Birthers: We Were Right. The BC is a FRAUD!!! Obama Lovers: Debunk THIS!

Originally posted by alphabetaone
reply to post by Antiquated1

 

Look, why are you arguing this point.

You better check again. I asked a simple question. You are writing essays on why there is no good answer for it. Thank you. I fully understand you have no answer. I am not arguing anything. How about you let it go or let someone with an answer take over. Either way, I will be fine.

Originally posted by cfnyaami
reply to post by aptness

 

Exactly. This whole Orly Taitz birther b.s. ignores the fact that the President's mother was an American. It doesn't matter who his dad is. This whole thing was dreamed up to obfuscate the whole Palin birther conundrum regarding whether or not she's Trigg's mom, grandmom or neither.

If you aren't born on American soil then you aren't considered 'natural born' and therefore can't run for president.

reply to post by aptness

Read Jerome Corsi's book Obama Nation and see the government documents concerning Obama.
Obama and his handlers are toast.
How to lose your career in journalism? Become a presstitute for Barry.
How to become a hero in journalism? Research the buying off of Congress, the secret Vatican bank accounts the gangsters from Wall Street funded from the U.S. Treasury. Expose the government corruption. If the press would only do their job the country would be better off for it.

Originally posted by beijingyank
reply to post by aptness

 

Read Jerome Corsi's book Obama Nation and see the government documents concerning Obama.
Obama and his handlers are toast.
How to lose your career in journalism? Become a presstitute for Barry.

Isn't Jerome Corsi the guy who wrote "Unfit for Command"? about John Kerry?

That book and facts I did research. Not gonna waste my time on any more of Corsi's books.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


hahahah "credentials in OCR,"

u mean optical character recognition?

how does anyone other than a "scanner" get credentials in this?

Originally posted by Annee

Isn't Jerome Corsi the guy who wrote "Unfit for Command"? about John Kerry?

That book and facts I did research. Not gonna waste my time on any more of Corsi's books.

If I may, with the interest of anyone reading along that may be unfamiliar with the works and legacy of Jerome Corsi, I would like to add a footnote to help further in defining Jerome Corsi's rational and character.

The abstract from his wiki page says...

Jerome Robert Corsi (born August 31, 1946) is an American author and conspiracy theorist, best-known for his two New York Times bestselling books: The Obama Nation and Unfit for Command (with co-author John O'Neill). Both books, the former written in 2008 and the latter in 2004, attacked Democratic presidential candidates and were strongly criticized for including numerous factual errors.

In other books and columns for conservative websites such as WorldNetDaily and Human Events, Corsi has discussed topics that are considered conspiracy theories in most circles, such as the alleged plans for a North American Government, the theory that President Barack Obama is not an American citizen;criticism of the United States government for allegedly covering up information about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,promoting the Abiogenic hypothesis of the origin of oil (arguing that oil is produced from chemical reactions in the Earth, in contrast to the general consensus of the scientific community that oil is produced from organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae), and alleged United States support of Iran in its attempts to develop nuclear weapons...

...according to statements Factcheck.org called Corsi's The Obama Nation "a mishmash of unsupported conjecture, half-truths, logical fallacies and outright falsehoods."...

...Obama's campaign has criticized Corsi as a "bigoted fringe author" for these claims, as well as "the bizarre, conspiratorial views that Jerome Corsi has advocated in his broader work."

Jerome Corsi

Everyone is free to have their own opinions formed their own individual belief systems however Jerome Corsi is certainly one of the better known purveyors of alterative history openly attempting to influence the public mindset and ultimately the political machine through his writings.

Personally, I would place him somewhere between David Icke and Art Bell on a good saturday night when considering the merit of anything he has to say but some love the guy and think he is speaking up for them.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Well my scanner does do OCR, but you have to put it in OCR mode to do it. You have the options of OCR or image based copy. It's a brother MFC, one of those all in one printer fax and scanner deals. At least some people in the thread are willing to try to replicate it, rather than just namecall and bicker

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Look, I have no opinions about Obama. I remove myself from the "birthers vs. others" war. But, I MUST say this...

