Posted on 06/21/2008 10:56:04 AM PDT by pissant
I have acquired additional information related to my earlier posts today (at my blog) on the subject of Barack Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth.’
My first post on this subject, Obama Birth Certificate, Fake?, included an analysis that I came across by a blogger named Polarik, who concluded based on “20 years of experience in computers, printers, and typewriters” that the document provided by the Obama campaign (and published by Daily Kos) was manufactured.
In a subsequent post, Certification of Birth from Hawaii: Where’s the Seal?, I showed a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ from Honolulu County for Patricia Decosta, which I found posted at Free Republic (thanks to reader shainzona). (And yes, I know it’s a “right wing” publication but that does not make the information false).
Here is the document posted by the Obama campaign on its Fight the Smears website as evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961:
And here is Ms. Decosta’s certification:
Now, compare the two documents. Polarik’s technical analysis notwithstanding, my lay person’s eye noticed three differences right away:
1. Ms. Decosta’s certification displays fold marks, which you might expect to see on a document sent through the mail.
2. The certificate number on Obama’s document is blacked out; Ms. Decosta’s is not.
AND
3. An embossed seal is visible on Ms. Decosta’s certification; there is no embossed seal on Obama’s. (You can see the embossed seal very clearly on the larger image at FR here.)
The Vital Records office in Hawaii has confirmed the following with respect to requests for certified copies of birth certificates:
1. Certifications of live birth are always mailed from the VR office, and never transmitted electronically.
2. Certificate numbers are never blacked out.
AND
3. Certifications will always have an embossed seal.
Why should a presidential candidate not have to prove he is eligible? SOMEONE IN THE MEDIA NEEDS TO DEMAND it.
The heat you feel is from the Obama freaks. Hillary is certainly interested in this as well, I reckon. LOL
Were her parents living abroad in the military or in government service?
I don't read it as saying that. It's a convoluted statement as you've quoted it, but the proviso about military or government service doesn't deny natural-born status to the child of a citizen born outside of the U.S. for other reasons.
Here is how I would arrange what you posted:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, Thatany periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22,
may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph.
Note the words "may be included" in that last line. It doesn't say that the citizen must have been serving in a government or military position outside of the U.S. for this condition to guarantee natural-born status to his/her child.
What it seems to me to be saying is that the government or military service of a citizen abroad will not be used to disallow natural-born citizenshp to that citizen's child if, because of that service, the physical-presence requirement cannot be met. It doesn't say that if a citizen is NOT serving in a government or military capacity outside of the U.S., then that citizen's child is NOT a natural-born citizen.
Anyway, my two cents worth...
NOTE also,the words:
ANY ALTERATONS INVALIDATES THIS CERTIFICATE
By blacking out the number this should invalidate it to begin with.
Also, the BC was released via the Daily KOS not the Obama campaign.
Again, why would they list the father as “African”? That seems conveniently political.
Look at the date on osama’s birth certificate stamped on the back that bleeds through to the front side. It’s stamped November 8, 2007.
If that were so, the dropout would be uniform across the document. It is not.
The certificate seal or stamp. Don't all documents to be offcial have a seal?
No I noticed heat from the moderators here.
I wonder if anyone has access to any of the Vital Search sites online. THey charge $29 to $39 to search names for marriage and birth certificates.
I’ve searched under “Barry Dunham” Honolulu, Hawaii and “Barack Obama”. There appears to be some hits, but I don’t want to spend on dime on this guy unless I have to.
Does anyone here have access to any of these investigative sites? It would be easy to type in Obama, Aug 4, 1961 HOnolulu, Hawaii and see what is listed in the public record.
Question #1: Was Obama's mother an American citizen?
Answer: Yes.Question #2: Did Obama's mother reside on American soil for at least two years after her 14th birthday and before Obama's birth?
Answer: Yes.Therefore, Obama is a natural-born American citizen, no matter where he was born.
I don't see any way to reach a different conclusion based on what I've seen so far...
That may or may not be true. [I haven’t kept up will all the comments pro and con regarding Obama’s birth certificate.]
I know my college transcripts, for example, used to require a raised/embossed imprint to be valid. However, a few years after I graduated, I requested an official transcript. It came from the college with only a rubber stamped ‘offical transcript’ notation.
One needs to find out the current requirements in Hawaii for issuing such document. If Hawaii requires an embossed stamp, the birth certificate should have one. However, Hawaii may no longer require them. States change their regulations occasionally.
Yes, it was printed up quite recently. They photoshopped someone else’s printout, I believe.
I flipped the image horizontally and zoomed in on that date, looks to me like June 6 2007?...
Observe the bottom right corner, there is a grey colored reverse letters stamp . It appears to be bleeding through from the backside.
Here's the image cut from the BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg above.
The graphic was taken into an old Paint Shop Pro program, reversed ie flipped so the printing is right to left, and the print on the back side is left to right.
The gray letters are clearly a date.....JUN 6 2007
The resolution is the best I could get. If enlarged, it blurrs out.
There is a similar stamp on the other one but more distinct.
Perhaps a more competant Photoshopper can do better
I was trying to look at it through a mirror. :)
I wondered about that too. Another thing which occurred to me is that they could result from sharpening the image.
That still leaves the biggest cause for suspicion about this "document:" the blacked-out number.
.
The author of this piece claims he did.
In the very last sentence of his article.
Would it be difficult for anyone to obtain another copy from the Registrar’s office?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.