Prediction: Obama will not run in Arizona over birth certificate

[bigrebnc1775]

OK, birthers, listen up.

There will be no state that will bar Obama from running.

End of story.

It's happen before.

Yes, it has. The likeliness of Obama not being on the ballot in all 50 states is as likely as the Mississippi River running backwards in 1811.

Romney will beat him even if he were on the ballot in 57 states.

Romeny obama bush there is no difference. If romeny is all the republican party has to offer then I will go independent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's like the old discussion line about race.
When people start off with My best friend is black thats when I roll my eyes and walk away.

Like when bigreb talks about using the n-word that he is not a racist. Don't worry SeaShadow. Bigreb has very little, if any, cred on the board. What he believes simply does not matter.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's like the old discussion line about race.
When people start off with My best friend is black thats when I roll my eyes and walk away.

Like when bigreb talks about using the n-word that he is not a racist. Don't worry SeaShadow. Bigreb has very little, if any, cred on the board. What he believes simply does not matter.

It's not a racist word when race does not play into the equation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's happen before.

Yes, it has. The likeliness of Obama not being on the ballot in all 50 states is as likely as the Mississippi River running backwards in 1811.

Romney will beat him even if he were on the ballot in 57 states.

Romeny obama bush there is no difference. If romeny is all the republican party has to offer then I will go independent.

Go now, please: you can't have the GOP conform to your beliefs. Not going to happen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, it has. The likeliness of Obama not being on the ballot in all 50 states is as likely as the Mississippi River running backwards in 1811.

Romney will beat him even if he were on the ballot in 57 states.

Romeny obama bush there is no difference. If romeny is all the republican party has to offer then I will go independent.

Go now, please: you can't have the GOP conform to your beliefs. Not going to happen.

I have my princples and I will not bend for party or whom ever. No one has to comform to my beliefs but I will not change mine to fit in the neatly package box called politics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good for you, bigreb. Then go now and save yourself a lot of grief.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good for you, bigreb. Then go now and save yourself a lot of grief.

You can go I will not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good for you, bigreb. Then go now and save yourself a lot of grief.

You can go I will not.

Then you are going to have a lot of grief.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good for you, bigreb. Then go now and save yourself a lot of grief.

You can go I will not.

Then you are going to have a lot of grief.

Nothing I can't handle

 

[FA_Q2]

That's not true. US Code, title 8, sec. 1401(g):

a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years....


The minimum age to satisfy this requirement would have been for his mother to be only 16 years old.

gekaap,

That's not quite correct. The law you site is the current status under 8 USC 1401. However that is not the law as it was in 1961, the law at that time was based on the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. The corresponding section that was applicable at the time reads (INA of 1952, Section 301, Page 236):

"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.... "​

Using the law of the time, a married woman would have had to be at a minimum 19.


I say "married" for a reason.

The law at the time contained another interesting provision a few pages later in Section 309, which push-come-to-shove would have to be evaluated in a court. That section says that if a child is born to a woman out of wedlock, then the child acquires the nationality status of the mother. If the mother was a national (i.e. Legal Resident Alien) and not a citizen then the child is automatically a National. If the mother is a citizen, then the child has that same status and is therefore a citizen at birth.

Why might this be interesting, because Barack Obama Sr. had married Kezia Aoko prior to his departure for the United States. If he was marred prior to coming to the US, then his marriage to Stanley Dunham could be held void, in which case no matter where in the world Obama Jr. had been born he would have received citizenship status from his mother no matter what age she was.


>>>>

I am out of rep for you so, thanks for this post.

I find it interesting that, even without a BC, it STILL looks like OB would be eligible to run. Add that to the fact that the BC HAS been shown and there is no place for the birthers to run to. Of course, bigreb's posts about all those discrepancies in the pictures are not helping the birther cause either. You are making the point for the others big, it sounds nuts. Do you really think there is some conspiracy in Hawaii to the depth that they would FAKE a BC? Do you not realize that if there was a conspiracy of that depth they could simply produce a genuine BC that they crafted last month. Such a document would not be disputable if the right people created it. There is no conspiracy here and this entire movement only serves to HELP the liberals and OB.

