Posted on 06/25/2008 7:58:32 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
It is now a certainty that the "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign as authentic is 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.
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
http://www.valeehill.net/genealogy/documents/doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg
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.
The longer Obama waits, the graver grow the consequences of waiting.
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.
This is not a fake document.
Obama filed with the FEC to run for president months ago. The FEC, which explicitly employes lawyers from both major parties (and maybe smaller ones, I’m not sure) then verified that he met all the requirements for office.
Here’s where you can find out all about the requirements.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/candregis.shtml
If anyone thinks that there is a question of validity, they should complain to the FEC and they will be happy to follow up.
The only evidence that I’ve seen is that Hawaii changed the style of paper that they use to print birth certificates. Since every birth certificate that I’ve ever gotten has been different (and I’ve had to get a few copys for both myself and my son over the years), this surprises me not at all.
Isn't that precisely what we want done?
After the November election (assuming Obama wins), some person or group would have to file a motion or law suit on the grounds that Obama is not eligiable. He would then have to prove that he meets the Constitutional requirements for office. If he cannot do that, then he is ineligiable. The Electoral College would then pick somebody else. Since a majority of them would be Democrats, then Obama’s running mate or some other significant Democrat could get the nod. Presumably, the Democrats would get their act together and determine one person to put up before the College in order to avoid having the election go to the House (where each state delegation casts one vote).
Welcome to Free Republic.
This is a reply that I posted to Pissant’s latest thread on this blatant forgery by the Obamination thugs.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2036197/posts?page=33#33
To: pissant
As I have posted before, there are 3 things that say “Beware of Lying Skunk” with his so called birth certificate:
1. The lack of the embossed seal on the certificate as noted in this statement: “According to Koret, Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health made clear that no birth certification, or certification of live birth is transmitted electronically, and that all certificates of live birth contain an embossed seal and registrar’s signature on the back of the document.”
2. The blacked out number, is nothing but bs.
3. Was the word African used to describe his father’s race in 1961? If so his father might have been a white South African or whatever.
His handlers and MSM abettors knew about this serious problem, and that is why the Compost and others tried to raise doubts about McCain being an American a month or so earlier.
Sorry, read FEC Form 2, san`t find it.
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm2.pdf
Could you post the specific form?
*can`t
If Barack Hussein Obama was born to Ann Dunham in Hawaii in 1961, there is no question that he is a natural-born American citizen since Ann Dunham was an American citizen and Hawaii has been an American possession since 1898. If Obama was born outside of the United States or any of its outlying possessions, the following statute (which became law on October 25, 1994) applies to him and indicates that he is a natural-born American citizen from the point of view of U.S. law:
a. As amended by Public Law 103-416 on October 25, 1994, section 301 states as follows with respect to persons born abroad:b. Sec. 301. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
...
g. a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
Note that this condition applies retroactively to Obama, as the following condition shows:
l. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION:(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act) as though the amendment made by subsection (a), and subsection (b), had been in effect as of the date of their birth, except that the retroactive application of the amendment and that subsection shall not affect the validity of citizenship of anyone who has btained citizenship under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes (as in effect before the enactment of the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797)).(2) The retroactive application of the amendment made by subsection (a), and subsection (b), shall not confer citizenship on, or affect the validity of any denaturalization, deportation or exclusion action against, any person who is or was excludable from the United States under section 212(a)(3)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182 (a)(3)(E)) (or predecessor provision) or who was excluded from, or who would not have been eligible for admission to, the United States under the Displaced Persons 1948 or under section 14 of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953.
This information comes from pp. 15-17 of the following U.S. State Department document:
7 FAM 1130
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY
BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENTwhich is available in PDF format here:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdfIn order to show that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, somebody is going to have to show that one of the following conditions is true:
(1) Obama is not the son of Ann Dunham;(2) Obama is the son of Ann Dunham, but Ann Dunham was not an American citizen at the time of Obama's birth;
(3) Obama is the son of Ann Dunham and Ann Dunham was an American citizen at the time of Obama's birth, but Ann Dunham did not satisfy the residency requirement of condition (g) necessary for conferring natural-born citizenship on her offspring (that is, five years physical residence in the United States or any of its outlying possessions, at least two years of which were after attaining the age of fourteen).
According to the information I've seen, none of these conditions is true. Hence I conclude that, as things now stand, U.S. law recognizes Barack Obama as a natural-born U.S. citizen, and so he is eligible to run for the Presidency.
Now this is all separate and apart from the issue whether the document posted on Obama's website is genuine or not. I don't know anything about that. I've addressed only the question of Obama's natural-born citizen status.
