Skip to comments.Tickerguy: 1, ObaBots: 0 (proof of LFBC fraud)
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. Thats 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 theyre being called, arent 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. Theyre 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....
I took it upon myself to do a little test. I entered the line, "Barack Obama's LFBC is a fraud!" in my word processor.
I then printed that short line of text out on a color ink jet printer using only black ink, so as to remove any color artifacts from printing.
Here is how that image looks after scanning it as a 24 bit color TIF file converted to PNG format (for upload) at 300 dpi:
Now, here is that same sheet of paper scanned as a 1 bit black & white TIF file converted to PNG for upload:
As you can see, with no other alterations made on these two scans except their conversion to PNG format, there's a huge difference in the quality between the 24 bit file (top) and the 1 bit file (bottom).
The edges of the letters in the 24 bit file have much smoother edges owing to the fact that each pixel in the image has 8 bits of color data (even from a black and white document). That provides the image processor with 256 shades of gray per RGB channel with which to work, providing smoother gradations between the blackest text and the whitest background.
The 1 bit black & white TIF file has only 1 bit of data per pixel: a pixel is either all white or all black. There is no gray scale to create the smooth edges that the 24 bit file has.
Next, I brought these raw TIF scans into PhotoShop and, using the Magic Wand tool, selected the white background of each then enlarged them for the purpose of getting a screen capture of the area on each I wanted to highlight. (I had to promote the B&W image to gray scale to get the Magic Wand to work, which accounts for the solid gray fringe on the lower images letters.)
Here are those PNG images after retouching and enlarging (24 bit image first):
Compare those to this image enlarged and grabbed from Obama's new BC:
The green background layer is the result of a 24 bit color scan (look at the number 1 far right), while the overlaid text is the result of a 1 bit black and white scan with the white background removed for transposition over the color background layer.
There's no question that this document consists of at least two separately scanned images composited together.
To what end, I have no idea.
He is not a “natural born” citizen, but his supporters, if they could understand the term, are now saying that “natural born” is the equivalent of “native born,” and that is good enough for those tens of millions of the uninformed.
///Let’s not go after the terrorists, it might make them mad, mentality.///
I spent most of the last ten years, directly or indirectly, putting missiles through terrorist roofs or boots through their doors. My only regret is that we didn’t do more. I’m not at all shy about going after enemies of the republic. What I am is tired beyond measure of working for people that employ failed tactics and refuse to see it.
While we no doubt share the same goal in the defeat of Obama and his worthless, toxic, socialist nightmare, the birther tactic has no more chance of success than our kinder, gentler ROE and foreign policy has of curbing the growth of Islamism. Just like our misguided but noble way of war, birthers focus on details and metrics that are correct in specific, but irrelevant on the whole.
Birtherism is the Konar valley of political issues. We can spend years bleeding troops, money and time over a victory that will feel barren by the time we ever see it, because in the meantime we will have lost everything else. I’m tired of winning local battles and losing wars. Believe in this battle all you like, but it’s a diversion that can cost us the war.
Where is that other thread you were talking about?
Immigration law is a major business in this country. 60% of those receiving green cards in the US result from changes in status.
I guess the JOKE is on you.
///What do you think? I want the truth, the consequences be damned.///
Noble enough. Problem is, you arent gonna get either, because you have no hard evidence. Suspicions alone are easy to discredit, and Obama loves the easy targets birthers present.
You can’t beat something with nothing. Trump almost turned public opinion on Obama, but in the end, Obama has paperwork to support his point, and birthers do not.
There’s plenty of proof that Obama is raw poison for America as we know it. Trying to prove by implication what can be objectively demonstrated is not a winning strategy. In fact, it discredits serious attacks on Obama by painting all critics as wide eyed conspiracy theorists. That’s the only “consequence” that birtherism leads to.
James Madison: It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other...
If I walk into a bar in Pittsburgh and speak against the Steelers I can expect to be in the minority, in that bar. However, that bar is not a good sample of the truth, the law, or the last contest between them and the Packers.
You want to be right in your own little world, how about you show us how to WIN something on the National stage?
Someone here showed proof that there was a faint image of the “raised” seal on the [green] version of the BC. It just struck me...could the seal image have been on the green background layer, rather than on the form layer? Has anyone done any thinking on this possibility?
The law that is applicable is at time of birth. Althought the law is different now, Obozo was only born once. So the law that determines his citizenship status is the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952...
