freeatlast
New Member
.
.
yes I have been reading them, but it will not satisfy them if they get what they are asking for. They will then just say it is forged in another government cover-up.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate
- Thread starter targus
- Start date
- Status
.
yes I have been reading them, but it will not satisfy them if they get what they are asking for. They will then just say it is forged in another government cover-up.
If you have been reading the posts why did you say "No the people do not want proof" ?
freeatlast
New Member
because it is like those during the time of the Lord. They also claimed to want proof (a sign) but no proof would satisfy. Even if the dead were raised they would not believe. The same is with this. No matter what is given they will not believe.
I'm sure there are a few that would never be satisfied, but I think most would be - if all the facts came out
1. I think your analogy is a bit off. What Christ was referring to was the spiritual, while the question here is the physical/political. Having said that, I refer to my post number 56.
2. To claim that those of us who seek PROOF, not a SIGN, are 'hypocritical' and 'non seekers of God' is an accusation that is off base.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
If proof were indeed produced, there would be no question.
The alleged 'proof' produced in June of 2008 clearly is no proof at all.
Why should the people not investigate when that which is claimed as 'proof' is clearly proven to be falsified?
There is no seal on the 'proof'. There is no signature on the 'proof' The pictures of the 'proof' are clearly not the same document.
Does factcheck.org really believe the people are that dumb as to accept two different papers as being one and the same?
The alleged 'proof' produced in June of 2008 clearly is no proof at all.
Why should the people not investigate when that which is claimed as 'proof' is clearly proven to be falsified?
There is no seal on the 'proof'. There is no signature on the 'proof' The pictures of the 'proof' are clearly not the same document.
Does factcheck.org really believe the people are that dumb as to accept two different papers as being one and the same?
Last edited by a moderator:
Post # 56 I might also add that it is a healthy thing for the citizenry to question their government. Beware of anyone who seeks power.
:thumbs:
I took a critical look at both pictures; magnified them as best I could; compared characteristics. I would say that they actually are of the same document (in the one of the raised seal, you can see the bottom border; a line of text above that; 4 lines of text above that. Where the crease in the paper is, it's hard to tell; but there are 4 lines of text there, as well. In the second picture, you can barely make out the crease, but it's there; and it coincides with the 4 lines of text on the crease in the picture with the raised seal. This brings the presumption that in the held up form, the raised seal is in the "blank" area on the right side of the form.)
I'm not happy that Obama hasn't been transparent with his personal records--transparency being something that he claimed as a foundation for his presidency, and has never produced. HOWEVER, by the time they figure out the birth record situation, the 2012 election will be in progress.
At this point, the birth certificate only comes into play if Obama is going to run for re-election. If he does, those that question the birth certificate need to put that strategy in play. Otherwise, it's too late to have any effect on this current presidency.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
I have scanned both my BC, and my wife's. When both are held in the same manner that the one on factcheck.org is held, the raised seal can be plainly seen. On the factcheck.org site, the seal is not legible at all.
It appears to me that the two pictures on that site are of different papers... either that, or the held picture was of something that was printed prior to the seal being put on.
As to the 'already in presidency', I believe even now if one were to get emphatic proof that the alleged BC is not legal, then BHO could be impeached from office and possibly even brought up on espionage charges. After all, if his BC is not valid, then he entered the White House under fraudulent claims and has had access to government files that he otherwise could not have gotten a hold of.
Last edited by a moderator:
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
Notice also the picture here.
This is the 4th picture on that site. Note it has the raised seal which can be clearly seen.
But also, note the well-defined creases on that picture. Note they are not so defined in the other pictures.
Obviously, there is a progression seen. First the newly-printed CoLB, with no seal at all.
Second, we see a seal possibly put on and a little crease.
Then, we see a more defined crease, as if to make it look as if the document was well-aged.
This is the 4th picture on that site. Note it has the raised seal which can be clearly seen.
But also, note the well-defined creases on that picture. Note they are not so defined in the other pictures.
Obviously, there is a progression seen. First the newly-printed CoLB, with no seal at all.
Second, we see a seal possibly put on and a little crease.
Then, we see a more defined crease, as if to make it look as if the document was well-aged.
Exactly! :applause:
Why bother to do so?
The courts have said there is no problem.
His mother was a natural born citizen, so he is also.
The birthers and other haters would not accept it.
The birthers and haters would simply pick something else to scream about.
He has more important things to do than waste time on people who will never accept anything released about his birth.
Well I think according to the constitution both of your parents have to be citizens if you're born abroad. Unless you were grandfathered in, and I don't think Obama is 200 plus years old.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
The Constitution doesn't define 'natural born.
Fred, I've looked at all the pictures (1-9); I'm not seeing different documents.
I do have to caveat, even though visual media is part of my job, I'm not an expert.
How much time does it take to say, "have the Hawaii folks release the birth certificate so we can put this silliness to rest?"
And almost none of the birthers would believe it was real. It would accomplish nothing. The Supreme Court, by not reviewing the lower court decision, basically said it is not an issue. They lower court imposed a fine on those who brought it to them ruling it a frivolous case. The case is closed.
Because he is President of the United States - and the people have a right to know the truth.
Once a valid long form is produced - then we will deal with the few leftover naysayers.
I trust more States or Commonwealth will pass laws requiring potential Presidential candidates to provide a valid/certified unaltered birth certificate.
Salty
PS
Just a quick thought - what would you pro-BC secret folks think if it was actually proven that Obama is not a natural born citizen - oh, you provably would not accept the facts anyways.
And yes, I would like for some of you to answer
My bottom line - show me a valid,/certified- unaltered birth certificate which proves BO is who he says he is, and I will be the first one to be satisfied.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
- Status