Posted on 06/25/2008 9:10:21 PM PDT by Red Steel
In response to mounting media questions about the failure of the Barack Obama presidential campaign to produce the presumptive Democratic nominee's birth certificate, an official spokesman of the campaign has endorsed as genuine the image of a document purporting to be his "birth certificate." But some who have examined that image in high resolution claim inconsistencies and irregularities which suggest that the purported document is a forgery. Its high profile use by the campaign, they claim, suggests an attempt to conceal the truth of Obama's birth circumstances and citizenship qualifications from the American people.
The campaign has posted only a low-resolution image of that document, which it claims is his "birth certificate," on its "Fight the Smears" website, along with purported proof of why the claim that Obama may not qualify as a "natural born citizen" is false:
--- 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...." ---
Contrary to the campaign's claims, the issue of when Hawaii became a state and the wording of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, are not at issue.
Rather it is Article Two, Section One of the Constitution which requires that the President be a "natural born citizen" and not simply a naturalized citizen. The issue is whether there is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, the legal status of his mother at the time, and what exactly is written on the original birth certificate -- if it in fact such a certificate exists.
Some bloggers have claimed that the purported official State of Hawaii document, originally published by the radical left Daily Kos blog, is a fake, and a poorly executed one at that.
Examination of the higher resolution of the image indicates irregularities which suggest to some that the purported "certificate" may be a forgery produced or modified by Photoshop or another image-editing software, and not a genuine item.
The evidence, presented in greatest detail by the blogger Polarik at TownHall, includes:
1. Use of a second generation reproduction of the seal of the State of Hawaii at the top 2. Blacking out of the Certificate number in an attempt to prevent it from being traced 3. Absence of any official signature or seal which typically appear on such documents 4. Crudely arranged borders inconsistent with a professionally produced official document 5. Crude overlay of the textual items on top of the patterned background, indicating that the background was produced first and then the textual images laid on top of it by a graphical program rather than being scanned from the original. 6. Failure to use the double-S symbol before the listing the relevant statute (HRS 338-13b) as appears in official uses of the State of Hawaii. 7. The appearance of the backward facing text "Jun 6, 2007" that appears to come from a stamp in the lower right hand portion of the document. 8. The description of his father's race as African, when the term Negro was reportedly used at the time of birth. 9. The use of an identical typeface for all text items on the page.
Even if one or two of the above irregularities may have an explanation, they claim, the aggregate points to an amateurish attempt to manufacture an official-looking document that may not exist in the official records of the state of Hawaii.
On its face, this document does not even presume to be a copy of the original birth certificate -- contrary to the claims of the Obama campaign -- but rather a secondary Certification of Live Birth, which may be used when the original birth certificate can't be located, and can be produced after the fact with just the affadavits of a family member, or even the child himself.
The Obama campaign, however, has not even produced a paper version of this document, and indeed it does not even publish the high resolution version that appeared on the Daily Kos. It has not fulfilled the media's persistent requests to produce the original Birth Certificate, or to respond to media questions about the birth certificate controversy.
What could be the Obama campaign's motive for withholding the original birth certificate and passing off instead a crudely forged facsimile of a "Certification of Live Birth"?
Speculation in the blogosphere and mainstream media is rampant that the concealment is for one or more of the following reasons:
1. There is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. 2. The father listed on the birth certificate is not Barack Hussein Obama. 3. The father's race is listed as something other than African, perhaps Muslim or Arab. 4. The mother was no longer at that time an American citizen. 5. The child's name is not listed as Barack Hussein Obama II.
Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot blog of the National Review and one of the original writers on the controversy, cited the "rumor" that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.
Geraghty stated that "If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen -- because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for '10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.'"
He then points out that Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was 18 when Obama was born "so she wouldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16."
According to FindLaw.com, cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama's birth, state, "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."
Geraghty said the Obama campaign could "debunk" the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that.
The seriousness of this latest controversy cannot be underestimated. Unlike the scandals related to Obama's various associations with unsavory characters, or claims about his Muslim upbringing, the issue here relates to his citizenship and legal qualification to run for President of the United States.
One would have thought that the most basic documentary proof of the location and date of his birth should be a basic and non-controversial requirement for any presidential candidate, and part of the public record, much more so than one's tax return or annual checkup. It is almost incomprehensible that they would withhold this information -- unless there is something to hide.
Ironically, a similar controversy surrounded Obama's likely opponent in the Presidential race, John McCain. McCain was born to two American parents, one of whom was serving in a US military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone.
This Washington Post column on "Citizen McCain's Panama Problem?" examines the issue:
"McCain was indeed born in the Canal Zone, and Article II of the Constitution plainly states that 'no person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President.'
"Some might define the term 'natural-born citizen' as one who was born on United States soil. But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, 'The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.' That would seem to include McCain, whose parents were both citizens and whose father was a Navy officer stationed at the U.S. naval base in Panama at the time of John's birth in 1936."
