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

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: StoutBroux
Here is the official embossed seal used by HDOH with notations regarding the differences between a normal seal and the one used on Obama's BC

The Seal of the Hawaii Department of Health has been in effect since 1988 when it was made a part of the HDOH Title 11-1 administrative rules: "§11-1-2 Seal of the department of health. a) The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape, two and one-fourth inches in diameter. At the curve on the top portion there shall be the words "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH" and at the curve on the bottom portion there shall be the words "STATE OF HAWAII ." At the curve on each side portion shall be a star. In the center of the seal shall be the Caduceus, a winged rod entwined with two serpents, which has long been recognized as a universal symbol of medicine. The Caduceus shall be encircled by an indentation, which shall separate it from the words "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH" and "STATE OF HAWAII ." For illustrative purposes, a black and white drawing of the official seal is attached at the end of this section as Exhibit "A," titled "Seal of the Department of Health," and dated November 1, 1988, and made a part of this section."

Here is the image provided by FactCheck

Due to these indisputable facts, the seal on Obama’s COLB is not the HDOH seal and Dr. Fukino does not have authority over the seal appearing on Obama’s COLB according to the description in the Title 11 rules AND the version disclosed in my records request. The seal seen on Obama’s COLB HAS NO LEGAL WEIGHT either online or as a physical copy.

The information I am using is from:

www.obamareleaseyourrecords.com...

It clearly looks like the FactCheck information is forged, and quite a poor example at that.

I love you.

The upper graphic is what I received from the Hawaii Department of Health. I am the blogger that reported on that.

The lower graphic I made, myself, to show that Factcheck was wrong.

I love you, I love you. It warms my heart to see my work was not without some interested audience.

I'm not sure I believe it is real,it's probably fake imo. However, the first image is a sketch. the second image is a "dotted" seal. Perhaps these differences result from making the "dotted" seal from the sketch. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare it to other "dotted" seals? Show me another seal on a birth certificate from Hawaii around the same time and if the differences are there I would be way more convinced.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Okay....

So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: DeadFoot
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What's amazing to me is that you think, in lieu of the controversy over it, Obama went and got a fake birth certificate, and it wasn't fraudulently thorough enough to produce the proper seal with the power the guy has within an arms reach-- as opposed to a notary in Hawaii in 1961 making a mistake, having inconsistencies, or not being 100% operationally perfect.

What you are failing to understand is that counterfeiting the exact seal is a crime. Making a blatantly false reproduction is not.

Oh really?

So making a counterfeit State-approved birth certificate is a lesser crime than just faking the seal as long as the seal isn't faked well?

Interesting.

Yes, making a seal in an attempt to defraud is a crime.

Making a seal that is obviously phony because the published rules and regulations describe it as being 'embossed'/'raised' is not criminal fraud.

Yes. Really.

Ironically, 'knowingness' or INTENT is key to the criminal law.

It would be criminal to duplicate the official seal and it would implicate Obama if they took ownership of the record.

So Obama had Factcheck circulate the photos of the record. And the Obama campaign and White House distanced themselves from it by claiming they requested the copy in 2008 --- even though the copy is stamped 2007.

a reply to: dr1234

The HDOH does use a machine embossed seal that you have described as 'dotted.'

But their's is an embossment. Obama's is not. And their's is not a match for his anyway.

a reply to: Fuzzy Wabbit

It has to do with the price, the tea, and China.

a reply to: DeadFoot

Exactly.

MotherMayEye is onto something huge.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: reldra

I did contact the Hawaii Department of Health. I did correspond with the Director, Chiyome Fukino, and the agency did confirm that they do not use nor maintain the seal photographed on the back of Obama's alleged short form birth certificate as photographed by Factcheck.org.

I'm calling complete BS on you. You're just so full of it Mrs. 106% logical extraordinaire.

NBC News

Please, quit making yourself look so freaking ridiculous. It's just so easy to see how illogical you are and the weakness of your manipulations.

Um.

Where is the thread on Ted Cruz's inability to run for office because he had an American mom and a Cuban father and was born in CANADA? I'm sure someone put one up. Probably a Cruz opponent.

Oh. Wait. He was determined to be legitimately able to run.

Obama, therefore, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or born in the Bermuda Triangle, is still a legitimate President and citizen. If Cruz is, he is. Now Trump made gestures to try and say Cruz wasn't able to run, which were rather quickly talked down.

I'm curious.

Cruz, who came to the U.S. at age 4, is a citizen by birth because his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born. For that reason, legal scholars argue that he can likely be president.

In 2013, Sarah Helene Duggin, a Catholic University law professor, wrote: “There is a strong argument that anyone who acquires United States citizenship at birth, whether by virtue of the 14th Amendment or by operation of federal statute, qualifies as natural born.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reached a similar conclusion in 2011.
CRS, Nov. 14, 2011: The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

And this month, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, two former U.S. solicitors general, writing for the Harvard Law Review, said that Cruz qualifies as a “natural born citizen.”

Katyal and Clement, March 11: All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

So what is the point of this? Because YOU think it is fraudulent and have interpreted the data you found to indicate that. You don't think it's remotely possible that you are wrong, regardless of other posters saying BC's from Hawaii didn't always even have seals?

