tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post4951319196520153220..comments2024-03-20T16:30:09.690-05:00Comments on The Fifth Column: Herman Cain for PresidentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-75173401517052735072011-06-13T15:30:17.055-05:002011-06-13T15:30:17.055-05:00And why did he intentionally time the birth certif...And why did he intentionally time the birth certificate release so that it would be swamped just hours later by the death of Osama bin Laden and his well-publicized refusal to release THOSE photographs?<br /><br />He sets up an interesting clash between those contesting his claims and the controversy over Osama's death. <br /><br />It's almost as if he was TRYING to create a controversy about whether or not Osama was really dead. <br /><br />Now, why would anyone do that?Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-45458232103801550982011-06-13T15:24:10.074-05:002011-06-13T15:24:10.074-05:00Another interesting point, why shortly before the ...Another interesting point, why shortly before the Long Form was released (electronically) did the Governor of Hawaii have such a hard time finding the birth certificate? Where did they find it?Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07130831351237667189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-54987183282191115432011-06-13T15:11:25.109-05:002011-06-13T15:11:25.109-05:00Speeding Case Law fills up volumes.
At least wh...Speeding Case Law fills up volumes. <br /><br />At least where I live the signs say "SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH". Not simply "35" which is what Brendan seemed to be saying if I followed his comments correctly. If there was a sign that said "35" without designating it as a speed limit in writing, citations based on that sign would probably get tossed, which is why the signs don't say that. <br /><br />A big part of the problem with Obama's birth certificate is that he still hasn't released the actual document. He's released what he claims to be a scan of the document. For everything from getting a driver's license to getting married, you and I need to present ORIGINAL documents or actual certified copies of those original documents. <br /><br />This goes to the other key point. Despite what he says, Obama does not want to settle this issue. He has kept the controversy alive deliberately. If not, why wait so long to release the long form, and then only do so electronically instead of inviting experts to look at the actual document? <br /><br />Why has Obama kept this thing going? Perhaps he has something to hide- anything from his parents weren't married at birth to him not being eligible for President. Or perhaps he's made a political calcuation that keeping this in the news helps him by making his opponents look nuts.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07130831351237667189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-79115193611179726122011-06-13T14:55:25.364-05:002011-06-13T14:55:25.364-05:00Ok, well, we'll have to disagree on the typogr...Ok, well, we'll have to disagree on the typography, because I see differences in the letters.<br /><br />Each typewriter's font is unique to that typewriter. Even if two typewriters are using the same font, unique differences in the form of each letter on the respective typewriters allow each machine to be distinguished from every other machine. <br /><br />This fact was commonly known and exploited by the police during criminal investigations up through the 1980's. <br /><br />The typefaces in BHO's BC show variations that are consistent with multiple typewriters. <br /><br />This does not match what you would expect from a single typist/typewriter, but does match what you would expect from a manufactured document.<br /><br />If this were a manufactured document, the artist would need a combination of letters that were almost certainly not on whatever original template was being used.<br /><br />So, s/he would scan images of multiple birth documents, cut and paste the individual letters required onto the image being created, and accidentally "kern" a few of the letters as the individual letters were being placed. <br /><br />I've created dozens of mosaic images using the same techniques. It can take a couple of days to a couple of weeks to create the effect you want, and you spend a lot of time zoomed in at 1200%.<br /><br />Precisely because there are so many fine details to take care of, it is easy - almost inevitable - to miss consistency in some of them.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-74886938682831653632011-06-13T14:46:24.962-05:002011-06-13T14:46:24.962-05:00Rathergate did NOT happen because the typeface was...<i>Rathergate did NOT happen because the typeface was "modern," but because the typeface was kerned.</i><br /><br />I didn't say anything about modern "typeface," but modern word processors. The reason the typeface was kerned is because it was typed using a computer word processor, not a typewriter.<br /><br />But Obama's birth registration shows no such problems. It isn't uniformly kerned throughout, and barely shows anything that even looks like kerning. You can't overlay a Microsoft Word version of the birth registration over the released image of the birth registration and get a perfect match-up, the way it could be done with Dan Rather's fake Bush letters.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-70211740257474743852011-06-13T14:40:57.370-05:002011-06-13T14:40:57.370-05:00Typewriters HAVE to do monospace fonts.
