Skip to comments.Obama campaign claims suspect "birth certificate" as genuine item
Posted on 06/25/2008 9:10:21 PM PDT by Red Steel
In response to mounting media questions about the failure of the Barack Obama presidential campaign to produce the presumptive Democratic nominee's birth certificate, an official spokesman of the campaign has endorsed as genuine the image of a document purporting to be his "birth certificate." But some who have examined that image in high resolution claim inconsistencies and irregularities which suggest that the purported document is a forgery. Its high profile use by the campaign, they claim, suggests an attempt to conceal the truth of Obama's birth circumstances and citizenship qualifications from the American people.
The campaign has posted only a low-resolution image of that document, which it claims is his "birth certificate," on its "Fight the Smears" website, along with purported proof of why the claim that Obama may not qualify as a "natural born citizen" is false:
--- Lie: Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen
Truth: Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside...." ---
Contrary to the campaign's claims, the issue of when Hawaii became a state and the wording of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, are not at issue.
Rather it is Article Two, Section One of the Constitution which requires that the President be a "natural born citizen" and not simply a naturalized citizen. The issue is whether there is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, the legal status of his mother at the time, and what exactly is written on the original birth certificate -- if it in fact such a certificate exists.
Some bloggers have claimed that the purported official State of Hawaii document, originally published by the radical left Daily Kos blog, is a fake, and a poorly executed one at that.
Examination of the higher resolution of the image indicates irregularities which suggest to some that the purported "certificate" may be a forgery produced or modified by Photoshop or another image-editing software, and not a genuine item.
The evidence, presented in greatest detail by the blogger Polarik at TownHall, includes:
1. Use of a second generation reproduction of the seal of the State of Hawaii at the top 2. Blacking out of the Certificate number in an attempt to prevent it from being traced 3. Absence of any official signature or seal which typically appear on such documents 4. Crudely arranged borders inconsistent with a professionally produced official document 5. Crude overlay of the textual items on top of the patterned background, indicating that the background was produced first and then the textual images laid on top of it by a graphical program rather than being scanned from the original. 6. Failure to use the double-S symbol before the listing the relevant statute (HRS 338-13b) as appears in official uses of the State of Hawaii. 7. The appearance of the backward facing text "Jun 6, 2007" that appears to come from a stamp in the lower right hand portion of the document. 8. The description of his father's race as African, when the term Negro was reportedly used at the time of birth. 9. The use of an identical typeface for all text items on the page.
Even if one or two of the above irregularities may have an explanation, they claim, the aggregate points to an amateurish attempt to manufacture an official-looking document that may not exist in the official records of the state of Hawaii.
On its face, this document does not even presume to be a copy of the original birth certificate -- contrary to the claims of the Obama campaign -- but rather a secondary Certification of Live Birth, which may be used when the original birth certificate can't be located, and can be produced after the fact with just the affadavits of a family member, or even the child himself.
The Obama campaign, however, has not even produced a paper version of this document, and indeed it does not even publish the high resolution version that appeared on the Daily Kos. It has not fulfilled the media's persistent requests to produce the original Birth Certificate, or to respond to media questions about the birth certificate controversy.
What could be the Obama campaign's motive for withholding the original birth certificate and passing off instead a crudely forged facsimile of a "Certification of Live Birth"?
Speculation in the blogosphere and mainstream media is rampant that the concealment is for one or more of the following reasons:
1. There is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. 2. The father listed on the birth certificate is not Barack Hussein Obama. 3. The father's race is listed as something other than African, perhaps Muslim or Arab. 4. The mother was no longer at that time an American citizen. 5. The child's name is not listed as Barack Hussein Obama II.
Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot blog of the National Review and one of the original writers on the controversy, cited the "rumor" that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.
Geraghty stated that "If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen -- because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for '10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.'"
He then points out that Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was 18 when Obama was born "so she wouldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16."
According to FindLaw.com, cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama's birth, state, "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."
Geraghty said the Obama campaign could "debunk" the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that.
The seriousness of this latest controversy cannot be underestimated. Unlike the scandals related to Obama's various associations with unsavory characters, or claims about his Muslim upbringing, the issue here relates to his citizenship and legal qualification to run for President of the United States.
One would have thought that the most basic documentary proof of the location and date of his birth should be a basic and non-controversial requirement for any presidential candidate, and part of the public record, much more so than one's tax return or annual checkup. It is almost incomprehensible that they would withhold this information -- unless there is something to hide.
Ironically, a similar controversy surrounded Obama's likely opponent in the Presidential race, John McCain. McCain was born to two American parents, one of whom was serving in a US military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone.
This Washington Post column on "Citizen McCain's Panama Problem?" examines the issue:
"McCain was indeed born in the Canal Zone, and Article II of the Constitution plainly states that 'no person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President.'
"Some might define the term 'natural-born citizen' as one who was born on United States soil. But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, 'The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.' That would seem to include McCain, whose parents were both citizens and whose father was a Navy officer stationed at the U.S. naval base in Panama at the time of John's birth in 1936."
But the issue is not legally closed, and therefore this year, as reported in the legal column of the Wall Street Journal a non-binding resolution was introduced and passed affirming that McCain qualifies as a "natural born Citizen," as specified in the Constitution and is therefore eligible for the highest office in the land. Ironically, the resolution was co-sponsored by Barack Obama.