 

[bodecea]

It's like the old discussion line about race.
When people start off with My best friend is black thats when I roll my eyes and walk away.

Like when bigreb talks about using the n-word that he is not a racist. Don't worry SeaShadow. Bigreb has very little, if any, cred on the board. What he believes simply does not matter.

It's not a racist word when race does not play into the equation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's not true. US Code, title 8, sec. 1401(g):

a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years....


The minimum age to satisfy this requirement would have been for his mother to be only 16 years old.

gekaap,

That's not quite correct. The law you site is the current status under 8 USC 1401. However that is not the law as it was in 1961, the law at that time was based on the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. The corresponding section that was applicable at the time reads (INA of 1952, Section 301, Page 236):

"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.... "​

Using the law of the time, a married woman would have had to be at a minimum 19.


I say "married" for a reason.

The law at the time contained another interesting provision a few pages later in Section 309, which push-come-to-shove would have to be evaluated in a court. That section says that if a child is born to a woman out of wedlock, then the child acquires the nationality status of the mother. If the mother was a national (i.e. Legal Resident Alien) and not a citizen then the child is automatically a National. If the mother is a citizen, then the child has that same status and is therefore a citizen at birth.

Why might this be interesting, because Barack Obama Sr. had married Kezia Aoko prior to his departure for the United States. If he was marred prior to coming to the US, then his marriage to Stanley Dunham could be held void, in which case no matter where in the world Obama Jr. had been born he would have received citizenship status from his mother no matter what age she was.


>>>>

I am out of rep for you so, thanks for this post.

I find it interesting that, even without a BC, it STILL looks like OB would be eligible to run. Add that to the fact that the BC HAS been shown and there is no place for the birthers to run to. Of course, bigreb's posts about all those discrepancies in the pictures are not helping the birther cause either. You are making the point for the others big, it sounds nuts. Do you really think there is some conspiracy in Hawaii to the depth that they would FAKE a BC? Do you not realize that if there was a conspiracy of that depth they could simply produce a genuine BC that they crafted last month. Such a document would not be disputable if the right people created it. There is no conspiracy here and this entire movement only serves to HELP the liberals and OB.

Of course, bigreb's posts about all those discrepancies in the pictures are not helping the birther cause either. You are making the point for the others big, it sounds nuts.

But those discrepancies that I mentioned are there. at least for the document that was used.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I am out of rep for you so, thanks for this post.

No problem, finding out what the law was at a certain time in the past can be a real pain in the ass, especially from decades ago. I'd previously posted on another board the current 8 USC 1401(g) time frames and had the corrected information pointed out to me.

I find it interesting that, even without a BC, it STILL looks like OB would be eligible to run. Add that to the fact that the BC HAS been shown and there is no place for the birthers to run to. Of course, bigreb's posts about all those discrepancies in the pictures are not helping the birther cause either. You are making the point for the others big, it sounds nuts. Do you really think there is some conspiracy in Hawaii to the depth that they would FAKE a BC? Do you not realize that if there was a conspiracy of that depth they could simply produce a genuine BC that they crafted last month. Such a document would not be disputable if the right people created it. There is no conspiracy here and this entire movement only serves to HELP the liberals and OB.

If you go back and read the thread, you will find I've tried to avoid making declaritive statements about Obama's eligibility. The reason is that, from an official standpoint, we don't know as neither Obama (nor the party) filed citizenship paperwork as part of the election process (nor were they required too).

In Post #259 I expressed my opinion about why Obama may have chosen not the quell the rumors. But the fact that his decision is based on it providing him no political gain and serves to afford an opportunity to paint his opponents badly is my opinion.

