it verifies that what we saw was also what was on file.. IE the original matches the copy circulating in public
It only verified that the copy was a true copy of what was on file! If all else fails, THINK! It does not verify or authenticate that what was copied is authentic or valid.
and what should be the procedure for validating the birth certificate of future Presidents in your eyes? if not validating what is on file with the one produced by the candidate? .
Having a few, objective document experts view the actual document would be a good start, don't you think? Surely we can agree on that.
so should that happen to all candidates in 2016? how about congressional candidates... lets be consistent, not just apply these enhanced rules for the first black President
I gave you a reasonable answer. Deflection on your part is not sufficient. This has nothing to do with Obama's color! You sound hopelessly gullible, biased, and unreasonable just like rahl and SFJeff. For 2016, I don't have a problem with openness. It's just that Obama has been so non-transparent after promising transparency. His many lies that everyone is aware of should make anyone strongly consider that he's also lying about his place of birth. Please don't ask for proof of his lies. That would be laughable and not worthy of a response.
Strangely enough, on February 29, 2008, the day after the Times article appeared challenging McCain's eligibility, Senator Barack Obama's campaign announced he would co-sponsor legislation already introduced on February 28, 2008 by his political ally Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to ensure that John McCain could become president, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Obama said: "Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party's nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign." I have always wondered about this... http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/03/must-read-strange-2008-mccain-obama.html if found anything was covered, like Benghazi, I would have to call this one of the greatest political tricks in American history. I think he's older than i.
Who were the "objective experts?" The Hawaii officials do not count. Did those experts verify that what they saw was the original hospital generated document? Please don't give a garbage answer that the original was destroyed.
rahlly, I stick up for you. when peter boyles said all the antis have gone to ground, I say rahl is still with it.
Birthers are morons - - - Updated - - - I will continue to point out how stupid birthers are when I see them Scott.
Non-birthers/Worshipers are the real morons! They are not inquisitive, but rather gullible and pathetic!
