Yepp, Trump is still a birther!!

[Care4all]

Your response didn't confuse me- your response didn't address the question- why do you think that photo has been edited?

Because it has. The handlers used adobe to scan it then print it again during a couple steps in the handling of what we eventually saw, it's not a high res photo of what they originally received. The only reason I know of to use adobe for this is when you want to add stuff to it such as comments or adding additional text that you want to look like it was originally there.

'because it has'- and how do you know this? I mean other than waving your magic Birther wand over your monitor?

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document. Basically the document they gave us is at best a mess. I'd like to see an un-retouched high resolution image of the original document please. And I'd like to have a data forensics expert look at the original file and attest to the originality of said document.

If the document included evidence of editing as you CLAIM, then PLEASE SHOW US THE EDITS you say it had.....what was retouched as you claim....SURELY if your claim is TRUE, you would be able to show the editing that occurred....what was changed....SHOW IT, or eat your words.

WHAT WAS EDITED?

How does, **** you and the horse you rode in on you *****, sound to you? I'm busy.

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

 

[Care4all]

here is an encyclopedia table of contents, of ALL of the birther claims and claims about president Obama, just click on the topic MIKE, Vigilante, RK and others, and you will get a thorough history on what was claimed and the facts on what was proven, or not proven....every one of the claims made on this thread are discussed and pretty much, totally debunked.

The Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories

Don’t Panic! Have you heard some crazy rumor about Barack Obama and want the straight story? The Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories is a compilation of many of the strange tales and unfounded rumors that fly over the Internet about Obama, and particularly alternate accounts of his birth. Each one is carefully researched with references you can use to correct misinformation and know the facts.

Table of Categories:

• Obama’s birth certificate
• Other claims about Obama’s birth in Hawaii
• Obama born in Kenya stories
• Obama in Indonesia stories
• Obama’s Selective Service registration
• Obama’s social-security number
• Obama legal fees and sealing records
• Obama higher education claims
• Obama is not a natural born citizen because of his parentage
• Other strange stories

Let the claims begin!

Obama’s birth certificate
Nothing defines the birther movement more than controversy over Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Birthers demand that Obama release his birth certificate, when in fact he did already, back in June of 2008. For more information debunking birth certificate claims, see also here, here, here and here. Birthers claim that:

• The document has been amended.
• The location of birth is a clerical error.
• The location of birth is really the location of registration.
• Hawaii allows registration of any child in Hawaii over one year old as being born in Hawaii.
• Hawaii allows residents to register foreign-born children as being born in Hawaii.
• Obama was adopted from a foreign country
• Block 7(c) of the birth registration form allows the entry of a foreign country for place of birth.
• The Obama document is a “Certification”, not a “Certificate”.
• A Certification of Live Birth is not a birth certificate. See also here.
• There were no laser printers when Obama was born in 1961.
• Recorded information may have been altered and a new birth certificate issued showing different information pursuant to HRS §338-17.7.
• Hawaii Act 96 allows for a birth certificate to be issued for someone born out of state. (It doesn’t)
• Sun Yat-Sen the first President of China has a Hawaiian birth certificate and he was born in China so this proves anybody can get a Hawaiian birth certificate. See also here.
• The Department of Hawaii Homelands declared that the short-form birth certificate was not sufficient evidence and also that such a certificate is not proof of birth in Hawaii.
• Obama’s mother didn’t live at the address listed on the birth certificate. See also.
• Obama’s birth registration was created by his grandparents, and not by a physician. The attending physician was David A Sinclair, MD.
• Obama’s birth certificate lacks the state seal and here.
• Obama’s birth certificate lacks an official’s signature.
• Obama’s birth certificate lacks a certificate number.
• The Registrar’s stamp on Obama’s short form certificate is a rubber stamp (as it should be).
• Image recovery techniques prove the certificate number is missing in original scanned images.
• Obama’s birth certificate was invalidated when the certificate number was covered.
• The certificate number proves Obama was not born in a hospital. See also here.
• Obama’s birth certificate has the wrong certificate number.
• Obama’s birth certificate has the wrong registration date.
• Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. See also and also.
• Barack Obama has a Canadian birth certificate.
• The Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams verified that Obama has no long-form birth certificate.
• Obama’s refusal to release his long form birth certificate proves he has something to hide. See also.
• Obama’s birth certificate is a fake because the father’s race was “African.” See also.
• Obama’s long form birth certificate is a fake because the PDF version has “layers.” A detailed analysis of various claims that Obama’s long form certificate is a fake is found in John Woodman’s book: Is Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud? see also this video.
• There are multiple versions of Obama’s 2011 PDF certificate file.
• OCR does not explain the layers in Obama’s birth certificate.
• Obama’s birth certificate has too many/too few layers.
• Obama’s birth certificate has too many one-bit layers.
• The raised seal on Obama’s 2007 Certification of Live Birth is debossed instead of embossed. (It’s normal.)
• Obama’s long form has curved text but the background is not curved.
• The letters on Obama’s long form are not all the same shape, suggesting a composite image from multiple typewriters. See also.
• Some letters on Obama’s long form are curved less than the surrounding text.
• The long form says Obama’s father was born in Kenya, East Africa. Kenya didn’t exist until 3 years later.
• Obama attorney Alexandra Hill admitted Obama’s birth certificate is fake. (She didn’t.)
• Penciled data entry codes are inconsistent with written values. (They aren’t.)
• A professional law-enforcement investigation of Obama’s birth certificate in Arizona proved the document a fake. The so-called anomalies on the PDF certificate are the normal processing of a Xerox WorkCentre 7655 copier/scanner opened and saved with Preview on a Mac computer.
• Obama’s birth certificate is too small.
• Obama’s father’s age is wrong on the birth certificate.
• The hospital name on Obama’s birth certificate is wrong for the time period.
• Douglas Vogt identified 20 points of forgery in the birth certificates. See also here, here, and here.
• A credentialed document examiner, Reed Hayes, has stated that the White House PDF birth certificate is a 100% forgery. Until the Hayes report is released, its conclusions, whatever they are, cannot be debunked or verified.
• Hawaii Department of Health director Loretta Fuddy took a $50,000 bribe to fake Obama’s birth certificate.
• The security paper pattern on Obama’s long form birth certificate is too small.
• Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii couldn’t find Obama’s birth certificate. Claim by celebrity journalist Mike Evans was retracted.

