You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.~ Abraham Lincoln
At long last, Barack Hussein Obama has released his birth certificate, and now the issue of his citizenship and subsequent eligibility to be President is finally put to rest, right?
Of course, who could argue with this solid proof?
Click to enlarge.I won't lie. I have thought this issue a mere distraction for a long time. There has been no question in my mind that Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States. Of that, I had no doubt. All the suppositions and assumptions and convincing arguments could not convince me that Obama is not a legal natural born citizen of the United States.
Now that he has released his "actual birth certificate", I'm no longer so sure. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the obvious problems with this "document".
Look at the upper left hand corner. And then, compare the left border with the right border. See anything strange?
The so-called birth certificate was obviously and poorly cut and pasted onto a background with a nearly identical pattern. My God, the forger didn't even bother to trim the edges to complete the illusion of authenticity. He simply cut the forgery out and pasted it onto a nearly identical background pattern.
One would think in three years the forger could have perfected his art.
My 7-year old grandson could do a better, more convincing job.
Next, and probably most damning, look at the box labeled, "Race" beside his father's name.
African?
Since when is Africa a race?
There are white people native to Africa. I'll bet there are Asians who are native to Africa. Is the continent of birth their race?
Obama was presumably born in 1961. (I say "presumably", because after this fallacy, nothing about the origins of Obama is certain) No one has ever disputed that fact.
But, I digress. Does anyone want to venture a guess as to what the proper and accepted term for a black person was in 1961? I'll spoil the fun for you.
It was "Negro".
Or, if that box on the document were to be consistent with the mother's race (which is recorded to be, "Caucasian") the race should read, "Negroid". Regardless, it certainly wouldn't be "African".
See, back in 1961, there were three sub races within the all encompassing human race:
Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid, although the third was sometimes called Asian instead. I have never heard of a fourth race called "African".
I really don't know what to think about Obama's intent here.
I can't decide whether I think Obama is stupid or he thinks we are stupid, or if he is simply so arrogant and narcissistic, he doesn't really care if we buy his flim-flam or not.
At any rate, I am no longer convinced he is legitimate.
And, I know I am not alone.
Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine
This is going to be my only post on this subject because the whole thing is pretty stupid.
ReplyDelete1. They probably scanned the original in and then printed it on a new sheet of watermarked paper for the state registrar to sign. See at the bottom where it's dated Apr 25 2011? You don't think they did that on the original document? So a bad scan printed on watermark paper lays to rest your photoshop conspiracy.
2. It's nice there was a law and perfect uniformity in how ethnic groups were described in Hawaii in 1961. Who ever filled out the form used the word they thought. You're an idiot.
I know this is an exercise in uselessness. you want Pres. Obama to be illegitimate. You want him to not be the representative of your country. Believe your crazy conspiracy theories...so long as you don't advocate violent overthrow.
"It's nice there was a law and perfect uniformity in how ethnic groups were described in Hawaii in 1961. Who ever filled out the form used the word they thought"
ReplyDeleteI'm not even going to say nice try. You'll have to do much better than that to refute the evidence. There is an official protocol to follow when filling out official documents. "African" is not a race, nor has it ever been.
You're the idiot.
Here's some interesting reading:
ReplyDeleteObama’s Birth Certificate, Dissected
The post itself isn't particularly brimming with insight, but the comments are. (I found this via the Vision to America website.)
It's the comments that make this story curious. Ben's (and my) experience notwithstanding, there are some curious questions. As to whether those questions guarantee this document is a fake... well, I don't think that can really be answered, definitively, at this point.
The question that interests me most is, is Obama's staff so incompetent that they allowed this to be released without checking it over with a fine-toothed comb? They had to know folks would scrutinize it.
One comment, dated April 27, 2011 at 9:03 pm, is very interesting:
An excerpt...
"Yes, Illustrator is indeed “vector-based,” and it is indeed capable of converting bitmapped art to vector art on command. But A. It does not by default create vectored art of layers containing bitmaps, B. scans don’t prompt Illustrator to arbitrarily create the large number of discrete layers from a scan that the White House’s file displays, and C. None of the layers have vector-based objects on them–they are all bitmaps, which suggests these distinct graphic elements were assembled within Illustrator from bitmap sources (such as raster-based applications like Photoshop, or scanners) before being exported from the Illustrator to a PDF."
One could point to the continued ineptitude of the Obama administration as the culprit behind this new controversy (for some)-- and you wouldn't be far from the truth, but if they were going to forge a document, don't you think they'd have sense enough to do a better job of it? Perhaps this release was intended to silence MOST detractors leaving just a few left to allow the administration to continue to capitalize on the 'birther' phenomenon.
I see this more in terms of...
ReplyDeleteYes, the administration capitulated to growing "distracting" pressure in the release of this document, but it did it in such a way (intentional or unintentional, it matters not) as to allow it to continue, as I said above, to capitalize on what the administration and many others on the left believe is a losing hand for the 'right.' Even though most on the right don't even subscribe to the 'birther' issue. Certainly, no genuine republican presidential candidate would ever take such a stand. None of them have the stomach for it.
