Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
John Donovan
5568 Followers
Drew Hendricks
10003 Followers
Diggers Multiply
1432 Followers
Arjun Singh Chauhan
695 Followers
Lara Jecson
1097 Followers
Nerd Of NerdsMagazine.com
2376 Followers
rblancarteApr 29, 2011
This is the exact reason why releasing the document was pointless. The sane and rational have put this to rest. They accept this document as 100% fact (though, they also never thought this was an issue in the first place).
But what did we say about the birthers? They weren't going to let this go. They were going to keep harping because they would never accept the truth in front of their eyes.
"The document is a fake!"
"Two typewriters"
"Altered document"
"Done by a person with a degree in Photoshop"
"They said the long form didn't exist!"
"The letters don't match!"
And lo and behold, they keep moving the goalposts.
mikepictorApr 29, 2011
not pointless...it further marginalizes the whackos that still want to hold on to their conspiracy theory.
rudegarApr 29, 2011
communist came about around 1902 so their 500 year plan will unfold in 2402?
and who say politicians only plan 4 years ahead!
liam2012Apr 29, 2011
That 500 year plan has to be one visionary roadmap as it was able to predict the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, which was enacted three years after Obama's birth.
It also correctly anticipated that the lingering racial issues would subside just enough that a majority of voters would be willing to vote America's first non-white President into office just as Obama had established himself as a national political figure and was old enough to run for office.
As it turns out, Palin was a plant as well -- the ultimate red herring intended to ensure that voters would be so afraid of putting her second in the chain of command that they would have no choice but to vote Obama. McCain, a victim of Manchurian programming, had no idea that "You Betcha" was the code word that would dictate his choice of running mate.
It's all part of the PLAN. Be afraid, be very afraid.
dirtyfriesApr 29, 2011
You know, I'm kind of happy birthers exist. You often sit there and say to yourself that there are tons of moronic, bigoted idiots running around, but you can't really substantiate it.
And then one day, they all start to crawl out of the woodwork, band together, and put their idiocy on display for all of us to see.
It makes it easier to spot the whackos. Thank you whackos.
jn96762Apr 29, 2011
Agreed, dirtyfries. But the problem is there are a little too many of them. And they are loud. And mostly, they vote. Oh boy do they vote.
brucealmightyApr 30, 2011
For a while there I thought he must be a total crackpot....until I saw that he was an official Kentucky Colonel so of course his credibility is assured....
penglustApr 29, 2011
What he f**k is a Kentucky colonel?
chestnutridgeApr 30, 2011
It is an "honor" that practically any man living in Kentucky can have bestowed on them. Unless it has changed in recent years. all it takes is for someone to contact the right people in Frankfort and nominate you. Then in a few weeks you get this nifty "commission" suitable for framing. It is something nice you do for a guy for a special occasion.
dauntless1Apr 30, 2011
Actually, I live here in Oklahoma and a woman working in my office received this a few months back. It's some money is all anymore. Maybe it used to be more than that but Kentucky sold its pride long ago.
GlobalHealingApr 29, 2011
This should've been submitted into the Entertainment section, because that's the funniest thing I think i'm gonna read all day.
cntlscrutApr 29, 2011
*facepalm*
The level of stupid/retarded presented by the "colonel" is astounding. but, all in all, it's only the issue that attracts the most attention. Otherwise, the "colonel" is just another run of the mill conspiracy nut, who thinks that the black helecopters and commies are watching him and planting microchips in his assh**e because he knows the "truth."
bukowskyApr 29, 2011
Colonel Sanders is really making a stretch here.
m3g4tr0nApr 29, 2011
And to think that I had a Double Down yesterday. I'm so ashamed.
u2canfailApr 29, 2011
In the year 1511 a communist plan was forged, to get Obama elected? Well then, that is a problem!
elliotysApr 29, 2011
Damn, I didn't even know people were still worried about Communism in this country.
vengefultacosApr 30, 2011
Well, you gotta have a fallback boogieman when people start realizing that the threat of Shiriah law taking over in the heartland of the U.S. is just a little *too* out there...
