Posted on 08/21/2008 4:45:25 PM PDT by Kevmo
Born in the U.S.A.
August 21, 2008
The truth about Obama's birth certificate.
Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
Analysis Since we first wrote about Obama's birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News.
Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life?
Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site?
Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.
Doocy: Well, couldn't it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?
Corsi: No, it's a -- there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce.
Corsi isn't the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:
The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal. It isn't signed. No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters. The certificate number is blacked out. The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008. The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."
Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.
The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller
Alvin T. Onaka's signature stamp
The raised seal
Blowup of text
You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.
The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.
The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.
The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.
We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641.
Blowup of certificate number Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama's information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn't have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible.
We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen."
We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."
In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:
Obama's birth announcement
The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.
Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.
–by Jess Henig, with Joe Miller Sources United States Department of State. "Application for a U.S. Passport." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.
State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.
Hollyfield, Amy. "Obama's Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008.
Exactly what I was thinking. I wrote while he was in Hawaii that it would cost him some payola. But the fix appears to be in, probably not much we can do about it.
Of course, if Polarik got a look at the original evidence and could compare it to the scanned in version, I’m willing to bet the two documents wouldn’t be a match. That’s why we don’t see a scanned in version of the document the factcheck guys are holding.
Well, I don’t know what to do from here. It is something beyond our capabilities unless that lawsuit bears some fruit. The fact remains that what is up on the fightthesmears website is a most likely a forgery.
Oh no...BHO made a mistake in one of his debates about how much he was receving from small money donors, and he blurted out a total lie. He was called on it, and factcheck agreed that he’d lied, and sugar-coated to what poor widdle Barry “really” meant. It’s on their site, their “analysis”.
But back on topic, I want to see these questions answered:
2. What other media did the campaign offer to show the COLB to, and have any others seen it and touched it, handled and photographed it? Or only Annenberg-owned Factcheck?
3. Why did the campaign go to such trouble to digitally black out the certificate number when it could have stuck a piece of solid black tape over the number, especially since, as Factcheck reported, they were in such a hurry?
4. Why did Janice Okubo tell a reporter that the COLB was ordered “this month” (June 2008 ) if it was ordered in June 2007?
5. Since Factcheck is seemingly in the business of helping the Obama campaign fight smears, did Factcheck ask the campaign about the rumor that Republicans are holding Barry Soetoro’s birth certificate? If so, what was the campaign’s response? If not, why not?
And finally…
6. How did Factcheck end up getting this access? Did they ask the campaign, or did the campaign offer to show it to Factcheck? The article is mysteriously vague on that point: “FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate.”
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/factcheckorg-has-new-birth-certificate-story/
The birth announcement convinces me that BHO was born in Hawaii, but factcheck didn’t with the swarmy reply:
“Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.”
And there is a sharp fold in the document that didn't show up in the scan. But, it does have the weird mis-alignment of the borders in the four corners.
I also think it's really convenient that this has suddenly appeared after Obama's Hawaiian vacation. I wouldn't put it past someone in the state's office to create a customized certificate that matches the previous versions. However, that would be exceedingly difficult to prove, unless someone in an official position were to go on the record. I don't think that will happen.
Obama could have chosen a better "neutral" observer, though. FactCheck's linkage to him through the Annenberg foundation just invites criticism. And, one has to wonder why did they didn't use a high-resolution flat-plate scanner, rather than taking a photo of it lying on a desk.
Possibly, under Indonesian law. Even if true, it would have no effect under US law.
I am in the middle of Fay- lost power several times today- so I’m out of the loop.
Time will tell..
We all knew a B.C. would show after his trip.
I wonder if his recent visit to Hawaii has anything to do with it.
Go to FactCheck.Org and look over their present and past staff members, it reads like a compendium of ‘Liberals & Rinos Ltd’.
Some have worked for Lincoln Chaffee, Chuck Hagel, Wesley Clark, one was an assistant to Bill Moyers (”Mr. Objectivity”, lol), one has written a book about Gitmo ‘Inside the Wire’, and the founder (Brooks Jackson) is a CNN alumnus.
So much for objectivity. This ‘announcement’ could have come direct from the Obama Campaign itself.
I'm not a lawyer. But the theory goes that after receiving Indonesian citizenship from adoption by Lolo Soetoro, BHO could return the the U.S. andf become a naturalized citizen, but can never again regain status as a natural-born citizen.
Which would mean he could never run for President under any circumstances.
Linda Starr // August 21, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Ok the suit is predicated on his loss of citizenship when his mother took him to live in Indonesia after marrying a foreign national and living in that country with her son for over four years according to the laws on the books at the time.