The document isn't even a question regarding the legitimacy of his citizenship or his Presidency, according to this. Cruz settled that for him.

- AB

a reply to: MotherMayEye

But I did my homework to get to the truth, and they did not.

You still need a little work.
The Difference Between Emboss & Deboss

Embossing is a raised design – a logo or other graphic image, for example -- that is pressed into paper or card stock from underneath. Debossing is the opposite of embossing. With debossing, the imprinted design causes depressions in the material leaving a depressed (debossed) imprint of the image on the paper or cardstock.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I don't care what you believe from the media.

Factcheck labeled a photo of the back of the seal as, "The raised seal." (Link)

You aren't getting around that.

And, again, I invite you to just send your own open records request under the Uniform Information Practices Act, and get your info first hand.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: dr1234

The HDOH does use a machine embossed seal that you have described as 'dotted.'

But their's is an embossment. Obama's is not. And their's is not a match for his anyway.

Ya, but I'm saying maybe the machines that make the embossed seal, sorry for the wrong terminology, are programed based off the sketch you have provided. This could easily explain the difference seen. Compare it to another embossed seal from the same time, it's the only way that bit of evidence has any credibility.. I want to see it done, not just being argumentative. I think it's probably fake.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: MotherMayEye

But I did my homework to get to the truth, and they did not.

You still need a little work.
The Difference Between Emboss & Deboss

Embossing is a raised design – a logo or other graphic image, for example -- that is pressed into paper or card stock from underneath. Debossing is the opposite of embossing. With debossing, the imprinted design causes depressions in the material leaving a depressed (debossed) imprint of the image on the paper or cardstock.

Correct. Although I think you are confused.

The seal is debossed.

The BACKSIDE of the seal proves this because the BACK of the seal is raised. See my OP.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
Um.

Where is the thread on Ted Cruz's inability to run for office because he had an American mom and a Cuban father and was born in CANADA? I'm sure someone put one up. Probably a Cruz opponent.

I don't think Cruz was eligible.

I'm not a republican.

This issue initially piqued my interest as a DEMOCRAT and former Hillary supporter.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

Ironically, 'knowingness' or INTENT is key to the criminal law.

Soo... Not only is it a higher criminal offense to only fake the seal on the birth certificate, but specifically a lesser offense because he's only doing something benign with it like being the president of the entire country.

Ineresting.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
So what is the point of this? Because YOU think it is fraudulent and have interpreted the data you found to indicate that. You don't think it's remotely possible that you are wrong, regardless of other posters saying BC's from Hawaii didn't always even have seals?

]

Bingo! Someone is so upset Obama is the legal POTUS they make up all sorts of crap, and spend days chasing officials up.

The document isn't even a question regarding the legitimacy of his citizenship or his Presidency, according to this. Cruz settled that for him.

A President does not even need a BC. Funny how no previous President showed their BC, but as soon as Obama starts running all sorts of nonsense is claimed about him, and all sorts of demands are made.

Where is Trump's BC?

What is the difference between Trump and Obama that Trump's BC is not demanded from him?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oh "believe from the media"... that's cute, but you forgot the most important point.

There's an original, and one received digitally by the Obama Admin.

You're terribly confused, or choosing to conflate the two in an attempt to manipulate your audience in this thread.

The first is that the original so-called "long form" birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a "record of live birth" — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya.

Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated "certification of live birth" that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department. The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was "testy" when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. The White House has dismissed all questions about the president's birth as "fictional nonsense.")

If anyone bothers to read this post...

I want you consider two things.

1- Did OP ever say that Obama was born in Keenya and was ineligible to be prez?

2- At this point this info makes NO DIFFERENCE to the Obama or his legacy.

This is all going in a direction you all wouldn't believe.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sorry, I've just never understood the need of tit for tat. Especially, when it's outlandishly unrelated.

Best of luck with your zombie quest.

originally posted by: dr1234

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: dr1234

The HDOH does use a machine embossed seal that you have described as 'dotted.'

But their's is an embossment. Obama's is not. And their's is not a match for his anyway.

Ya, but I'm saying maybe the machines that make the embossed seal, sorry for the wrong terminology, are programed based off the sketch you have provided. This could easily explain the difference seen. Compare it to another embossed seal from the same time, it's the only way that bit of evidence has any credibility.. I want to see it done, not just being argumentative. I think it's probably fake.

The difference in embossing and debossing isn't happenstance. A machine that embosses cannot inadvertently deboss the image.

One process requires a raised die, one requires a lowered die.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Still with this? Hawaii stands firm and agrees Obama was born there. I too was born there and I have the same BC.

Looking at my copy of my BC (I lost the original traveling to the Bahamas in 2000 in substitute of a passport since I didn't have one) I don't even have a Seal. I've been robbed of my seal! Looks like Obamas BC there is also a copy. Of course the Prez gets a seal and I didn't!

So if any official entity like a state simply "stands firm" and "agrees" about something, that makes it a fact?

Interesting worldview. Correction: It's just your worldview. That's even more interesting.