John, you've run for office. Can you tell us what documents you were required to submit to prove you were:
INTREP
As I read this, it applies to citizens who have served in the military, or govt. Where do you see that this applies to a 18 student living in Hawaii who gives birth to a boy in Kenya?
“Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; “
Doesn’t this clearly show that “provided” the citizen is in the military, govt or other recognized international employment.
As I read this, it applies to citizens who have served in the military, or govt. Where do you see that this applies to a 18 student living in Hawaii who gives birth to a boy in Kenya?
nikos, we've been over that!! (laugh) That proviso about the military or government service is to insure that if some citizen is serving outside of U.S. soil or the soil of its outlying possessions, that service will not be taken to invalidate the natural-born status of his/her offspring because of the residency requirement. It's an 'out' for military and government personnel, to insure that their kids born overseas aren't denied natural-born status. It does NOT say that if a citizen is NOT serving in a military or government capacity, then that citizen can't give birth overseas to a natural-born citizen; all those folks have to do is meet the residencey requirement as stated in the condition.
It's legal jargon and somewhat confusing, I'll grant, but that's the meaning.
For “residencey requirement” please read “residency requirement” in the penultimate line of my post #94.
I’ll take your word for it...but you must admit there are some people thinking differently.
My point, and you know this, is that the man has been deceptive and out right lying about his birth and pedigree. He wrote the account in his bio. The fact may be that he was NOT born here.
I think the American public needs to know this, and decide if they still want to vote for him.
Also, there appears to be a closer bond between him and his African roots than he has previously admitted too.
Clearly, he’s moving to the center to get elected. Even Quaddafi, Libya, said yesterday that Obama is a Muslim and is probably lying about it to get elected, as if lying in that regard is okay for those people.
“John, you’ve run for office. Can you tell us what documents you were required to submit to prove you were:”
No. This is where John refers you to his lawyer. Rest assured, though, that John has a lawyer, and the John made sure that he was eligible to run before he spent several hundred million dollars and months of effort trying to win office.
Look at it this way. John McCain is about to spend >$100M to prevent Obama from becoming president. It would cost a few thousand to get a judge to verify the birth certificate. Don’t you think that, if there was anything to this story, the McCain camp would be all over it? For that matter, don’t you think that Clinton would have been all over it?
If the certificate is fake, then the obama camp has committed felony fraud, which would destroy any chance of him winning the race, and demonstrating that fraud is less expensive the running national ads in college newspapers. If it was a fraud, we would know, and not because some random blogger decides that JPEG compression artifacts are evidence of tampering.
All this demonstrates is that people here are willing to believe anything
BINGO. Excellent point. Section 301 states ".....Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by....." PROVIDED is the key word here.
Of course this is besides the point that the birth certificate Obama has put out is definitely a forgery. It does not have an embossed seal. EVERY valid birth certificate MUST have an embossed seal on it from every state. I know this....I deal with birth certificates in my genealogical research. If a certificate does not have a raised and embossed seal on it, its invalid, end of story. When you try to get a passport you will be specifically asked to provide a birth certificate with a raised seal on it. When you apply for a visa, again, it HAS to have a raised and embossed seal. I know this also...my daughter works overseas for the U.S. State Department. If your birth certificate does not have an embossed and raised seal on it (which I've seen some posters state) then you do not have a VALID or CERTIFIED copy and you need to go to or write to your County health department and get one that does have this raised seal.
So the question is.......WHY is Obama putting out an INVALID birth certificate as a valid one???? WHAT is he hiding????? Anything else regarding rules, sections, laws, etc., is besides the point. Why the fake? Why the forgery??? What does he gain by doing this????
This is huge.
I’ll take your word for it...but you must admit there are some people thinking differently.
Yep.
My point, and you know this, is that the man has been deceptive and out right lying about his birth and pedigree. He wrote the account in his bio. The fact may be that he was NOT born here.
That's a different issue altogether, of course. If he's actively lying about the circumstances of his birth, I would agree that that's something that should be made known to all voters.
Also, there appears to be a closer bond between him and his African roots than he has previously admitted too.Clearly, he’s moving to the center to get elected. Even Quaddafi, Libya, said yesterday that Obama is a Muslim and is probably lying about it to get elected, as if lying in that regard is okay for those people.
His cousin is definitely a radical muslim, and that's not something to be casual about. Of course, that doesn't imply that Obama is one, but it's worrying all the same.
There's no IF. It does NOT have a raised and embossed seal. A true certificate issued by the State of Hawaii would have this......read the article again. Even IF all the information is accurate the lack of that raised seal makes it an invalid copy and will NOT be accepted if you try to get a passport or visa.
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.