OT: Birth Cert - For those that need proof read this......

Vader, you know what I know then, that liberals are liars. Either they don't know a lie from the truth, or they lack the integrity and character required to tell the truth as it is. Personally, I believe the latter. I don't think they give a crap in hell about the truth. Liberals are morally corrupt, to the bone. They couldnt tell the truth if it would save their life. I am learning that there is no point in trying to reason with them, they already know they don't have a valid argument, so the first and only thing they can do is call you racist, bigot, whatever to try to shift the point of the conversation away from their indefensible standpoint. It's really sad, I feel so sorry for them, but at the same time I have no simpathy for them for their actions. They get what they deserve, and unfortunately for the of us, were circling the drain with them. They are the result of all the brainwashing that's been going on, and they can't seem to break that spell that's been cast upon them. It's like they've been taught to throw out common sense and reason, and substitute it with emotionally distorted, unfair and unrealistic thought patterns. They've been brainwashed into resisting any form of common sense, to throw mud when they can't logically defend their position, to take the most hair brained, idiotic ideas and fight for them to the death. They for the most part are what Carl Marx referred to as "useful idiots". They really believe what they do is correct, and true, but really they are just being used wholly to further Marxism and Communism in America. Some actually believe in that form of government, but i would bet that those who do have never lived it. They are too busy enjoying all the finer things and the greatest standard of living on the planet here, and were taught to use their right to freedom of speech to espouse the verbal diahrrea of Marxism. I wonder how many of them are smart enough to realize they are simply "useful idiots" hell bent on destroying their own great way of life? Sadly, many of them won't realize until it's too late. First, they came for the Italians, then for the French, and when there was no one left, they came for me......that's when they'll say "OH F*%#"!!!, but it'll be too late.

islandboy5150 wrote:Eye popping facts to digest here. Look for yourself if you dare. Articles below are from experts and reveal factual details surrounding the authenticity of BHO's birth certificate. How can this be explained? Hmmm?..

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=308397

My explanation in the other thread applies. Those letters are all from the same typewriter. If all those letters were from a forgery they would look much more like each other. The only way to create all the variations shown would be to have hand drawn all the letters, and then they WOULD look different!

I have in my file drawer a letter typed in early 1967 with a mechanical typewriter. I know it's no forgery because it's the job offer when I graduated from college. I can scan it, enlarge the view, copy portions of it to a jpg file, and show you virtually everyone of the same discrepancies that the "expert" linked above claims are proofs of forgery.

islandboy5150 wrote:It's like they've been taught to throw out common sense and reason, and substitute it with emotionally distorted, unfair and unrealistic thought patterns. They've been brainwashed into resisting any form of common sense, to throw mud when they can't logically defend their position, to take the most hair brained, idiotic ideas and fight for them to the death.

Lot of that going around these days.

Islandboy5150 has linked to several articles about the Obama long-form certificate of live birth (COLB), all from World Net Daily. I've taken a close look at the first one, the June 7 article by Jerome Corsi, and tried to keep an open mind. Corsi himself has no credibility with me, in part because he had already staked his reputation on Obama's non-Hawaiian birth in a book published before the state released the certified copy of the long-form certificate, so I'm not going to take anything he says on authority. I'll just look at what Corsi has to present with my own eyes, not taking any expert's word, and see what I find. I think that's all Islandboy is asking that we do.

Corsi is relying on an analysis by Paul Irey, who says that he used as the source document the Xerox copy of the COLB handed out at a press conference April 27, as shown. Irey says that this is a composite document constructed by extracting letters as needed from various authentic 1961 Hawaiian birth certificates originally typed on different typewriters. His evidence is that the same letter looks different in different places, whereas all instances of the same letter should look the same if they were typed using the same typewriter.

One thing I like about Irey's approach is that he is not basing it on the Adobe Acrobat (PDF) version one normally sees posted on the web. To put something on a web page you have to scan it and put it in some kind of computer document format, but the PDF is not what the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) sent the White House. There has been much confusion generated based on the artifacts created by scanning, but the scanning came later. As shown by the cover letter from Loretta Fuddy, the Director of DOH, what was sent to the White House was on paper, not a PDF: "Enclosed please find two certified copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth. I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies." See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... ndence.pdf. By using the Xerox of one of these copies as given to the press, Irey has avoided the red herring of issues introduced by the creation of a PDF for posting. Unfortunately, we do not know how many generations his copy is from the original. At best, if the White House made copies directly from the certified copy, and Irey got his hands on one of these, rather than a copy of some reporter's copy, then it might be a second generation Xerox. For all we know, it might be a third or fourth generation copy.