It's ...<i>Typewriters HAVE to do monospace fonts.</i><br /><br />It's probably been a while since you've used a typewriter. Sometimes when really flying on a typewriter, I've gone so fast that at times some letters are closer to each other than they are supposed to be -- thus producing the illusion of "kerning." No evidence of kerning has been found in Obama's birth registration, because for all we know it's just a fluke resulting from a really talented typist with fingers flying.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-15747950890920436112011-06-13T14:36:47.161-05:002011-06-13T14:36:47.161-05:00Yes, I did look at the typeface. There's noth...Yes, I did look at the typeface. There's nothing there -- no kerning, but a lot of artificial features produced by computer reproduction of the original documents: digital artifacts, and carelessly or deliberately misplaced red lines trying to show differences where there are no differences or no meaningful differences. It's kind of sad, really, how desperate are these latest attempts to hoodwink the Birthers. It's just another "expert" (like the self-proclaimed "experts" who assured everyone that Obama's birth certificate released in 2008 was a photoshopped fake -- whoops, never mind!) trying feverishly to keep a mindbogglingly foolish movement chugging along . . . chugging along to . . . where, exactly? Definitely not to the defeat of Obama and the Senate Dems in 2012. If, God forbid, Obama is reelected, among those whose names will appear in the closing credits of that movie will be Jerome Corsi and Orly Taitz.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-55217977103066718332011-06-11T00:58:01.171-05:002011-06-11T00:58:01.171-05:00Jordanes,
You clearly didn't look at the diff...Jordanes,<br /><br />You clearly didn't <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=308397" rel="nofollow">look at the difference in typeface.</a><br /><br />You also don't understand <a href="http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=295189" rel="nofollow">the problem that kerning represents.</a> <br /><br />Rathergate did <b>NOT</b> happen because the typeface was "modern," <a href="http://islandturtle.blogspot.com/2008/09/rathergate-remembered.html" rel="nofollow">but because the typeface was kerned.</a><br><br /><br />The Rathergate typeface, Times New Roman, is <b>NOT</b> modern. Times New Roman is a serif typeface commissioned by the British newspaper The Times in 1931, created by Victor Lardent at the English branch of Monotype.<br /><br />It was a well-known type but it required full-blown typesetting equipment to use because it is not monotype. Each letter does not take up the same amount of space, rather, in a proportionally spaced font such as TNR, letters can overlap each other's "space." This is called "kerning."<br /><br />The problem is, typewriters aren't capable of kerning, so no one could use that typeface on a typewriter: you need word-processor software to use that typeface.<br /><br />Typewriters HAVE to do monospace fonts.<br /><br />Obama's BC shows typewriter letters, but the letters are <i>kerned,</i> not monospaced. A kerned typerwriter font is a contradiction in terms. You can't have both at the same time. <br /><br />Look, I have to do 600 and 1200 dpi blowups of images all the time to publish the material I do. This document has artifacts that I have a tough time explaining. The kerning artifact would certainly be one of them.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-12988064683638782832011-06-10T19:46:55.765-05:002011-06-10T19:46:55.765-05:00Well, yesterday, an expert in typeface analysis sa...<i>Well, yesterday, an expert in typeface analysis said the Obama birth certificate demonstrated the same problem the Bush "letters" had - the typeface doesn't match.</i><br /><br />No, that's not the problem the obviously fake Bush letter had. The problem wasn't that the typeface didn't match, but that the typeface DID match: it matched a modern computer word processor, and therefore could not have been typed on a typewriter from the time the fake letters purportedly were typed.<br /><br />The president's birth certificate displays no such problem. Here the Birthers are arguing that it was an elaborate and subtly executed hoax that made use of real typeface from the general time when Barack Obama was born in Honolulu. That's why the typeface matches, and so the "expert" is reduced to desperately looking for any apparent difference to try to trick people into thinking that the president's birth certificate is fake. I'm unimpressed. It's all too complicated and too convenient to be plausible -- Birthers seem to be willing to say and believe anything but the simplest and neatest explanations, so long as they never have to admit they were wrong. Debunking their claims is like a game of Whack-a-Mole.