Other claims about Obama’s birth in Hawaii

• The newspaper announcement of Obama’s birth was an ad placed by his parents.
• All microfilm copies worldwide of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star Bulletin relating to Obama’s birth have been replaced by fake ones.
• No one remembers young Obama in Hawaii (except Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii and his kindergarten teachers and classmates).
• Obama relatives cannot agree on which hospital was Obama’s birthplace.
• Obama has never acknowledged the hospital where he was born.
• Hawaii hospitals all deny Obama was born there. All but one and see video here.
• Obama/Dunham Divorce Decree says One Child Born in Kenya.
• The letters “TXE” signal a forgery. See also.
• Scanner/software expert says Obama long-form birth certificate a forgery. (Also claims to know when, to the minute, that the Sun will go nova and start the next ice age.)

Obama born in Kenya stories

• Obama’s step grandmother, Sarah Obama, said on tape that the President was born in the Kenya and she was there. See also here.
• Obama family members say President Obama was born in Kenya. See also here.
• There is a Kenyan Birth Certificate for Barack Obama. See here, and also here.
• There is another Kenyan Birth Certificate for Barack Obama.
• The Kenyan ambassador to the US said that Obama was born in Kenya.
• The Associated Press said in 2004 that Obama was born in Kenya.
• The Kenyan minister of lands said Obama was born in Kenya. He did, but he never explains how he knew. See also here.
• Kenyan newspapers say Obama was born in Kenya. See also here and here.
• Michelle Obama said Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
• Road signs entering Kenya say “Welcome to Kenya: Birthplace of Barack Obama.”
• Obama’s literary biography says he was born in Kenya.

Obama in Indonesia stories

• Obama’s school registration proves he was an Indonesian citizen
• Obama was an Indonesian national because he went to school in Indonesia where only Indonesians could attend.
• Obama was adopted by his Indonesian step-father. See also here.
• Obama automatically became an Indonesian citizen when he was adopted at age 5 .

Obama’s Selective Service registration

• Obama is ineligible to be president because he failed to register for the Selective Service, a prerequisite for a federal job. See also here.
• Obama’s Selective Service registration document is fake, see also here.

Obama’s social-security number
Two issues were raised about President Obama’s social-security number, which had become public through faulty redaction of the President’s income tax returns. One deals with the fact that the number itself is usually associated with Connecticut residents, and that there are some unidentified public records tying Obama’s number with one or more other names. Obama Conspiracy Theories has several articles dealing with social-security numbers and Obama. Here are some particular claims:

• Obama has 39 social-security numbers.
• Obama has a Connecticut social-security number and that means fraud. See also here.
• Obama is using the social-security number of a deceased individual.
• Obama is using the social-security number of Jean Paul Ludwig.
• eVerify response indicates Obama’s number is fraudulent. See also here.

Obama legal fees and sealing records

• Obama has spent millions in legal fees keeping his birth certificate secret. This is further nonsense since Obama freely released his birth certificate.
• An Obama executive order sealed all his records.
• Obama’s records are all sealed. See also this article from FactCheck.org.