Even the remedy passed later by INS laws state he had to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 to become a “naturalized citizen”, not a natural citizen again. He’s had divided loyalties and can not be a natural born citizen again. This is the federal statutes. He didn’t even do that to regain his citizenship. As soon as we get the court stamped copy we will make it available to everyone. Please help us get the word out. This is not out of some obscure website.
The laws Phil cites are federal regulations handling loss of citizenshp by a minor child who follows his custodial parent’s citizenship. Thank you for any help you can give us to spread it. The media may not pick it up and report it.
I don’t subscribe to either side of this, but I can’t find any of the small stain looking things on the KOS colb, in the new picture.
Could just be the lighting though...
Putting it out deflects attention from the adoption ceremony in which his new father had to renounce young Barry’s US citizenship as a precondition. Or so the story goes...Parents cannot renounce their minor child's citizenship. See this note from the State Department.
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.
Why quote an anonymous "blogger?" It's like quoting me. I had no involvement, I just comment. There are plenty of sites identified with the investigation. Why not take them on?
.. and then there's that smart-assed comment at the end.
A visit to PolitiFact.com was very instructive. Maybe they are right about the birth certificate but..
A paid political advertisement for Obama
I take it back. There is one to the left of Honolulu that looks like it may be on both.
I want to see photos of an official piece of paper that can be carbon-dated to 1961.
About what I expected.
What I didn’t expect was that it would be released to an OSTENsibly bipartisan group. Now that I see the connection between camp Obama & Annenberg, that unfiltered bias is out the window.
What this means is that the media will give Obama all the leeway he needs. Polarik will never see the “original” document. The suit will be pushed out of court using all kinds of dirty techniques.
But what it also means is that we genuinely threw a scare into camp Obama. And if they really do have nothing to hide, they’ll hand over the copy that was given to their buddies. I don’t think that will ever happen. It means that we were onto something and it took a long time for the fix to get put in. It’s an incomplete fix but it’ll do for the average snoring voter and driveby media reporter.
What can we do? Well, if I were Polarik, I’d be writing a book. And testifying in that court case. But I’m not Polarik and that’s likely to be as far as I can take things.
Their emotionally laden and slandering adjectives in that non-biased article tell a different story.
***It really does. And then they say that anyone who doesn’t believe them is wearing tinfoil hats, as if we all had access to what they have right now. A little bit disingenuous, to say the least.
Gawd these people are farsighted and clever!!!!!!
< /idiocy alert >
You still don’t have a clue what the real argument is. That’s OK, cause there are few things more entertaining than the Obama brigade here on FR.
Adoption in Indonesia if it even happeded and/or the granting of Indonesian citizenship if it ever happened has no effect on his status us a US citizen.
Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator’s use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of “multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries” remains on the table.
Gee, wonder why these "three independent document forensic experts" have never examined the actual certificate or allowed their names to be used????
In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, “apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight.” As Sen. Obama’s own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham—Obama’s mother—gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.
A pro-Hillary pipedream with not one shred of substantiation
Berg cites inconsistent accounts of Sen. Obama’s birth, including reports that he was born at two separate hospitals—Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital—in Honolulu, as well a profound lack of birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham, though simple “registry of birth” records for Barack Obama are available in a Hawaiian public records office.
Mr. Berg is basing his case on conflicting rumors??????
Should Sen. Obama truly have been born in Kenya, Berg writes, the laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama’s mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him, Obama could not be registered as a “natural born” citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
Sorry, settled law says otherwise
Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed “natural born,” that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. Berg also states that he possesses copies of Sen. Obama’s registration to Fransiskus Assisi School In Jakarta, Indonesia which clearly show that he was registered under the name “Barry Soetoro” and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.
So Obama can;t be president because some dead guy wrote somebody's name on a school registration and listed him as an Indonesian????
The Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg says, is a forgery. In the suit, the attorney states that the birth certificate on record is a forgery, has been identified as such by three independent document forensic experts, and actually belonged to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, Sen. Obama’s half-sister.
Name the "experts.
“Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Sen. Obama’s lies and obfuscations,” Berg stated. “If the DNC officers ... had performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship as prescribed by constitutional laws.”
“It is unfair to the country,” he continued, “for candidates of either party to become the nominee when there is any question of the ability to serve if elected.”
Lawyer's closing argument BS. DOA.
I absolutely DO want Osamabama nominated by the Dems in Denver, because he is surely the easiest Dem candidate to beat in the General Election.
Actually, I wanted the Dems to nominate Al Sharpton or Chester the Molester but neither ran.
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.