous and anti-Constitutional if you don't believe it when your own side cannot arrive at a universally held position on the Law.
My own definition, arrived at years before 0bama has heard of, is simplicity itself and entirely congruent with American and Natural Law. One is either born a citizen according to American Law, which should always be a reflection of Natural law; or one must be “Naturalized” into that state of allegiance. There is not any intermediate status.
They can claim anything they want. Anyone not ignorant of Adoption law would immediately realize that unless there is further evidence to show that no adoption or modification has ever taken place, A birth certificate document by itself cannot establish the information to which it is attesting. This is not a problem for every usage for it OTHER THAN proving eligibility for the Presidency. For THAT task, it is INADEQUATE. As the eligibility for Presidency is itself a CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT, it cannot be trumped by lesser court policies. To do so would be gaming the system.
No original jurisdiction judicial proceeding on this issue has gone beyond pre-trial motions to dismiss and no criminal legal action has been initiated.
No court will accept the argument that an illegitimate President constitutes an "Injury" to any individual.( a preposterous argument, put forth out of cowardice.)
The U.S. Constitution gives the power to the states to determine the validity of all state records (Article IV, Section 1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence state that birth records are self-authenticating. The Federal Rules of Evidence were passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ford in 1975 (Public Law 93-595).
This is not a state issue. It is an issue of Constitutional law, of which the states and Federal government are merely players. The Requirements of the election officials of each state is not to accept documents, but to accept proof. (Could be videotape or eye witness testimony for all the difference it makes.) If a document cannot constitute proof, it cannot be accepted as such. Declaring it "proof" is just a lawyer exercise in idiocy, and sensible people should tolerate no part of it. In fact, any lawyer which tries to pull a stunt like this OUGHT to go to jail for 90 days.
Again, a Constitutional requirement trumps all courts, all laws, all polices and procedures, and everything but another constitutional requirement. It is a club by which silly arguments are beaten down and left with bruises and contusions such as your argument above.
Did you even bother to look at what they released and notice (as any fifth-grader could) that it's an obvious forgery?
It was the act of the First Congress which convinced me that the "soil" requirement was not important. As this leaves only the "Jus Sanguinus" requirement, the Vattel definition is still far closer to the founder's position than is the "Jus Soli" British Law.
Something is hardly axiomatic and treasonous and anti-Constitutional if you don't believe it when your own side cannot arrive at a universally held position on the Law.
The occurrence of dissent on one side does not make correct people wrong. It means that comprehension has yet to dawn on some people. For example, people on your side are unanimous in their ignorance.
My own definition, arrived at years before 0bama has heard of, is simplicity itself and entirely congruent with American and Natural Law. One is either born a citizen according to American Law, which should always be a reflection of Natural law; or one must be “Naturalized” into that state of allegiance. There is not any intermediate status.
Behind your fault of comprehension lies a misunderstanding regarding a specific term of art using the common English words "Natural","Born", and "Citizen." Taken as individual words, they mean exactly what you say. Anyone who is naturally born as a citizen is a citizen. This does not however, equate to what the term of art "Natural Born Citizen" means. As it was created for the purpose of providing "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen”, it means that the President cannot have a loyalty split between this nation and another; That he cannot have the option of claiming allegiance to another nation.
As your comprehension of the term does nothing to address the very purpose for which the article was created, your definition cannot substitute for the one that does. Your definition would deprive Article II of all purpose, and the supreme court ruled 200 years ago that the constitution CANNOT be interpreted in such a manner that it's wording serves no purpose.
Why do idiots do idiotic things?
I've spoken with dozens of police officers over the years about why criminals do stupid things. They all tell me the same thing. Calling something stupid is not proof that someone didn't do it. Over and over again they find crooks doing the most incredibly stupid bone head things, and then arguing that "I wouldn't have done that! It's STOOOPID!" Turns out stupid people do stupid things. It is axiomatic that Obama and team are stupid because they are democrats. It's hard to believe that anyone would wonder with a straight face why the party of "We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it!" might do something stupid.
Seriously, this is a mystery to anyone? A non-stupid (non-democrat) would have released a simple scan of the paper document. It takes "genius level" stupidity to release what they produced.
Or a lead head. On what issue has Obama shown any brains?
That is my working hypothesis as well. It makes more sense than the "Official" story.
Producing a "document" is a nothing deal nowadays. It proves nothing without some form of corroboration. For example, I put absolutely no stock in this document, but it "looks" official.
How did the mother’s signature get on the original birth certificate if she was in Washington state or Canada?