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-18577073711827244042011-06-08T22:52:46.647-05:002011-06-08T22:52:46.647-05:00Well, as I said, I don't find your arguments c...Well, as I said, I don't find your arguments compelling.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-59678857869927707772011-06-08T18:48:09.904-05:002011-06-08T18:48:09.904-05:00I didn't say that I had any law. I said you ar...I didn't say that I had any law. I said you are misinterpreting the text of the Law of Nations as a definition of a term, rather than a rule for when the self-explanatory term applies.<br /><br />I misinterpreted the sign, obviously. 35 means 35. However by citing a distinction between MPH and KPH you have not proven that 35 means 35, as opposed to speed limit.<br /><br />I am not sure what you are getting at by trying to turn that analogy around backwards. I am making a strange claim about the meaning of 35, and asking you to disprove it.<br /><br />As I understand the dispute about McCain, it is about which statute grants him citizenship because it was in Panama Canal. 8 USC 1403 grants citizenship to people born in the Panama Canal zone after 1904. Because it passed after McCain was born, it does not make him a natural born citizen.<br /><br />However, he was a citizen at birth because of his parents, regardless of this statute, so invoking it does not take away his status as a natural born citizen.<br /><br />That was the finding of Congress anyway. As far as I know, the disagreements likewise deal with the timing of citizenship legislation relative to his birth.Brendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123119830359717991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-8951969834523605252011-06-08T18:35:16.815-05:002011-06-08T18:35:16.815-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Brendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123119830359717991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-84886045923439088862011-06-08T16:59:04.372-05:002011-06-08T16:59:04.372-05:00Oh, and for your analogy to map, you would have to...Oh, and for your analogy to map, you would have to ask me not<br /><br />"Cite me case law that proves that 35 does not mean speed limit."<br /><br />but<br /><br />"Cite me case law that proves that 35 does mean speed limit."<br /><br />My point is that "natural-born citizen" means - according to the only definition we have, the Law of Nations - both soil and blood requirements, and the blood requirements appear to be for BOTH parents.<br /><br />You claim Law of Nations no longer holds.<br /><br />So, show me law that defines the phrase "natural born citizen" in some other way. <br /><br />You earlier said that you had such law. I'm still waiting to see it.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-71922547653196880982011-06-08T16:46:06.773-05:002011-06-08T16:46:06.773-05:00Brendan,
1) No, you didn't see a sign that sa...Brendan,<br /><br />1) No, you didn't see a sign that said "35 as the speed limit." <br /><br />You saw a sign that said "Speed Limit 35 MPH." That MPH indicates a standard (miles per hour, not kilometers per hour). That standard has been upheld in court in hundreds of thousands of cases. <br /><br />If "natural born citizen" were as clear-cut as you believe, (1) the Congress wouldn't have bothered to investigate whether John McCain were eligible, (2) we wouldn't have legal scholars <i>still questioning</i> McCain's eligibility.<br /><br />The question was, did McCain fail to fulfill the soil requirement? <br /><br />The question with Obama is, does Obama fail to fulfill the blood requirement? <br /><br />And, btw, remember the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate" rel="nofollow">typeface analysis that destroyed Dan Rather's allegations against George W. Bush?</a> <br /><br />Well, yesterday, an expert in typeface analysis said the Obama birth certificate demonstrated the same problem the Bush "letters" had - <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=308397" rel="nofollow">the typeface doesn't match.</a> <br /><br />Now, Barack may well have been born in Hawaii. I don't dispute that. I am just pointing out that the document he produced to prove it suffers the same inconsistencies that caused other similar documents to be thrown out as forgeries.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-18432130904195690032011-06-08T14:37:26.227-05:002011-06-08T14:37:26.227-05:00I saw a sign that defines 35 as the speed limit.