Of course, it all tends to blend into one nazi-commie-gay-illegals-muslim-jew-welfare queen smoothie. Sorta like the Great American Melting Pot Schoolhouse rock bit, but you're melting down fear.
WayfaringStrangerApr 29, 2011
When are we going to be done promoting these wackjobs' bulls**t to the front page? We're only giving credence to their claims and wasting EVERYONE's time by paying attention to them.
anomaly100Apr 29, 2011
Tee hee hee!
mbostonsApr 29, 2011
The Colonel is just adhering to the repetitive theory of negation...the more you say something is fake the closer you get to the threshold of it becoming reality.
aronwyrthApr 30, 2011
Instead of worrying about the birther loonies amongst us on Digg, let's ridicule the "Kentucky Colonel" himself:
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profile/ColonelRobertFCunningham
http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profile/ColonelRobertFCunningham
ibdilbertApr 30, 2011
Does anyone honestly think that if our government did a forgery that it wouldn't be of the highest quality and virtually impossible to disprove? And why am I craving a bucket of chicken?
andmarharApr 30, 2011
It should be a lessen to all sane people to be sure to vote because you can bet your ass this nut will. Don't let people like this decide elections that will involve your future.
maximillionteeApr 29, 2011
I sort of wish the author of the artical would have typed in Colnel's portion of the interview with a southern drawl, It would have made it even more effective.
cittickerApr 29, 2011
cool
samsid212Sep 19, 2011
great website
gkiltzApr 30, 2011
a Kentucky Colonel? A Colonel in the "Confederate Air Force?"
A Colonel in the Mongolian Air Force?
LOL!
captn_howdyApr 30, 2011
Lets go darkhacker
u2canfailApr 30, 2011
funniest yet, birther to the Max
technopopeApr 29, 2011
Nutcase or not, has anyone yet explained why the White House would release the certificate as a PDF file with most (but not all) of the text on a different layer as the background? This can be seen by anyone simply by zooming in and out of or scrolling the PDF document with Acrobat Reader, the text will take a bit longer to redraw than the green background does. This only occurs the first time the zoom or scroll is used at a particular level, before it is buffered into RAM. Reload the document to see it again. Loading the document into Illustrator (not Photoshop) will reveal this more clearly.
Here is the White House link, try it yourself in your browser to see.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Now, Adobe Acrobat *can* do some strange things to a scan when its OCR is used and it can't find a font match. This could explain *some* of the strange artifacts within the file. (Although not the page curl of the background on the left, which looks to be cut and pasted onto a larger page of the green background.)
It almost looks like the White House is trolling the birthers by releasing the document in this format rather than an original scan.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
langfordApr 30, 2011
Data doesn't come from a scanner in an original file format, it comes as a raw stream of bitmap data. The software that the person manning the scanner used, has the ability to translate and save that data into a vast myriad of different file formats. In choosing PDF, they have selected a standard format that almost every computer made in the last 20 years can read, and that typically prints scaled to paper the same way it looks on screen.
As for the way the scan looks, it was obviously scanned from an old xerox of a folded book, and then transposed over a pattern that would be difficult to graphically tamper with. This was probably because of the long line of teabagger loonatics that would edit it into something racist without a moment's hesitation. It won't stop all of them, but it does raise the effort required.
technopopeApr 30, 2011
The PDF is just a container, and can be comprised on many different file formats, including bitmap images, vector graphics, formatted text and more, as well as a combination of all the above. It is certainly not always scalable to a page, whenever a bitmap graphic is included, the resolution is limited by that graphic. The birth certificate, by the way, is entirely bitmap graphics.