I don't think there is a vast conspiracy going back decades involving the Hawaiian Republican Governor, the Republican appointed head of HDOH, 535 members of congress, 1 Republican Vice-President, and all the members of the Electoral College.

I think it's just political gamesmanship.



>>>>

 

[geauxtohell]

If you go back and read the thread, you will find I've tried to avoid making declaritive statements about Obama's eligibility. The reason is that, from an official standpoint, we don't know as neither Obama (nor the party) filed citizenship paperwork as part of the election process (nor were they required too).

In Post #259 I expressed my opinion about why Obama may have chosen not the quell the rumors. But the fact that his decision is based on it providing him no political gain and serves to afford an opportunity to paint his opponents badly is my opinion.

I don't think there is a vast conspiracy going back decades involving the Hawaiian Republican Governor, the Republican appointed head of HDOH, 535 members of congress, 1 Republican Vice-President, and all the members of the Electoral College.

I think it's just political gamesmanship.

>>>>

Bingo. The minions are true believers. However, I suspect somewhere under the noise someone is funneling $ in this simply to stir up a political controversy.

Kind of like the Arkansas Project.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you go back and read the thread, you will find I've tried to avoid making declaritive statements about Obama's eligibility. The reason is that, from an official standpoint, we don't know as neither Obama (nor the party) filed citizenship paperwork as part of the election process (nor were they required too).

In Post #259 I expressed my opinion about why Obama may have chosen not the quell the rumors. But the fact that his decision is based on it providing him no political gain and serves to afford an opportunity to paint his opponents badly is my opinion.

I don't think there is a vast conspiracy going back decades involving the Hawaiian Republican Governor, the Republican appointed head of HDOH, 535 members of congress, 1 Republican Vice-President, and all the members of the Electoral College.

I think it's just political gamesmanship.

>>>>

Bingo. The minions are true believers. However, I suspect somewhere under the noise someone is funneling $ in this simply to stir up a political controversy.

Kind of like the Arkansas Project.

obama was more than likely born in Hawaii. But what I want to know is why it took him so long to come forward with a document to show proof he was born in Hawaii? I realize, SeaShadow touched on the question I asked but to me it wasn't good enough, inmy hummble opinion it just barely scratched the surface. I will also add that document that most are using has some discrepancies on it, which I pointed out. At least the one used in this thread.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But those discrepancies that I mentioned are there. at least for the document that was used.

I'm not claiming that the images presented are actually a birth certificate, it's JPG posted on a web-page. We don't know. The birth certificate will have to be presented to a court of law or to the election officials of a state and validated before we, as the American people, will know for sure.

This post is only to note that the "discrepancies" noted are incorrect or indeterminate.


Well let's evaluate the claimed discrepancies you mentioned:

1. Different color of paper (multiple times)

2. Fold in paper not shown on first picture

3. No Seal​

Different color of paper (multiple times)

First of all I don't claim to be a photography expert although I did consider photography (film) a hobby in my younger days, I was an electronics technician in the military and worked with monitors that needed adjustment, and currently have to interact with digital cameras in my current position.

Anyone with a photography background knows that our perception of color is our brains interpretation of wavelengths of light. Photoreceptors in the eye convert these wavelengths into electrical signals transferred to the brain for processing. Take a white paper and shine a full spectrum of wavelengths of light on it and it appears white. However, take that same white paper and shine a red light on it and the paper appears red, take a white paper and shine a blue light on it and the paper appears blue.

The "discrepancy" is that different colored papers appear in the photos presented because we see different colors. This is easily shown to possibly not be the case because different light sources (sun light v. florescent light v. incandescent light) produce different combination of wavelengths which change the perceived colors of the paper (a perception more common in electronic equipment because our brain will automatically compensate somewhat for different conditions). When light contains differing spectra, that reflected light becomes the basis for the photographic camera to "save" the picture.