Obama higher education claims

• Obama registered as a foreign student at Occidental College to get financial aid. This was actually an April Fool joke, but it is still widely believed. Follow-up story here and here.
• Obama went to Occidental College under a Fulbright scholarship. Silly since Fulbright scholarships are for graduate study and Obama was an undergrad at Occidental.
• Obama went under the name “Barry Soetoro” at Occidental College. See also.
• Nobody remembers Obama at Columbia College. See also classmate Wolf and Professor Baron.
• Obama funneled guns to the Taliban for the CIA while a student. Too silly to debunk, but listed for reference.

Obama is not a natural born citizen because of his parentage
The idea that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen even if born in the US is not a “conspiracy theory;” it is a legal theory. The best compilation debunking this claim is the report of the Congressional Research Service: Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement.

For a general review, see: Natural Born Citizen for Dummies. For a compendium of citations about natural born citizen, see The Great Mother of All Natural Born Citizen Quotation Pages, other articles on citizenship on this site, our Citizenship bookmarks, and Books on Google that define “natural born citizen.” See also John Woodman’s series of articles. Since 2008 at least 11 courts have ruled specifically on this question as it pertains to Barack Obama and all have affirmed that if born in Hawaii, Obama is a natural born citizen.

Specific debunked claims:

• The Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett defined natural born citizen as requiring two citizen parents.
• The Law of Nations by E. Vattel defined natural born citizen as requiring two citizen parents.
• The US Constitution incorporates the Law of Nations by reference.
• The Supreme Court cited Vattel in United States v Wong Kim Ark.
• Supreme Court Case Perkins v. Elg proves a natural born citizen must have two US parents.
• No court has ruled on the merits of claims that Obama is not a natural born citizen because of his father’s British citizenship.

Other strange stories

• Barack Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. See also.
• Barack Obama was raised by communists.
• Google says Obama is a socialist.
• Barack Obama Committed Perjury on his Illinois Bar Application.
• Michelle Obama was disbarred. See also.
• Barack Obama was forced to surrender his law license or face ethics charges.
• CIA DNA Test Reveals Barack Obama was ADOPTED. This one is too silly to debunk but I wanted to document the incredible story.
• Obama sat on the board of the Annenberg Foundation that runs FactCheck.org.
• Barack Obama is a British citizen.
• Barack Obama was going to change the military oath so that soldiers would swear allegiance to him personally. This was meant to be a joke, but, well…
• Barack Obama’s best-selling 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers.
• Barack Obama told veterans to “stop whining” about having to pay for their own health care.
• Obama has issued more executive orders than any president in history (actually fewer).
• Obama went by the name Soetoro in high school

The Debunker s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Republicans like what they're hearing as Donald Trump bashes immigrants

Donald Trump's rise continues, according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll. Apparently vicious anti-immigrant rhetoric will do wonderful things for your favorable ratings from Republicans:
Nearly six in 10 -- 57 percent -- Republicans now have a favorable view of Trump, compared to 40 percent who have an unfavorable one. That marks a complete reversal from a late-May Post-ABC poll, in which 65 percent of Republicans saw Trump unfavorably.

 

[Syriusly]

Trump is the candidate the Republican Party deserves......

 

[RKMBrown]

stupid is as stupid does....

and birthers at this point are just intentionally and willfully being, and playing, stupid....the Lord only knows why?

Raw unadulterated hate for President Barack Hussein Obama.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Well deserved too.

 

[RKMBrown]

Trump is the candidate the Republican Party deserves......

Hillary is the candidate democrats deserve.

 

[RKMBrown]

Because it has. The handlers used adobe to scan it then print it again during a couple steps in the handling of what we eventually saw, it's not a high res photo of what they originally received. The only reason I know of to use adobe for this is when you want to add stuff to it such as comments or adding additional text that you want to look like it was originally there.

'because it has'- and how do you know this? I mean other than waving your magic Birther wand over your monitor?

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document. Basically the document they gave us is at best a mess. I'd like to see an un-retouched high resolution image of the original document please. And I'd like to have a data forensics expert look at the original file and attest to the originality of said document.

If the document included evidence of editing as you CLAIM, then PLEASE SHOW US THE EDITS you say it had.....what was retouched as you claim....SURELY if your claim is TRUE, you would be able to show the editing that occurred....what was changed....SHOW IT, or eat your words.

WHAT WAS EDITED?

How does, **** you and the horse you rode in on you *****, sound to you? I'm busy.

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

 

[Syriusly]

'because it has'- and how do you know this? I mean other than waving your magic Birther wand over your monitor?

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document. Basically the document they gave us is at best a mess. I'd like to see an un-retouched high resolution image of the original document please. And I'd like to have a data forensics expert look at the original file and attest to the originality of said document.

