The hammer has fallen...

You know, I'm quite vocal in pointing out the incompetence of the Democratic Party. But for some reason, I'm having a hard time accepting that the party would not have, you know, looked into this issue at some point before handing Obama the nomination. With the stakes involved, and the kind of money they have on the line, they have a pretty strong interest in making sure that the guy they put on the ballot is eligible for the office.

No, the DNC's vetting process isn't legally binding. At some point I can see the necessity of having a court of law rule on the issue definitively. But honestly, I'm pretty skeptical of the idea that we'd be at this point if there didn't exist either legally compelling existence of his eligibility, or a lack of evidence to the contrary (not sure who the burden lies on here, I'd wager the former).
 
People are making a whole lot out of a court case in which Obama has not even been served. At the time of filing he would not have even been aware it was being filed and unless they have been served they have not even had opportunity to turn over papers yet. A person does not go in at the time a suit is being filed and say "they cannot file this suit and here is why." The person being filed against is not even aware of what is happening until they are served. At this stage he would not have even had an opportunity to present anything to anyone.

I have been sued before. At the time a suit is filed I do not even know it is happening. I find out about it when I am served and at that time I am given a preliminary date to present my side of the story. At that point is where the case is judged on whether it has merit to continue or is thrown out. This is not to that point yet.

So to say "there must be something to it or it would have been thrown out" or "why did he not just produce the documents?" shows a complete lack of understanding of how these things work. I could go file a suit against any one of you tomorrow and the first time you would have a chance to present your side of the story would be after you are served. not before.
 
THIS SITE has a pretty good analysis of the BO birth certificate with comparisons to known official documents.
Click to expand...
That sight is a biased rag and is making claims that have already been clearly debunked in this thread. Why would you feel the need to repeat something that has already been proven to be biased and false?
 
You were able to go to that site and read everything there in exactly two minutes? Wow! Evelyn Woods sure had nothing on you.
 
There are three missing components to the birth certificate pictured at BO's webpage HERE:

No seal;
No registration number;
No registrar's signature

Note that the stamped reverse date and the registrar's signature show through the known official document. The date stamp shows through the BO certificate but the registrar's signature does not.

This is also the same image that appears at the Daily Kos (Chaos) page. The image at the BO webpage is also not a high definition image which can be blown up to study detail. Both images at THIS SITE are HD images and can be downloaded and blown up to study the details.

Then there is this. His mother's race is noted as "Caucasian" and his father's race as "African". In 1961 the term "Negro" was used, not "African". African is not a race.

African would possibly have been used as country (continent) of origin but that is not used on birth certificates. That term would be used on naturalization papers, though.
 
I'll save everyone the trouble of downloading and blowing up the images.

THE BARACK OBAMA CERTIFICATE:

BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg


THE EXAMPLE CERTIFICATE KNOWN TO BE OFFICIAL:

doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg
 
No seal;
No registration number;
No registrar's signature
Click to expand...
Wrong,
wrong,
wrong.

Those claims have already been proven to be false. Go back and read the posts in this thread and you will find hi-res pictures that prove it.
 
How about doing for me what I have done for you and direct me to those posts instead of my digging through seven pages of posts looking for them.

Oh, never mind. Let's just play, shall we?
 
Here is the image from my link:

BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg


No seal;
No registration number;
No registrar's signature

Here is the image from BO's webpage:

BO_birthcert.jpg


No seal;
No registration number;
No registrar's signature

Now note in this image from the factcheck site the fold lines which are clearly visible on the "official" BO certificate and the shadows cast by them and the raised seal:

birth_certificate_5.jpg


Note also the image of the known good certificate and how the fold lines and raised seal are readily discernable:

doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg


Yet those same features do not appear on the blown up image or the one on the BO website.

And this does not, in the least, strike you as a bit odd?
 
By the by: There seems to be some relevance to the difference between a "certification" of live birth and a "certificate" of live birth. Both the BO cert and the known good cert use the word "certification". So what's the skinny on that part of the debate? Seems like it is just a line-filler in the "reasons this ain't so" list to me.
 
And this does not, in the least, strike you as a bit odd?
Click to expand...
No, not at all. The one on the website is a digital copy...not a photograph of the hard copy.

Plus, the fact that the original paper copy exists and has been verified nullifies any valid concerns regarding the digital image. You can't call into question the validity of the original based on a photocopy when the original itself has been verified.
 
We can argue for ever. But nothing will be resolved until the issuing authority verifies (or not) Obama's birth certificate. That should happen soon. I give it a 95% plus chance they will confirm Obama's Live Birth certificate to be correct.

Or, Obama could use this web site and get extra copies for distribution. $24.95...heck of a deal.:D
http://www.birthcertificatesusa.com...6iOutsYAOpS11WxYnD52bsd93zWfyVndY-n0pAh6UvfaU
Some states have raised seals, some have stamped seals. We provide what the state has to offer. Additionally, some states have both certified and non certified copies.
Click to expand...
Then we can get on with other good reasons why Obama should not be elected.
 
This lawsuit is a complete farce but I would be curious as to why papers were not served. Who does Obama think he is that he does not have to accept legal summons...Cheney?
 
This lawsuit is a complete farce but I would be curious as to why papers were not served.
Click to expand...

Again (thousandth time) at lot of us could agree. In fact, I was pretty much in that position in July. The hang up is Obama not allowing followup to the issuing authority. Maybe he is waiting so he can show all these people questioning his birth as fools....possible I guess. But it appears this is just dirt simple.

Allow complete verification of his birth records and this issues goes away. Then we can all have a good laugh...or not.;)

Added: it's important to remember, at least to my knowledge. People that have seen the certificate of live birth did indeed say it looked authentic. The person contacted in Hawaii said the seal and signature appeared to be correct, but no one has said this all matches data on file. Just like when a cop stops you, he does not just take your official looking license as gospel. He checks against the original data base.
 
I say show up in court and show his papers and have the newspapers read "Crackpot lawyer proven a fool: Obama legal citizen"

What does he have to loose by simply producing the documents in court. They have already been confirmed by multiple sources so the only thing keeping him from doing so would be principle. Principle can bite you in the ass sometimes.
 
I say show up in court and show his papers and have the newspapers read "Crackpot lawyer pr oven a fool: Obama legal citizen"
Click to expand...

I am ok with that.


What does he have to loose by simply producing the documents in court. They have already been confirmed by multiple sources
Click to expand...

No, they have never ever been confirmed by the issuing authority in Hawaii. Just by non-officials that have seen the document. Only one source really counts.
 
When Obama makes proof, I will come on this thread and say this whole charge was just a bunch of hot air. And we were all foolish to believe any part of this story. Easy for me to say...at my age I am foolish about a lot of things.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top