Replies

You say the COLB is proof. We say it is an incomplete record ...

So what determines which is right? What says that the COLB is not sufficient?

Look, I haven't argued with you and like your posts. However, Barry O. submitted something that doesn't look like my BC, my brother's, my youngest sister, my mother, or two friends who are almost 100 years old.(seeing the BC’s of someone who will be 100 is pretty cool)

There is speculation that he was adopted at the age of 7. If so, his BC or COLB should have a notation saying amended, as does mine and my brother and sister.

I was adopted at the age of 7 and have looked at my BC many times. I considered changing my name back to my birth name but since he BC would not be altered it doesn't hold value to me.

I remember going to college and having to provide a BC along with school records.

Years later I wanted to travel to Europe and needed a passport. I didn't feel like going through storage and looking for it so wrote to the state and received a copy
which I took to the passport office in San Francisco.

6 weeks later I had a passport and my BC back.

Barry's is incomplete and there is no reason, given the gravity of situation to have released a COLB.

Based on my experience why wouldn't I question Barry and his forthrightness.

I had seen the birther threads before and didn't really give them much thought. Didn't really care about travels, his politics, just didn't care about him.

But, when I saw that COLB, on a thread here, I instantly said “Wait a minute” “That is not a Birth Certificate and looks nothing like mine”.

All it took to engage me was seeing that incomplete document and I was in.

Trust me, when I tell I know some of the very prominent Democrats in California and have met some from out state. Most of my friends are Democrats. To be expected, as I live in the Bay Area.

I have always enjoyed a good discussion about politics and never shy from a discussion.

But this incomplete record, when I already know there are 3 BC’s two of which should be in his possession is beyond odd.

So what determines which is right?

If we go back to the original intent of the Founders, it would clearly be the responsibility of the presidential electors to satisfy themselves that the candidate was, in fact, eligible to be elected President. Presumably 365 electors were, in fact, so satisfied as of 15 December 2008.

So what determines which is right? What says that the COLB is not sufficient?

The COLB itself states it is not sufficient, not to mention that it has been altered, which invalidates it.