If the document included evidence of editing as you CLAIM, then PLEASE SHOW US THE EDITS you say it had.....what was retouched as you claim....SURELY if your claim is TRUE, you would be able to show the editing that occurred....what was changed....SHOW IT, or eat your words.

WHAT WAS EDITED?

How does, **** you and the horse you rode in on you *****, sound to you? I'm busy.

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

Pretty much anyone who actually gives a shit about this country- does not give a shit about how many layers an image of a birth certificate on the internet has.

The image is no legal document- the originals handled and viewed by reporters were legal documents. The legal statements by the State of Hawaii are legal documents. There have been 2 elections- the voters voted that this was a non-issue to them. Congress confirmed the elections twice- again a non-issue for them. Multiple secretaries of states- including for example the Secretary of State of Arizona- have accepted the legal documents from Hawaii and have no issue.

So everyone who matters has weighed in- everyone who gives a shit about this country- the ones that are left are those who do not give shit about this country- and would prefer to spend 7 years trying to find a reason that our legally elected President cannot possibly be President.

 

[Skylar]

'because it has'- and how do you know this? I mean other than waving your magic Birther wand over your monitor?

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document. Basically the document they gave us is at best a mess. I'd like to see an un-retouched high resolution image of the original document please. And I'd like to have a data forensics expert look at the original file and attest to the originality of said document.

If the document included evidence of editing as you CLAIM, then PLEASE SHOW US THE EDITS you say it had.....what was retouched as you claim....SURELY if your claim is TRUE, you would be able to show the editing that occurred....what was changed....SHOW IT, or eat your words.

WHAT WAS EDITED?

How does, **** you and the horse you rode in on you *****, sound to you? I'm busy.

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

The Registrar of Hawaii has already affirmed the validity of the information on the document via affidavit.

Twice.

No document expert claims that the original vital documents are forged. The Registrar reviewed the original vital documents. Obama was born in Hawaii.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

 

[RKMBrown]

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document. Basically the document they gave us is at best a mess. I'd like to see an un-retouched high resolution image of the original document please. And I'd like to have a data forensics expert look at the original file and attest to the originality of said document.

If the document included evidence of editing as you CLAIM, then PLEASE SHOW US THE EDITS you say it had.....what was retouched as you claim....SURELY if your claim is TRUE, you would be able to show the editing that occurred....what was changed....SHOW IT, or eat your words.

WHAT WAS EDITED?

How does, **** you and the horse you rode in on you *****, sound to you? I'm busy.

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

Pretty much anyone who actually gives a shit about this country- does not give a shit about how many layers an image of a birth certificate on the internet has.

The image is no legal document- the originals handled and viewed by reporters were legal documents. The legal statements by the State of Hawaii are legal documents. There have been 2 elections- the voters voted that this was a non-issue to them. Congress confirmed the elections twice- again a non-issue for them. Multiple secretaries of states- including for example the Secretary of State of Arizona- have accepted the legal documents from Hawaii and have no issue.

So everyone who matters has weighed in- everyone who gives a shit about this country- the ones that are left are those who do not give shit about this country- and would prefer to spend 7 years trying to find a reason that our legally elected President cannot possibly be President.

I understand your argument. Not sure why you feel the need to repeat it. We are to believe this one person that provided the evidence without question. I don't trust it. It does not "feel" right to me. Yes my view may be colored by red tinted glasses. I can't get over the fact that we hired a piece of shit drug dealer, who's parents were completely absent, who's father worked for a foriegn govenrment that is "african socialist." Who's grand parents were communist, who had a mentor that is a flaming communist, who's friends included a domestic terrorist, and a jailed politician from Chicago, ..... the hits just keep coming. Yet we are to believe that there's nothing wrong with the background of this guy that you democrats brought to DC.

 

[Skylar]

If the document included evidence of editing as you CLAIM, then PLEASE SHOW US THE EDITS you say it had.....what was retouched as you claim....SURELY if your claim is TRUE, you would be able to show the editing that occurred....what was changed....SHOW IT, or eat your words.

WHAT WAS EDITED?

How does, **** you and the horse you rode in on you *****, sound to you? I'm busy.

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

Pretty much anyone who actually gives a shit about this country- does not give a shit about how many layers an image of a birth certificate on the internet has.

The image is no legal document- the originals handled and viewed by reporters were legal documents. The legal statements by the State of Hawaii are legal documents. There have been 2 elections- the voters voted that this was a non-issue to them. Congress confirmed the elections twice- again a non-issue for them. Multiple secretaries of states- including for example the Secretary of State of Arizona- have accepted the legal documents from Hawaii and have no issue.

