PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Obama Birth Certificate Fake?


bsp4444
07-25-2008, 03:31 PM
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12993.htm

The above link basically states that Obama's Certificate of Live Birth is a horrible forgery. Can anyone quickly refute this so I can keep the Conservatives off my back, here at work?

HolmeZz
07-25-2008, 03:36 PM
It's a short-form birth certificate. It's real.

Ask your Conservative buddies when McCain is going to reveal his.

Ultra Peanut
07-25-2008, 03:40 PM
Views: Mr. Obama, Meet Mr. Jihadi

HolmeZz
07-25-2008, 03:42 PM
Views: Mr. Obama, Meet Mr. Jihadi

Yup, nice blog.

MVChiefFan
07-25-2008, 03:42 PM
It's a short-form birth certificate. It's real.

Ask your Conservative buddies when McCain is going to reveal his.

It's etched out with an arrowhead on a strip of leather.

markk
07-25-2008, 03:51 PM
It's obviously a modern reprint. Anyone can get a reprint of their birth certificate. I just went and got two of them a while back.

Will we ever get over this lame who's-lil-barack's-daddy and the equally lame mccain-isnt-a-citizen stuff?

bsp4444
07-25-2008, 04:16 PM
It's a short-form birth certificate. It's real.

Ask your Conservative buddies when McCain is going to reveal his.

McCain's parents are both natural born citizens, aren't they? So the water is not quite as muddy as it is with Obama.

bishop_74
07-25-2008, 04:48 PM
You really are an ignorant buffoon if you think Obama is anything but an American Christian. I am a conservative and I know that.

Pitt Gorilla
07-25-2008, 04:51 PM
McCain's parents are both natural born citizens, aren't they? So the water is not quite as muddy as it is with Obama.How exactly is the "water muddy?"

banyon
07-25-2008, 05:10 PM
McCain's parents are both natural born citizens, aren't they? So the water is not quite as muddy as it is with Obama.

He was born in the Canal Zone.

------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out

WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Candidate Topic PagesMore Politics NewsMr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.

“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”

The phrase “natural born” was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to “declare expressly” that only a natural-born citizen could be president.

Ms. Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of Mr. McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

Ms. Duggin favors a constitutional amendment to settle the matter. Others have called on Congress to guarantee that Americans born outside the national boundaries can legitimately see themselves as potential contenders for the Oval Office.

“They ought to have the same rights,” said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. “There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what ‘natural-born citizen’ means.”

Mr. McCain’s situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer M. Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare Mr. McCain goes more to the interpretation of “natural born” when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.

Mr. McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.

It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.

Quickly recognizing confusion over the evolving nature of citizenship, the First Congress in 1790 passed a measure that did define children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born.” But that law is still seen as potentially unconstitutional and was overtaken by subsequent legislation that omitted the “natural-born” phrase.

Mr. McCain’s citizenship was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods. But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications — a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.

“I don’t think he has any problem whatsoever,” said Mr. Nickles, a McCain supporter. “But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win.”

Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.

In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”

“If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”

Bowser
07-25-2008, 05:26 PM
Did Obama pitch in a little league world series once?

Ultra Peanut
07-25-2008, 05:46 PM
Did Obama pitch in a little league world series once?Yes. He now plays for the Western Oklahoma St. Pioneers.

Thig Lyfe
07-25-2008, 05:51 PM
:rolleyes:

Bowser
07-25-2008, 05:52 PM
Yes. He now plays for the Western Oklahoma St. Pioneers.

Nice! He was nails against those twelve year olds!

markk
07-25-2008, 06:11 PM
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.

“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”

The phrase “natural born” was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to “declare expressly” that only a natural-born citizen could be president.