He can play all kinds of games to dance around this, but those are the facts. If he was not born in the U.S. with his admitted parents, he is NOT a U.S. Citizen at all, unless he was naturalized. (he was not) He is a Fraud.
I think this stuff, on the tech side, hurts Obama in part because “techies” are part of his natural coalition.
Techies thought Obama was “smart” and Obama doesn't really know beans, and does not know how to hire anyone who can pull off a techie job like this?
I think the TECHNOLOGY GAP, shown by those in the White House is part of what we can use against them!
Native-born citizens are clearly natural-born citizens, but the dominant view of the legal community is that anyone who is a citizen upon birth is a natural-born citizen. Thus the two terms are not equivalent because there are natural-born citizens who are not native born, the obvious example being John S. McCain III, who was born a military base in Panama.
"Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad." -- Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
"The Constitution's rule that the president be 'a natural born citizen' focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date." -- Akhil Reed Amar, "The Constitution and the Candidates" http://slate.com/id/2183588/
Only serves to show how unhinged you, and many Birthers, have become.
I wish to be considered a “Birther” and defend “Birthers” on Liberal blogs. We have a right to ask Obama questions, to ask for documents, and to doubt his slippery and dishonest answers.
Obama became famous, rich, and the PRESIDENT of the United States due to a book written by a terrorist, and due to MYTHICAL BS about his life.
Yes, if you will have me, I defend the idea the Obama has not been honest with us about his past or his heritage.
However, if Obama was born on US Soil? I hold the position that he IS a Natural Born Citizen.
You wish to earn converts to your cause by insulting people who are not with YOU 100%?
How is that working for you?
Have you ever run a political campaign, in your life?
Have you ever won a Court case, in your life?
You don't win votes by kicking people out of your “club”.
You don't win a jury vote by ticking off, offending or ALIENATING the jury.
As LEADERS, you who insist on attacking me, personally, are failures, since nobody is following you.
I agree with you.
What gave you the idea that I don’t agree with you, on this post?
Lets say you are a Founder, and your desire is to protect this country which you love, and which you know will be threatened by subversive forces. You write in the NBC requirement, and in your mind this is to rule out certain non-American, un-American or even anti-American (Manchurian) candidates from winning an election and fundamentally threatening the Republic from within.
Fast forward. Theoretically speaking, posit this scenario. Karl Marx, although already married, makes a legal visit to the US and marries a 17 yo black girl [or so we are told; we have not seen the marriage license]. While the child is young, the mother divorces this man, moves to a foreign country and has her son adopted by a foreign national. The parents hate free market capitalism, and indoctrinate their son in the superiority of foreign cultures.
When eventually the son returns, hes turned over to communists. They rear him with a virulent hatred for whites and traditional American values. When he gets to college he makes no secret of his affiliations: he selects radical Marxists and the most radical of all brands of feminists as friends, since these are the only people he feels comfortable with. Later he writes a book and dedicates it to the dreams he received from his father, Marx. This father supported the taking of 100 % of the citizens money by the state, and doling it out as the State sees fit. The son knows this, and writes a paean to his fathers dreams because he shares them, and wants the world to know he shares them. He writes a second book in which he unabashedly offers his view of whites: White mens greed runs a world in need.
Now he runs for POTUS. We have come to a time in our nations history when asking any kind of question whatsoever of a biracial man is considered racist, so he gets a complete pass during the election. When asked to show his original long form BC, he spits in our faces. (The evil whites have no right to question their biracial Marxist Messiah!) He rules in the kind of luxury and opulence enjoyed by tinpot dictators, and his executive orders further the impression that hes not a president but a king. He runs the US down all over the world, apologizing for us in humiliating and demeaning ways while praising countries with wretched human rights records. He nationalizes banks, car companies, healthcare, etc. He subverts our interests to those of the UN. He pushes for, and gets, a treaty favorable to Russia and unfavorable to us. He seeks to destroy out military by homosexualizing/sodomizing it. Theres much more, but you get the picture.
Now as a Founder, can you honestly say that this isnt precisely what you were trying to protect us from, with the NBC requirement? You wanted to assure that a US born and bred person, who knew and respected our culture and traditions, held the highest office in the land. Is not Obama EXACTLY the person the Founders feared, and tried to exclude? He is fast destroying the country they loved and sacrificed for. And its not a coincidence. He is not a NBC; he doesnt understand us yet he hates us rabidly. And if the Constitution had been respected and honored, he would never have attained the sinecure from which to do his filthy work.