For example, we recently replaced the badges for all 5,000 employees in our organization. To provide maximum customer service we visited each work site. The lighting conditions at each site were slightly different and without adjustments would cause "washed out" pictures or cause people to look sunburned. To correct for this we had to adjust the "perception" of the camera to the given conditions by adjusting the White Balance setting. That process involved hanging a large sheet of white paper on the background, zooming it in on the screen, and adjusting the camera so that the white paper actually looked white (and not red or blue). Once that adjustment was made only then were colors reproduced consistently and accurately.


Fold in paper not shown on first picture

As has been already pointed out, this "inconsistency" has clearly been shown to be false as "V" and "^" along the edges of the paper are clearly seen in the photograph showing where the paper was folded. Download the photograph and looking at it in full size the upper crease of the fold is clearly visible across the entire length of the page extending through the printed seal at the top. The lower fold is not quite as visible across the face of the document, but the effects of it are clearly visible on the right and lefts sides along a line equal to or just barely above "Fathers Name" on the left.


No Seal

First of all lets clarify, there are two "seals" that appear on document of this nature. One is the printed seal which is printed by the laser printer as part of the design layout. The other is the notary seal which is not printed at all and exists as a design caused by raised dimpling of the paper caused by the seal press. One is a design, the other indicates to someone holding a physical copy of a document that it is not a photocopy which would not have the raised seal.

I understood bigrebnc1775 to be referring to the notary seal which exists within the dimpling of the paper.

Again our eye (and the camera) "sees" an image based on wavelengths of light reflected off of a surface. Three factors (there are more, but three is all we need here) that impact that image are: (a) changes in the color of the reflective surface, (b) changes in texture of the reflective surface, and (c) the angle of incidence of the light source upon the object (i.e. the angle at which the light strikes the object and is reflected back to the observer).

The notary seal does not exist as a change in color, as does the printed seal at the top. The printed seal is heavily dependent on (a) a change in color between itself and the background to be seen and much less dependent on slight changes in texture or the angle of the light. The notary seal on the other hand is not produced by a change in color but by causing a physical change in the texture of the paper through the application of force through the seal's press. Visibility of the notary seal then becomes heavily dependent on the observer/camera being able to perceive differences in texture based on the angle of incidence. The observer/camera typically will not "see" the changes in the texture, they will perceive changes in the texture because the light causes small shadows.

Two occurrences can detract from the perception of the raised seal. One, if the angle of incidence is 90-degrees, then there are no "shadows" created around the dimples to be "seen". Also if a larger shadow appears over the dimpling, then the shadow cast by the larger object obscures the smaller shadows cast by the dimpling. An examination of the photo supplied shows that the light source is in front of the page, indicating a high angle of incidence. In addition the photographers shadow is clearly visible across a large portion of the photograph showing the light source was behind the photographer.

Most of the other people are work with (I am not) are Notary Republics as our office is often called on to notarize documents for employees. Notaries are trained to press their seal typically over their signature. Looking at the first photograph you can see the very slight discoloration caused by the ink stamp (second photograph) bleeding through the paper. Assuming the notaries in Hawaii are trained the same way they are in Virginia, then it is logical to assume that the raised seal (if there is one) would be within the shadow cast by the arm. So we have front lighting reducing the visibility of the seal and the larger arm shadow - well - overshadowing it and making it not visible.

Just because something is not visible does not mean it's not there. For example, take a dime and place it on the table. Take a picture of it. Clearly in the photograph the dime would be visible and you could state that it was there. Now cover the dime with a napkin and take another picture. Is the dime still there? Sure it is, we know it's there because we put the napkin over it. However, if the photograph is the only think we have to examine, we could not state definitively that the dime is still there because it's not visible, even though even though we know it is because we covered the dime with the napkin.

Not being visible does not mean it is not there.



>>>>

 

[gekaap]

There is no notory seal at the fold on the full version you used. That is what I ment. If there is a notory seal on the full version point to it.

