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?
bttt for that remark.
Someone has to know how to create a new "Buckhead moment".
All these pieces on a likely dead end street are fewer pieces that can help shape the view of Obama as a whole.
There is PLENTY to be upset at Obama about, namely far left agendas socially, economically and militarily, to help shape him before the election.
The problem with even doing 2 things at one time is that there isn’t enough of that magical substance you referred to. TIME. It is running out.
Obama backers and McCain backers (or anti-Obamaites) are in a race to define him before the cement dries, and right now Obama is doing a decent job running out the clock.
Trying to find a magic bullet “he was a Muslim” or “He can’t really run for President” is a waste of time likely.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
states:
“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, That any 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 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) 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
1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph.This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date...”
The 1961 law I believe you are referring to, MONTANA V. KENNEDY, 366 U. S. 308 (1961), involves a person born in 1906, and therefore wasn't covered by the law currently in effect.
There are also people who can type, spell, and click spell check better that I can, too....sigh.
Guess what? My son was born in England. He has three passports. I understand what you wrote.
Apparently that is not correct. he is a natural-born citizen under the law that has been effect since 1952. Whether the document to which you refer is legitimate or not does not change that fact.
I agree. He may be technically a US citizen but he didn’t really grow up here - Hawaii is hardly the place to really absorb the US and of course there was Indonesia and all the while longing for his absent African father. Then he went to the Ivy League and then the apparently very dirty Chicago political scene and that “pastor” of his. When did he ever have an opportunity to learn about everyday Americans? I don’t think he understands what we’re about and what he thinks he knows he doesn’t really like.
Exactly.
A “certified copy” of any recorded document always has an embossed (raised) seal with the clerk’s signature - certifying that it is a faithful copy of the original.
If the document copy isn’t certified in the way described above, it is worthless as “proof” of anything.
What sensible person would think he could legitimately present a deed to real estate that isn’t the original or a certified copy as proof that he owns it?
True. There are also 'naturalized' citizens. If Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen then he would need to be 'naturalized' to be a citizen at all. Clearly he never naturalized. So if he is not a Natural Born Citizen he is not a citizen, and needs to be deported to his country of origin, Kenya. He must also relinquish his Senate seat.
Thus your assertion that this is "End of the Story" is incorrect.
Nice try though. Thanks for playing!
Is that true, that he must never have been naturalized? I just don’t know how or whether we know that.
BTW, I’m assuming he wasn’t because he was natural-born, though again I don’t so know.
They are working on it but it takes time. Today they voided laws passed by one of the several states based on whimsey, earlier in the week they extended habeus corpus to enemy combatants. It takes time to shred the entire Constitution, but they never stop working on it.
Interesting, could this be done? (Paging Larry Klayman?)
I believe the new law says it is retroactive.
Um, the link says the St. Petersburg Times received a copy of the birth certificate from the Obama campaign and it verifies that he was born in Hawaii.
I wasn’t referring to a specific law, but the state of the law as of 1961. This is going to take an immigration lawyer to figure out, since some of the provisions appear to be retroactive.
Whatever the case with Obama, I believe it's important that folks understand that the qualifications for Legislators are not as strict as those for President. Since Weicker was born to two citizens there was no question he was a U.S. Citizen and eligible for House/Senate.
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.