So everyone who matters has weighed in- everyone who gives a shit about this country- the ones that are left are those who do not give shit about this country- and would prefer to spend 7 years trying to find a reason that our legally elected President cannot possibly be President.

I understand your argument. Not sure why you feel the need to replace it. We are to believe this one person that provided the evidence without question. I don't trust it.

If you're going to ignore the issuing agency of any document, then no president has ever established their eligibility. Which begs the question, why are you obsessed with Obama while ignoring every other president who has ever lived who failed the same standard by your metric?

Gee. Tough one.

It does not "feel" right to me.

Your feelings are irrelevant. As the president's eligibility to be [president is a legal question. His 2008 COLB is prima facie evidence of his place of birth in any court of law. All legal requirements are met.

Your emotions, your willful ignorance of all evidence, your batshit conspiracy theories.....are all irrelevant. As we don't base anyone's eligibility to be president on any of them.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

How does, **** you and the horse you rode in on you *****, sound to you? I'm busy.

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

Pretty much anyone who actually gives a shit about this country- does not give a shit about how many layers an image of a birth certificate on the internet has.

The image is no legal document- the originals handled and viewed by reporters were legal documents. The legal statements by the State of Hawaii are legal documents. There have been 2 elections- the voters voted that this was a non-issue to them. Congress confirmed the elections twice- again a non-issue for them. Multiple secretaries of states- including for example the Secretary of State of Arizona- have accepted the legal documents from Hawaii and have no issue.

So everyone who matters has weighed in- everyone who gives a shit about this country- the ones that are left are those who do not give shit about this country- and would prefer to spend 7 years trying to find a reason that our legally elected President cannot possibly be President.

I understand your argument. Not sure why you feel the need to replace it. We are to believe this one person that provided the evidence without question. I don't trust it.

If you're going to ignore the issuing agency of any document, then no president has ever established their eligibility. Which begs the question, why are you obsessed with Obama while ignoring every other president who has ever lived who failed the same standard by your metric?

Gee. Tough one.

It does not "feel" right to me.

Your feelings are irrelevant. As the president's eligibility to be [president is a legal question. His 2008 COLB is prima facie evidence of his place of birth in any court of law. All legal requirements are met.

Your emotions, your willful ignorance of all evidence, your batshit conspiracy theories.....are all irrelevant. As we don't base anyone's eligibility to be president on any of them.

Fake. No raised state seal plus the number is blacked out rendering it void. Read the bottom of the certificate.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

Pretty much anyone who actually gives a shit about this country- does not give a shit about how many layers an image of a birth certificate on the internet has.

The image is no legal document- the originals handled and viewed by reporters were legal documents. The legal statements by the State of Hawaii are legal documents. There have been 2 elections- the voters voted that this was a non-issue to them. Congress confirmed the elections twice- again a non-issue for them. Multiple secretaries of states- including for example the Secretary of State of Arizona- have accepted the legal documents from Hawaii and have no issue.

So everyone who matters has weighed in- everyone who gives a shit about this country- the ones that are left are those who do not give shit about this country- and would prefer to spend 7 years trying to find a reason that our legally elected President cannot possibly be President.

I understand your argument. Not sure why you feel the need to replace it. We are to believe this one person that provided the evidence without question. I don't trust it.

If you're going to ignore the issuing agency of any document, then no president has ever established their eligibility. Which begs the question, why are you obsessed with Obama while ignoring every other president who has ever lived who failed the same standard by your metric?

Gee. Tough one.

It does not "feel" right to me.

Your feelings are irrelevant. As the president's eligibility to be [president is a legal question. His 2008 COLB is prima facie evidence of his place of birth in any court of law. All legal requirements are met.

Your emotions, your willful ignorance of all evidence, your batshit conspiracy theories.....are all irrelevant. As we don't base anyone's eligibility to be president on any of them.

Fake. No raised state seal plus the number is blacked out rendering it void. Read the bottom of the certificate.

And here's your raised seal, direct from Fact Check. org which was given a COLB to inspect and verify. Which they did. :

With the State of Hawaii affirming that Obama was born in Hawaii over and over and over again:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

Hawaii Obama Birth Certificate is Real - ABC News

All of which you know, but really hope we don't. The legal issues were resolved in 2008.

 

[Syriusly]

If the document included evidence of editing as you CLAIM, then PLEASE SHOW US THE EDITS you say it had.....what was retouched as you claim....SURELY if your claim is TRUE, you would be able to show the editing that occurred....what was changed....SHOW IT, or eat your words.

WHAT WAS EDITED?

How does, **** you and the horse you rode in on you *****, sound to you? I'm busy.

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

Pretty much anyone who actually gives a shit about this country- does not give a shit about how many layers an image of a birth certificate on the internet has.

