Obama's Official Long Form Birth Cert Released

metrovelvet

MagicMarker wrote: »

The Fourteenth Amendment states...



This seems pretty clear cut to me, the parent's citizenship only comes in to question if Obama was born outside the USA.

Arguing over the differences between being native-born or natural-born is just a question of semantics.

Right. But you still can't be president just because you are a citizen. My parents [naturalised] couldnt even though they were/are citizens. My son [native born] cant [except now that Obama has set a precedent, that may change]. And we are all citizens, but Im the only one with deep enough [natural born] citizesnhip to do it.

MagicMarker

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right. But you still can't be president just because you are a citizen.

Well, clearly you can.

oscarBravo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Natural born is not the same as native born. Read again. Natural born means born in the US with both parents being US citizens,plus 14 consecutive years of residency.

The word "both" doesn't appear anywhere in the document you linked.

Chester A. Arthur was born of an American mother and an Irish father. There's precedent for an American child of a foreign parent becoming president.

He's eligible (as is your son, if he was born in the US).

metrovelvet

oscarBravo wrote: »

The word "both" doesn't appear anywhere in the document you linked.

Chester A. Arthur was born of an American mother and an Irish father. There's precedent for an American child of a foreign parent becoming president.

He's eligible (as is your son, if he was born in the US).

Your parents can be foreign born but they should be citizens. All I'm saying is its up for debate, not clear cut.

Obama is even fuzzier since his father didnt raise him and he has 14 years residency in the US. If he was simply born in the US, and raised abroad by a foreign non citizen parent, I'm sure the birthers would have more of a case. So its not as simple as being native born, thats all Im saying.

oscarBravo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Your parents can be foreign born but they should be citizens.

Arthur's father wasn't a citizen at the time of his birth.

All I'm saying is its up for debate...

Only in the "angels on a pinhead" sense. There's precedent. He's eligible.

Obama is even fuzzier since his father didnt raise him...

You're just introducing random factors now. He was born in the United States of an American mother. That makes him a natural born citizen. It really is time to let it go.

Zascar

oscarBravo wrote: »

Almost certainly. The PDF is an interesting one - it's composed of several bitmap layers, rather than being a single scanned bitmap.

It could be an artifact of being stored in a format like DjVu and re-assembled for the purpose, but it's inevitable that it will be considered a forgery instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY

Ehhhhhhhh??? That is far more than just a little bit suspicious. Have they given any feedback about this?

oscarBravo

Zascar wrote: »

Ehhhhhhhh??? That is far more than just a little bit suspicious. Have they given any feedback about this?

It's more efficient to store a scanned document as multiple layers, with the high-contrast bits (text and line-art) stored as a 1-bit bitmap, and the lower-contrast background stored separately as a lower-resolution but higher bit-depth bitmap.

I haven't watched the video, but unless he explains in detail how the PDF couldn't possibly have been generated from a scan stored in such a format (like the DjVu format I already mentioned), I'm not sure what the problem is.

Black Swan

Zascar wrote: »

Ehhhhhhhh??? That is far more than just a little bit suspicious. Have they given any feedback about this?

To reiterate:

• Hillary Clinton raised the birther issue during her tight race with Obama (Democratic presidential 2008 primaries), and the powerful former President Bill Clinton Democrat Machine could not legally disqualify Obama.
• John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republican party raised the birther issue during the 2008 presidentials, and could not legally disqualify Obama.
• The President GW Bush (Republican) administration and its Executive Branch of US government (including the US Justice Dept and FBI) could not legally disqualify Obama in 2008.

They all knew that Obama was a legally qualified citizen, and eligible to run for President of the US. They raised the birther issue as a political mud slinging ploy to swing the naive and uninformed voters, while at the same time energizing voters that did not want a Black President.

Now we are to suspect that a simple digital forgery would have worked to satisfy all these very powerful and competing interests, with their vast investigative and funded resources? This defies belief, and should be in the CT forum, not politics.

mgmt

Zascar wrote: »

Ehhhhhhhh??? That is far more than just a little bit suspicious. Have they given any feedback about this?

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's more efficient to store a scanned document as multiple layers, with the high-contrast bits (text and line-art) stored as a 1-bit bitmap, and the lower-contrast background stored separately as a lower-resolution but higher bit-depth bitmap.

I haven't watched the video, but unless he explains in detail how the PDF couldn't possibly have been generated from a scan stored in such a format (like the DjVu format I already mentioned), I'm not sure what the problem is.

Yeah, I watched Alex Jones rant about the layers on the birth certificate scan. Its funny he didn't take out his own birth certificate and show it didn't happen to his.

sceptre

metrovelvet wrote: »

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusive-Definition-of-Natural-Born-Citizen

"The Conclusive Definition Of "Natural-Born Citizen"

Natural-born citizens of the United States are those who are citizens of the United States from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their American citizenship. These are those whose parents are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth. "

They knew his father was from kenya but may not have been aware he was not a citizen.

