Posted on 07/03/2013 9:04:28 AM PDT by FreedomOutpost
We know that John Brennan got the head job of the Central Intelligence Agency. However, as we stated in a previous article, by obtaining the records of Barack Obama he may well show that Obama is not eligible to be President.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/does-the-cia-director-have-barack-obamas-records-that-prove-he-is-ineligible-to-be-president/#ixzz2XzxgGS3K
Incidentally, I don't see that they've admitted any such thing.
The fact is, only one REAL expert has ever looked at the PDF, and that's Professor Ricardo de Queiroz, who invented a lot of the technology that compressed it.
And he saw nothing except a rather sloppy compression algorithm.
In fact, it's clear from that page that Arpaio's expert based his judgment on a COMPLETELY FALSE CLAIM, that was already known to be completely false, because it was published in a paper by Professor de Queiroz back in 1999!
So here there's a paper out there, saying that MRC compression can have multiple bitmask layers. It's been out there for more than a dozen years, it's basically part of the basic specifications for the compression technology, and Arpaio's idiotic quack "expert" claims it's impossible.
Ah, but just like with the Constitutional issues, you don't want to go with the REAL authorities. You want to go with the QUACKS, because the QUACKS back up your stupid claims.
It's inexcusable. You know the truth, but you prefer falsehood, simply because you like the falsehood.
By the way, you can keep posting bullshit and lies, and I can keep pointing out that it’s bullshit and lies.
Forever, if you like.
And of course, I will point out exactly WHY, so people can see for themselves what a BSer you are.
In this case, Arpaio’s expert made a totally bullsh*t claim. It was known by the real experts, a dozen years before, to be a bullsh*t claim. The specification that was published in 1999 makes clear that it was a bullsh*t claim.
Doesn’t speak very well of Arpaio’s experts, does it? Or of his own team’s competence in getting their information from total quacks?
You, of course, prefer the bullsh*t claim of a quack to the actual truth. I’ll continue to point that out as well.
This would have mattered if the US was still operating under the constitution. But the government hasn’t been operating under the constitution since long before the current clown took office.
Here is what’s important.
Two different people (non-expert or experts) working with similar type documents, on two different scanners, produced PDFs that if examined using the main criteria of the CCP, would have to be declared forgeries. But they are not forgeries.
Use this PDF created on the Xerox 7535
http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf
If you open this document in Illustrator, you can move around the registrar stamp and place it anywhere on the document. And the document does not have a clipping mask around the outer edge.
And if you open it and save it on a Mac using Preview, you get a rectangular clipping mask around the edge of the document. Preview adds a clipping mask for some reason without any input from the user.
Both of these criteria were noted by Zullo in the CSPOA Convention as not being possible by just scanning a document into a computer.
This test by these two non-experts show that not to be true.
“Because the law that they passed completely contradicts YOUR claim that “the Founding Fathers intended that it take the highest possible allegiance to make a person eligible to be President; therefore it birth on US soil plus two citizen parents.” “
Gee, Jeff. If it is as you say it is, why did they delete the words “natural born” in 1795?
Nice try at the distraction, but let’s keep focused on the subject of our discussion - which is your selective posting of things in a manner to deceive. Posting something from 1790 to support your argument, that you know was repealed in 1795 (which you didn’t post), is done with an intent to deceive. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else reading this thread.
The highest form of evidence (primary evidence) of proof of citizenship and identity is a valid US Passport. A Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth) is a secondary form of proof.
There is no state in the Union and no federal statute which mandates that a presidential candidate prove his natural born citizenship status and identity via a birth certificate.
http://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/publications/docs/gis/06ma021att.pdf
The only version of Barack Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth that matters is the original version, which since 2011 has been stored in a safe in the records division of the Hawaii Department of Health in the office of Hawaii state Registrar of Vital Statistics, Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.
The Hawaii Registrar has issued three Letters of Verification for that document.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-moved-secure-location-months-ago/
The PDF of the original COLB that is on the whitehouse.gov web site is for exhibition purposes. It has no other relevance.
There's no "if," jackass. It's a matter of historical record. Anybody can look it up.
Nice try at the distraction, but let’s keep focused on the subject of our discussion - which is your selective posting of things in a manner to deceive.
Nice try, jackass. The subject of the discussion is your bullsh*t, which this is another episode of.
Fact is, you made an idiotic claim that isn't backed up by history. You can't attack the historical record, so you attack the messenger.
Posting something from 1790 to support your argument, that you know was repealed in 1795 (which you didn’t post), is done with an intent to deceive. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else reading this thread.
It was changed by a different, later Congress, jackass.
YOU and other jackass birthers have made the claim that the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution, writing the Presidential eligibilty clause in 1787, intended and specified that ONLY people with the "highest form of allegiance," that is, those who were BOTH born on US soil AND had US citizen parents, should be eligible to the Presidency.