The way the scan looks has nothing to do with what you say. It was not scanned from a Xerox copy, but a typed color page. Looking at the background, one can see where the original text used to be and was filled in by the OCR process of Adobe Acrobat. But instead of converting the detected text to a font, it was left as a contrast enhanced bitmap with the text looking out of place with jagged edges rather than blending in smoothly with the background as an original scan would (and in fact parts of the document still are). It is puzzling why someone would do this, unless they were not at all familiar with the application. My guess is that the original document was converted in a bulk process done by the hospital in a push to digitize its records.
Yes, it looks like it came from a folded book, but that folded-over book scan has been pasted over a similar background, *again* clearly showing that the file has been manipulated. Why do this?
The format it is in makes it *easier* to tamper with, as the text is now separate from the background. Even if you thought it would be easier non-layered, it is a trivial process to flatten into a single bitmap. (Although the hard-edged text is an obvious clue to a non-original scan.)
Which is where the problem arises.
I have no problem with Obama at all. I couldn't care any less about his birth certificate or birth status. His own party certainly wouldn't have let him become president if he wasn't eligible, that isn't the kind of oversight made when running a presidential campaign.
However, the document the White House has made available has been through a variety of very obvious manipulations. Shouldn't they be trying to prove this with a file that shows *no* manipulation? A PDF can be made of the original scan with enough resolution to withstand scrutiny, and while there are some people who will simply never believe any document to be manipulation free, why make it easy for them to believe otherwise?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnnysoftwareApr 30, 2011
Huh?
Isn't it obvious that the hospital has digitized their ancient, obsolete paper archives?
In digital form they can easily be backed up - meaning preserved.
Contrast that to what happened to so many paper records in New Orleans during a well-known flood.
OCR-ing medical records is pretty obviously something a hospital would want done. If you do not have the text of a document - just a picture of it, then you cannot really index it, summarize it, text-search it, copy/paste text from it, etc.
Those are all things a computerized medical record system needs to do. Those things in fact are why there was and is a push to
So, this form of the form - if you will forgive the pun - is exactly what one would expect it to be in if it was authentic. You will probably find this format of medical record to be one of the most common.
ophelloApr 30, 2011
Any file that is scanned has to be embedded in a document format (PDF) if you want to share it over the internet to a wide audience. Doing this inherently produces a layer that the image is contained on. This is how PDFs work: layers.
The original document was printed on this green background and notarized (hence the "photocopied" look with the telltale page curl on the left.
Christ, you people just dont quit.
ophelloApr 30, 2011
http://www.dclab.com/pdfconversion3.asp
wf80diditApr 29, 2011
Why would they make a fake email conversation to prove their point?
JonadabApr 29, 2011
Do you think it is a coincidence that the day after Obama releases his alleged birth certificate Yahoo takes down their comments section?
spazattack5000Apr 29, 2011
Have you seen their comments section? Taking it down is doing the world a serious favor.
BluntzworthApr 29, 2011
Great point.
Hj1Apr 29, 2011
No coincidence. The Buzz is gone to quiet the masses from telling the truth.
rblancarteApr 29, 2011
HOLY s**t! Do you think it is a coincidence that two days after Obama releases his alleged birth certificate, the Royal Wedding took place!
davidnivenApr 29, 2011
Well, it certainly does raise some interesting questions.
Why is Obama's certificate number higher than babies who were born supposedly after him?
"Natural born citizen" means that both parents were U.S. citizens. Uh-oh! B. Hussein's daddy was not.
No wonder Obama spent millions to keep this a secret for so long.
Evidence that this new form was FAKED:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g30VCl_cgkComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
diefreeApr 29, 2011
No it doesn't. You are lying again david. Do I need to embarrass you here like I have in every thread we have talked in? Now just run along and think up some better lies to cover your racism.
penglustApr 29, 2011
Just think "angry old white guy". Same old s**t.
wf80diditApr 29, 2011
Hey, it's penglust I mean diefree... funny running into you here. I see your alternate self replied to your own comment.
diefreeApr 29, 2011
Once again lying about me won't change the facts, though people like you only know how to lie. Now just run along everyone sees how stupid you really are.
elipabstApr 29, 2011
""Natural born citizen" means that both parents were U.S. citizens."