Natural born is not the same as native born. Read again. Natural born means born in the US with both parents being US citizens,plus 14 consecutive years of residency.

In your link first is says 'native born' and then in the last paragraph it says 'natural born'. If you google it there have been plenty of cases around this before Obama.

Its interesting.

That's "some guy's" definition (and as it appears to come from a lapsed domain, restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com, I'd be slightly curious to see whether the guys who used to run it have a particular political view that may not align directly with reality or established legal reality). I'd prefer what the Supreme Court said in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, which referred heavily to Lynch v. Clarke from 1844. That's pretty clear that jus soli applies when considering who's a "natural born citizen". Interesting... maybe. Clear... well, yes.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

They all knew that Obama was a legally qualified citizen, and eligible to run for President of the US. They raised the birther issue as a political mud slinging ploy to swing the naive and uninformed voters, while at the same time energizing voters that did not want a Black President.

Underlined? Is this fact, or just opinion?

metrovelvet

sceptre wrote: »

That's "some guy's" definition (and as it appears to come from a lapsed domain, restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com, I'd be slightly curious to see whether the guys who used to run it have a particular political view that may not align directly with reality or established legal reality). I'd prefer what the Supreme Court said in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, which referred heavily to Lynch v. Clarke from 1844. That's pretty clear that jus soli applies when considering who's a "natural born citizen". Interesting... maybe. Clear... well, yes.

Jus soli is clear about native born. But Wong Kim Ark case still does not apply to presidential eligibility or natural born.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/politicaljunkies/a/natural_citizen.htm

This is a more interesting link which investigates the gray areas.

"The only thing that is black-and-white about citizenship and the presidency is this:

A child of a two American citizens who is born on U.S. soil is clearly eligible to be President;
Anyone who becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen after birth (think Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger) is clearly not eligible to be President.

Then life turns gray, or at least contested, as events of the 2008 Presidential election make clear.

What constitutes being "natural born" falls into two philosophical camps: geography or blood. One group argues that blood rules -- that you are "natural born" regardless of geography, if both parents are citizens. Another group argues that geography rules -- that you are "natural born" only if you are born on U.S. soil.

Purists insist that both parents must be U.S. citizens and you must be born on U.S. soil. This narrow interpretation would mean that Barack Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States."


The article leaves out the 14 year residency requirement though. I cant imagne that you can be born in the US but never spent more than a week there, being raised in another country would not cause conflict of interest and allegiance.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186343

some guy claims to have found evidence of forgery in the birth cert.. my head starting to hurt as I read through it, but maybe someone here can get through it in its entirety.

basically hinges on the curvature of the text because it was scanned in from a book which was pressed down onto a scanner but some words aren't curved at all, for example "Male" under the Sex heading.
seems interesting enough, and it does seem intuitive that the words on the page should have the same curvature if they are on the same page being pressed onto a scanner but.. *shrug* all I know is I know enough to know that I dont know what the hell he's talking about.

Overheal

im pretty sure it's a fake, and have been since I saw it. Far too many questions surrounding it.

Lirange

Overheal wrote: »

im pretty sure it's a fake, and have been since I saw it. Far too many questions surrounding it.

Such as?

oscarBravo

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

some guy claims to have found evidence of forgery in the birth cert.. my head starting to hurt as I read through it, but maybe someone here can get through it in its entirety.

basically hinges on the curvature of the text because it was scanned in from a book which was pressed down onto a scanner but some words aren't curved at all, for example "Male" under the Sex heading.

I'm not going to bother watching the video. His argument stems, inherently, from the premise that a manual typewriter will position the baseline of each letter with accuracy comparable to that of (say) a laser printer. He's probably never used, possibly never seen, a manual typewriter.

Without watching the video, just looking at the framegrab at the top of the article, the capital "M" in "Male" shows a distinct tilt to the left (look at the stem, not the baseline) consistent with the curvature he's claiming is missing.

Lirange

"Some guy" is Karl Denninger. The founder of the Tea Party movement. He wrote the article and posted the video. As for the guy in the vid who the hell is he? What are his qualifications and background?

Da Shins Kelly

Racism. Nothing more. Trump, and others like him, need to take a run and jump.

conscious

Ron Paul for president

End the unnecessary wars Obama loves

Overheal

Lirange wrote: »

Such as?

Exile 1798 wrote: »

...

Nevermind: I won't discuss that here. If the mainstream view is that it is a genuine document, let's leave it at that. I'm not going to drag this thread into CT.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not going to drag this thread into CT.

The substance of this thread appears to be more appropriate in CT than in US Politics. Moved.

fontanalis

Overheal wrote: »

im pretty sure it's a fake, and have been since I saw it. Far too many questions surrounding it.

