Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PROVEN: Barack Obama Presented Forged Certificate of Live Birth
Today.com ^ | 6/25/08 | Virginia Shanahan

Posted on 06/25/2008 8:52:46 AM PDT by pissant

Is Barack Obama a United States citizen, and is he eligible to run for President of the United States, or did he present a forged government document to verify a citizenship he does not possess? For a few weeks now these questions have been swirling around the internet. The questions have become so prominent that Obama addressed the issue on his “Fight the Smears” website. Of course, in typical Obama fashion it is becoming clear that nothing is as it seems.

His site says the following:

The truth about Barack’s birth certificate

Lie: Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

Truth: Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

There it is, the Certification of Live Birth. Case closed. Or is it? Two sources have raised what has proven to be very interesting, and troubling questions. Polarik, a blogger from Townhall.com, and the israelinsider, have both posted compelling evidence that can no longer be ignored, or brushed off as ridiculous.

Friday, June 20, 2008, Polarik, who claims to have extensive experience in the world of computers, printers, and typewriters, wrote “given a set of printed letters, I can discern what kind of device made them. Printer output is quite different from the text created by a graphics program, and even if a document looks “official,” it may not be.” He goes on to claim that anyone could have produced this document, and then proceeds to point out every flaw imaginable with this alleged certificate. Because his article is so detailed, and technical, I advise my readers to follow the link and read it for yourself. Have no fear. He has visuals to help you make sense of it.

Yesterday morning I read an article in the Israelinsider, written by Reuven Koret. Koret’s article eliminates any lingering question as to whether or not the Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery/fake.

Koret begins his article by linking to Photobucket, an image gathering website, where millions upload images to share with others, or post in various places such as websites, etc. It shows variations of the same Certificate of Live Birth presented by the Obama camp. One has Obama’s birthplace listed as Antarctica, while another shows one issued by the government of North Korea. This certainly lends credibility to Polariks argument that the Certificate of Live Birth was created by some sort of computer program, that anyone can use.

According to Koret, Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health made clear that no birth certification, or certification of live birth is transmitted electronically, and that all certificates of live birth contain an embossed seal and registrar’s signature on the back of the document.

He then compares the 1961 Certification of Live Birth, presented as authentic on the Obama website, to one certifying the Hawaiian birth of a Patricia Decosta. The similarities and differences are quite noticeable.

Both contain a green bamboo background, though one is noticeably darker. Both contain borders that are noticeably different. Obama’s is green, and Decosta’s is black. Polarik did a fabulous job of pointing out the obvious flaws on the border of Obama’s alleged certificate.

The most compelling and disturbing items of note are the lack of an embossed seal and the registrar’s signature, on the copy being presented by Obama. Decosta’s seal, even faded with time is quite prominent, as is the registrar’s signature that bleeds through to the front of the document. The lack of these two items makes it clear that the copy presented by Obama is in fact a fake.

This raises many more questions and concerns. Why would Obama knowingly lie, and present a forged government document as official? Why does Obama refuse to present his real birth certificate, for inspection – the actual piece of paper that can be handled by reporters? Is Barack Obama a citizen of the United States? Is he eligible for the highest office of this great nation? Lastly, what laws has Obama and his camp broken by knowingly presenting a forged government document?


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-218 next last
To: patriot08

Huh? WTH does whether or not he was baptised into a Christian church have to do with ANYTHING ??? He’s running for CIC, not Pastor in Chief.

His draft registration, on the other hand, is a legitimate question, from which should come some info on his birth certificate.


101 posted on 06/25/2008 10:01:17 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121; Miss Didi

Did Obama really present that birth certificate or did it just appear on the Daily KOS? Are you sure that this isn’t another trap, designed to make fools of the opposition?

Sorry, nikos1121, I didn’t mean for that to go to you.


102 posted on 06/25/2008 10:01:33 AM PDT by Eva (CHANGE- the post modern euphemism for Marxist revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2035810/posts?page=407#407


103 posted on 06/25/2008 10:02:16 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick

Methinks it is very true.


104 posted on 06/25/2008 10:03:54 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Could someone in a library in Honololu read the microfilmed "Vital Statistics" column of the Advertiser or Star-Bulletin of that 1961 week or month and find the entry for our Barry Obama?