...I saw a sign that defines 35 as the speed limit. <br /><br />Therefore, 35 means speed limit.<br /><br />Cite me case law that proves that 35 does not mean speed limit. Otherwise, it's just your opinion.<br /><br />Furthermore, Obama is ineligible to be President because he is not over the speed limit.<br /><br />Is there anything wrong with my reasoning? That just means you don't like it.Brendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123119830359717991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-2978264089711681712011-06-08T12:55:09.413-05:002011-06-08T12:55:09.413-05:00Ok, well, you haven't demonstrated that it isn...Ok, well, you haven't demonstrated that it isn't credible.<br /><br />You've just demonstrated that you don't like it.<br /><br />You don't have any facts to back you up, just your opinions. I'm not obligated to pay much attention to those.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-82980919952936709402011-06-08T12:02:25.653-05:002011-06-08T12:02:25.653-05:00I do not find your position distasteful. I find it...I do not find your position distasteful. I find it not credible. Your entire point (including the bit about classes of citizens) is a game of semantics. This "birther" position pulls an idea out of thin air, tries to pretend there is actually some legal controversy needing to be decided, and then expects the rest of the world to prove it wrong.<br /><br />All I am saying is, nobody is going to do it. Nobody cares. The words are assumed to mean what they look like they mean.<br /><br />People relate it to the "truther" stuff because the above description is equally applicable to it. They could insist we need a court trial with a conviction to prove who is guilty of the 9/11 attacks, else the War on Terror is illegitimate.<br /><br />They also use the word "facts" to describe their fiction.<br /><br />If that is the conceptual world in which you think about it, everything I have said above sounds absurd and contrary to logic and argument.<br /><br />Step outside that box, and it appears the other way.Brendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123119830359717991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-54885255733869621722011-06-07T19:23:35.935-05:002011-06-07T19:23:35.935-05:00A few things:
The Obama administration (along wit...A few things:<br /><br />The Obama administration (along with many others before it) has shown that is THEIR position not to take the Constitution at face value. For example, a reasonable person might think that for something to be regulated as "interstate commerce" it would have to be:<br />A: Interstate<br /><br />AND<br /><br />B: Commerce<br /><br />Yet, the Obama DOJ currently argues that it doesn't have to be A OR B.<br /><br />Second thought- I never heard that "natural born" citizen meant citizen at birth. The traditional definition(quite possibly different than the legal one) I'm familiar with is someone who was a citizen at birth AND born in the country. It's interesting that while Congress doesn't want to touch Obama's eligibilty with a 10 ft pole, the Senate (including Senator Obama!) deliberated on McCain's eligibility and passed a resolution saying he was eligible. <br /><br />Finally, the US is rather unique in that birth here makes you a citizen. For example, the fact that you were born in Germany does not make you a German citizen.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07130831351237667189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-31657241798612182062011-06-07T18:22:58.695-05:002011-06-07T18:22:58.695-05:00Oh, and to answer your question, the law DOES see ...Oh, and to answer your question, the law DOES see minors as being a different class of citizen - they can't vote, drink, nor do they share the same free speech rights (see most school rulings, for instance). They have different passport requirements. <br /><br />So, thus under 35 would, indeed, be a different class of citizen than those over 35 for the purposes of holding that elective office, yes.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-45295405461391772202011-06-07T18:07:06.807-05:002011-06-07T18:07:06.807-05:00Look Brendan, you have lovely opinions on how the ...Look Brendan, you have lovely opinions on how the law should work and all, but that's all they are: opinions.<br /><br />Your opinions are not the law.<br /><br />All I've done is state the facts in the case:<br /><br />1) "natural born citizen" is in the Constitution as a necessary qualification for president,<br /><br />2) The only document used by the Founding Fathers that defines the term does so in a way inimical to Obama's presidency,<br /><br />3) There exists no definitive case law which settled (or settles) the question that Obama's presidency poses by either changing or redefining the phrase. Indeed, you mostly can't find case law that even addresses the question.<br /><br />(1) and (2) cannot be argued.