The image is no legal document- the originals handled and viewed by reporters were legal documents. The legal statements by the State of Hawaii are legal documents. There have been 2 elections- the voters voted that this was a non-issue to them. Congress confirmed the elections twice- again a non-issue for them. Multiple secretaries of states- including for example the Secretary of State of Arizona- have accepted the legal documents from Hawaii and have no issue.

So everyone who matters has weighed in- everyone who gives a shit about this country- the ones that are left are those who do not give shit about this country- and would prefer to spend 7 years trying to find a reason that our legally elected President cannot possibly be President.

I understand your argument. Not sure why you feel the need to replace it. We are to believe this one person that provided the evidence without question. I don't trust it. It does not "feel" right to me. Yes my view may be colored by red tinted glasses. I can't get over the fact that we hired a piece of shit drug dealer, who's parents were completely absent, who's father worked for a foriegn govenrment that is "african socialist." Who's grand parents were communist, who had a mentor that is a flaming communist, who's friends included a domestic terrorist, and a jailed politician from Chicago, ..... the hits just keep coming. Yet we are to believe that there's nothing wrong with the background of this guy that you democrats brought to DC.

Okay once again- since you feel obligated for some reason to continue to lie
a) we hired a piece of shit drug dealer
No one hired Barack Obama as President- the voters- using the process defined in our Constitution- selected him as President. You had your opportunity to cast your vote like everyone else- and you can believe any bullshit you want about him being a drug dealer.
b) who's parents were completely absent
Again- apparently the voters didn't care about Obama's parents. His father abandoned him- like many other Americans have experienced- his mother and Obama were together until he was 11 years old- when she sent him back to Hawaii to continue his education in America- like many expat Americans do. Why that is a bug up your ass- I don't need to know- and I don't care- but totally unrelated to his birth certificate- and tends to indicate that your 'concern' about Obama's BC is just a desire for dirt.
c) who's father worked for a foriegn govenrment that is "african socialist."
Which part bothers you- worked for a foreign government? African? or Socialist? Why would any of that bother you- especially since President Obama met him exactly 1 time after he was an infant?
d) Who's grand parents were communist,
Just another Birther cowardly slander of dead people. His maternal grandfather was a WW2 veteran who grew up in the Midwest and was in sales all of his life. His maternal grandmother worked in the munitions industry during WW2, and worked her way up to be the vice President of a bank. No record of them ever being 'communists'- and their lives were solidly the American dream.
e) who had a mentor that is a flaming communist
Yeah- Obama had a childhood friend who was a communist- which is perfectly legal in the United States- and the relationship was reported- and guess what- the voters didn't care.
f) who's friends included a domestic terrorist,
Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers again was widely reported- and why does that make you interested in Obama's BC?

I am not asking you to 'believe' in 1 person- frankly I don't give a damn what you believe. I am pointing out that the issue has been resolved to everyone who matters.

I am pointing out that no rational person would believe that a Republican Director of Health, a Democratic Director of Health and the Registrar of Records of Hawaii would all conspire (and face almost certain prosecution and jail time) to defraud the American public.

I am pointing out that all Birthers have ever had are lies, speculation and innuendo. EVER.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

Pretty much anyone who actually gives a shit about this country- does not give a shit about how many layers an image of a birth certificate on the internet has.

The image is no legal document- the originals handled and viewed by reporters were legal documents. The legal statements by the State of Hawaii are legal documents. There have been 2 elections- the voters voted that this was a non-issue to them. Congress confirmed the elections twice- again a non-issue for them. Multiple secretaries of states- including for example the Secretary of State of Arizona- have accepted the legal documents from Hawaii and have no issue.

So everyone who matters has weighed in- everyone who gives a shit about this country- the ones that are left are those who do not give shit about this country- and would prefer to spend 7 years trying to find a reason that our legally elected President cannot possibly be President.

I understand your argument. Not sure why you feel the need to replace it. We are to believe this one person that provided the evidence without question. I don't trust it.

If you're going to ignore the issuing agency of any document, then no president has ever established their eligibility. Which begs the question, why are you obsessed with Obama while ignoring every other president who has ever lived who failed the same standard by your metric?

Gee. Tough one.

It does not "feel" right to me.

Your feelings are irrelevant. As the president's eligibility to be [president is a legal question. His 2008 COLB is prima facie evidence of his place of birth in any court of law. All legal requirements are met.

Your emotions, your willful ignorance of all evidence, your batshit conspiracy theories.....are all irrelevant. As we don't base anyone's eligibility to be president on any of them.

Fake. No raised state seal plus the number is blacked out rendering it void. Read the bottom of the certificate.

Stevie the Racist seems to think that an image on the internet is a legal birth certificate.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document. Basically the document they gave us is at best a mess. I'd like to see an un-retouched high resolution image of the original document please. And I'd like to have a data forensics expert look at the original file and attest to the originality of said document.