How did my doctor's signature get on MY birth certificate 5 years after the fact? The state PUT IT THERE, when they created my new replacement birth certificate. (I'm adopted.)
Stanley Ann was Obama's mother, so she very likely signed his birth documentation at some point. All they have to do is copy it from that original signature, which they do in the case of Replacement birth certificates.
It is clear that the law, as written and as interpreted, means that of citizens - only naturalized citizens (and natural born citizens who didn't meet the residency requirements) are excluded. Clearly that has meaning - to all but the deliberately obtuse.
The Constitution mentions only two subdivisions of “citizen” - natural born or naturalized. Clearly any such third (or even fourth) designation is from sources outside the U.S. Constitution and from outside of U.S. Law.
The U.S. Constitution and U.S. law only recognize natural born citizens and those that must otherwise be “naturalized”.
All the hand waving breath holding and talk of arresting Congress in mass and talk of treason and revolution and ignoring any and all conservative leaders who don't sign on (all of them) doesn't change the simple fact that there IS NO THIRD TYPE of U.S. citizenship.
Doesn't matter. Till Barack won the nomination and released his COLB there was no indication that the issue would have importance or that he wasn't born to an American Father. When did he release the COLB? Wasn't it the Summer of 2008? My recollection was that it provoked an immediate outcry of "That doesn't prove ANYTHING!" and questions of it's authenticity.
It begs the question. How can anyone bring up the issue of whether his father was American or not when the more obvious issue of his producing a peculiar document is the primary discussion? Whether you like it or not, till people were satisfied that he would win the nomination and that his COLB was even legitimate, there was no point in discussing issues beyond.
There was enormous effort expended about eligibility during the election - and yet not once did I hear the Vattel definition that apparently you are a traitor to the Constitution unless you got it with your mothers milk and believed it always - even if you never heard it until after the election in 2008.
Till it became salient, you would not have heard of it. Besides, your ignorance about something is proof of nothing.
When did you become a convert to the Vattel definition and express the same here on Free Republic?
Tis irrelevant. You might as well ask when someone learned what "Misprision of felony" means. It doesn't matter when YOUR first heard of it. It doesn't become valid just because knowledge or comprehension dawns on you, it was valid all along. Ignorance of the law does not make the consequences of the law disappear.
The first time "posted" would have been during late 1979 and early 1980 during our discussions about the upcoming Presidential election, Henry Kissinger, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and others on Source and Compuserve. There were still some people around bellyaching about the way in which Henry Kissinger was denied the opportunity to serve as President of the United States in the line of succession or as a elected candidate for President.
The 4 May 1974 issue of Time Magazine included a story which commented on Democrat Congressman Bingham's efforts to secure a Constitutional Amendment allowing naturalized U.S. citizens to be eligible to the Office of the Predsident:
"The arbitrariness of the restriction so disturbs New York Democratic Congressman Jonathan Bingham that he has introduced a bill calling for a constitutional amendment that would make naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency, and would also eliminate the ticklish constitutional question of the eligibility of children born abroad to American parents."
Vattel's Law of Nations was a key part of the debate about Kissinger, Granholm, and others in 1972, 1974, and later. While Vattel was not mentioned by name in that Time Magazine article, his Law of Nations was the source of the concern about the "eligibility of children born abroad to American parents" mentioned by Time Magazine in 1974. When we went online with our 300baud modems in 1979, we were debating the authority of Vattel and the Constitution not unlike we are now, but in the context of Democrat and Republican efforts to pass an Amendment to the Constitution. They sought to authorize the change and also clarify the status of children born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents, as remarked by Time in 1974 and others previous to 1974. We were discussing the same issues in the 1964 election with Barry Goldwater. All of this came up again as we discussed it online in the 1979 and 1980 runup to the election.
There was enormous effort expended about eligibility during the election - and yet not once did I hear the Vattel definition that apparently you are a traitor to the Constitution unless you got it with your mothers milk and believed it always - even if you never heard it until after the election in 2008.
Setting aside your hyperbole and misrepresentations of other people's positions,I don't know where you were or under which rock you lived, but among the people with whom I discussed this issue, Vattel's role in writing the Law of Nations and its citation by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision/s was no obscure secret whatsoever. It was century or centuries old news, but it was perhaps not as well known among people who did not discuss and debate the sources of the Constitutional principles. After all, how many people today read and discuss the Federalist Papers, John Locke, or Hugo Grotius as we do?
When did you become a convert to the Vattel definition and express the same here on Free Republic?
