Posted on 06/29/2008 11:18:17 PM PDT by Kevmo
Here are a few of the issues the Barack Obama campaign could clear up by providing a paper copy which could be authenticated by Hawaii State officials:
Why do the colors and border elements on Obama’s birth certificate seem to be so different from a legitimate birth certificate?
Why is there no embossed seal on Obama’s birth certificate?
Why is there no embossed registrar’s signature on Obama’s birth certificate?
Why does Obama’s birth certificate appear to have the embossed date stamp of June [6] 2007, but no other embossings?
Why does Obama’s birth certificate have a “Date Filed by Registrar” whereas other birth certificates show a “Date Accepted”?
Why does Obama’s pristine copy not have folds, when Hawaii will only send these by mail in an envelope that requires folding?
Does this necessarily mean that Barack Obama’s birth certificate, as provided by his campaign is fraudulent? No. Nor does this necessarily demonstrate that Obama’s citizenship may not be American. It does raise a question that should be pretty easy to put to rest and has not, however, and that in itself is pretty disturbing. Why would there be lingering questions at all about something as fundamental as Barack Obama’s basic constitutional qualifications for the office of President of the United States? When you or I apply for a job, we provide physical documents as a matter of course. Why wouldn’t a person who wants us to hire him as our President not be eager to do the same?
To the extent that the Obama campaign has attempted to address these questions, they have posted this uncertifiable image of Obama’s birth certificate online, presented an irrelevant passage from the Constitution and mentioned the date that Hawaii became a state. Other than that, they have done absolutely nothing to address this. How do you think that might work for you if you flat out ignored a potential employer’s request for documentation that would conclusively prove your identity and ensure their compliance with the law?
Why should he? If his opponents aren't spending their time chasing the wrong rabbit then what will they be spending their time on?
And when did Clinton or Bush do that?
What if they all say no?
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/birth-certificate-mystery-ongoing/
socalannie // June 29, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I looked at the Atlas Shrugged site & watched the video of how they got the purple cert to show thru on the BC. I wrote down the instructions & then followed them to the letter (I have photoshop). No seal came thru. Nothing came thru.
Since this whole shebang started, I have always agreed with Polarik. The first time I saw BO cert, the white halo around all the letters leaped out at me. I noticed it before I saw it magnified. I’ve printed thousands of pages on a laser & have never seen that.
...
socalannie // June 29, 2008 at 11:46 pm
I looked at DeCosta’s again; enlarged & flipped it around & it looks like the stamped date is 2002. So its conceivable that they could’ve changed stock during that 5 yrs.
I also played around with the Kos cert some more & I still couldn’t get the purple stamp that is shown on the Atlas site. Also, the white halos around the letters are glaring when you enlarge it. The DeCosta cert does not do this.
By the way, I couldn’t get the polarik link to work so here is another one:
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/
And we only have an image of the front. The point is that digital image analysis finds that the image contains evidence that the scanned document had an embossed seal, which was mirror imaged on the front. Meaning the clerk who embossed it had the clamp backwards and didn’t press as hard as the clerk who embossed the Decosta certificate that’s been circulated for comparison.
Yes it IS solved. It is a forgery.
No matter how hard or light you press what's on the back is exactly the same on the front in depth or height.
It can't visible on the back without being just as visible on the front.
That broad had a mission in mind in her so called anaylis.
Why does Obama’s birth certificate have a “Date Filed by Registrar” whereas other birth certificates show a “Date Accepted”?
You should drop that part of the argument because I know someone who just got one back and it says “Date Filed By Registrar”. But there are many other problems and more shoes about to drop.
Why does Obama’s birth certificate have a “Date Filed by Registrar” whereas other birth certificates show a “Date Accepted”?
You should drop that part of the argument because I know someone who just got one back and it says “Date Filed By Registrar”. But there are many other problems and more shoes about to drop.
Found this on another thread. Doesn’t this just about prove he’s not elgible?
“According to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between “ December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986. U.S. Law stipulates: “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, so she did not meet the 5 year rule after turning 16.”
.
And here’s someone who has a plan to prove- or disprove:
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/06/freedom-of-information-act-request-for.html
Freedom Of Information Act Request for Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate
OK
I’m bettin the FOIA request will be summarily ignored.
Most likely- but he’s bringing attention to the problem.
Brilliant FRiend, if I were on trial for any serious crime, I would want you to be making the closing argument for me. That is pretty damn air-tight.
“We should demand an actual Paper copy of the certificate from Obama.”
This is just so stupid. The image presented IS the actual paper copy. It was scanned and posted. How the hell else is he supposed to post it?
The tinfoil hat crew has embarrassed itself rather badly here. I suggest that Obama has a whole lot of things to question, but the birth certificate appears real.
My guess: The person who scanned the document thought it might be too much information, like a Social Security number.
Alternate explanation for tinfoil hat people: The Obama campaign is omniscient and knew it would make a great controversy to draw attention away from Obama’s socialist policies and anti-American friends.
True. But someone in the media ought to be doing the same. A blogger can be ignored. Why doesn’t the Weekly Standard or Nat. Review do the same? I’m afraid the limp wristed ‘conservative’ media is afraid of being called names by the Obamunists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.