<br />If you have (3), produce it.<br /><br />If not, then speaking in terms of strict logic, you cannot do anything but agree with (3).<br /><br />Since I don't have any other points to make, that agreement would mean you must agree with my position, however distasteful you may find it.<br /><br />Unless, of course, you choose not to adhere to the rules of logic and argument. <br /><br />To repeat - I am not interested in your opinion. I am interested in any fact of law which controverts point (3). Produce it or move on.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-12644456388390321852011-06-07T17:57:00.722-05:002011-06-07T17:57:00.722-05:00One also does not have the "right" to be...One also does not have the "right" to be President if he is not yet age 35. By your logic, people under age 35 are yet another class of citizen.<br /><br />You realize of course that the process of becoming a citizen after immigration is called naturalization. Natural is derived from Latin which means birth. Being born of a country is the basis for the concept of citizenship. To be naturalized is to change the country to which you belong.<br /><br />So to be born a citizen has to mean to be a natural born citizen. Otherwise, what are you? A born citizen who is not natural to the country? It is a contradiction in terms.<br /><br />The courts will not rule on this because it nothing more than word play.Brendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123119830359717991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-4269717219140270172011-06-07T16:13:45.509-05:002011-06-07T16:13:45.509-05:00Oh, and if Arnold and I are in the same class of c...Oh, and if Arnold and I are in the same class of citizen, then we share all the same rights.<br /><br />Which means Arnold can be President.<br />Except he can't. <br />So we aren't in the same class of citizenship.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-33982809370014606492011-06-07T16:12:41.229-05:002011-06-07T16:12:41.229-05:00Brendan,
If you are spelling out a common underst...Brendan,<br /><br />If you are spelling out a common understanding, then quote case law where your common understanding is represented as settled law.<br /><br />If you can't, it isn't settled law.<br />That means it's just your opinion.<br /><br />If it's just your opinion, one of two cases hold:<br />1) You may be right.<br />2) You may not be right.<br />I don't know.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-12567188334478834362011-06-07T12:09:30.777-05:002011-06-07T12:09:30.777-05:00You answered your own question in #1. Lawyers ende...You answered your own question in #1. Lawyers endeavor to bend the meanings of legal language when they have an incentive. I would add that the Constitution tends to be far more carefully and clearly worded than most legislation.<br /><br />Of course in archaic documents you would find mention of following the rights of fathers, without respect to mothers. Do you really think that sort of language has any bearing on current US law and custom? Right or wrong, that concept has long since been obsoleted.<br /><br />By "my" interpretation I really mean just the way it is generally understood, I am just spelling it out. It is consistent with the <i>Law of Nations</i> because you find there an explanation of when citizenship is granted at birth and why, but you do not find any mention of citizens at birth who are not natural born citizens. In fact, you do not find such a concept anywhere at all.<br /><br />Arnold is the same class of citizen as you. He simply has not been a member since birth.Brendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123119830359717991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-67280697005847839292011-06-07T08:11:00.962-05:002011-06-07T08:11:00.962-05:00Brendan,
Your entire position is absurd.
1) Lawye...Brendan,<br /><br />Your entire position is absurd.<br />1) Lawyers make their living by NOT taking legal language at face value, so there's TONS of reasons to go into this more deeply.<br /><br />2) Your interpretation does NOT accord with <a href="http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/goatsledge/20081212%20Law%20of%20Nations.pdf" rel="nofollow">the definition from the Law of Nations</a>: "the natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children <i>naturally follow the condition of their fathers</i>, and succeed to all their rights." <br /><br />LoN has two clauses, not the one you suppose. Obama's father wasn't a citizen, so he couldn't succeed to any of his father's rights. <br /><br />3) Subsequent US law has defined the rights of citizens, but not of natural-born citizens. <br /><br />4) There ARE two classes of citizens - Arnold cannot be President, even though he is a US citizen, but I can be. <br /><br />Your interpretation doe snot accord with the facts.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.com