By your point of view I must have been a convert upon taking my mother's milk. I certainly saw no reason to discard or disregard Vattel's Law of Nations as I read it in 1963 along with the translations of Hugo Grotius and his Laws of War. I don't recall when I mentioned Vattel by name of Free Republic, but my first post as WhiskeyX was in regard to the fraudulent Obama birth certificate in August 2009. Previously, I commented upon this issue on BBS, Usenet, and other forums with regard to the proposed Constitutional amendments 1974, 1979-0, 1991, 200, 2001, 2004; and particularly in regard to Obama in 2004-2008 and McCain in 2007-2008.
It is unfortunate that you are only just recently waking up to the existence of these long simmering debates about the natural born citizen clause and Vattel's role in them.
Puerto Rico isn’t a state of the Union and if you can find one example since 1959 and Hawai’ian statehood of a Hawai’ian birth certificate being rejected as valid by another state or by the federal government, please post a link to it.
EVERY state in the union can suffer identity theft involving counterfeit or fraudulent birth certificates. Somebody is going to have to uncover specific evidence that that occurred in 1961 regarding the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II.
No one has been able to convince a court of law of those allegations. On three separate occasions the state of Hawaii has issued official statements saying that Zero’s original, vault copy birth records are valid and authentic.
Only four individuals have seen those records: the previous health director, Dr. Fukino, the Registrar of Vital Statistics, Dr. Onaka, the current Health Director, Ms. Fuddy and whoever the Health Department employee was who put the long form in a photocopying machine and pushed the button.
“CNN: Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukimo ‘Obama was 100 percent born here’”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9D4n6_Uifk
Impeaching the Hawaii records will take a civil lawsuit with a plaintiff who has standing to sue and in more than 70 attempts in original jurisdiction courts at the local, state and federal levels, no one has been granted standing. Or impeaching the Hawaii birth certificate will take a criminal investigation and a grand jury looking into forgery or fraud. No local, state or federal prosecutor has attempted that route either. Not one of the 535 members of Congress has asked for a Special Counsel to be appointed to look into this matter.
The state of Hawaii is standing by the following:
(Stanley) Ann Dunham signed the Obama Certificate of Live Birth on August 7, 1961. Dr. David A. Sinclair signed it as attending physician for Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital on August 8, 1961 and Vickie Lee registered the birth for the state of Hawaii on August 8, 1961. The Hawaii Health Bureau forwarded the vital statistics information of that birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulliten for publication in their August 13, 1961 and August 14, 1961 editions in those newspapers’ Vital Statistics sections along with Marriages and Deaths. The birth was also recorded by the Health Bureau in the 1961 Index File of all Hawaii births.
I am not saying that the information above is impossible to impeach, I’m only saying that it is a high bar to impeach that information 50 years later.
“This is not a state issue. It is an issue of Constitutional law, of which the states and Federal government are merely players. The Requirements of the election officials of each state is not to accept documents, but to accept proof. (Could be videotape or eye witness testimony for all the difference it makes.) If a document cannot constitute proof, it cannot be accepted as such. Declaring it “proof” is just a lawyer exercise in idiocy, and sensible people should tolerate no part of it. In fact, any lawyer which tries to pull a stunt like this OUGHT to go to jail for 90 days.
Again, a Constitutional requirement trumps all courts, all laws, all polices and procedures, and everything but another constitutional requirement. It is a club by which silly arguments are beaten down and left with bruises and contusions such as your argument above.”
The Constitution of the United States in Article IV, Section 1 grants to the STATES the power to record births. Nowhere in the Constitution nor in any federal law is that power reserved by the federal government.
There is no such thing as a federal birth certificate and birth certificates are the means to determine birth place and birth date in order to fulfill two of the three Article II, Section 1 requirements (along with 14 years residence in the US).
If I wanted to run against Zero, I would be using a short form birth certificate issued by my birth county. I might search for my original long form but I have no idea where it is.
Every US Passport that I have ever been issued was acquired using the County short form.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Tenth Amendment
Well, that's the thing about conspiracy theories: they take whatever form is necessary to accommodate new information. Sometimes the eligibility conspirators are fiendishly clever, sometimes they're stupid. Sometimes it's a huge conspiracy involving Hawaii governors and DOH officials stretching back 50 years, sometimes it's a tiny group of trusted co-conspirators. Whatever the theory requires at that moment must be the truth.
My fifth grade teacher told our class that The president must be born to citizens, and always has been, and that the popular statement that being born here was enough is not really accurate. She even predicted there might one day be a fight over it.
So this started about 10 years after Obama was born. Maybe my teacher Knew who Obama was?
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.