Posted on 06/21/2008 2:03:50 PM PDT by pissant
Of course, if the certificate is cooked then maybe his 'mother' wasn't his mother. And wasn't American.
And a more serious reply.
A comment after the article at No Quarters which might bear investigating:
“The real way to know whether Obama was born in Kenya is to look at his mom’s passport record or Kenya’s records for foreign visitors entering/leaving the country around August.”
Chicago was destroyed twice - once by fire, once by water
Ok, so Chicago really wasn't destroyed by the flood. But it sounds much cooler that way.
By the way, my 1950 Chicago birth certificate is probably different than any of yours - it's printout of a microfilm/microfiche of the hard copy.
FWIW, the “faint date” appears to be printed on the back side of the paper; reversing the image, it reads “JUN 6 2007” pretty clearly.
Which was a Saturday FWIW.
It says clearly that: Any alterations invalidate this certificate.
Clearly, the certificate number has been altered.
Ergo, the Obama “Birth Certificate” is invalid.
I remember something to the effect during the late 1940s and early 1950s that money was given to the Cook County Clerk to commit all of his vital statistics records, from day one, to microfilm.
...Oh well, it is Chicago!
At least I have a signed and sealed copy of the original.
Wednesday, actually.
That’s it, in a nutshell.
This would all be easy to clear up if there wasn’t a problem.
Ergo, there is a problem.
Do you have access to a laser printer?
Could you try it to see what happens?
Great Scott I should know better. That was my babies birthday!
Great catch!
Are you the new Buckhead?
Has anyone seen a known good computer generated Hawaiian birth certificate? I wonder if that “error” is an anti-counterfeiting measure with the line going across a specific place in the background pattern.
Yes it does.
Actually, it would be an electric date stamp that works similar to an electric stapler. Slide the document in a slot and either press a button to stamp it of it could operate automatically.
Oh yea it would. If the allegations are true that this is a fake, if we came out with it and Obama had to quit, Hilldog can seem like the hero and ride in. If, however, she released it, a good percent of Obama's supporters would hate her for the dirty play and would never support her. In one case, we are the enemy and the left stays together. In the other case, the left eats itself.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
link: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States Senate Document No. 108-17 (2002)
"QUALIFICATIONS
All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. The principal issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause is whether a child born abroad of American parents is ‘‘a natural born citizen’’ in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. 100 Whatever the term ‘‘natural born’’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘‘naturalized.’’ Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that ‘‘[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States’’ are citizens. 101 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ‘‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens . . . .’’ 102 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. 103 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. 104 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a ‘‘case or controversy’’—as well as how it might decide it—can only be speculated about."
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html#2004; main reference page
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/012.pdf ; Executive Branch section (cited text found at pages 456 and 457)
From the above, whether or not Obama was, in fact, born outside the national territory of the United States (including its military facilities), he is a "natural born citizen" in the ordinary understanding of the term as discussed in the Senate document cited above. However, as it indirectly concedes, the issue has never had to be decided before. Since it equally applies to both candidates, the "case or controversy" may arise no matter who is elected. (McCain was born in a U.S. military facility in the then Panama Canal Zone. Although in his case both parents were U.S. citizens.)
For those who want to pursue the Kenya angle, there is a required report called "The Report of Birth Abroad of a United States Citizen" (FS-240). Here is a link to the State Department manual on the process:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86801.pdf.
This report has to be filed in person by the U.S. citizen parent (Obama's mother). It is a public document and would be available through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
Have at it.
Now, if a FS-240 for Obama being born in Kenya turns up, then the Hawaii birth story is a lie and the birth certificate is a fake. Without danger of overstatement, that would be: 1) a really big deal to the public, and 2) great news for the junior Senator from New York.
As for the mysterious faint black marking on the document:
7. Both documents appear to show in the lower center region a faint date, such as the kind produced by a standard ink-pad stamp purchased in any office supply store. I cannot make out the dates. Maybe this is supposed to be the date that the certification was approved, or mailed? When does Obama claim that he “received” this document?”
If you save a copy of the image and then blow it up with a photo editor, the date appears to be Jun 6 2007 in REVERSE. The ink has apparently leaked through from the back side of the certificate. This is probably an internal management marking recording the date the copy was typed/printed out in Hawaii.
It’s logical, if nothing else.
:-)
I live in the middle of absolutely nowhere, Idaho. It is over 60 miles to the nearest civilization.
The seals on my Certification of Birth are highly detailed and sharply printed.
Obamas seal looks like it was taken from a poor office photocopy, it is very smeared and indistinct.
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.