About McCain, of course, there is no question about the facts surrounding his birth, but over their legal significance. He is not denying that he was born in Panama, or posting certificates that claim he was born in Florida. Obama's campaign, on the other hand, seems intent on evading the need to produce and submit to public scrutiny the official document that could prove that his qualification to run for President according to the Constitution.
The cloud of controversy, of course, could be dispelled with ease, of course, if Obama would release the real documentation of his birth, or even the original printed version of the online document the campaign claims as genuine. And yet the campaign is sticking by its guns, despite the evidence from the blogosphere pointing to the forgery and inadequacy of the proffered image of the non-birth certificate. Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, told the LA Times: "I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama's birth certificate."
Validation for the authenticity of the image is provided by a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, who reportedly emailed the image and got a confirmation from an official in the Hawaiian Department of Health. "It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo is quoted as telling the reporter.
Israel Insider is checking into this report and will report back on its findings.
"I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama's birth certificate." Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, to the Los Angeles Times.
Seal of the state of Hawaii appears in a low-resolution,
second-generation black and white
image inconsistent with the rest of the document
Upper-left corner of frame shows uneven "paste" of
vertical rectangle, unaligned with horizontal border
June 6, 2007 appears at the bottom of the image, just
right of center, as a backward facing stamp. Where
does this come from, and what does it mean? And where
is the official seal and signatures that one
would expect on an official document of this kind?
So will someone go to court to make BO prove he is legal?
This is getting more and more fun to watch.
The key issue is in this sentence: it is Article Two, Section One of the Constitution which requires that the President be a “natural born citizen” and not simply a naturalized citizen.
Seems like such a no brainer to just go ahead and deliver the real certificate to the press and get all this controversy over with. Maybe bambi is just playing all this up so he can get everyone in an uproar then casually show the real thing and make everyone look like a fool. Its a stupid game to play though if that is what he is doing, even some of his Zombie supporters in the press may start to wake up.
If he is not playing a game then this could get real interesting.
I’m starting to get the feeling that Obama is really a Nigerian 419 scammer!
See the comparisons at http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm
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.
Will he pull a John Kerry on us?
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.
Yes, thanks for linking the two articles. :-)
Funny that they didn’t seem to consider that it’s a “Birth Certification,” not a “Birth Certificate”...thus, the datestamp on the back could very well be an official dating of when this document was issued (as a certification from the records, not the original birth certificate). The print could be off because of misalignment of printer paper, etc.
I’m concerned that this is going to play into the hands of Obama.
It seems like someone in the Spineless Republican Party would demand proof? As usual, McCain and his supporters are too afraid of confronting Obamarama and his political machine.
"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.""
Ben LeDolt, Obama’s mouthpiece, cannot confirm that the document is Obama’s birth certificate. Only the state of Hawaii can do that.
Remember, Dan Rather confirmed that the Bush document was real, too.
Some journalists confirmed that John Kerry released his SF180 service record but we haven’t seen them. John lies with the best, and so do his mouthpieces Wade and Hurley.
What you get from a hospital or govt records as a “birth certificate” is actually a stamped/seal copy, and not the original which is kept by the government.
Anyone can forge a birth certificate. Just ask the illegals who have them by the score.
Let’s see what develops before passing a final judgment, but remember, the Democrats are great at accepting forgeries as real (Hitler’s Diaries, anyone?)
CBS’s “Operation Tailwind” anyone? Mark Lane’s book “Conversations with Americans”? Jayson Blair; Janet ? , Wash. Post; yada yada.
Ya think? :-)
Rope-a-dope is not only a possibility...it's a pretty likely scenario, based on other things they've done. I bet they have had this sitting for a while now...does anyone think they wouldn't have been all over this a while ago, prepared for the inevitable questions?
But once again, he can look like a victim of smearing, gaining sympathy and further building the shield that prevents any criticism from even being voiced.
“Seems like such a no brainer to just go ahead and deliver the real certificate to the press and get all this controversy over with. Maybe bambi is just playing all this up so he can get everyone in an uproar then casually show the real thing and make everyone look like a fool. Its a stupid game to play though if that is what he is doing, even some of his Zombie supporters in the press may start to wake up.
If he is not playing a game then this could get real interesting. “
We probably have as much chance of seeing a real copy of his birth certificate as seeing John Kerry’s full military record. Kerry refused to release his military records, and
Hussein ObamaMessiaHamas, the Islamofacist Manchurian Candidate will probably not show his BC. We will be labeled as racists for daring to question his birth.
**and registrar signature on the back of the document.””**
So then, we need to see BOTH sides of the REAL birth certificate!
Now here is a "spokesman" who is totally incompetent. He is clearly talking out of his ASS.
It is NOT his Birth Certificate, never was, isn't claimed to be.
What they are attempting to pass off as genuine is a "Certification of Live Birth".
That is NOT the Birth Certificate. It is a re-issue of your birth record printed from state records on the form in current use by the State at the time the request for the certification was made.
IT IS NOT VALID WITHOUT BEING EMBOSSED WITH THE STATE SEAL AND THEN NOTARIZED.
NEITHER the embossed seal, nor the subsequent notarization are evident on Obama's copy so it CANNOT be genuine.
Which would account for the redacted number.
Isn't this almost certainly a lie? Could any of us email an image of a document and get any kind of confirmation from the authorities in Hawaii based on such an image?