This topic is a huge misunderstanding after another. A LOT of the issues in the OP's source were pointed out by me long ago on ATS, however, I explained why the birth certificate is NOT "forged" so nobody listened to me.

The OP's source even posted the thing that can explain this all....

(A) at a minimum, shall require certification of the birth certificate by the State or local governmentcustodian of record that issued the certificate, and shall require the use of safety paper or an alternative,equally secure medium, the seal of the issuing custodian of record, and other features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or otherwise duplicating the birth certificate for fraudulent purposes;
(i) computerizing their birth and death records;
(ii) developing the capability to match birth and death records within each State and among the States; and
(iii) noting the fact of death on the birth certificates of deceased persons.

Look, Obama's original long form did NOT have any "features designed to prevent tampering". It was just a white piece of paper with black text in a book. That is why SECURITY FEATURES WERE ADDED BEFORE THE RELEASE.

The green background (safety paper) of Obama's certificate was added according to law.

However, it was NOT just "printed on safety paper" because there was nothing to "print". The certificate was not digitized and printable. It was just a piece of paper in a book.

Someone had to scan the original certificate, then digitally remove the white background.

Perfectly removing the white background of a black/gray and white SCANNED IMAGE is not an easy task. That is why there is a white halo around all the black/gray text. That white halo around the text that the OP's source points at is caused by a "low tolerance" setting on a "background eraser" computer algorithm. Increasing the tolerance will remove more of the white halo... however, on old images that were scanned, increasing the tolerance will also remove much needed parts of the text and will even distort the text in an unreadable fashion because of gradients along the edges of text. So that is why they didn't remove the white halo... to retain readability and clarity of the scanned documents text.

After they removed the white background they added the green security background pattern DIGITALLY. They did NOT just print the certificate on safety paper. If they printed the document on safety paper there would be no "white halo" around the text because printers don't print white. The white halos indicate that the green background was DIGITALLY ADDED. This makes sense because if they had to add this security feature to 1000's of documents it would be best to do it automatically and digitally instead of by hand.

That green background was added BY LAW.... So OF COURSE the document has been "digitally edited", however, that does not prove forgery AT ALL. It actually supports the idea the document was real and scanned and digitally updated according to law.

I believe the State / Hospital was responsible for digitally adding the security pattern to the certificate, and if they did it then it is perfectly LEGAL.

It was even signed as being an "abstract" on the bottom, so it is legal.

A birth certificate can be printed on toilet paper, and as long as the information is correct, and it has the security features and stuff according to law, and it is signed by authorities that certify the information is correct, it will be legal....

This birth certificate issue is getting out of hand because of peoples lack of knowledge and lack of reason. It's much easier for people to see it was digitally updated and claim it is fake than it is to actually understand how the document was digitally updated by authorized people according to law....

Just because the document was digitally updated, it doesn't prove any fraud, or that any of the actual data was changed. Sorry to the "birthers", but I think you are on the wrong track. There is no real reason to think the President wasn't born in the USA. Some of the "evidence" that "birthers" are using actually supports the idea that the birth certificate is real, and is an old document that has undergone changes required by law.

edit on 17-5-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

You put forth the argument in a much better fashion that I could have mustered. And for that, I give kudos and thanks.

In all honesty, I've been critical of Obama ever since he came into office; and while I would vote for somebody better if they were to come along, such as Kucinich, or Weiner[Anthony, not Michael, just so you know], Bernie Sanders, or even Gary Johnson, I can say that he certainly isn't quite as bad as a McCain, Romney, Tancredo, or even, dare I say, Ron Paul, administration would be.

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by cfnyaami
reply to post by aptness

 

Exactly. This whole Orly Taitz birther b.s. ignores the fact that the President's mother was an American. It doesn't matter who his dad is. This whole thing was dreamed up to obfuscate the whole Palin birther conundrum regarding whether or not she's Trigg's mom, grandmom or neither.

If you aren't born on American soil then you aren't considered 'natural born' and therefore can't run for president.

That is simply not true. Born overseas to American parents you are an american citizen and eligable to run for President.