*Citation needed*.
Btw, under that criteria Trump wouldn't be eligible either. His mother is Scottish.
glacierelementApr 29, 2011
No, why would your parents need to be citizens.
elipabstApr 29, 2011
Exactly. You're going to have to ask davidniven to break down that nugget of brilliance for you..
rblancarteApr 29, 2011
Keep moving those goalposts.
m3g4tr0nApr 29, 2011
I wholeheartedly agree. How can the Colonel, a man who makes such delicious chicken, be so cruel and hateful? It boggles the mind.
jefftsApr 29, 2011
A child born on United States soil, or on US territories (e.g. a U.S. military base) is automatically a natural born citizen when at least one parent is a US citizen and who has had residency within the United States or one of its territories prior to the birth of the child.
Here is a nice conclusive definition of "natural born citizen":
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusive-Definition-of-Natural-Born-Citizen
Slightly related, I came across this while researching for this reply:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen#Presidential_candidates_whose_eligibility_was_questioned
I didn't know there were so many other presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned due to the "natural born citizen" clause. The media would have you believe that President Obama was the first and only.
wf80diditApr 29, 2011
That's a great find. Don't let jdenzer see that second link. His head might explode!
bookantApr 29, 2011
"I didn't know there were so many other presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned due to the "natural born citizen" clause. The media would have you believe that President Obama was the first and only."
Nobody is saying he is the first and only to have the question raised.
I do believe he is the first and only to (a) produce a perfectly valid and legal birth certificate (b) have the original examined and certified by non-partisan, impartial observers (c) have the original examined and certified by officials of the state where he born (who as an added bonus belonged to the OTHER political party); and *still* have people spend the next 2+ years insisting that it was all a fraud and part of a vast, multi-decade, super-sekret conspiracy to get a non-American in the White House . . . .
jefftsApr 29, 2011
You really should read comments more carefully. I did not say that people were saying he is the first and only. It's what the media isn't saying which leads people to believe that he is the first and only.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantApr 29, 2011
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. It's the *other* conspiracy theory.
The MEDIA are
(1) Not giving coverage to historical events which are, in fact, really not that similar to this one (see above).
(2) Therefore, because they are not making the birthers' fallacious false equivalency arguement for them (or at the very least not pretending that it deserves to be taken seriously), the media is exhibitng "liberal bias."
Gotcha.
jefftsApr 29, 2011
Let me repeat since you seem incapable of getting a point the first time:
I did not say that people were saying he is the first and only. It's what the media isn't saying which leads people to believe that he is the first and only.
If the media fails to state that other Presidential candidates have had, in some form or another, their eligibility for the office of President questioned, the average American, who doesn't have time to research or isn't a history buff, will believe that this is the first time a President's eligibility has been questioned.
I'm sorry that my point is so difficult for you to understand.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantApr 30, 2011
The problem is that you *have* no point for me to "get." I understand exactly what you're saying about the media. You have failed to explain why you think the media is under any obligation to give a history lesson on events that - and here is the point that you are failing to grasp - are not all that similar and in no way relevant to the birther issue.
The media do not, as a rule, give us history lessons on every past event that has a passing, surface resemblance to the issue they are reporting on. When they talked about Clinton's BJ, they didn't go on to say - "here are all the past Presidents who might have found women attractive." When they talked about Reagan or Kennedy being shot, they didn't go on to say, "here is every past President who might have at some time have been in some form of danger."
The only reason I could see for any such coverage would be to provide "cover" for the birthers. That is not the job of the media. Even conservative pseudo-journalists like "FOX" apparently agree, since I don't see them spending any time on those past not-really-related events, either.
jefftsApr 30, 2011
My point was that I, like a majority of Americans, wasn't even aware that other Presidential candidates faced challenges to their eligibility due to the "natural born citizen" clause.
