Posted on 06/25/2008 7:58:32 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
It is now a 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. But now the senior spokesman of that Department has confirmed to Israel Insider what are the required features of a certified birth document -- features that Obama's purported "birth certificate" clearly lack.
The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider's 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 generally 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.
Some of these oddities surfaced in Israel Insider's previous article on the subject, but new comparative documentary evidence presented below, and official verification obtained by Israel Insider from a senior Hawaiian official, provides the strongest confirmation yet.
An authentic Hawaiian birth certificate for another Hawaiian individual has since surfaced which, using the same official form as the presumptive Obama certificate, includes an embossed official seal and an authoritative signature, coming through from the back. Obama's alleged certificate lacks those features, and the certificate number referencing the birth year has been blacked out, making it untraceable.
Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, told Israel Insider: "At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically." And, she added, "In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document."
Compare the top image presented by his campaign as evidence of Obama's 1961 birth and the other certifying the birth of one Patricia Decosta.
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
http://www.valeehill.net/genealogy/documents/doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg
So if he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama -- because only he or another member of his immediate family could by law request a "Certification of Live Birth" -- must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid.
Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date "filed by registrar", the certified DeCosta document provides the date "accepted by the registrar." The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here.
The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document -- notably in very low resolution -- on its "Fight the Smears" website, with campaign officials vowing that it's authentic, sending the image around as "proof" to reporters, and inviting supporters to refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate. However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama's birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the "Certification of Live Birth." Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature.
The failure of the Obama campaign to do so, and its willingness instead to put up an invalid, uncertified image -- what now appears to be a crude forgery -- raises the dramatic question of why the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate might have to hide.
Until now, it has been thought that there might be some embarrassing information on the real certificate: was the candidate's name something other than Barack Hussein Obama II, as it is claimed? Was no father listed because of the uncertainty over Obama's paternity? Was his father's race listed as Arab, or Muslim, rather than African? These revelations might be embarrassing, and further undermine his credibility, but he could disavow and downplay their significance. Would revealing such embarrassment outweigh the far greater risks involved in perpetuating a palpable forgery, or passing off an uncertified official document as being certified?
There is one possibility, however, which alone might justify the risk that Obama and his campaign seems to be taking in putting forward the uncertified document image: Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii and may not be an American citizen at all, or at least not a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution defines the requirement for the nation's chief executive. Real original birth certificates, circa 1961, have all kinds of verifiable information that would confirm Obama's origins, or throw them into doubt should they be lacking.
Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama's birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother's youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a "natural born citizen." Even if he were naturalized later -- and there is no evidence that he was -- he would not be eligible to run for the office of president and -- if forgery or misrepresentation were involved -- he and his staffers might find themselves facing stiff federal and state charges.
But if, at this late date, Obama has no proof of being a US citizen by law, natural born or otherwise, then he or his advisers may be tempted to try to "tough out" the allegations about his "birth certificate" or the lack thereof. He and his campaign have gotten through other embarrassments: maybe this one will go away, too.
Because the consequences were he to admit, or should it come out, that he was not born in Hawaii would be so grave as to make it tempting to take the gamble and hope that no one dares call his most audacious bluff by demanding proof. Talk about the audacity of hope.
But now the State of Hawaii has dashed those hopes by clarifying that a certified birth certificate must have an embossed seal and signature, features his claimed birth certificate image lack.
The longer Obama waits, the graver grow the consequences of waiting.
There is one simple way for the candidate to clear up the issue once and for all: produce for public inspection and objective analysis the paper copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate -- if one exists. If he's lost the original, he can request a certified copy. Ordinary citizens are required to produce one to get a passport or a driver's license. Surely it's not too much to ask from a man who aspires to hold the highest office in the land.
The issue is not whether Obama is black or white, Christian or Muslim. It is whether he was born in the USA and thus a citizen eligible according to the Constitution to run for President.
If proof of citizenship does not exist, then surely it would be wiser to admit it now.
Because if Barack Hussein Obama II does not produce definitive proof of his "natural born" American citizenship with original, verifiable documents, he will be setting the stage for a very public battle over his personal credibility, the basic legitimacy of his candidacy, and its possible criminality.
The conservative media needs to continue headlining this data, before the election.
No.
The election of a President by the Electoral College is an action of the People, in their States.
It's none of the Federal government's business, nor should it be.
Oh, yes...the "apostrophe" is one literary device never employed on FR.
Sorta like "irony"...
</sarc>
:-)
If The Tin Foil Hat was suspended/banned (he's reinstated now),
So he was suspended/banned a second time now?
I have no knowledge whether The Tin Foil Hat was ever suspended/banned. His profile page is still active.
APOSTROPHE:I have no knowledge whether The Tin Foil Hat was ever suspended/banned. His profile page is still active.
Apart from its use as the name of a mark of punctuation ('), the term apostrophe is used for a kind of formal invocation. Sometimes the invocation is to an absent (or even dead) person: "Milton," writes Wordsworth, "thou shouldst be living at this hour;/ England hath need of thee."
"This account has been banned or suspended."
Try hitting Refresh.
And if Obama is covered by the law that you posted, it does not define "natural born citizen" as defined in the U.S. Constitution, which determines eligibility to be a United States president. The law you cited only determines U.S. citizenship.
That provision deals with employment related to the US Government or International Organization listed under noted law.
That's incorrect. Read, for example, the following post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2036156/posts?page=94#94
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.