The alternative is that as a Founder, you wrote the NBC requirement (1) to insure that future British subjects could not be discriminated against, by being barred from siring US presidents, and (2) so that men like Marx, Mao, Hitler, Stalin—or worse—could spawn a future POTUS, so long as they married an underage American girl in order to do so. If you cant see the cognitive disconnect in that, then theres nothing more I can say; you just dont get it.
Posted on 05/01/2010 1:22:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
One of the constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency is that he be a "natural born citizen." This was put into place by the founders to keep foreigners or persons who do not bear a non-questionable allegiance to the US Constitution out. Obviously, and admittedly Barack Hussein Obama was born to a foreign citizen and is not 100% American. He's half-American, half-African and all Marxist. He obviously bears no allegiance whatsoever to the US Constitution and is working overtime to destroy it. He's a usurper and should be removed from office. He is exactly the kind of fraud/usurper the founders feared.
Yes, I did.
And when those same sycophantic drones are shown the proof that Barry Bassturd is still legally Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen and not a US citizen, they will again don their kneepads and worship at his ‘cirtizen of the world feet’. America no longer deserves to be a We The People are the sovereigns’ Republic, and it is being taken from them by leaps and bounds, with the pirate Roberts’ subPreme court in duplicitous support.
Further we have a body of historic articles discussing what Natural Born Citizen meant in reference to the Presidential requirement, these either reference the status as requiring either paternal allegiance or the allegiance of both parents. You can find those on your own if you are the knowledgeable scholar you'd claim to be.
Ever get that “Deer in the Headlight” (Pun intended) look from a liberal during an argument?
Libs don't get challenged, in the Media.
We challenge each other, and we get challenged by the Media and by liberals.
There are many good people on our side who just don't have all the facts, or all the arguments, to fight well.
Many who disagree with me, on this thread, do have some valid points, but I still disagree with them.
I think you are a bit presumptuous to post a JimRob link, as nothing I have posted, here, in any way works to undermine basic, conservative thought, policy or teaching.
This matter is unresolved, even in Conservative ranks.
I also believe that Congress can enact laws as to who is and who is not a citizen.
Regardless of what anyone wrote, years ago, the current legal climate seems to hold that “Natural Born Citizen” means Citizen at birth.
There are as many quotes and writings, from our founders, that agree with me, as you can find that agree with you.
I don't particularly like it.
I do believe that Obama is our first Anti-American President.
However, the ends do not justify the means, and I do not think we will get anywhere trying to remove Obama due to his father's loyalties.
>Thats not correct, is it? His mother was a citizen, and he was born in the US. That makes him eligible.<
If taken on it’s face that he was born in the us and she was able to confer citizenship - he would be a citizen.
To be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN .. which is the requirement to be POTUS, you have to be born of two american parents on us soil.
The 14th amendment only makes people citizens. It’s intent was to make people born of slaves citizens. No where in the law or discussions of the congress on the law is it even implied, let alone stated that it was meant to make someone Natural Born.
It is the intent that matters and there was never any intent, implied or express that they wanted to change the original context and definition of a natural born citizen by the 14th amendment.
You can tell me i am wrong until the cows come home. But that only means you haven’t read anything from the courts who have made that statement and argument - this was their ruling.
I don’t think the founders bought that idea. There is no point to the clause if that is all it means. The bill in the Senate to make McCain NBC was that he had citizen parents which obozo voted for. It is rather silly to think that illegal parents can produce a NBC. Oh, you may quote some black robed pol that has spent his life trashing the original intent of the founders, but the founders sought to protect us from such as this..
Madison, for one, felt that LOCATION of birth was the controlling factor.
The fact remains that REALITY castrates your argument. The Courts, the Congress, the Electoral College and the voters KNEW Obama had a foreign father. (Well, I was not sure, I still wonder about Frank Marshall Davis).
Anyway, this dog won't hunt.
I do think we need to put Obama on the spot. I do think the Birther movement, on balance, has been helpful.
However, we will NEVER remove Obama from office based on his Father.
It just won't happen.
I never said that birth in America, alone, granted Citizenship or Natural Born Citizenship.
I said that Natural Born Citizenship means you were a CITIZEN at BIRTH!
The majority of legal opinion is, sometimes, wrong, but -— right now the majority of legal opinion would be with me, not you. The matter, I grant you, has not been resolved as well as it needs to be resolved.
I hold the view that Congress can stop the “anchor baby” problem simply by exercise of its power to determine the jurisdiction of the courts, combined with the power of Congress to set the rules for citizenship.
