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.
Hey, if he didn’t register, he isn’t eligable for Federal jobs! Great question! I would bet he didn’t!
If there is no seal, it isn’t the real deal.
No government seal on his birth certificate.
I checked all your posts, you don’t seem to think anyone should say anything critical about Obama at all...no matter what he says or does—or who he associates with. Every point is met by a “what does this matter?” or “This is a non-issue”, “you are playing into Obama’s hand”.....because he is such a “gifted” person. According to you, he is so smart and clever, no one stands a chance against him!
Well, many of us, in this country, happen to believe that this man is a danger. He needs to be closely looked at, and because of the nature of jihad; his lies need to be exposed. There is a pattern here, that causes alarm. All of these things are valid, and deserve to be investigated.
Actually, only if his Mother was American. Kid with American fathers, born on foreign soil are not automatically US citizens. Ask any Vietnam Vet who had a child in Vietnam.
I was talking about the Canal zone only. There was a 1904 law making anyone born in the Panama Canal zone to at least one American citizen an American citizen by birth. This law was passed just after the US acquired rights to build the canal.
I think that is essentially correct. Obama is far more politically skilled than people want to admit. It seems that every time he is attacked he becomes stronger. I don’t think this is an accident. The best example is the commentary of James Dobson last week. Dobson took issue with Obama’s interpretation of scripture and of the Constitution.
Within a few days several articles written by evangelicals appeared in leading newspapers. They argued in support of Obama and they made the arguement that important members of the evangelical leadership were very comfortable with Obama. Surely you do not believe that was merely circumstantial. I think the Obama side believes that the more the debate touches on faith, his wife, patriotism or his birth certificate he gains points.
The Dobson case is the most easy to illustrate. He cannot lose a single vote on the left by fighting with Dobson. On the other hand, he gains support among those evangelicals who are unhappy with Dobson. Some estimates suggest he can win up to 25% of the evangelical vote. That would be a remarkable. The leakage is in the areas of enviornment, poverty and social accountability. All are popular themes among younger evangelicals.
I think Obama is so hoping that his wife will be attacked. I think they have already mapped out how to take advantage of it and gain support in the middle. The debate on faith is bizarre. The right is talking about Obama being Muslim. Obama is talking about Jesus in a more intimate way than any candidate who has ever run for president. It is a subject where you cannot con the audience. He knows his stuff and why are be lobbing softballs so he can hit them out of the park with ease.
Obama is vulnerable on pure policy issues ranging from taxes to security. The greater issue is that the personal matters such as faith and patriotism are more sexy and they suck all the oxygen out of the debate. As long as the debate stays on personality and personal issues Obama holds the hammer. Think about a debate where McCain and Obama are challenged on questions of faith. If Obama smokes him by professing his personal journey in Christ and if uses scripture to explain his understanding we will be asking ourselves how we set the table for him.
Anybody who already supports Obama will not be switching their vote. The problem is getting out the traditional Republican vote, especially among evangelicals. It is crazy to give Obama a platform among this group because he will win supporters.
That is my thesis. I may be proved wrong. But I believe that the Clintons badly underestimated just how good this guy is as a pure politician (he started out 30 points behind Hillary). The biggest mistake the Clintons made is they tried to dismiss Obama as not having a message of substance. I think he has a profoundly deep message that appeals to many voters. Nobody seems to want to give oxygen or air time to the notion that it is the wrong message about trade or taxes or security. Finally, the dumbest issue of all is the speculation on the birth certificate. Either it is valid or not. But, get the evidence. It is one of those issues that near the end of the campaign Obama will use as an example of the unfair way that McCain supporter tried to smear him. He is very slick!
I went back to read your post to see if I had covered all the points and I discovered a statement I wish I had used. “The good man wins his case by careful argument; the evil-minded only wants to fight. Prov. 13:2)” I think Obama is a master tactician and everyone seems to be rushing full speed into the trap that he is setting. I believe he wants to debate the very things we claim he is avoiding. As I said in another post, I think he is even setting up some cards to play so that he can appear to be the reasonable man on the abortion issue. I believe he will advocate some direct funding for faith groups with a view to reducing the number of abortions and encouraging adoptions. He will do it in a way where he does lose a single vote on the left whole making some gains among the right. It is naive to underestimate this guy.
Very Strange. This is obviously a fake birth certificate. This is as bad a job as the Texas National Guard papers.
Wouldn't it be strange if Obama was an illegal alien born in Africa or Indonesia?
He obviously has a caucasian mother. The lady claiming to be his mother is a citizen. A DNA test would confirm that.
One only needs one native born parent to be a US citizen....even if he does have a phony birth certificate.
I don't know if that is true. One has to be born under the jurisdiction of the United States of America in order to be a natural born citizen.
Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth.
I meant to answer this days ago. Sorry. Very good points!
But, I will have to disagree with you, that these issues don’t matter. I believe all of the issues matter. Put together they show a pattern. A pattern that when sewed up, will be one horrible garment that we will have to wear.
But, point taken that we should not underestimate Obama. Trouble we are having, I think is that we underestimated John McCain!
A birth certificate without a serial number is as valid as a $20 bill without a serial number.
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.