In Exhibit 2, Irey identifies each letter typed into the form with a unique number, 1 to 244, and then he magnifies some of these in Exhibit 3 to large size so we can compare differences between No. 144 and No. 146, for example, a pair of As. I will assume that this was done honestly. I don't understand what Irey is up to after Exhibit 3, however. He switches there to some digitized letters different from those shown in Exhibit 3 with no indentifying numbers. I stuck to the part of the article where the source of each letter was identified and I could check the work with my own eyes.

The letters, when blown up, are blobby and irregular. That is what one would expect to see, however, in a multi-generation photocopy. The question Irey should have asked is whether the letters are any more blobby and irregular, and any more different in appearance from one another, than those in a similar document from a reliable source. Fortunately, there is such a document. Back in 2008 a thoroughly conservative blogger born in Hawaii who posts as SnarkyBytes shared a copy of his Hawaii long-form COLB that he got in 1998, before the state switched to giving out the certifications generated from a computer database. It is at http://snarkybytes.com/2008/06/18/hawai ... cate-1963/, and you can download a copy. Open it to about 200% magnification and just look at the differences between the two As in ALAN in box 1a and that in Army in box 6c. They are blobby and irregular, just like in the Obama COLB, and every bit as different from one another. You can pick any letter and see the same thing. For example, still in box 6c, the upper serif appears to be at a different angle on one of the small Ls. It looks to me like all Irey has proved is that photocopying degrades text. To prove his case, the differences would have to be greater in the Obama COLB than in others, and I don't see it. We should find some other examples to compare with. It looks like idamtnboy already has an experiment like that in mind.

Consider the following as well:

1. This is clearly from an old-fashioned manual typewriter. Notice how the K in Kansas is well above the line and only partially struck? That's what happened back in the day when you were a little uncoordinated with the shift key. Those old typewriters produced especially variable text because the force used varied from stroke to stroke and because they used a cloth ribbon that was reused (simply spooling back and forth) until the type got too light. So we should expect even more variation between different examples of the same letter with a manual typewriter than with a Selectric or modern printer.

2. I think the typeface looks very similar from letter to letter after you allow for the degradation caused by copying. There is a very odd, big hook on each small T, for example, and an extra-curly tail on each small Y.

3. Irey's methodology is based on the theory that a false document was assembled by copying letters from multiple COLBs. Why would this be necessary if DOH were in on the scam? Ms. Fuddy vouched for the authenticity of the document, so if there is a conspiracy, she must be part of it. If so, she could just use an old typewriter to fill in an old form and the dirty deed would be done. None of the hard work would be necessary. Iray's forgery theory is not logical.

4. I understand why it might be necessary to cut and paste in order to create a forgery, but why pick each letter from a different source? Any sensible person would find one A and use it wherever an A was needed, find one B and use it, etc. It makes no sense for each to come from a different document, which is what Irey theorizes. Who has that many old Hawaii COLBs sitting around?

5. I also understand why it might be necessary to cut and paste each letter to create a name like Barack, but there is no reason it would be necessary to assemble the name of the hospital from multiple sources. Surely one could just use the whole block from another COLB for that. Yet Irey finds the same kind of letter-to-letter differences within "Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital" as he does among letters elsewhere in the document. See, for example, Nos. 58 and 63 (i), Nos. 57 and 89 (p), or Nos. 66, 71, and 91 (t). He uses these as examples of differences, and they seem as different from one another as any other letters Irey points to, yet they come from text that would logically have been copied as a single block.

In summary, I have tried to use my own eyes, examine the purported proof dispassionately, and not be a "sheeple." I am not convinced. Have I made an error somewhere?

PST wrote: In summary, I have tried to use my own eyes, examine the purported proof dispassionately, and not be a "sheeple." I am not convinced. Have I made an error somewhere?

