Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are wrong. Here is the specific requirement from the State Department's own regulations (not a web site gloss).
You will note that President Obama's COLB actually exceeds the requirements of the regulation.
It meets all except the last, though from what I have read, apparently the signature is on the back and also it appears that the raised embossed seal isn't showing up in the one you see on the internet.
I am not claiming it is false, but as I said, these are legitimate questions people bring up.
As one site I read said, for this to be a fraud, it would entail a rather large coordination of corruption which seems unlikely.
Personally, I think the issue is a waste of time as there are far more relevant things that can be shown (and are currently being argued in court) concerning the violations of constitution and powers than chasing after this.
Though as I said, if it were ever to be such as they claim, it would certainly be a dire issue for this country.
That's not the same certificate that I posted. Did you look at both of them?
Yes.
The other one was a practical joke created by anti-birthers. It was sent to Birther "investigator" Neil Sankey to see if he would be able to tell the difference between it and a real BC. It was based on an Australian Birth certificate found on an on-line genealogy site.
Neil Sankey (in case you were unaware) is the "investigator" responsible for the false claim that Obama has 39 different Social Security Numbers.
To everyone's surprise, not only did Sankey fail to detect the obvious fake, he quickly passed it to Orly Taitz who, in another spasm of irresponsible lawyering, tried to introduce it as evidence in two court cases. The Punk was revealed on line with photographic proof that it was a hoax.
It meets all except the last, though from what I have read, apparently the signature is on the back and also it appears that the raised embossed seal isn't showing up in the one you see on the internet.
No. It meets the last one too. There is no requirement that the signature be on the front.
You have simply been misinformed regarding the visibility of the raised seal on the Internet images. It can be seen even on the original lo-res scans, let alone the later set of high resolution photographs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
I am not claiming it is false, but as I said, these are legitimate questions people bring up.
No. They are not legitimate questions. They were answered more than two years ago, and at that time lost any pretension of reasonableness or legitimacy moving forward.
Lets see, the Republicans running his state TWICE state that they have checked the documents they have and that President Obama IS legally elected and the GOP leadership has no issue with his BC but some still go on and on as if there were some sort of issue to discuss. Ludicrous.
Casper
Buy he could settle all this by just ordering the enrollment records at all three colleges. I don't believe he wants to settle all this because he is using all this division the same way his people want to keep us divided on so many things. He could settle it so easily, but he isn't going to do that.
Like heck! If the records didn't show something sinister, they'd be rejected as forgeries. You guys have just played this game too long. Everyone knows the birthers' angles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
I believe the COLB objection was that it was not a valid means of verification due to its nature. That is, it does not prove anything conclusively and is often not accepted in legal forms. That was the objection to the COLB that was made. Sounds like a reasonable objection to me. /shrug
"Shrug" this. It's the only BC I have. It was acceptable for a passport just a couple years ago.
No. It meets the last one too. There is no requirement that the signature be on the front.
I didn't say there was, I simply stated that it is not visible on the front of the ones I have seen, but after reading saw that it is traditionally on the back of that states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
You have simply been misinformed regarding the visibility of the raised seal on the Internet images. It can be seen even on the original lo-res scans, let alone the later set of high resolution photographs.
I simply did a search for the images and browsed through several, one of them was the first that was shown as evidence originally. I wouldn't say misinformed, rather it was lack of information.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
