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.
Yes, factcheck.org is funded by Annenberg, but then the “FightTheSmears” web site that put out the low resolution photo is a part of the Obama campaign.
The certification may be a forgery, but if any serious attempt were to be made to do an analysis of it, that attempt would use the very high resolution photos on factcheck.org rather than the low resolution photos on fightthesmears.com.
That people are still referring to the low resolution photograph, as if that has any relevance at all after the release of the high resolution photographs, shows that they are simply not serious.
Virginia, Citizen blade is a troll that rushes to the defense of Obama every time this subject comes up. You can safely ignore its ignorance.
And those photos have been analayzed here in great detail already.
Conspiracy theories are not always on the left, are they?
The whole paper trail has to be traced. I believe this is a "true" registration, that came out of an Official Hawaii computer database. However, how did the information get into the computer? How is a baby born at home registered? We know somebody sent a birth announcement to a Hawaii newspaper. Who, the hospital? Maybe. If so, there should be Hospital records proving Obama was born at a particular time, with doctor's signature and height, weight, footprint, etc. THAT IS WHAT WE SEEK.
And pissant is a man who is willing to ignore any evidence that contradicts his preconceived notions.
I have no interest in protecting Obama, but I am a fan of facts and the truth, regardless of whether they help my political cause.
Amazing that Little League Baseball and Pop Warner Football have stricter requirements on proving players’ eligibility than the requirements proving eligibility to run for President of the United States.
Kookery is bi-partisan.
Supposedly there is no record of him being born at any hospital in Hawaii.
>> That’s what I don’t get and can’t get an answer to, why won’t they touch it?
Its not hard to explain. The only logical explanation is that the issue is a dead-end — and thus a waste of limited campaign and conservative-media resources that need to be devoted to ACTUAL problems with the Obama candidacy.
Sean Hannity gets stuck like a broken-record on ANY issue that could undermine Obama ... and even he doesn’t have the time for this nonsense.
H
If Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii, there should be records at the hospital, right? Those records would exonerate Obama. The record at check the facts is legal evidence, but it can be contested, because information to register a birth can be entered different ways, i.e. hospital or parents of the child (in the case of home birth).
Defendant Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born. Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya. Reports reflect that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy (which, apparently, was a normal restriction, to avoid births during a flight). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama’s birth. There are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.
Given the state of air travel between Kenya and Honolulu in 1961, we can be sure there were no direct flights.
According to Berg's chronology, Obama's mother must have left Kenya literally either the day after giving birth on August 4, or the next day, traveling with a just-born infant, in order to be in Hawaii in time to register the birth on August 8!
I disagree. All the democrats took a pass because they knew they would lose the black vote - plain and simple. McCain tried to stay above the fray and until very recently, wouldn't even challenge Obama directly. Since McCain knows the lawsuits have already been filed, it scores him no political points to even broach the subject.
That's the issue.
It’s like with Edwards, they all knew but no one dared speak of it until Edwards confessed himself.
This has been stated a million times already but what Obama has given us is his Certification of Live Birth, which anyone in Hawaii can get if their parents are from there. Even Obama's sister, who was born in Thailand has one of those.
We want to see the Certificate of Live Birth, or the long form and it is not a "conspiracy" or tin foil to request it. As others have correctly pointed out, if this were a GOP candidate the msm would be all over it like flies to honey.
Enough of the hypocrisy and double standard.
Who said that they registered the birth with baby in hand. Could granny and gramps have done so. I’m not even convinced he was registered properly. It could have been done after the fact.
Just speculation on my part. Where would a flight from Kenya to Hawaii make stops?
Then give us some facts and truth, because so far you are blowing nothing but foul smoke, sally.
Hemorrhage, you seem quite fond of defending 0bama’s position. What’s up with that? None of us should have any problem with requiring an applicant for the most powerful position in the world to affirmatively prove his eligibility. His secrecy is the foundation for our concern that he’s not qualified for the office. The onus is on him to prove he’s eligible to serve. This isn’t an “innocent until proven guilty” situation like in a criminal court.
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.