Unstamped certificate suggests Obama may not be "natural born" US citizen

The "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign is not certified as authentic and appears to be 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.

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.

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.

UPDATE 6/26: Janice Okubo, in response to an Israeli Insider question on Tuesday, would not confirm nor deny whether she had told a St. Petersburg Times reporter whether she had said the birth certificate was "real", citing the statutory stipulation that "Hawaii state law (HRS §338-18) prevents disclosure of information contained in vital statistics records except to those people who have a direct and tangible interest in the record as defined by statute." This would, however, seem to negate the propriety of any disclosure by her of confidential information.

Jim Geraghty of The National Review Online, following up on this Israel Insider report, said he had contacted Okubo:

"I spoke to Ms. Okubo late Wednesday afternoon, and she said she had seen the version of Obama's certificate of live birth posted on the sites. While her office cannot verify the information on a form without the permission of the certificate holder (Obama), she said "the form is exactly the same" and it has 'all the components of a birth certificate' record issued by the state. In other words, she sees no reason to think the version posted on Obama's web site and Daily Kos is not genuine."

"The 'embossed seal' in question is, she said, probably on the back of the document provided to Daily Kos, but not visible (as in another certificate posted on Israel Insider for contrast). She thinks the difference in visibility can be attributed to the pressure used when applying the seal."

Geraghty's interpretation of Okubo's comments is inexact and tendentious. First, her observation that "the form is the same" is not contested, here or elsewhere. No one is doubting that the form that appears on the various websites (including this one) is a replica of that used for valid certificates. Therefore Geraght's interpretation that follows "In other words" is clearly his own conclusion, not hers.

Indeed, Okubo confirms to Geraghty that the image is lacking the "embossed seal" (and the official signature) that are required for the certificate to be valid. While "she thinks" that the difference in visibility might be attributed to varying "pressure," she admits that she does not know and has not seen the original.

Contrasting the purported Obama image with the DeCosta sample, it is hard to imagine the embossed seal and signature being of such light pressure that they would become completely invisible. An inked date of June 6, 2007, in reverse, does come through. But in any event, Okubo's confirmation that the premsumptive birth certificate is lacking the required stamps makes it all the more imperative for Obama to release the original paper certification, the only valid kind, and not an easy-to-photoshop electronic facsimile thereof. It should not be hard to produce, since Hawaii provides for family members to request them.

Even though Geraghy notes that Obama "initially refused to provide his birth certificate," he has suggested that it is "rather unlikely" that Obama was born in Kenya, since it would require that the candidate and his family do a lot of lying. In fact, there were reports of Kenyati relatives claiming he was born there, and there is the mysterious disappearance of his grandmother, who may indeed know something about this subject.

After all, being born in Hawaii is part of the "family legend" and it would be unreasonable to expect this to vary from interview to interview, especially when a non-Hawaiian birth would invalidate Obama's run for the presidency.

It is indeed hard to believe that Obama could have gone through his life without having to prove that he was an American citizen. But the credulity with which the mainstream media has automatically accepted as valid the image that appears on the radical left Daily Kos blog and on the Obama campaign's polemical "Fight the Smears" website makes it clear that many have been unwilling, now and in the past, to demand proof of an authentic document. They prefer to accept on faith that the candidate or his campaign would not lie about such a thing, assuming he has nothing to hide and no motive to lie.

But until the certified paper birth document is produced -- either by media pressure or a legal challenge in any state -- the fact remains that Obama has not proven that he is a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President according to the Constitution.

If Kenyan birth could be established, then this is the law he would have to qualify under.

For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child."Because his mother was only 18 at the time of the birth there is no possible she was physically present in the US for five years after the age of 14. (14+5=19)

Therefore he isn not a citizen, and may not be President. Now all we need is the records from the hospital in Kenya to make this fairytale real.

Do we know that he has *any* security clearances? You don’t need on to be elected Senator or run for President. You certainly don’t need one to be a “community organizer” or member of the Illinois state Senate. I doubt he has one. Why would he? He’s not on the intelligence committee, is he?