I agree with your analysis, PST. I was not as meticulous as you were, but when I looked at the images, the variations struck my eye as perfectly normal for a photocopy of manual typewriting. I didn't realize this was posted to be taken seriously. I took it as a joke, and a pretty good one, too. The laughter I posted earlier today was genuine, and it really did cheer me up. I'm still grinning to think this is what all the fuss is about.

After I'd had a good laugh, I googled up the Snopes article for the benefit of those who didn't spend a good part of their younger years reading similar text. I wasn't sure anyone here would take the "evidence" seriously, as most of us are old enough to have pondered the vagaries of such documents. But ten or twelve years ago, a surprising number of people believed BonsaiKitten.com was a serious site detailing the process of growing cats in bottles, and that wasn't even intended to be a hoax. (I got some very angry emails for pointing out that not only was bonsai kitty site a joke, it was quite funny. )

If the variations in the letters are evidence of forgery, then an army of forgers provided documents for me to read when I was in school. . . . .

This conspiracy runs deep!

islandboy5150 wrote:I am learning that there is no point in trying to reason with them, they already know they don't have a valid argument, so the first and only thing they can do is call you racist, bigot, whatever to try to shift the point of the conversation away from their indefensible standpoint.

Have I called you a bigot? Racist? Whatever? Have I dodged anything? YOU have shifted the conversation away from the two documents you provided.

islandboy5150 wrote:Liberals are morally corrupt, to the bone.

Excuse me, I think you are doing the name-calling here. Not to mention calling all liberals liars.

islandboy5150 wrote:were taught to use their right to freedom of speech to espouse the verbal diahrrea of Marxism.

Please provide me with a real quote from a real person who enjoys BROAD ACCEPTANCE. Don't bother left wing extremists, as they do not represent me, nor do they represent the average democrat. Digging up some left wing loonie with a following of three mentally ill people is just another straw man,and I will not defend words that have been put in my mouth.

In short, my curiosity has once again been satisfied. The result of an individual's rational, thought-out critique of your own sources is name-calling and catastrophisism. I keep hoping you will do something interesting, but you don't.

I come to this site for CPAP info, but since you asked, here's my take on the subject.

The birth certificate issue is a canard. One of the requirements to be POTUS is to be a Natural Born Citizen (NBC). Long before Obama ever came on the scene, I learned and knew about the NBC clause in our Constitution. This was common knowledge, but that knowledge is now either ignored, or twisted to mean something completely different (Native born is NOT the same as Natural born).

I leave the legalese to our lawyers and courts, but the basic premise of being a NBC cannot be obfuscated or legislated away. The term "natural born" is derived from natural law. Natural laws are not man-made, but occur naturally, for example the law of gravity is a law of nature.

An NBC is a person who was born of citizen parents within that country. For example, if a person has Italian parents and are born in Italy, then they are Italian NBCs. They cannot be Mexican, or Canadian, or British at birth. They can change their citizenship later in life, but at birth, they are Italian NBCs.

Some countries allow persons born on the soil of that country to be citizens at birth (for example, in the USA), but being a citizen at birth does not mean that they automatically obtain US NBC status. NBC status can only be conferred naturally to those born on US soil to citizen parents. The only exception I know of are those born to US citizens who are legitimately outside US borders while in the service of their country.

Obama stated in his book "Dreams of my Father" that his father was a British citizen at Obama's birth. Obama’s release of his Long Form Birth Certificate attempts to confirm his claim of who was his father and where he was born. Obama could be a US citizen, but he CANNOT be a US NBC. It is not possible via natural law.

Simply stated, Obama was never eligible to be POTUS.

Hephaestus wrote:One of the requirements to be POTUS is to be a Natural Born Citizen (NBC). Long before Obama ever came on the scene, I learned and knew about the NBC clause in our Constitution. This was common knowledge, but that knowledge is now either ignored, or twisted to mean something completely different (Native born is NOT the same as Natural born).

I leave the legalese to our lawyers and courts, but the basic premise of being a NBC cannot be obfuscated or legislated away. The term "natural born" is derived from natural law. Natural laws are not man-made, but occur naturally, for example the law of gravity is a law of nature.