Was this debunked? Could someone please give me a few links to the good posts on this thread? I would really appreciate it. 45 PAGES D:

reply to post by Anttyk47


Nope....
It will never be debunked for the simple fact that no one has access to Obama's Birth Certificate or original paper document, there is only a microfiche scan that's computer generated, and who is to say that wasn't tampered with or even existed?

What you see with the PDF is not an actual Birth Certificate, it's a low-resolution image file with added background ect..... most of it can be replicated by several methods, you can't trust shady State officials or internet forensic wannabe's neither.

Oh yeah! here's a good post....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

o.k., well, legal niceities are, well, nice. Let me give you a few.
1. Nixon was not a crook. He was never convicted of anything. He was never impeached.
2. Bill Clinton didn't lie. The judge on the case defined 'sexual relations' as not including oral sex. So, when Bill said, "I didn't have sex with that woman', he wasn't lying.
3. Not legal, but along the same line, Teddy Roosevelt did not charge up San Juan hill. He was never even on a horse that day.
All of these are the opposite in the minds of the american people.
The same it will be with Obama's eligibility to be POTUS.

Originally posted by Anttyk47
Was this debunked?

Could someone please give me a few links to the good posts on this thread? I would really appreciate it. 45 PAGES D:

For the purposes of the claim of this thread, then "yes" it appears to me to have been debunked. Please note comments provided by AshleyD and BenevolentHeretic on pgs 16-19, and the comment by Drunken Parrot on pg 44.

Imitator's comment's don't answer the mail with regard to THIS thread - but rather a different question altogether. Also, please do not be misled by his attempts to change the point of this thread by posting videos that have been: debunked by other birthers, take Kenyan street interviews with unidentified people and somehow get labeled as Obama's "friends", a radio interview (2008 no less) with the Kenyan ambassador who was confused by the questions he received and subsequently his office denied that he meant to suggest Obama was born in Kenya, suggesting that you can't call another country a "home" country unless you were born there - even though your family was, etc., etc., etc.,

Originally posted by karen61057

Originally posted by Nosred
If you aren't born on American soil then you aren't considered 'natural born' and therefore can't run for president.

That is simply not true. Born overseas to American parents you are an american citizen and eligable to run for President.

Allow me to comment on this, but be warned it gets somewhat complex and elaborate. The short version is: persons born in the United States are definitely natural born citizens, but the status of those born abroad, at this time, is uncertain.

As karen points out, children of US citizens born abroad are US citizens at birth, with the following caveat: the parents must fulfill the conditions stipulated by the 8 USC 1401 statute for their children to acquire US citizenship.

On the other hand, there are no parental conditions for domestic births — everyone born in the United States is a US citizen at birth, except children of those not in the jurisdiction of the United States, like foreign diplomats.

The Supreme Court has, unambiguously, ruled that everyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen, subject only to the same jurisdictional exception noted above. The Court has never, however, specifically ruled on the status of persons born abroad as US citizens in relation to the natural born citizenship requirement of Article II Section 1, so there’s some uncertainty there.

In the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court noted that natural born citizenship was derived from the common law principle, “[a]ll persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.”

The Court also said that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ... contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.”

For persons born out of the jurisdiction of the United States the Court noted the following: “[a] person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens ...”

Addressing foreign births and common law the Court noted, citing “Binney on Alienigenæ”, that “[t]he notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.” And citing “Dicey Conflict of Laws”, noted that “[t]he acquisition of nationality by descent, is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments.”

Citizenship in the United States is acquired by virtue of the Constitution itself, and the inherent common law principles, while citizenship abroad can only be acquired by statute, acts of Congress.

If natural born citizen simply means born a US citizen, regardless of the way, then foreign-born US citizens are eligible. If it’s, however, exclusively a specific common law status then the answer is trickier.

To alphabetaone: Yes, sorry, I highly resemble that remark, about thinking that everyone wants to fight. Well, that's just the way it seems to me.
And, as to 'not admitting that stanley ann dunham was an american citizen', We do. The laws at the time allowed a child of such a union to be a natural born american citizen, provided that the american had lived in america for 10 years, 5 of which were over the age of 14. In other words, 19 years old, and stanley ann was only 18.
So he still doesn't qualify.
So, to all 'debunkers' out there.
While you're using all your energy to prove that Obama's non-existant birth certificate is true an valid, which of these techniques aren't you using? Please give by number, and an example.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Originally posted by roadtoad
The laws at the time allowed a child of such a union to be a natural born american citizen, provided that the american had lived in america for 10 years, 5 of which were over the age of 14. In other words, 19 years old, and stanley ann was only 18. So he still doesn't qualify.