The actions of the First Congress, pretty much as soon as the new nation's government convened, WHICH TOGETHER WITH PRESIDENT WASHINGTON, INCLUDED 40% OF THOSE WHO SIGNED THE CONSTITUTION, flatly and absolutely contradict you.
In fact, it's even worse than that.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, whom you disdain because he doesn't support your bullshit, said that in regard to the kind of allegiance that made a person a citizen, both parentage and place of birth were relevant, but that in general, place of birth was "the most certain" and it was "what applies in the United States.
That means that Madison, the Father of our Constitution, regarded place of birth as STRONGER than parentage alone.
So when the First Congress, including 40% of the Constitution's signers, specified that parentage ALONE (the WEAKER criterion, remember?) was sufficient to make a person eligible to the Presidency, that was a tacit approval clearly signifying that the stronger allegiance that came from place of birth, without parentage, was also adequate to meet the requirement.
Now, I don't expect you to have followed that, because frankly you don't seem smart enough. About all you can do is repeat the false accusation that I have somehow "misrepresented history" or "omitted things" "with an intent to deceive."
That, of course, is what jackasses do. They have no actual argument, so about all they can do is make false accusations.
So make some more. Jackass.
“Nice try, jackass”
Wow! You win the argument with this! If you hadn’t used the “jackass” rebuttal, I never would have seen the light.
.
.
.
.
Sorry. Had to stop for a minute and wipe the sarcasm off my chin.
But, nice try at the distraction (again), but let’s keep focused on the subject of our discussion - which is your selective posting of things in a manner to deceive.
Impeachment File on Benghazi Coward “B. Hussein Obama,” formerly known as Barry Soetoro, a Legal Citizen of the Sovereign Nation of Indonesia.
How about backing off a bit.
Jim, at your request, I will certainly back off a bit.
But Jim, the Constitution and the truth are both important and sacred to me. Why are people allowed to trample both here, day after day, with literally dozens of provably false claims?
And why are they allowed to routinely call those of us who tell the truth all kinds of insulting names, even going so far as to make physical threats (e.g., “I’ll beat your ass”), and make endless false accusations against us, with no one restricting their slander and threats or intervening on our behalf?
If you have the slightest doubt that their dozens of claims are all nonsense, then I would be happy to sit down with you and take you through any major birther claim - or any dozen or two dozen of them - and show you exactly why they are complete hogwash.
“””””And why are they allowed to routinely call those of us who tell the truth all kinds of insulting names””””
Most here do not call you names.... and if they do, you return the favor and become endlessly hostile to them... People here, just do not agree with you.
“””””Why are people allowed to trample both here, day after day, with literally dozens of provably false claims?””””
So now you expect Jim to sensor people who are forced to speculate... because Obummer continues hide his records?
That is why some people here think that you are an obot.
You continue to make these long-winded posts siting so many quotes that you think make your argument better than anyone else’s.
We just do not agree.
thank you
I posted what I posted after being repeatedly and relentlessly falsely accused by the poster I responded to.
Here's what HE accused me of BEFORE I made that post:
Taking things out of context,
False.
obfuscating
False.
and attaching misinterpretations to, what appears to be, most everything you write,
Completely false.
screams out a nefarious agenda
False.
You post things in a manner to support your misinterpretation of history
False. I haven't misinterpreted anything. In fact, my understanding of history is agreed to by every major conservative commentator who's ever spoken on the subject.
which is your selective posting of things in a manner to deceive.
Again, another absolutely false accusation
done with an intent to deceive.
Once more, absolutely false and insulting.
Has FreeRepublic become a place where those who post falsehoods can freely insult those of us who post the truth, and those of us who post the truth aren't allowed to respond in kind?
As someone who carefully studies history and does his absolute best to post only as accurately as I can - and back it up with the relevant facts - Jim, I would certainly appreciate your intervention on MY behalf.
I'm sick of being constantly called an "Obot," a "traitor," and even physically threatened for standing up to those who misrepresent our Constitution and our history.
Why are slander and constant false accusations being so freely allowed against those of us who post the truth?
You don’t know the truth.
Certainly I do.
Everything I have posted has been backed up with 100% documentation.
No one has been able to point out any genuine flaw in the evidence or the reasoning presented.
When people have made objections, those objections have been, for the most part, complete fallacies. When I’ve pointed out those fallacies, the answer from birthers has been insistence on the fallacious arguments, vicious name-calling, and false accusations.
My understanding of our history and law is not anything radical. It is the same understanding of our history and law that virtually everybody in the country has held throughout our entire nation’s history, including every major conservative commentator who has ever spoken on the subject.
100% documented opinion.
If you disagree, then show where I’m wrong.
http://www.libertylawsite.org/book-review/reclaiming-the-citizenship-of-our-fathers/
At the time of the writing of our Constitution and prior to the 14th amendment, there was no such thing as “birthright citizenship”. Therefore, we must look elsewhere to ascertain our understanding of “natural born”.
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.