Posted on 06/24/2008 1:01:41 PM PDT by pissant
t is now a virtual certainty that the "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign as authentic is a photoshopped fake.
The image, purporting to come from the Hawaii Department of Health, has been the subject of intense skepticism in the blogosphere in the past two weeks.
It has become even more suspect with the revelation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website -- including one listing the location of Obama's birth as Antarctica, one with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack -- one of which has a "photo taken" time-stamp just two minutes before the article and accompanying image was posted on the left-wing Daily Kos blog.
That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or the Obama campaign. Photobucket is not known as a credible supplier of official vital records for any of the fifty states, and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates confirms this.
(Excerpt) Read more at web.israelinsider.com ...
Why would Obama’s father have to adopt him?
Legally speaking, why do you think an injunction would not be effective?
So it is incumbent on the citizenry to prove the negative rather on the candidate to prove he was born here. That is profoundly inverted logic.
Many people don't have their real birth certs - wouldn't be unusual in his case, what with all the moving around and his mother deceased.
HOWEVER, does no one question why he would make a big show of posting a supposed certification of birth = that had NO TOWN SEAL - which it would have if genuine - on the Internet?
If there's nothing to hide, he would simply let the proof of his eligibility be handled by those authorized to do it, as is McCain,
Why this smoke screen
What international news services, besides blogs, are saying the birth certificate is a forgery? I’ve looked around and can’t find anything about this in any news sources, in the US or overseas. I’ve asked but never received a reply or link to an actual news source. What news sources are discussing or reporting on this?
Really good point. Research desk. Public library.
The state, or city, or whoever, would not require it to be obliterated, because the document says that any alteration invalidates the document. Blacking out the number will make the document useless for any legal purpose.
-PJ
“Under what law?” — Oh, just the supreme law of the land, that’s all. U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Clause 5. Are we supposed to just conveniently ignore the Constitution? That’s the M.O. of Democrats, not conservatives, Libertarians and (sometimes) Republicans.
Early 20th century for most.
I still don’t understand why Hillary Clinton would not have used this,
***I can think of at least 2 scenarios why she didn’t:
1) She didn’t have it.
2) She had it and found out that it’s some kind of red herring.
3) She didn’t want to play hardball & drag him through the mud — nahh, scratch that one.
I can vouch for the fact that Non has been here for many years, from his well known moron act on the evolution threads ;o)
“After obama has chosen his running mate and it is found out obama is ineligible to run for president, does his running mate assume the nominee position or would it be hillary?”
Its still a race and no one is sworn in yet. Obama’s vice president running mate wouldn’t take his spot.
It would be Hillary.
Don’t they have rule book out there?
"African" isn't a race His mother's race, for example, is listed as "caucasian", not American
I honestly don’t believe Hillary thought she’d lose.
Its still a race and no one is sworn in yet.
***That little fact could be the best indicator of where this little tidbit is coming from. “Who benefits?” Quo Vadis.
rockinqsranch wrote:
I smell the all too familiar stench of the Clinton’s as I read this. They aren’t behind bars, and they aren’t six feet under, so that smell isn’t contained yet.
***Well written.
Think!
Rob Noel is an African. His family goes back several generations in Rhodesia, but he is not a Negro, he is a very fair skinned Caucasian. African is not a racial notation.
Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on those making the accusations and not on those being accused?
***No. It’s a requirement for being eligible to be president. The burden of proof when we want to VOTE is on US to prove we qualify, so likewise the burden of proof on who we might (sic) vote FOR is on the recipient.
We need a Freeper in Honolulu to go over some microfilmed newspapers from 1961.
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.