If the document included evidence of editing as you CLAIM, then PLEASE SHOW US THE EDITS you say it had.....what was retouched as you claim....SURELY if your claim is TRUE, you would be able to show the editing that occurred....what was changed....SHOW IT, or eat your words.

WHAT WAS EDITED?

How does, **** you and the horse you rode in on you *****, sound to you? I'm busy.

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

The Registrar of Hawaii has already affirmed the validity of the information on the document via affidavit.

Twice.

No document expert claims that the original vital documents are forged. The Registrar reviewed the original vital documents. Obama was born in Hawaii.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Funny how once wasn't enough. It's as if they knew their credibility is dubious.

 

[Skylar]

If the document included evidence of editing as you CLAIM, then PLEASE SHOW US THE EDITS you say it had.....what was retouched as you claim....SURELY if your claim is TRUE, you would be able to show the editing that occurred....what was changed....SHOW IT, or eat your words.

WHAT WAS EDITED?

How does, **** you and the horse you rode in on you *****, sound to you? I'm busy.

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

The Registrar of Hawaii has already affirmed the validity of the information on the document via affidavit.

Twice.

No document expert claims that the original vital documents are forged. The Registrar reviewed the original vital documents. Obama was born in Hawaii.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Funny how once wasn't enough. It's as if they knew their credibility is dubious.

One was the Secretary of State of Arizona. One was for a court case in a different State.

And notice: you ignore both. Birthers have no need for evidence. Thankfully, the law does.

 

[RKMBrown]

How does, **** you and the horse you rode in on you *****, sound to you? I'm busy.

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

Pretty much anyone who actually gives a shit about this country- does not give a shit about how many layers an image of a birth certificate on the internet has.

The image is no legal document- the originals handled and viewed by reporters were legal documents. The legal statements by the State of Hawaii are legal documents. There have been 2 elections- the voters voted that this was a non-issue to them. Congress confirmed the elections twice- again a non-issue for them. Multiple secretaries of states- including for example the Secretary of State of Arizona- have accepted the legal documents from Hawaii and have no issue.

So everyone who matters has weighed in- everyone who gives a shit about this country- the ones that are left are those who do not give shit about this country- and would prefer to spend 7 years trying to find a reason that our legally elected President cannot possibly be President.

I understand your argument. Not sure why you feel the need to replace it. We are to believe this one person that provided the evidence without question. I don't trust it.

If you're going to ignore the issuing agency of any document, then no president has ever established their eligibility. Which begs the question, why are you obsessed with Obama while ignoring every other president who has ever lived who failed the same standard by your metric?

Gee. Tough one.

It does not "feel" right to me.

Your feelings are irrelevant. As the president's eligibility to be [president is a legal question. His 2008 COLB is prima facie evidence of his place of birth in any court of law. All legal requirements are met.

Your emotions, your willful ignorance of all evidence, your batshit conspiracy theories.....are all irrelevant. As we don't base anyone's eligibility to be president on any of them.

Obama's the POTUS not Bush. Bush's father was a well known AMERICAN POLITICIAN YA FOOL. DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SON OF AN AMERICAN HERO AND THE SON OF A FOREIGN SOCIALIST BIGAMIST?

 

[RKMBrown]

How does, **** you and the horse you rode in on you *****, sound to you? I'm busy.

Yes, you're busy, I can see that by how many posts you have posted on this thread....

busy? sure....

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

Pretty much anyone who actually gives a shit about this country- does not give a shit about how many layers an image of a birth certificate on the internet has.

The image is no legal document- the originals handled and viewed by reporters were legal documents. The legal statements by the State of Hawaii are legal documents. There have been 2 elections- the voters voted that this was a non-issue to them. Congress confirmed the elections twice- again a non-issue for them. Multiple secretaries of states- including for example the Secretary of State of Arizona- have accepted the legal documents from Hawaii and have no issue.

So everyone who matters has weighed in- everyone who gives a shit about this country- the ones that are left are those who do not give shit about this country- and would prefer to spend 7 years trying to find a reason that our legally elected President cannot possibly be President.

I understand your argument. Not sure why you feel the need to replace it. We are to believe this one person that provided the evidence without question. I don't trust it. It does not "feel" right to me. Yes my view may be colored by red tinted glasses. I can't get over the fact that we hired a piece of shit drug dealer, who's parents were completely absent, who's father worked for a foriegn govenrment that is "african socialist." Who's grand parents were communist, who had a mentor that is a flaming communist, who's friends included a domestic terrorist, and a jailed politician from Chicago, ..... the hits just keep coming. Yet we are to believe that there's nothing wrong with the background of this guy that you democrats brought to DC.

