Roll Tide
He was elected. He was reelected. At this point, it doesn’t matter if he was born on Mars. What do these people think is going to happen. If they couldn’t find any proof in the last 6 years, what are the chances they could now? If the Clintons’ couldn’t find anything, what makes you think rank amateurs could?
It appears to load in layers with the “safety paper” background loading last.
Altho in Black&White, it looks no different than what I’ve seen before.
Here is also the Alabama Secretary Of State Beth Chapman’s amicus brief against the plaintiffs.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/137926626/SCOAL-2013-04-24-McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman-APPEAL-Chapman-Brief
Raised seal and everything? /s
He could rule the Country from a jail cell just fine as long as he promises to keep giving stuff away to all the leechs.
First, there is no dispute that Presient Obama's birth was publicly announced in the local Honolulu newspaper in 1961.
No, it appeared on the questionable microfilm roll that magically disappeared.
At some point Justice Moore will receive an offer he really can’t refuse. The case will suddenly end with a peremptory dismissal and harsh words from the judge for the plaintiffs.
That looks like a moiré pattern which safety paper was designed to produce when copied. It does that so one can distinguish a copy from the original.
The person who signed this is guilty of perjury. They said that Onaka twice verified that the image on the White House website is a “true and correct copy” of the original paper record on file at the HDOH.
That is what Onaka was twice asked to verify AND WOULDN’T. IOW, he verified the exact opposite: to Bennett he verified that it is NOT a “true and correct representation of the original record on file, and to Kobach he verified that the information contained in the White House image is NOT “identical to” the information contained in the original record on file.
Furthermore, the chair of the Alabama Democratic Party (Mark Kenneday) was informed of what Onaka’s letter of verification to Ken Bennett really meant, by Larry Klayman on or around Sept 10, 2012 (The signer of the certified mail receipt, Teresa Smiley, didn’t put a “date received” on it).
We know with certainty it is not a scan of an official document as is claimed. That means this document is a forgery and fraud, both felonies.
Only a fool would fall for this obvious fake.
People. This thread is about the different looking birth certificate presented in the amicus brief and not about the Clintons or the economy. Please try to stay on the topic of the thread. Thanks.
Even if you crossed him off the ballot in Alabama (months after the election) it wouldn't change anything.
“It is raising a lot of questions that even has Obama supporters baffled”
Oh really. Who might they be?
Whaa whaaa the Dems and Obama have been lying from get go. I would have never guessed. /sarc
I notice that in page 20 the liars say “a 40-year-old government record from Hawaii” when referring to Barry’s original 1961 BC, which is obviously 50 years old.
Was this a Freudian slip? Probably not, but the “original” on file could be an amended document that is only 40 years old.
A “FUDDY” a day keeps impeachment away :-)
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/04/revealed-multiple-obama-birth-certificates.html