It's the state seal. It's between the two arrows I inserted. As a wedding officiant I've handled many marriage licenses, original and copies alike, that had to be certified by the county clerk (though was not in Texas). The design of the notary seal was that of the state seal, and a seal press was used to imprint the 3-D aspect of the seal. Some counties would use a seal that only imparted the 3-D aspect with no coloration. But some counties would use an ink printed seal that was then pressed with a seal press. This was not as common to find, presumably because it probably requires either more work (to line up the press with a printed image), or because it requires more expensive equipment (a stamp that both imparts ink and presses the paper at the same time). But it's done sometimes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But those discrepancies that I mentioned are there. at least for the document that was used.

I'm not claiming that the images presented are actually a birth certificate, it's JPG posted on a web-page. We don't know. The birth certificate will have to be presented to a court of law or to the election officials of a state and validated before we, as the American people, will know for sure.

This post is only to note that the "discrepancies" noted are incorrect or indeterminate.


Well let's evaluate the claimed discrepancies you mentioned:

1. Different color of paper (multiple times)

2. Fold in paper not shown on first picture

3. No Seal​

Different color of paper (multiple times)

First of all I don't claim to be a photography expert although I did consider photography (film) a hobby in my younger days, I was an electronics technician in the military and worked with monitors that needed adjustment, and currently have to interact with digital cameras in my current position.

Anyone with a photography background knows that our perception of color is our brains interpretation of wavelengths of light. Photoreceptors in the eye convert these wavelengths into electrical signals transferred to the brain for processing. Take a white paper and shine a full spectrum of wavelengths of light on it and it appears white. However, take that same white paper and shine a red light on it and the paper appears red, take a white paper and shine a blue light on it and the paper appears blue.

The "discrepancy" is that different colored papers appear in the photos presented because we see different colors. This is easily shown to possibly not be the case because different light sources (sun light v. florescent light v. incandescent light) produce different combination of wavelengths which change the perceived colors of the paper (a perception more common in electronic equipment because our brain will automatically compensate somewhat for different conditions). When light contains differing spectra, that reflected light becomes the basis for the photographic camera to "save" the picture.

For example, we recently replaced the badges for all 5,000 employees in our organization. To provide maximum customer service we visited each work site. The lighting conditions at each site were slightly different and without adjustments would cause "washed out" pictures or cause people to look sunburned. To correct for this we had to adjust the "perception" of the camera to the given conditions by adjusting the White Balance setting. That process involved hanging a large sheet of white paper on the background, zooming it in on the screen, and adjusting the camera so that the white paper actually looked white (and not red or blue). Once that adjustment was made only then were colors reproduced consistently and accurately.


Fold in paper not shown on first picture

As has been already pointed out, this "inconsistency" has clearly been shown to be false as "V" and "^" along the edges of the paper are clearly seen in the photograph showing where the paper was folded. Download the photograph and looking at it in full size the upper crease of the fold is clearly visible across the entire length of the page extending through the printed seal at the top. The lower fold is not quite as visible across the face of the document, but the effects of it are clearly visible on the right and lefts sides along a line equal to or just barely above "Fathers Name" on the left.


No Seal

First of all lets clarify, there are two "seals" that appear on document of this nature. One is the printed seal which is printed by the laser printer as part of the design layout. The other is the notary seal which is not printed at all and exists as a design caused by raised dimpling of the paper caused by the seal press. One is a design, the other indicates to someone holding a physical copy of a document that it is not a photocopy which would not have the raised seal.

I understood bigrebnc1775 to be referring to the notary seal which exists within the dimpling of the paper.

Again our eye (and the camera) "sees" an image based on wavelengths of light reflected off of a surface. Three factors (there are more, but three is all we need here) that impact that image are: (a) changes in the color of the reflective surface, (b) changes in texture of the reflective surface, and (c) the angle of incidence of the light source upon the object (i.e. the angle at which the light strikes the object and is reflected back to the observer).