Then we can decide whether or not to keep plugging away at this "story."

105 posted on 06/25/2008 10:04:31 AM PDT by Procyon (To the global warming fanatics the problem is too many people and the solution is genocide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

It’s right here on Obama’s official site...


106 posted on 06/25/2008 10:05:23 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Eva; All

I believe it was posted by KOS but presented by Barry. Is that right, gang?


107 posted on 06/25/2008 10:05:54 AM PDT by Miss Didi ("Good heavens, woman, this is a war not a garden party!" Dr. Meade, Gone with the Wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Procyon

Speculation that BHO was not born in Hawaii. Look to Canada or possibly Kenya.


108 posted on 06/25/2008 10:06:19 AM PDT by WilliamReading
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: All
The reals BC presented say “Date ACCEPTED BY Registrar”. Obama’s say “Date Filed by Registrar”. A very, very interesting read on that by one Freeper was that BC are normally accepted the the State Registrar when they come from legitimate orgs/channels, such as hospitals. When “someone” just files the paperwork for a birth, they don't “ACCEPT” the birth and the info on it as legit, they just note when the info was filed. A BIG DIFFERENCE!@

Now consider all the above and the fact that there is confusion over what hospital Obama was really born in.

109 posted on 06/25/2008 10:07:16 AM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121
He needs to be asked on it this week

I think that's probably right. We ought to resolve this. It should have been resolved before the primaries. Someone should be responsible for certifying this, with a public notice to support it.

110 posted on 06/25/2008 10:08:31 AM PDT by Huck (A Teddy Roosevelt wannabe is better than a Che Guevara wannabe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Instead of just TALKING about it, someone just SUE Obama and MAKE him present a certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate. I would think that any citizen would have an interest in making sure Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president and would have standing to bring such a lawsuit.

What are you waiting for? Be sure to let us know how it turns out.

111 posted on 06/25/2008 10:09:42 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: pissant
No wonder Obama can't help being an America Last-er.
112 posted on 06/25/2008 10:09:59 AM PDT by syriacus (Democrats got THEIR "change" in Election 2006. Are WE better off now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Procyon

We are plugging away because the document presented was a photoshop hackjob. He may very well have been born in Hawaii.


113 posted on 06/25/2008 10:11:38 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Miss Didi

Presented by Barry’s very own fight the smears website.


114 posted on 06/25/2008 10:12:32 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: All
In the back ground there appears to be back ward printing. The number '2007' appears, maybe the number '8' and cannot make out what appears to be three letters.

Go to the Date Filed By Registrar date, move in a line to the right to just above the "birth on any court" phase and look at the back ground. Need to zoom in to see that the back ground patter is different.

Let me know what you think this is.

115 posted on 06/25/2008 10:15:01 AM PDT by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Go get em...

Who did you tell besides all of us?

116 posted on 06/25/2008 10:16:21 AM PDT by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (Some days it is not worth chewing through the restraints.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick

I sent to Drudge the other day. Hopefully others are following suit.


117 posted on 06/25/2008 10:17:44 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Huck
But it wouldn't surprise me to see them simply want to waive the rule for the Messiah.

That "rule" is the United States Constitution. If they're going to "waive the rule," they might as well waive elections, free speech, due process, and everything else in the Constitution while they're at it.

-PJ

118 posted on 06/25/2008 10:18:38 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
I don't think we can honestly say it is ‘proven’ forged yet.

Would you at least agree that it is uncertified?

If not, would you at least agree that it is altered, and therefore invalid for any legal purpose?

-PJ

119 posted on 06/25/2008 10:20:50 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
Privacy issues, only BO can produce it, and he claims to have.

What do you make of this argument that I posited a few days ago?

I’d like to see more pressure put on the state of Hawaii to protect and defend the authenticity of its legal documents by exposing this as a fraud.

I can understand not wanting to release vital statistics about a person, but it must be in Hawaii's own interest to expose a forgery being passed around as an authentic Hawaiian document. Hawaii should owe no obligation to a person named on a forged document. It is Hawaii's responsibility as a government to expose a fraud done in their name and protect the legitimacy of its legal documents for its own citizens' sake.

It's time for Hawaii to make a statement about the authenticity of this document.

-PJ
120 posted on 06/25/2008 10:24:57 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-218 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson