Humor me, ATS, do you see a RAISED seal on the back of Obama’s short form birth certificate?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No people avoid the thread because they can tell optical illusions when they see them.
You are blinded by the need for you for this to be true.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No people avoid the thread because they can tell optical illusions when they see them.
You are blinded by the need for you for this to be true.

Take it up with Factcheck. They are the ones that described a photo of the backside of the seal as "raised."

They examined the document. They photographed the document. AND they described a photo of the backside of the seal as "raised."

Take it up with FACTCHECK. You know Factcheck, eh? The definitive source that Congress used to determine Obama's birth certificate was authentic.

ETA: By the way, I have debunked the crappy 'optical illusion' argument a dozen times in this thread...INCLUDING IN THE OP.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yeah whatever.
I'm out this discussion was over 8 years ago.
It is not relevant to what is happening now so carry on just carry on.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
don't think this is off-topic (it is), but since this comment still sits here, I will field it:

This topic has nothing to do with any Obama court cases.

It does actually, as in the court case I mentioned they tried to claim the BC was a forgery, when it obviously is not, and the Judge said they, like you, have no evidence for that!

People are avoiding this thread because of YOU.

Wrong again, they are avoiding it as all you have is the much debunked crap about Obama's birth certificate, and you fell for a optical illusion.

these are facts.

Still wrong, they are not facts, as the Judge pointed out.... they are made up crap!

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
The definitive source that Congress used to determine Obama's birth certificate was authentic.

More nonsense from you, Congress did not use factcheck for that.... Where are all the previous BC/s that factcheck approved, that Congress agreed with?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
don't think this is off-topic (it is), but since this comment still sits here, I will field it:

This topic has nothing to do with any Obama court cases.

It does actually, as in the court case I mentioned they tried to claim the BC was a forgery....


...Wrong again, they are avoiding it as all you have is the much debunked crap about Obama's birth certificate, and you fell for a optical illusion.

None of the cases laid out the argument I have.

That's the end of that. None of them argued the seal does not conform to the regulations published by the Hawaii Department of Health.

And there is no optical illusion...

Answer the question:

How does Factcheck describe the seal impression in their photo caption seen in the screenshot of the photo below?



Here is a link so you can verify the screenshot:
Link to Factcheck

ANSWER THE QUESTION.
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Remember a couple of things, the only logical point of requiring the president to be a natural born citizen as opposed to a citizen of any type is to ensure that there is no allegiance to a foreign nation. This would include dual allegiances as well which is the case when born to one parent of foreign nationality.

If it were as simple as being born in the US to be a natural born citizen, there are a couple of things we should see that we don't. There would've been no need to specify natural born citizen, stating not a naturalized citizen would've sufficed. Also, there would've been no reason to specify that anyone born prior to a specific date need not be a natural born citizen. They specify that anyone JUST a citizen at the time the constitution was penned was eligible.

That's one of the keys to knowing that it had nothing to do with where you were born.

Prior to the 14th amendment being born in the US did NOT make you a citizen... So thinking that natural born citizen simply means being born in the US makes no sense at all based on the timeframe the clause was penned. There would be no need to specify natural born citizen from being a citizen if natural born citizen meant born in the US. As being born in the US didn't automatically MAKE you a citizen at ALL prior to the 14th amendment.

Well, guess what...The constitution was written before the 14th amendment was.

Jaden

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
The definitive source that Congress used to determine Obama's birth certificate was authentic.

More nonsense from you, Congress did not use factcheck for that....

Yes.

They. Did.

Arlen Specter (a Senator, at the time) was quoted as stating:

“On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department’s system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website "Factcheck.org" investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document. … Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States.”

But Factcheck misrepresented the truth. There is no "raised" (embossed) seal on the back of Obama’s short form birth certificate. Instead, a fraudulent DEBOSSED seal appears on the back of the document.

So Congress did rely on Factcheck. And they were defrauded by them.

***

Your circular argument is ridiculous. Others, IN THIS THREAD, have commented on your manners.

YOU are the problem.

a reply to: hellobruce

They also ruled that it was legal to require a citizen to purchase something...lol or pay a "fine" LOL...That doesn't make it true...

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
Well, guess what...The constitution was written before the 14th amendment was.

But you ignore the fact that after that amendment anyone born in the USA, with 2 exceptions were natural born US citizens....
Also

However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion.[55][56][57]

So that makes Obama a natural born US citizen!

originally posted by: hellobruce
But you ignore the fact...

But you ignore lots of facts.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

They should have authenticated them with the Hawaii Department of Health -- NOT Factcheck.org.

Dr. Alvin T. Onaka is the Registrar of Vital Statistics for the State of Hawaii. Dr. Onaka was the 2008 recipient of the Halbert L. Dunn Award, the most prestigious award presented by the National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems (NAPHSIS) and regarded as one of the most important honors in the field of biostatistics in the United States. He was elected President of NAPHSIS in 2002.[1] [2]

you ignore lots of facts

Let's compare



The "n" does appear to be quite different, as does the "O" to my eye.



But you are correct, MME, the thread is regarding the seal; which you have demonstrated quite clearly to me, that what is put forth as accepted and allegedly confirmed by other documents with similar characteristics existence; none of which have been verified by the recognized legal authority who produced said documents.

Aforementioned seal not matching the seal produced by the recognized authority to produce said seal:

Seal on 'authenticated' factcheck.org birth certificate:



Seal produced by the Hawaii Department of Health:



Clear difference is clear.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical



And the 'k' is different...and many other qualities seem to be very different.

Not on-topic, but the signatures cannot be called 'a match,' eh?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

And the transition from the 'k' to the final 'a' which is completely not the same. The 'a' on the stamp rols in from the top, the 'a' in the other, the 'k' to 'a' transition rolls in from the bottom. That is a significant difference.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

You guys will seriously take anything, won't you.

That signature is not from a birth certificate.

The way he signs on other BCs is identical.

a reply to: DeadFoot



Really?

You do realize those are a stamp, right?

So of course they're going to be identical.

Sheesh.

Besides, the signature isn't really the topic, apologies for entertaining a tangentially related bit of conversation.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thank you, Jaded.

The signatures are not a match. The seal is not a match. Factcheck mislabeled a photo of the backside of the seal.

Neither of the two authentification features can be corroborated by what was published by Factcheck.org.

No one IN REAL LIFE would/could authenticate a document like this, if presented with it, based on the regulations and signature. Why should anyone else believe it's authentic?

Yet, Congress relied on Factcheck's claims and confirmed Obama's election as president. Congress must be willfully stupid, because the facts are obvious. Obama's short form cannot be authenticated. It flies in the face of the Hawaii Department of Health regulations and other known signatures of the registrar.