“At this point, the passengers in Obama’s car become irate and begin hurling nasty epithets and invective at the officer. They make a huge scene, and put the officer on edge.
The officer turns to his superior, who says he wants to see the real insurance card. “
All analogies break down at some point but here is what I see as the critical difference. When BO was asked, he posted the COLB. It is a document that is not related just tangentially to the issue, such as the insurance quote. It is in and of iself a valid document that answers the question.
If BO had tried to pass off his kindergarten pictures, I might be more open to the issue. But this is a document that proves live birth in Hawaii on its face.
You have to question the authenticity of the COLB to have an issue. If BO’s sister had a fake one, that would be relevant. If there was some really good evidence that he was born in Kenya or Indonesia or whatever, that would be relevant.
All I have seen is one old woman in Kenya and some questions.
parsy.
The point I was attempting to make with my analogy, is that the COLB which was presented by the Obama campaign is not proof of his actual birth circumstances. The short form COLB isn't even accepted by the state of Hawaii as proof of Hawaiian citizenship, and is not accepted by the US State Department and other US gov't agencies as proof of citizenship.
In other words, it doesn't actually prove anything. To use a different analogy, it's little more than a note from Mom, when what is required is an official doctor's report.
It's also been shown (beyond a shadow of doubt) that the jpeg image of Obama's COLB is also an amateurish fake. Even if it's authenticity were not at issue, it would be foolish to accept it as proof positive in this digital age. The document in question was never shown to, nor was it inspected by any expert document examiners, a court of law, or the US Congress. It wasn't even allowed to be photographed by the media.
Given those circumstances, it's surprising to many people that anyone would accept what the Obama campaign offered, as "proof" of his citizenship.
You've commented before that you accept the jpeg computer image of Obama's alleged COLB as proof positive of his citizenship. You've also stated that you accept the jpeg computer image of his newspaper birth announcement on its face, and without prejudice. And, you've stated that you accept the word of the Hawaiian health department officials that Barack Obama is a natural born US citizen.
What I'm trying to get you to see, is that this standard of evidence is beneath credibility. None of those things that you accept would sway a judge or jury in any court of law.
I'm afraid that this is where you err, and it is basic to your failure to understand the controversy.