The notary seal does not exist as a change in color, as does the printed seal at the top. The printed seal is heavily dependent on (a) a change in color between itself and the background to be seen and much less dependent on slight changes in texture or the angle of the light. The notary seal on the other hand is not produced by a change in color but by causing a physical change in the texture of the paper through the application of force through the seal's press. Visibility of the notary seal then becomes heavily dependent on the observer/camera being able to perceive differences in texture based on the angle of incidence. The observer/camera typically will not "see" the changes in the texture, they will perceive changes in the texture because the light causes small shadows.

Two occurrences can detract from the perception of the raised seal. One, if the angle of incidence is 90-degrees, then there are no "shadows" created around the dimples to be "seen". Also if a larger shadow appears over the dimpling, then the shadow cast by the larger object obscures the smaller shadows cast by the dimpling. An examination of the photo supplied shows that the light source is in front of the page, indicating a high angle of incidence. In addition the photographers shadow is clearly visible across a large portion of the photograph showing the light source was behind the photographer.

Most of the other people are work with (I am not) are Notary Republics as our office is often called on to notarize documents for employees. Notaries are trained to press their seal typically over their signature. Looking at the first photograph you can see the very slight discoloration caused by the ink stamp (second photograph) bleeding through the paper. Assuming the notaries in Hawaii are trained the same way they are in Virginia, then it is logical to assume that the raised seal (if there is one) would be within the shadow cast by the arm. So we have front lighting reducing the visibility of the seal and the larger arm shadow - well - overshadowing it and making it not visible.

Just because something is not visible does not mean it's not there. For example, take a dime and place it on the table. Take a picture of it. Clearly in the photograph the dime would be visible and you could state that it was there. Now cover the dime with a napkin and take another picture. Is the dime still there? Sure it is, we know it's there because we put the napkin over it. However, if the photograph is the only think we have to examine, we could not state definitively that the dime is still there because it's not visible, even though even though we know it is because we covered the dime with the napkin.

Not being visible does not mean it is not there.



>>>>

There are a couple of things I would like to mention By taking BLET I also had to take a course in criminal investigation which also had a few hours dealing with photography, and how to analyze the pictures that were taken during an investigation. With that being said I am not an expert to any extent. But I can tell when one image does not match with another image. The document used in this thread does not match with each image used.. As for the seal which I have already corrected for the notary seal. In the one image that had the fold it showed a predominate notary seal, yet in the full view version you could not see anything at the fold at the bottom portion.

But thanks for the whether lengthy explanation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is no notory seal at the fold on the full version you used. That is what I ment. If there is a notory seal on the full version point to it.

It's the state seal. It's between the two arrows I inserted. As a wedding officiant I've handled many marriage licenses, original and copies alike, that had to be certified by the county clerk (though was not in Texas). The design of the notary seal was that of the state seal, and a seal press was used to imprint the 3-D aspect of the seal. Some counties would use a seal that only imparted the 3-D aspect with no coloration. But some counties would use an ink printed seal that was then pressed with a seal press. This was not as common to find, presumably because it probably requires either more work (to line up the press with a printed image), or because it requires more expensive equipment (a stamp that both imparts ink and presses the paper at the same time). But it's done sometimes.

This is a notary seal

 

[WorldWatcher]

There are a couple of things I would like to mention By taking BLET I also had to take a course in criminal investigation which also had a few hours dealing with photography, and how to analyze the pictures that were taken during an investigation. With that being said I am not an expert to any extent. But I can tell when one image does not match with another image. The document used in this thread does not match with each image used.. As for the seal which I have already corrected for the notary seal. In the one image that had the fold it showed a predominate notary seal, yet in the full view version you could not see anything at the fold at the bottom portion.

It's a free country, it's OK to disagree.

But thanks for the whether lengthy explanation.

You're welcome.


>>>>