:rolleyes:

Overheal

fontanalis wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Back at you. I would love to believe everything the government tells us is gospel but that isn't the case. Nobody wants to believe it's a fake because of what it would imply. And frankly I'm not interested in that implication, or impeaching the guy based on that. I'm simply saying that at face value I question the validity of the cert. On that note, you should really view the video in post #37

uncleoswald

Overheal wrote: »

Back at you. I would love to believe everything the government tells us is gospel but that isn't the case. Nobody wants to believe it's a fake because of what it would imply. And frankly I'm not interested in that implication, or impeaching the guy based on that. I'm simply saying that at face value I question the validity of the cert. On that note, you should really view the video in post #37

So why believe the guy in the video over the "mainstream" media? It's been shown that the is nothing unusual about the pdf file having layers and yet you still find it a convincing argument?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding

Why was Obama's birth announced in Hawaiian newspapers on the day after his birth? Just incredible/convoluted forward planning?

oscarBravo

Overheal wrote: »

I would love to believe everything the government tells us is gospel but that isn't the case.

Straw man. I don't believe everything any government tells me. That's not at issue here.

Nobody wants to believe it's a fake because of what it would imply.

It's not a question of wanting to believe anything; it's a question of balance of probabilities. In the absence of a compelling case that it's forged, the likelihood is that it's not. So far it's been claimed that the PDF containing layers proves it's a forgery (it doesn't), and that a manual typewriter should produce text lined up exactly the same as a pre-printed form. That's not exactly a smoking gun.

I'm simply saying that at face value I question the validity of the cert.

At face value, there's no reason to question it.

fontanalis

Overheal wrote: »

Back at you. I would love to believe everything the government tells us is gospel but that isn't the case. Nobody wants to believe it's a fake because of what it would imply. And frankly I'm not interested in that implication, or impeaching the guy based on that. I'm simply saying that at face value I question the validity of the cert. On that note, you should really view the video in post #37

You should go on the committee that decides who can run for president.
I think I will because I don't believe any of the last 10 presidents were citizens. Prove me wrong because you're not going to fool me with "official proof".

fontanalis

oscarBravo wrote: »

Straw man. I don't believe everything any government tells me. That's not at issue here. It's not a question of wanting to believe anything; it's a question of balance of probabilities. In the absence of a compelling case that it's forged, the likelihood is that it's not. So far it's been claimed that the PDF containing layers proves it's a forgery (it doesn't), and that a manual typewriter should produce text lined up exactly the same as a pre-printed form. That's not exactly a smoking gun. At face value, there's no reason to question it.

The usual narcissism you get from these anti government types and being a sore loser will do it.

Overheal

fontanalis wrote: »

You should go on the committee that decides who can run for president.
I think I will because I don't believe any of the last 10 presidents were citizens. Prove me wrong because you're not going to fool me with "official proof".

Where did I say I had a problem with him being the President? Where did I say that I cared whether or not he is a natural born citizen? I simply believe the document is questionable. I don't know what you mean by ""Official proof"".

Overheal

uncleoswald wrote: »

So why believe the guy in the video over the "mainstream" media? It's been shown that the is nothing unusual about the pdf file having layers and yet you still find it a convincing argument?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding

Why was Obama's birth announced in Hawaiian newspapers on the day after his birth? Just incredible/convoluted forward planning?

Since I don't have access to Adobe Bridge or Adobe Illustrator or the couple hundred dollars to drop on a copy*, I can't verify anything said in your link. It would have been courteous of him to perform a demonstration.

Even if the PDF was programmatically sliced into layers, the video does point out some very curious differences in the text. Text that appears to have been written in with a digital brush tool, and some that appears to have actually been scanned-in pen. It has nothing to do with the youtuber being non-mainstream or vice versa, it's that he actually presents a plausible argument. If a child told me 2+2 = 4, would I disbelieve him if only because this information came from a child and not an MIT mathematician?

I have no care one way or another for the newspapers or where he was actually born, his legitimacy as a president, or any of that. I just think it odd that they waited until the media made a flurry about it to release this very peculiar document. That's honestly as far as my interest reaches. Being realistic: look at the PDF on whitehouse.gov. Look at section 20, and explain to me how they could have possibly stamped a date that reads AUG - 8 1981 ? Did they dip the last digit in black ink and the rest in green? What about section 22? Why would slicing the layers affect the coloring? These aren't outlandish questions.

*I tried pirating them once upon a time for my brother, but only ran into virii, so I wont be doing that again.

tbh

Overheal wrote: »

If a child told me 2+2 = 4, would I disbelieve him if only because this information came from a child and not an MIT mathematician?
.

No, because you already know that information to be true. If a child however told you something you didn't already know, and an MIT mathematician told you something else, you'd be pretty dumb to take the child's word for it.