Posted on 10/21/2008 9:14:12 AM PDT by pissant
One of the most intense allegations of the ongoing lawsuit against Sen. Barack Obama alleging ineligibility for the presidency is whether or not Mr. Obama can produce his birth certificate.
If Mr. Obama were to produce his birth certificate, it would lay the entire question to rest. It would prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the U.S. government officially recognizes Mr. Obama's citizenship. The Obama campaign says that it has already produced this document, a scanned copy of which is available at the campaign's "Fight the Smears" Web site.
One point critics of Mr. Obama have made is the fact that the document posted is not, in fact, a birth certificate. It is a birth certification, which is a computer-generated printout of a birth record. A certification is a cheap print-off for people who have lost their original birth certificates. For most people, there is little practical difference between a certificate of live birth and a certification of live birth, although the certification requires extra verification when being used like a birth certificate.
Because of the tenuous nature of identifying a certification of birth as genuine, it requires an embossed seal and authoritative signature. The low-resolution scan available on the Obama campaign Web site appears to have neither of those. The ink from a date stamp, "June 6, 2007," is visible clearly, but it appears that the document does not have a seal or signature. The campaign only scanned the front of the document.
Without the seal and signature, the document on the Obama Web site lacks legal weight, and does not count as representing the official birth record of Mr. Obama.
Philip Berg, a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania, has filed suit against Mr. Obama, alleging that he is not legally qualified to serve as president. He has indicated that if Mr. Obama were to produce certified documents proving that he is a natural born citizen, he will withdraw his case.
Mr. Berg maintains that Mr. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen, but others wonder if there are more reasons why Mr. Obama and the Democratic National
Committee have not laid the question to rest by releasing the documents. Some think that there may be embarrassing information about Mr. Obama that could be inferred from the papers.
The original birth certificate would normally have an entry for religion, and many suppose he would have been listed as Muslim, an image Mr. Obama has worked hard to distance himself from. Others think it might have shown that his parents were not legally married, even though Mr. Obama contends that his parents were married in good faith before separating upon discovering his father had never divorced his last wife.
The Obama campaign says that the idea that Mr. Obama is not natural born is preposterous and cites the certification of birth as an example. But until a physical and verifiable document is produced for their critics, the lawsuit is expected to continue.
The “evidence” so far is a legitimate Hawaii birth certificate that some people will do anything to believe is a fake, and an unsubstantiated claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born there.
It is NOT “unsubstantiated”. The claim is from three sources citing some 100 artifacts at variance with official Hawaiian documents. Instead, CB, the problem is that either an official document was tampered with to an astonishing degree, or an astonishing forgery was created.
bump
Just a question but has anyone dug deep enough to find out if Obama’s sister also has one of those birth announcements? She too has a COLB despite being born in Thailand.
In 1961 ‘Race’ would have been ‘black’.
Just like the mothers ‘race’ is ‘caucasian’.
But if he is born to a mother who is an American citizen doesn’t that mean he is an American too?
It also does not show any previous names, or name changes. We know that he was adopted by his stepfather, and went by his name, that adoption and name change back to Obama, would be reflected on the original birth certificate. The CLB only reflects the latest data in the database.
It's not a birth certificate, but rather a certification of live birth. It only reflects the latest data in the database, not necessarily everything on the orginal birth certificate. That original birth certificate would show his adoption, change of name, and subsequent change (back?) to Barak H. Obama.
So does someone, anyone, among the legions of FReepers, know anyone at Occidental, Columbia or Harvard who can sneak a peek at those records??
Seriously. I don’t care about ethics at this point. This, in my opinion, is a matter of national security.
Not if both parents weren’t citizens and the mother didn’t reside in the U.S. for 5 years after her 14th birthday.
Has anyone explained how the factcheck documents (or photos of documents) were generated?
A “Certification of Live Birth”, in no way, whatsoever, FACTUALLY confirms the actual place of birth.
FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, OBAMA COULD HAVE SIMPLY REQUESTED THE LONG FORM, WHICH IS A CERTIFIED, EXACT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL.....THAT WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THE HOSPITAL, DOCTOR, AND OTHER KEY DETAILS OF HIS BIRTH EVENT......BUT HE DID NOT DO THAT....DID HE??? JOHN MCCAIN DID.
Seattle.
And a high school friend of Stanley Ann’s is on record (on video, actually) recalling a visit with Ms. Dunham and newborn Barry in Seattle, possibly passing thru on the way home to HI.
...............it rigs up a constitutional crisis if he refuses to resign ..............................
Not to mention his raising $300 million in donations under false pretenses.
That could be the time to spend some long term quality time in the cell with Bubba!
...and the hospital, doctor, and other key items that are not shown on a “Certification of Live Birth”
Say what?
Where did his mother live?
Evidence is required - positive evidence of disqualification, not implication thereof. As the State of Hawaii has officially stated that BHO was born therein, the case is closed absent concrete proof to the contrary. Not finding records (ex.: the “certificate” vs. “certification” semantic controversy) is not enough, as legitimate US births are not always recorded, documentation does not always survive, and documented non-hospital births are valid. What we need is government-certified proof (whatever the government) that BHO was born at location X, with X being clearly outside the USA.
Unfortunately, money and influence can locate and destroy such fragile evidence. Consider that Kenya is about to name an AIRPORT after him: surely contravining evidence can be ... eliminated.
Yes, circumstantial evidence abounds. It’s not proof, and the photos above will stand as proof until superceded by something stronger.
Consider:
A judge asks BHO for proof of eligibility. BHO hands over the above-photographed certified document (obviously it exists, and it looks a lot like mine). As that is official, on what grounds can a judge deny that as proof, and demand “the original”? Should BHO say “I can’t find the original, the hospital doesn’t have it”, and considering that not all legitimate natural-born Americans have such proof, on what grounds can the judge disqualify him? BHO’s only point of hesitation is that he knows otherwise, and knows contrary proof exists, and he fears being found out.
Then those 100 artifacts must be displayed.
Luo tribesmen generally give their race as "Arab" and deny they are Negro. How would the evidence that Obama's father was listed on Jr.'s birth certificate as "Arab" affect the electoral race? Would a close-up high def look at "AFRICAN" on the COLB show evidence of alteration from "ARAB"?
You must be a Natural Born Citizen. It's a basic Constitutional requirement.
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.