I believe that the rules for citizenship are exactly the same as the rules for Natural Born Citizenship -— save one factor:
A “Natural Born Citizen” must be a Citizen at the exact moment of birth, and not due to any oath or naturalization process.
You wrote: “You know how many cities will burn if the truth came out? Civil War II would be under way, and the international community would side with the Obamites as we who presented the truth would be called ‘racists wishing to return to the days of slavery.’”
Bingo! And that is nothing more than Obama would want... “a scorched earth (USA)!” Then declare martial-law, suspend elections, etc, etc.
I also think that the release of the (forged) CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH on April 27th was a “Double Dog Dare.” He doesn’t give a rat’s pittuty that he’s ineligible per Art II, Section 1, US Constitution.
Finally, I think American Blacks, I’m sorry to say, have rioted for less than the possible removal of a president. Does that make me a racist?
Thank you for posting this. I would have missed it otherwise. Now if we could just get the usurpers and their RINO enablers to just stop what they are doing and support our Constitution.
Bingham did not seem to hold that.
Then too ...
There are many forces, lines of the intellectual reasoning of proud men and women, that have diluted and altered the original meaning and intents the Founders had in carefully crafting our US Constitution. In nearly every case, even perhaps in every case, the change has been harmful.
That the changes, the second-guessing, has been even harmful is a measure of the Providential Insight that our Creator granted Our Founders when this nation arose upon the stage of human history.
Take for one example: a cup of coffee. Coffee was the drink of the Patriot in the times of the original Tea Party. A famous song from the 1930's has the tag line "Brother can you spare a dime [for a cup of coffee]".
A good cup of coffee in 1930 cost one dime. It still does -- a good cup of STARBUCKS coffee costs one dime or less. Of course, I don't mean a 2011 dime, but the silver value of a 1932 dime will buy you today a 12 ounce cup of the most expensive Starbucks drink. I checked this at my local Starbucks: $3.55 for a 12 oz Caramel Macchiato.
The value of a 1932 Dime in silver melt as of 29 April 2011 is $3.47. Okay, eight cents plus a few more cents sales tax short, but close enough.
The Money Clause of the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, fifth clause, grants Congress the authority "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" Note the whole clause is includes "fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". The Constitution gives no direct authority for any kind of money excepting coin of standard weight and measure.
It is a dilution that we have permitted paper money, especially today's currency money, which for the most part is not even paper anymore, it is merely ledger entries! The Founders may have allowed a redeemable note convertible to coin, or fixed weight of precious metal, but certainly they were leery of paper money due to the utter failure of the paper money called Continentals, during the Revolutionary War period.
Thus today we are beyond "dilution" of our money, we have moved into change territory. The original intent and meaning of the money clause has been perverted, the authority to demand that official currency be wholly fiat at complete odds to what the Founders intended.
Although the Constitution allows the Congress the ability to set the value of coinage, the Constitution refers to a specific denomination of money: a dollar. The Founders intended that the average or representative silver value of the coin then known as a dollar be used for all time.
The Constitution uses the term "dollar" in two places. Article 1, Section 9, limits the authorities of Congress and the first clause in that section limits a head tax on imported slaves to a maximum of "ten dollars". The 7th Amendment provides the right to a Jury Trail for all claims over "twenty dollars".
The dollar of that era was a standard weight measure of pure silver, defined by Spanish Law as consisting of 387 grains of pure silver. That's 0.885 ounces. In common use as coinage the Spanish dollar was divided into "pieces of eight," or "bits," each consisting of one-eighth of the dollar weight.
Thus by the "ten dollars" the Founders meant the value of 8.85 ounces of pure silver. As of 29 April 2011 that is $479 in current US (fiat) dollars. Thus a Jury Trial is a right where the disputed amount exceeds just a bit less than a thousand dollars.
That amount, $1000 in current dollars, still seems reasonable and that it does so is a testament to the Founder's wisdom in crafting the Constitution as well as to their understanding of the constants of human nature.
Yet today can I demand a trial for a disputed amount of $1000? No, at least not in all places. That's sad. It's another perversion of Original Intent.
The Founder's intended that all states joining the Union abide the especial protections provided individual rights in the Bill of Rights. However our moderns have changed that. A 1999 US Supreme Court ruling voided that protection of individual rights. That's bad, that's tyrannical, in the true sense of that word.
Your understanding of the meaning of "natural born citizen" today springs from the same tyrannical theory of law. Tyrants and their theories of law are ever changing, ever making alterations.
And ever getting it wrong. Ever making it worse. Ever tending to destruction, chaos and death.