But the issue is not legally closed, and therefore this year, as reported in the legal column of the Wall Street Journal a non-binding resolution was introduced and passed affirming that McCain qualifies as a "natural born Citizen," as specified in the Constitution and is therefore eligible for the highest office in the land. Ironically, the resolution was co-sponsored by Barack Obama.
About McCain, of course, there is no question about the facts surrounding his birth, but over their legal significance. He is not denying that he was born in Panama, or posting certificates that claim he was born in Florida. Obama's campaign, on the other hand, seems intent on evading the need to produce and submit to public scrutiny the official document that could prove that his qualification to run for President according to the Constitution.
The cloud of controversy, of course, could be dispelled with ease, of course, if Obama would release the real documentation of his birth, or even the original printed version of the online document the campaign claims as genuine. And yet the campaign is sticking by its guns, despite the evidence from the blogosphere pointing to the forgery and inadequacy of the proffered image of the non-birth certificate. Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, told the LA Times: "I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama's birth certificate."
Validation for the authenticity of the image is provided by a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, who reportedly emailed the image and got a confirmation from an official in the Hawaiian Department of Health. "It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo is quoted as telling the reporter.
Israel Insider is checking into this report and will report back on its findings.
There's a HUGE difference between:
1) "That document has the look and form of a genuine certificate."
AND
2)"That specific document IS a genuine document."
If think she was saying #1).
Dick Morris has an interesting perspective on how these side issues actually help Obama. Do you really think there is any merit in recycling this stuff? Does anybody really believe that an Obama birth outside the territorial USA would not attract massive main street as well as tabloid media attention and coverage. I understand what can motivate this type of speculation but why does it have to get into the realm of the goofy? When you have concrete evidence bring it forward. But, until you are able to do that remember you are creating a side show, a distraction that only allows Obama an easy means to avoid confronting the real issues in respect of security and economics.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/obama_
How about: When YOU have 'concrete evidense' that this has "only allowed Obama an easy means to avoid confronting the real issues in respect of security and economics" then please bring it forward. But until then, please don't post clueless dribble. Obama is not refusing to discuss those issues because of these threads. That's nuts.
And we’re still waiting for B.J.’s medical records. The law doesn’t apply the same to dems.
And J.F. Kerry’s DD-214 discharge papers.
Read the Morris article. His point is simple and clear. The reason why Obama loves the stuff you guys are writing is because it gets him off the hook of having to deal with the real substance. Everybody loves a side show. But, when you guys get manipulated into carrying Obama’s water it is time to think about the value of what you are trying to do. Basically if it is showing results yet, it won’t play in prime time. That is the essence of the Morris piece.
Obama was not bought down to earth by Hillary discussing his economic plans and policies. It was stuff LIKE THIS that took the bloom off the rose.
The biggest scammer of our time or any other.
We need to hammer away on all fronts. It really amazes me how there are so many out there who can’t do two things at once.
I think you guys badly underestimate just how slick a politician Obama has become. He is taking on the Focus on the Family because he knows he can’t lose. So, he only gets 25% of evangelicals (some estimates indicate he is polling as high as 35% among young evangelicals). The point is that 25% is a lot more than the zero that Kerry got. Morris and others (Novak) are pointing out that Obama has figured this stuff out and is playing you guys like a sweet violin. The missing point seems to be that he can and should be beat on the hard issues.
Why conservative subscribers in the St.Pete/Clearwater/Tampa Bay area keep feeding the hand that bites them is totally beyond my comprehension.
Leni
Morris guaranteed that Hillary would be out next president. He gives out every possible opinion on a subject so he can say he was right. He's playing people like YOU like a violin.
Do you not believe in a conservative agenda? I think what some analysts are beginning to realize is that Obama is learning to make it about personalities thereby avoiding have to deal with hard issues.
Even if this a genuine newly issued certificate of birth.
Where’s his original birth certificate? Which one did he use to get a passport? When did he get a passport? Why won’t he mention this issue?
Imagine if this was happening to McCain or Bush. The media is smart enough to know that these things hurt candidates. When they don’t settle these matters quickly, it makes them look squirrelly.
That wouldn't matter. Hawaii was a US territory from the 1890's till 1959. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone which wasn't even a territory. Under a 1904 law he could be considered a US citizen even if he only had one parent who was a US citizen.
What don’t you understand about “we can do more than one thing at one time”?
Excellent question but the system was prolly down when he showed up.
I agree. You do not attack an entire enemy Army at one point/place. Make no mistake that Obama has this issue covered by somewhere whether true or not.
You get on the offense using all the Principles of the Offense, and; you hammer and hammer.
This picture of Obama isn’t clear enough. It isn’t clear that he is wearing traditonal muslim clothing, and posing with his African brother. I seem to remember another instance where Obama was in Muslim clothing...wonder how many photos there are of him in these clothes? I can see trying them on once, to pose for a photo, but loads of times?
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.