Okay once again- since you feel obligated for some reason to continue to lie
a) we hired a piece of shit drug dealer
No one hired Barack Obama as President- the voters- using the process defined in our Constitution- selected him as President. You had your opportunity to cast your vote like everyone else- and you can believe any bullshit you want about him being a drug dealer.
b) who's parents were completely absent
Again- apparently the voters didn't care about Obama's parents. His father abandoned him- like many other Americans have experienced- his mother and Obama were together until he was 11 years old- when she sent him back to Hawaii to continue his education in America- like many expat Americans do. Why that is a bug up your ass- I don't need to know- and I don't care- but totally unrelated to his birth certificate- and tends to indicate that your 'concern' about Obama's BC is just a desire for dirt.
c) who's father worked for a foriegn govenrment that is "african socialist."
Which part bothers you- worked for a foreign government? African? or Socialist? Why would any of that bother you- especially since President Obama met him exactly 1 time after he was an infant?
d) Who's grand parents were communist,
Just another Birther cowardly slander of dead people. His maternal grandfather was a WW2 veteran who grew up in the Midwest and was in sales all of his life. His maternal grandmother worked in the munitions industry during WW2, and worked her way up to be the vice President of a bank. No record of them ever being 'communists'- and their lives were solidly the American dream.
e) who had a mentor that is a flaming communist
Yeah- Obama had a childhood friend who was a communist- which is perfectly legal in the United States- and the relationship was reported- and guess what- the voters didn't care.
f) who's friends included a domestic terrorist,
Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers again was widely reported- and why does that make you interested in Obama's BC?

I am not asking you to 'believe' in 1 person- frankly I don't give a damn what you believe. I am pointing out that the issue has been resolved to everyone who matters.

I am pointing out that no rational person would believe that a Republican Director of Health, a Democratic Director of Health and the Registrar of Records of Hawaii would all conspire (and face almost certain prosecution and jail time) to defraud the American public.

I am pointing out that all Birthers have ever had are lies, speculation and innuendo. EVER.

I agree with most of your statements... however given that Obama has been well established to be a pathological liar, I would ask why it is that you feel compelled to believe anything the piece of shit or his handlers say.

 

[RKMBrown]

I wasn't busy... then I was busy. It comes and goes with the territory. I looked into this in detail many years back. I don't care to look into the one that was messed up again because it was messed up and as I stated there's no was no way to tell if the edits were done by the adobe software itself, or by some user. What was clear was that it had been edited. Editing can be done automatically by computer software in the processing of images. It's not necessarily malicious. Thus, my request to see a high resolution photo of the original document or to have a document expert review the document at the source. For once, I'm not trying to be an ASS I'm trying to point out what would be sufficient to clear up the so called "mystery." One person "saying" it's all good the document is legit don't worry about all these inconsistencies, well just not good enough for most people that give a shit about this country.

Pretty much anyone who actually gives a shit about this country- does not give a shit about how many layers an image of a birth certificate on the internet has.

The image is no legal document- the originals handled and viewed by reporters were legal documents. The legal statements by the State of Hawaii are legal documents. There have been 2 elections- the voters voted that this was a non-issue to them. Congress confirmed the elections twice- again a non-issue for them. Multiple secretaries of states- including for example the Secretary of State of Arizona- have accepted the legal documents from Hawaii and have no issue.

So everyone who matters has weighed in- everyone who gives a shit about this country- the ones that are left are those who do not give shit about this country- and would prefer to spend 7 years trying to find a reason that our legally elected President cannot possibly be President.

I understand your argument. Not sure why you feel the need to replace it. We are to believe this one person that provided the evidence without question. I don't trust it.

If you're going to ignore the issuing agency of any document, then no president has ever established their eligibility. Which begs the question, why are you obsessed with Obama while ignoring every other president who has ever lived who failed the same standard by your metric?

Gee. Tough one.

It does not "feel" right to me.

Your feelings are irrelevant. As the president's eligibility to be [president is a legal question. His 2008 COLB is prima facie evidence of his place of birth in any court of law. All legal requirements are met.

Your emotions, your willful ignorance of all evidence, your batshit conspiracy theories.....are all irrelevant. As we don't base anyone's eligibility to be president on any of them.

Fake. No raised state seal plus the number is blacked out rendering it void. Read the bottom of the certificate.

And here's your raised seal, direct from Fact Check. org which was given a COLB to inspect and verify. Which they did. :

With the State of Hawaii affirming that Obama was born in Hawaii over and over and over again:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

Hawaii Obama Birth Certificate is Real - ABC News

All of which you know, but really hope we don't. The legal issues were resolved in 2008.

Where's the text in that photo? Why would they take a photo of a seal? I have stamps too.