It's right there in my first comment in which you decided to start a completely different "OMG, it's a conspiracy" argument with me as if I'm a birther. Never mind that your reply was in response to a comment of mine in which I'm discrediting a freaking birther!
Do you or do you not deny that most Americans are not aware that other candidates have faced this issue in the past? Did you even bother to read the information that I shared and thought was interesting?
And yes, it is the media's job to put things into historical context. They've done it with Afghanistan. They've done it with Iraq. They've done it with the economy. And they've done it with many, many other stories.
Obama isn't the first to have his eligibility questioned and he won't be the last. I don't know how big of an issue it was for previous candidates. But, given that out of them all, only 1 other became President and given that in previous situations, aside from McCain, news/rumors were unable to travel as quickly as they can today, I can see why today's issue is much bigger and well known.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantApr 30, 2011
This is is where you are entirely missing my point:
"Obama isn't the first to have his eligibility questioned and he won't be the last."
We're not talking about Obama (and other Presidents) having their eligibility questioned on the "natural born citizen" clause.
If that's what we were talking about, we would have stopped talking about it in 2008 when the Obama campaign produced and made publicly available definitive proof of his eligability. From that moment forward, there was no question of his eligibility or the place of his birth. None. It was settled.
From that moment forward, there was no "historical context" for the media to provide by talking about those past Presidents' experiences. Because they had nothing to do with the ridiculous conspiracy theories that were being spun around Obama's birth *in spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary.* Actual historical context might have been provided by talking about "moonlanding hoaxers" or idiots who think there are "chemtrails," but not by past Presidential eligibility issues.
Media reporting the FALSE equivalency between birthers and those past Presidents would not have been providing historical context, they would simply have been spreading the birthers' talking points for them.
jdenzerApr 29, 2011
Holy s**t, you too david? A true birther? I mean, you never really had any credibility. Especially when yoiu tried to make the case that you are not part of the GOP, just an independent.
But now you just sealed it up. You have ZERO credibility now, not one ounce.
And here's a tip: If you are going to use infowars as proof, you may want to reconsider.
Remember infowars is the same wacko that believes your beloved hero Bush
is part of the Bohemian Grove as well as the mastermind behind 911.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove
mbostonsApr 29, 2011
You do realize that there is no definition for "Natural Born Citizen" in the constitution so they decided to adopt the common law of England which basically states, "...and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."
So there goes one of your arguments right off the bat and for the numbers argument, do you directly work for the state of Hawaii on birth certificates? Because without insider knowledge of what happened with the numbering convention you're really only speculating and calling it fact.
But then again, it's nice to hear new and unique arguments from a Birther. It makes me laugh how ridiculous some of them are, these were on the low end of the ridiculous scale though at least you're not talking about "THE LAYERS OMG!"
wf80diditApr 30, 2011
"unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state"
Barack Obama, Sr. was a Kenyan senior governmental economist. Does that count? NO? Damn it, we'll get you somehow Mr President (shakes fist in air angrily).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountApr 30, 2011
You pretend that you are kidding, but Kasha said these very words as he is a right-wing birther ididot so full of hate for the POTUS that he will try anything. So, are you going to go klobber him like you attack liberal people you disagree with, or are you just a moronic hypocrite?
Closed AccountMay 2, 2011
I get that you have a crush on me, Jimbo, but it just isn't going to happen little guy! Maybe you and Mollydog could find happiness together...
cybersaurApr 29, 2011
davidniven, you're cementing your place at the top of my list of nominees for
"Dumbest Person on teh Internets"!
lpezzApr 30, 2011
David, David, David, how are we to take you seriously when you don't even know the accurate definition of "natural born citizen"? It's sad, really.