An NBC is a person who was born of citizen parents within that country. For example, if a person has Italian parents and are born in Italy, then they are Italian NBCs. They cannot be Mexican, or Canadian, or British at birth. They can change their citizenship later in life, but at birth, they are Italian NBCs.

Some countries allow persons born on the soil of that country to be citizens at birth (for example, in the USA), but being a citizen at birth does not mean that they automatically obtain US NBC status. NBC status can only be conferred naturally to those born on US soil to citizen parents. The only exception I know of are those born to US citizens who are legitimately outside US borders while in the service of their country.

Unfortunately, the courts have had no real opportunity to decide what NBC means because it is a term only used to define eligibility for the presidency. It is impossible to equate a law pertaining to citizenship with natural laws like the law of gravity, however. Citizenship is a man-made concept if ever there was one. I can't help but think that when someone includes an exception for children born of parents serving their country abroad, they are making it up as they go along, and just saying what they think the law should be, not what nature tells us it is.

A definition that requires birth on American soil with both parents citizens would be problematic. What if the mother didn't know the identity of the father? What if the father was an anonymous sperm donor and there is a sealed envelope somewhere with his name? Are we to let the qualification of a candidate born and raised in the U.S. and American in every way hinge on whether the name in the envelope is that of a foreign grad student who found an easy way to pick of some extra cash, or that of his American friend. What about citizens who are out of the U.S. but not in the service of their country. What if my wife and I live in Detroit, but she has one of those strange cravings women with child get and we go to Windsor for some poutine? Does our daughter lose her chance to be president if her mother unexpectedly goes into labor and we can't get home in time because traffic in the tunnel has backed up? (Apologies to 30 Rock for that plot.) What about the case of George Romney, Mitt's father, who ran for president in 1968? He was born in Mexico, not because his parents were there for military service, but because they had accompanied their parents, who were polygamists escaping U.S. law. Romney was a highly qualified candidate, and I can't think of any sensible person then who thought he ought to be excluded from running.

The simplest and most just definition includes anyone who does not have to go through naturalization or other operation of law to become a citizen. in other words, if you possess citizenship from the moment of birth, you are a natural born citizen. The rule exists and we have to follow it, but we don't have to choose the most restrictive definition possible.

islandboy5150 wrote:Vader, you know what I know then, that liberals are liars. Either they don't know a lie from the truth, or they lack the integrity and character required to tell the truth as it is. Personally, I believe the latter. I don't think they give a crap in hell about the truth. Liberals are morally corrupt, to the bone. They couldnt tell the truth if it would save their life. I am learning that there is no point in trying to reason with them, they already know they don't have a valid argument, so the first and only thing they can do is call you racist, bigot, whatever to try to shift the point of the conversation away from their indefensible standpoint. It's really sad, I feel so sorry for them, but at the same time I have no simpathy for them for their actions. They get what they deserve, and unfortunately for the of us, were circling the drain with them. They are the result of all the brainwashing that's been going on, and they can't seem to break that spell that's been cast upon them. It's like they've been taught to throw out common sense and reason, and substitute it with emotionally distorted, unfair and unrealistic thought patterns. They've been brainwashed into resisting any form of common sense, to throw mud when they can't logically defend their position, to take the most hair brained, idiotic ideas and fight for them to the death. They for the most part are what Carl Marx referred to as "useful idiots". They really believe what they do is correct, and true, but really they are just being used wholly to further Marxism and Communism in America. Some actually believe in that form of government, but i would bet that those who do have never lived it. They are too busy enjoying all the finer things and the greatest standard of living on the planet here, and were taught to use their right to freedom of speech to espouse the verbal diahrrea of Marxism. I wonder how many of them are smart enough to realize they are simply "useful idiots" hell bent on destroying their own great way of life? Sadly, many of them won't realize until it's too late. First, they came for the Italians, then for the French, and when there was no one left, they came for me......that's when they'll say "OH F*%#"!!!, but it'll be too late.

IB5150, I personally know some liberals, and they are nothing like you describe nor are they marxist. They'd be in fact, quite insulted at your view of them. While they have a different viewpoint than I, they do not possess the qualities you described.