But if Obama thinks this is an issue that can sway the polls in his direction next fall, he's sorely mistaken. No serious republican candidate is going to even suggest Obama isn't constitutionally qualified to be president. And there are plenty of other issues to hammer him with-- his incompetence, for one.
All this serves to do is keep the issue on the front burner, and allow Obama to continue to shake his head in mock bewilderment. That's not much of a reelection strategy, but it seems to be all he's got at present.
And for the record, I'm not convinced. I'm not saying I can't be convinced, only that this is not enough, at present, to convince me.
ReplyDeleteFor now, I am merely curious. I want more than this for confirmation. At this stage of the game, the 'proof' has to be incontrovertible.
I don't want republicans coming off as another 'sad sack" Dan Rather, trying to pass off obvious forgeries in an effort to unseat a president. If and until the documents can be proven, beyond any doubt, to have been faked, and the State of Hawaii admits to impropriety and/or collusion in the forgery, I'm taking a guarded stance on the authenticity of this document.
To Ben's first point... the argument is too simplistic to explain ALL the difficulties contained in this document, especially considering the 'evidence' I presented via the link and comments found there.
ReplyDeleteComments themselves do not represent 'evidence' per se, but they do ask questions Mark hasn't, and as such add another dimension to the argument. If this can even be called an argument.
Okay, I'll stop hogging the comments now.
ReplyDeleteOK, I get it now. The incompetent, ignorant, marxist Obama has purposely produced an easily provable fake birth certificate in order to challenge the country to impeach him or simply have him removed via the 25th amendment. Then he will declare a state of marshal law, invite the Muslim Brotherhood, the Chinese and the Ruskies to take over and enforce his tyranny through Sharia.
ReplyDeleteIs that about it?
Nothing to get all worked up over, Jim. There's some technical problems with the document he released, but that doesn't mean it's fake.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who thinks Obama and his people didn't 'war game' the release of his birth certificate is not using his noggin.
And stop erecting straw dogs on our blog. That's OUR job!
;-)
Come on, Jim! You knew folk were going to scrutinize it. Just the way all you chaps on the left scrutinized, hoping for authenticity, Dan Rather's documents-- that's not to say Obama's birth certificate is a fake, however suspicious it looks, but you had to know this was going to happen.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Dan Rather's documents were never proven to be genuine, the allegations those documents purported were NEVER refuted.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bush didn't win Florida in 2000.
ReplyDeleteSee Jim? There are extremists on both sides of the aisle.
"And Bush didn't win Florida in 2000."
ReplyDeleteWe'll never know for sure because the US Supreme Court halted the recount. Imagine, an election in which the initial tally had a margin of 327 votes and the Supreme Court doesn't allow a recount?
That said, once Vice-president Gore conceded, his supporters moved on. Unlike the birthers and the after-birthers.
By the way, did anyone notice that the short form birth certificate that's been out there for 3-4 years also lists the father's race as African?
ReplyDelete"That said, once Vice-president Gore conceded, his supporters moved on. Unlike the birthers and the after-birthers."
ReplyDeleteNot quite honest. Bush's presidency was called illegitimate throughout his eight years, and I have no doubt many moonbats continue to regard it as such due to the absolutely legitimate SCOTUS ruling on the less than legitimate call for a recount in Florida. And do you really think Gore has truly conceded in his feeble mind and questionable heart? Doubtful.
In the same way, some will never accept Obama's citizenship due to his own dishonest means of responding to questions about it. Had he come forth right from the beginning, this issue would have totally died out. He stoked the fire when he should have extinguished it at the first smell of smoke. Bush played no part in the lunacy regarding the Florida recount nonsense.
"his supporters moved on."
ReplyDeletehis supporters moved on???
his supporters moved on???
In who's Bizzaro world did his supporters move on??? My God! They are still bitching that Bush "stole" the election!!!
"his supporters moved on"...That has to be right up there among the stupidest statements ever made.
The SCOTUS decision was technically legitimate but it was a flawed decision, and the majority admitted as much in their opinion:
ReplyDelete"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." In other words, don't use this decision as precedent because it's bullshit.
I concede that a recount, depending on how it was done, may have proved Bush the winner. If done the way Gore requested, it would have. However, there was never a full tally of all the legal votes.
The fact remains that the Supreme Court specifically acted to halt any recount because a recount "would threaten irreparable harm to Bush by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."
They stopped the recount because Bush claimed victory. Huh?
What was in Gore's mind is irrelevant. He conceded.
"Had he come forth right from the beginning"
This is pure bullshit. He produced proof of citizenship certified by the State of Hawaii years ago. He came forth years ago.
"Bush played no part in the lunacy regarding the Florida recount nonsense."
Totally false. Bush sued Gore, not the other way around. He sued to stop the recount.
Coleman recount was nonsense?
"They are still bitching that Bush "stole" the election!!!"
ReplyDeleteNo, that is the stupidest statement ever made.
Nobody who knows anything about it claims Bush stole the 2000 election. Bush had smarter lawyers, but in the end, the Supreme Court pronounced Bush the winner by preventing any recount that could prove one way or the other.
I happen to know quite a bit about the events. But I knew as soon as Gore conceded and the Congress did not stop the electoral college vote that there was no recourse and moved on. We all did.
Unlike you after-birthers.