Both of John McCain’s parents were born in the US.

Mother 1912 in Oklahoma
Father 1911 in Iowa.

They were both over the age of 21 when they had McCain.

The problem with Obama’s mother was that she had him when she was 18. If infact he was born in Hawaii, then there is no problem. If she had him in another country, the law states that at least one of his parents had to have been a citizen for more than 10 years with 5 of those years being after the age of 16. She would have had to be 21.

Any baby that enters the country has to have a passport just like an adult.

Not true. Very small infants can travel on their mothers passport, or could circa 1960.

But at some point, an issue should be made of where a person is born, and whether or not they meet the constitutional requirements for citizenship to be President. One day someone will try to run, and may be successful, and then we will find out that he/she is not a legal citizen after the elecdtion process is well underway. We should be on our guard to prevent this from happening, and I predict it will happen.

An insipid Red Herring that only works to Obama's advantage by painting Conservatives as Tinfoil Hat uni-brow maroons! There are major critical issues that must be addressed concerning Obama, yet to many individuals are getting wrapped around the axle instead of pulling the wagon.

Seems that way but 'RatherGate' and the revelations of lying had a huge impact on Bush's election. The Swift Boats Vets, who attacked Kerry on very detailed specifics arguably did more to win the election for Bush than any other GOP group.

All alone, this is nothing. But the revelation of a coverup (for instance a different BC being found to be real than the one on Kos, his name being slightly different, etc ... any of that would have very drastic consequences at this point.

"Do we know that he has *any* security clearances?"

I believe, "and please correct if I'm wrong", that McCain hs been hammering him about his lack of oversight as the head of the committe of Afghanistan operations. If that is indeed the case, you can be assured that he possess at least a TS clearance. I'd even go so far as to venture that no US Senator is denied access to TSI, which can not be granted without a full and periodical background investigation.

One more point I’d like to add to my prior post. There was not a question of whether Bill Clinton was a citizen or not, but whether he had renounced his citizenship when he ran for President. He had taken an oath of allegiance when he signed up for the ROTC at the Univ. of Arkansas when he was a student there, and then he protested against the U.S. on foreign soil a few years later in England. Bush I did not want to make an issue of this, but then his campaign advisor was Charlie Black, the same Charlie Black that is running McCain’s campaign.

Where is the embossed stamp?

Thirty five years ago in either Alabama or Georgia, I don't remember which, a request had to specify if an official copy with a raised seal was needed, otherwise they would just provide a facsimile.

If you observe carefully, the Obama “certificate” appears tampered. The green weave pattern does not seem to appear in the spaces between, and within, the letters.

It, in fact, looks like all textual content, including description labels, were altered, to hide the actual alterations of names, sex, etc.

I'd even go so far as to venture that no US Senator is denied access to TSI, which can not be granted without a full and periodical background investigation.

Yes but probably still only on a need to know basis.

Obambi could not pass a TOP and I mean TOP security clearence investigation.

As an example, a young friend of mine, Lee, was in a position where he was required to have a top clearence. We are talking about 1976 or 7, almost 30 years ago. He used me as a reference, among others. The “powers that be” investigated not only Lee but ME as a reference.

In Oct. 1967 I was at a meeting at Goddard College and signed in as a student interested in joining “SDS” Students for a Democratic Socicity”. I attended only one meeting and never went back. It sounded like an interesting group until they started blowing things up! The powers still knew I had been there!

Lee passed and I was told that, had I needed it, would also have passed. Do you think for a second that Obama could pass that test?

Not true. Very small infants can travel on their mothers passport, or could circa 1960.

I still have my daughter's passport with the picture of a very angry newborn in 1979. She was born on Portuguese Airbase #4, Terceira, Azores. The USAF was very detail oriented to get everything properly documented. She also had a Certificate of Live Birth abroad from the US Consul at Angra do Heroísmo.

I don't know what the rule change might have been in just under twenty years.

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.