Do you personally know some liberals who act like this? How did you arrive at this sour viewpoint?

ameriken wrote: IB5150, I personally know some liberals, and they are nothing like you describe nor are they marxist. They'd be in fact, quite insulted at your view of them. While they have a different viewpoint than I, they do not possess the qualities you described.

Do you personally know some liberals who act like this? How did you arrive at this sour viewpoint?

LOL!!! I don't if he knows any, but I sure do!

Maybe all of them don't believe that way, but Dr. Michael Savage's view... "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder", http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental ... 428&sr=8-1 can't be far off the mark.
More and more Democrats these days seem to be embracing the "liberal" moniker. Not long ago a lot of democrats really resented that reference. We're ALL gonna have to ramp down the rhetoric a bit.
That could start with "liberals" not going ballistic at the mere mention of the Tea Party, as though libs themselves aren't the loonie element of the democrat party.

just my two cents, so I guess libs can fire away at me now....

Dear Liberals,

You are mentally disordered. You are loonies. Now let's all ramp down the rhetoric.

Your friend,

Vader

[quote="PSTThe simplest and most just definition includes anyone who does not have to go through naturalization or other operation of law to become a citizen. in other words, if you possess citizenship from the moment of birth, you are a natural born citizen. The rule exists and we have to follow it, but we don't have to choose the most restrictive definition possible.[/quote]

Hmmmm. I was born overseas to American citizen parents. I do not have a birth certificate, just a registration with the US Embassy. The Embassy document is good enough to get a US passport. I was a US citizen at birth, but I could never run for presidency because I was not born on US soil. That is what they told me in school and I have believed that all of my life.

PST wrote:Dear Liberals,

You are mentally disordered. You are loonies. Now let's all ramp down the rhetoric.

Your friend,

Vader

setting aside your usual crass commentary, have you read the book?
because that's what I'm talking about, Dr. Savage's book.

I gotta say, your typical knee-jerk reaction seems to be working...
Why do you always try to come back at someone by twisting their words?
....oh wait, I almost forgot, that's the usual liberal tactic.

OutaSync wrote:Hmmmm. I was born overseas to American citizen parents. I do not have a birth certificate, just a registration with the US Embassy. The Embassy document is good enough to get a US passport. I was a US citizen at birth, but I could never run for presidency because I was not born on US soil. That is what they told me in school and I have believed that all of my life.

I think your teachers were wrong, and I urge you to run. I would have no difficulty voting for you. Check out George Romney's biography in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney. He really was the Republican front-runner for awhile in 1968, and although some people raised questions, there seemed to be a pretty broad consensus that he was a viable candidate. We'll never know, since a few foreign policy gaffes cost him public confidence and Nixon soon had the nomination locked up. I doubt Romney had a birth certificate either. The so-called Mormon Colonies in Mexico at the turn of the century were rather self-sufficient and isolated from the broader society there. The Mexican revolution drove the Romneys and other back to the states. I love the fact that that we have Pancho Villa to thank for Mitt Romney.

You make some valid points PST; however, I believe the NBC requirement IS derived from natural law. Check Vattel's Law of Nations for more information. I concur that adding the "service to the government" exception is adding to NBC, so I don't mind leaving that to the courts to decide.

I use an example from my life; my first two children were born in the States of two citizen parents. By natural law, they cannot be citizens of any other country and are US NBCs. Later in life, I got divorced, got a job in Germany, and married a Filipina. We had two children in Germany. They were born US citizens, but they were not NBCs. I had to go to the US Consulate and get a report of foreign birth.

Before Obama ever came on the scene, I advise both kids as they grew up that they could never be POTUS because they weren't NBCs.

Granted there are many people who have the skills to be POTUS, but the Constitution has three clear requirements. You propose we should ignore those requirements if they have the skills? We may as well let a 30 year old be president then. I'm sure Arnold Swartchenegger(sp) would be glad to have the opportunity to run for POTUS. Problem is, our nation is based on the rule of law, not doing what someone else believes is best. If we decide to ignore the rule of law, then it's a fast slide to tyranny. Our founding father's knew this to be the case and put those requirements into the Constitution for a reason.

My initial statement stands, Obama was never eligible to be POTUS in the first place.