Ms. Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of Mr. McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.


since it's not absolutely defined in precedent whether being born in a military installation outside the United States qualifies you to be president, it's interesting.

but the arguments are pretty compelling here, his parents were citizens which makes him a citizen and seems to countermand the intent of the founders, which was to prevent foreigners (per the letter from Jay to Washington) from becoming president. clearly McCain is an American and not a foreigner.

it would not seem that the intent was to keep out someone who was a citizen born to american parents, in my opinion. especially not those posted someplace else on orders from the US Government. the intent seems to be closer to "must be a lifelong citizen, not a foreign national who has been naturalized"

let's put it to the common sense test, in those days transportation wasn't so easy. What if Mr. Jefferson had returned from Europe running late with a pregnant wife, and she gave birth on the ship? Should his son have been disqualified from being president because Jefferson couldn't manage to miracle his wife back within our borders in time?

do you believe you could have put this question to the room full of delegates to the constitutional convention, and they would have voted in favor of disallowing this person from being president?

memyselfI
07-25-2008, 06:49 PM
Remind them the Messiah doesn't need a birth certificate.

Ultra Peanut
07-25-2008, 06:59 PM
since it's not absolutely defined in precedent whether being born in a military installation outside the United States qualifies you to be president, it's interesting.

but the arguments are pretty compelling here, his parents were citizens which makes him a citizen and seems to countermand the intent of the founders, which was to prevent foreigners (per the letter from Jay to Washington) from becoming president. clearly McCain is an American and not a foreigner.

it would not seem that the intent was to keep out someone who was a citizen born to american parents, in my opinion. especially not those posted someplace else on orders from the US Government. the intent seems to be closer to "must be a lifelong citizen, not a foreign national who has been naturalized"

let's put it to the common sense test, in those days transportation wasn't so easy. What if Mr. Jefferson had returned from Europe running late with a pregnant wife, and she gave birth on the ship? Should his son have been disqualified from being president because Jefferson couldn't manage to miracle his wife back within our borders in time?

do you believe you could have put this question to the room full of delegates to the constitutional convention, and they would have voted in favor of disallowing this person from being president?McCain muslim McCain muslim McCain muslim

alanm
07-25-2008, 09:19 PM
Remind them the Messiah doesn't need a birth certificate.
Neither does the anti Christ. :D

Guru
07-25-2008, 11:41 PM
Somebody kill this issue for God's sake. It's old. It's dead. It's six feet under.

jAZ
08-22-2008, 12:12 AM
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
All the photos at the above link.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/154599

Born in the U.S.A.
The truth about Obama's birth certificate.

By Jess Henig | factcheck.org
Aug 21, 2008 | Updated: 6:22 p.m. ET Aug 21, 2008

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 links 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.

Republished with permission from factcheck.org.

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.

with Joe Miller

irishjayhawk
08-22-2008, 12:14 AM
This thread brings up a good point.

Where did Mr. markk go? He offered so much to this forum, I'm sad to see him go.

HolmeZz
08-22-2008, 12:19 AM
This thread brings up a good point.

Where did Mr. markk go? He offered so much to this forum, I'm sad to see him go.

I'm sure he's still here.

Taco John
08-22-2008, 12:24 AM
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.


ROFL

What a clown! Watermarks from Photoshop! WTF is this guy even talking about. He just basically says stuff knowing that his base of believers is too stupid to know that he's flat lying. Good analysis of it on the Internet! Watermarks from Photoshop! That's priceless!

Well, I'm off for some snipe hunting! Good night!

irishjayhawk
08-22-2008, 12:30 AM
ROFL

What a clown! Watermarks from Photoshop! WTF is this guy even talking about. He just basically says stuff knowing that his base of believers is too stupid to know that he's flat lying. Good analysis of it on the Internet! Watermarks from Photoshop! That's priceless!

Well, I'm off for some snipe hunting! Good night!

Good catch.

ROFL

acesn8s
08-22-2008, 03:09 AM
Somebody kill this issue for God's sake. It's old. It's dead. It's six feet under.
And yet it lives again.

Programmer
08-22-2008, 07:01 AM
McCain muslim McCain muslim McCain muslimUP fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool Up fool

Ultra Peanut
08-22-2008, 07:02 AM
Look how stupid you are.

memyselfI
08-22-2008, 07:07 AM
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12993.htm

The above link basically states that Obama's Certificate of Live Birth is a horrible forgery. Can anyone quickly refute this so I can keep the Conservatives off my back, here at work?

The ACTUAL birth certificate copy has not been produced. There is good reason to believe the Certificate of Live Birth document that was produced has been altered and therefore could be considered forged or invalid depending on the need for the alteration.