Those conditions are for foreign births, not births in the United States. There are no parental age or residence requirements for births in the United States.

Since this whole birther thing is based on the premise that Obama wasn’t born in the United States, and you have yet to prove that, and until you do, based on what is known Obama was born a US and natural born citizen on August 4 1961.

Originally posted by aptness
reply to post by Caji316

 

Why would he present a forged birth certificate — and one that is incredibly amateurish according to the birther ‘experts’ — if he was already under no legal obligation to present any birth certificate, let alone the so called long form?

Are all birther theories illogical and nonsensical?

Not a birther, but... I don't see it as illogical, I just see it as you not understanding the reasons behind such actions.

One could easily say, they want a certain percentage of people to have a disposable vote... Having people latch on to a government perpetuated fiction, steals focus off of real issues, and undermines the people of the country... It sidetracks people into thinking it's a big issue when it's not, and as such... affects(note, I do not mean effects) the polls handsomely.

Well, if you're counting Obama's recently released birth certificate to be real and true, you'd think they'd be nice enough to put a raised seal on it.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by roadtoad
The laws at the time allowed a child of such a union to be a natural born american citizen, provided that the american had lived in america for 10 years, 5 of which were over the age of 14. In other words, 19 years old, and stanley ann was only 18. So he still doesn't qualify.

Those conditions are for foreign births, not births in the United States. There are no parental age or residence requirements for births in the United States.

Since this whole birther thing is based on the premise that Obama wasn’t born in the United States, and you have yet to prove that, and until you do, based on what is known Obama was born a US and natural born citizen on August 4 1961.

Proof works both ways, I suppose you think releasing a photoshopped document with laser precise characters that are perfectly spaced with no official government seal and a certificate number out of series is proof that he was born here.. than sure... I guess.

The fact of the matter, is that (again, not a birther... just a cognitive thinker) neither side has proven anything other than what Obama released is indeed fake....(and I'm sorry, this much IS a fact, anybody who says the BC is real is actually ignoring the facts... there are hundreds of errors on that document....) This doesn't prove he wasn't born here, this doesn't prove he was....

The official word from the administation contradicts itself, as well as the documents they release lacking the official seals that everyone who was really issued a birth certificate has stamped right on their birth certificate.... Dig yours out of your closet/attic/safe/request a copy, you will have a raised seal stamp on it.... the P.O.T.U.S. does not?


HMMMMMMMMMMMMM okaaaaaaaaaaaay?

So one must then logically consider the statement, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth -- are people with something to hide."

And the administration is obviously trying to hide something, whether that be the fact he wasn't born here, or whether it be the fact that he is trying to hide other crimes that he comitted -- be irrelevant.... What matters, is it's obvious that they aren't telling the truth.

Again... Not a birther. His mom was an American Citizen, and that is personally enough for me... but it's not enough to side step the issue of classic misdirection.

Soooooooooooo....... yeah. That's how that goes.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Can you all just do me a favor next time with your little tiny tiresome Obama threads with your adhd opinions.

Next time a subject comes out about this, can it at least be on the regular news or regular radio station instead of some blog thingy or some web site with a bunch of viruses ,I think it would be more believable…other than that, im going to ‘deny ignorance’,,, because I do have a life!



its on a blog site immortal,what are you talking about.

Yea its true it has to be. I have no one else to look up to or talk to, so ill just ride with the in crowd like its high school so I can get my stars and conversation by putting up bogus information from restarted sites, because its what’s hot on the ats’ I love the ats.

It really makes me feel like im finally somebody in this world. im glad they let threads like this full of lies and hatred and flamboyant exotic indirect racism stay up, im SO glad the ats doesn’t stand for 'deny ignorance'…What would I do then?