Skip to comments.Expert: Obama doc is 'proof' – of fraud
Posted on 06/07/2011 6:45:09 PM PDT by conservativegramma
Typeface analysis shows images come from different machines
The online image of a Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth" was trumpeted by the White House when it was released on April 27 as "proof positive" that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Now an expert in typefaces and typography says it sure was "proof," but not of what the White House would have wanted.
Paul Irey, a retired professional typographer with 50 years experience in his business, has says an analysis of the typefaces used in the Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate that the White House released on April 27 reveals it absolutely to be a forgery.
"My analysis proves beyond a doubt that it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter," Irey told WND.
"Typewriters in 1961 could not change the size and shape of a letter on the fly like that," he said. "This document is definitely a forgery."
Irey acknowledges that an IBM Selectric typewriter could have produced different typefaces in a given document, but only if the Selectric ball was changed every time a different typeface letter was struck which would be unlikely to have been done to produce the word "Student," for example, that had two different styles of the lower case "t."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
And he is correct, you don't get a different typeface unless you change the ball everytime. Tedious business. And no one would have done that in a govt office typing out bc's. Nobody. And yet, that's what had to be done if you believe the LFBC is genuine.
In any case, yet ANOTHER expert weighing in on proof of forgery now going beyond layering and OCR, or kerning. You'd have to be an idiot to believe this thing is genuine. JMO.
Too many have called it a fake for it to be genuine.
Even if Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama had been birthed in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House Obama is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
It no longer matters.
There will be no Buckhead moment.
Give it up — fake or not the issue no longer has any political value.
Granny, I couldn’t agree with you more, but it appears this story is dead. Not one media outlet wants to touch this with a ten foot pole. Too bad, think of the fireworks if Limbaugh or one of the bigs tore into this.
I actually own an old Selectric. Never used it, found it after we moved into this house. Wonder if it is worth anything, maybe as an exhibit in some museum.
>>Even if Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama had been birthed in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House Obama is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. <<
That makes no sense at all and flies in the face of 200+ years of jurisprudence.
Trump is the only one who had proven he can move this story forward; I hope he doesn’t give up on it.
The other issue on the released BC is “kerning”. Letters imprinted by typewriters have a set space per letter. The space occupied is uniform resulting in words that do not look very neat. Draw a vertical line between the letters, it will not touch any part of a letter to the left of the line or part of a letter to the right of the line. Word processors allow letters to shift to form neat words. Same situation except a vertical line drawn between two letters can result in the line touching some part of both letters. Result of this word processing feature creates neat words with letters reasonably spaced apart and pleasing for the eye to see. This is called kerning. Obama’s BC has kerning amongst some of its printed letters, a feature that cannot be produced by typewriters of the 1950’s/60’s and only by computer word processing.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Emmerich De Vattel, (1714-1767,) Law of Nations, 1758, § 212, "Of the citizens and naturals."
well, i’d like to say it’s nice to see you saying something besides that you think Sarah won’t run...
but, instead, i will ask, why you think there is NO political value, in multiple experts testifying that the President has lied to the American People, and given them a forged document.
...the Weiner affair, about something that is NOT criminal, shows that people DO care about character and integrity.
also, most Americans are curious by nature. once the KNOW the LFBC is forged, they will get curious about what EXACTLY he is covering up so hard he would FORGE a document.
Good article. I hope it helps the cause but so far Mr. corsi and others have not delivered when it counts. I think his book is good. We need to expose this BO ASAP. Timing is everything and he is on the ropes now with staff leaving and economy tanking. A bombshell would put hyim over the edge. How bout that Kenya BC showing up soon?
Oh Lord, not that again.
It isn’t instantiated into the USC and I, for one, won’t be bound by ex-judicio opinions.
That is saying that only 2nd generation Americans, and born on US Soil, are “Natural Born Citizens.”
Any child born in the USA is a “Natural Born Citizen” irrespective of the parental heritage.
That is what the REAL law says, not an opinion of some dude with no standing in U.S. Court said 300 years ago.
Running that argument is legally pointless.
I agree. The President’s birth certificate is a fake. Sad that nothing can be trusted from our top political leader. And sad that a majority of journalists cannot be trusted to expose injustice. I take comfort knowing that good people will be honest, just and welcomed into the “cives sanctorum” and “the heavenly city” (Ephesians 2:19).
>>”The other issue on the released BC is kerning. <<
There shall be no Buckhead moment.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789
In defining an Article II natural born Citizen, it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born Citizen. Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a natural born Citizen.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolutions first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789) Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task .
www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.
In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the original citizens were and then defined the natural born citizens as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, [c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens . Id. at 6. He added that citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring . Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776 . Id. at 6.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a natural born citizen. Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined natural born Citizen. Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born Citizen and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a natural-born citizen the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a natural born Citizen the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.
Ramsays article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born Citizen and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattels definition the reference to fathers and father and replaced it with parents and person, respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, said that the clause was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of natural born Citizen as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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. . . . John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).
The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.
Obama fails to meet this natural born Citizen eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obamas birth, Obamas father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.
Obama may be a plain born citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsays clear presentation, citizenship as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776 . Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 2, 2010
“Give it up fake or not the issue no longer has any political value.”
Short run, perhaps. Long term, if a fraud, the legal consequences are profound.
respectfully, i think there are others in addition to the “kearning” you mention.
why do some words curve less than others?
how can signatures be in different resolutions on the same document, unless one of them was pasted on?
and boxes that are identical down to the pixel?
why do other documents show the security paper background as they are supposed to, but this one LFBC doesn’t?
In the United States House on March 9, 1866
commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was
simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,
that 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.
Rep. Bingham said parents. He did not say one parent or a mother or father.
>>well, id like to say its nice to see you saying something besides that you think Sarah wont run...<<
That is a prediction. Despite reactions it should be devoid of any emotion.
>>but, instead, i will ask, why you think there is NO political value, in multiple experts testifying that the President has lied to the American People, and given them a forged document.<<
Because the term is over 1/2 over and most Americans have turned their back on the issue. They either shrug or just think that the latest set of “birthers” are nuttier than Aunt Jane’s Holiday Super Nut Cake.
We asked for the COLB, there is a cghain of custody that suggests that if it is fake it had a heck of a lot of help and there is no proof that barry the zero was born anywhere else.
Than I guess the Constitution no longer has any political value and we should give that one up too??
Thanks, I'll pass. You go crawl under your hole, and I'll keep fighting for the constitution.