By adding to such destructive forces, the way of the world is that it temporarily adds to their power and might over others.
No , you are wrong. Born on US soil makes you American, not Natural Born American...
Get your head of of your ass and stop being ignorant. A 3rd grader could tell you that....
According to you, Osama Bin Laden could father a child and as long as he is born in the US, he could be President?
And, the minority that voted for McCain?
The VAST majority of McCain voters agree with me and disagree with you.
You are in a small, fringe minority.
And, from your isolated position, on the fringe, you tell me that a child could understand what you are saying?
Your logic, or lack of logic I should say, is very evident in this latest post of yours.
IF your position is so self-evident that a child could understand your position, what of the voters, the Electoral College, the Congress and the Courts?
Your position is a loser, It won't go anywhere.
So could Ted Bundy.
So could Charles Manson.
What is your point? It is not the job of our Constitution to pick our President, only to set basic requirements for that office.
The real underlying issue here is what to do about the gutless RINOs who still control the Republican Party. It’s time those of us on FR take a stand and propose concrete steps to rid the GOP of “Boner” and the Bobsy Twins for starters. The decent Republicans in these guys districts need to start picketing their local offices. To date, Boner and company (nee gutless bastards all) have been getting a free ride from their constituents. They need to realize that time is short for making it very clear that unless they actually do something that supports their promises for change, that they are gone! This has to be done from the outside because as I see it, there are not enough new young Constitutionalists in the House to compel change from within.
Yep, I agree. We have a lot of house cleaning to do.
Cry Baby Boehner was the wrong choice just as McLame was in 2008. We don’t need a weepy crybaby as Speaker. Good Grief I’m tougher than him and I’m a girl. Until we get rid of every RINO,,, it’s like my tagline says, same old same old.
What naturalized citizens? At the time of our founding, there were no naturalized citizens. The US had no natualization process in place yet the day the constitution was adopted.
>However, we will NEVER remove Obama from office based on his Father.
It just won’t happen.<
I never said that they would. I don’t think that they could.
Not enough votes to impeach unless there is some other mechanism for a vote of no confidence or something.
But I will tell you this, It my *opinion* that this issue is helping to drive Obama’s numbers down, which is the only reason he even put out that certificate.
So I say turn up the heat. The law was written in 1790 - regarding a natural born citizen. It was never revised, edited or repealed. There are no foot notes in the 14th that indicate that it has any impact what so ever on the law of the first continental congress either.
generally, if a law is superseded, they state that in all law books.
TURN UP THE HEAT .. as gas prices rise, so will tempers. As food prices soar his numbers drop. Americans would hate to think that they are going broke from a man who may have duped them.
I've never put a document together in Adobe .pdf, don't know how yet, and am not familiar with all the different scanning techniques.
Somebody pulled a number on me and had papers of mine they shouldn't. It was in .tiff format and showed up as a single document on the thumbnail but was a large file. I opened it in Photoshop CS2 and it looked strange, very long and narrow, zoomed it up and the aspect ratio was all wrong. What to do? Tried my old Paint Shop Pro, and when I opened, there were 8 or so layered documents underneath flying open on my screen. I know who had it done, but I don't know what scanner or method would have done that. So that's how I found out .tiff can be in layers, too. So much for that.
It's true about the chromatic aberration in color documents, never worked on it or zoomed in with my scanned files because there was no point for my purposes. It was the noise that I could only do so much with; scanners are much better now with that. There are various techniques to get rid of CA, at normal viewing size it isn't noticeable if done well but you can detect the grayscale halos or gradations when zoomed; cleaning further an arduous task unless there is some software than can do it. I saw the Denninger video on that.
So back to the main point, I have no idea what kind of scanner was used on the BC, probably scanned when Hawaii went to the new archival system. The article at the Hawaii paper mentioned that they were printed on the green security paper. Why not just crop it to the margins?
I like puzzling things out, So all the rest of it aside, why put two different documents out there of essentially the same thing? I agree AP only scanned what they got but can't imagine what they started with, maybe layers merged without the security paper layers. I knew something like this would happen if he released it but sure didn't expect layers, assume it's true.
I assume you mean the WH version. That puzzled me too. Probably because they xeroxed it to safety paper directly from the archived "original". Copies, if they handed them out, were probably scaled up. Which could explain why the AP version is so off proportionally.
Why put two out? I'm starting to think the WH version is nothing but a baited hook.
Lol I would not have touched that file on that site with a 100,000 foot pole!!!!!!!