Is Obama a natural born US Citizen?

arbilad · Head Chef

Is Obama a natural born US Citizen?

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Oh, well. No one's gonna' care. At least not the 70% that will probably vote for him.

The Constitution is so... "old" you know.

arbilad · Head Chef

You're right, I don't think that it will matter to most voters. So it is quite possible that come January we will have a president who isn't a citizen of the US.

Organist · Senior Member

Does that blogger actually take himself seriously? Despite the documentation, I want to believe you were really born in Kenya and that your mother wasn't really citizen enough for you to be a citizen.

That is investigative reporting of the lowest order.

-- Edited by Organist at 15:35, 2008-06-30

arbilad · Head Chef

> Does that blogger actually take himself seriously?

First, it is an online newspaper, and not a blog. I believe that they do take themselves seriously. Second, that is only one source of many that is reporting it.

> Despite the documentation,

I would be interested in hearing the evidence behind his assertion. What evidence exists? As far as I know, only the scan of the birth certificate.

> I want to believe you were really born in Kenya and that your mother wasn't really citizen enough for you to be a citizen.

I realize that you're using a rhetorical device, but the people reporting this aren't really trying to convince Obama. They're trying to convince others. But the law is easy enough to look up. Several people have, and the law states what the article says it does. If he wasn't born here, then his mother needed to have resided in the US for 10 years, 5 of which had to be after her 16th birthday. She was 18, so that was impossible. So, if he was not born in the US, according to the laws of the time he is not a natural born citizen.

> That is investigative reporting of the lowest order.

It would really be very easy for him to disprove this claim if it is false. Produce a valid birth certificate. Another person requested their copy of their Hawaiian birth certificate from 1964, and it differs in several material respects. First, it has an official seal, which Obama's doesn't. According to the Hawaiian government, it is not valid without that seal. The high resolution scan shows no folds, whereas the only method the Hawaiian government uses to send out birth certificates is by mail. It would have had clear folds, and this person that ordered their certificate for comparison did scans at several resolutions, and they all show the folds in the document.
Is it certain that he's not a US Citizen? No. But there's definitely some good reason to doubt, and it's suspicious that he doesn't clear it up when it would be so easy.

arbilad · Head Chef

Unstamped certificate suggests Obama may not be "natural born" US citizen

By Reuven Koret June 24, 2008

The "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign is not certified as authentic and appears to be 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.

Click for higher resolution image.

Click for higher resolution image.

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.

UPDATE 6/26:
Janice Okubo, in response to an Israeli Insider question on Tuesday, would not confirm nor deny whether she had told a St. Petersburg Times reporter whether she had said the birth certificate was "real", citing the statutory stipulation that "Hawaii state law (HRS §338-18) prevents disclosure of information contained in vital statistics records except to those people who have a direct and tangible interest in the record as defined by statute." This would, however, seem to negate the propriety of any disclosure by her of confidential information.

Jim Geraghty of The National Review Online, following up on this Israel Insider report, said he had contacted Okubo:

"I spoke to Ms. Okubo late Wednesday afternoon, and she said she had seen the version of Obama's certificate of live birth posted on the sites. While her office cannot verify the information on a form without the permission of the certificate holder (Obama), she said "the form is exactly the same" and it has 'all the components of a birth certificate' record issued by the state. In other words, she sees no reason to think the version posted on Obama's web site and Daily Kos is not genuine."

"The 'embossed seal' in question is, she said, probably on the back of the document provided to Daily Kos, but not visible (as in another certificate posted on Israel Insider for contrast). She thinks the difference in visibility can be attributed to the pressure used when applying the seal."

Geraghty's interpretation of Okubo's comments is inexact and tendentious. First, her observation that "the form is the same" is not contested, here or elsewhere. No one is doubting that the form that appears on the various websites (including this one) is a replica of that used for valid certificates. Therefore Geraght's interpretation that follows "In other words" is clearly his own conclusion, not hers.

Indeed, Okubo confirms to Geraghty that the image is lacking the "embossed seal" (and the official signature) that are required for the certificate to be valid. While "she thinks" that the difference in visibility might be attributed to varying "pressure," she admits that she does not know and has not seen the original.

Contrasting the purported Obama image with the DeCosta sample, it is hard to imagine the embossed seal and signature being of such light pressure that they would become completely invisible. An inked date of June 6, 2007, in reverse, does come through. But in any event, Okubo's confirmation that the premsumptive birth certificate is lacking the required stamps makes it all the more imperative for Obama to release the original paper certification, the only valid kind, and not an easy-to-photoshop electronic facsimile thereof. It should not be hard to produce, since Hawaii provides for family members to request them.

Even though Geraghy notes that Obama "initially refused to provide his birth certificate," he has suggested that it is "rather unlikely" that Obama was born in Kenya, since it would require that the candidate and his family do a lot of lying. In fact, there were reports of Kenyati relatives claiming he was born there, and there is the mysterious disappearance of his grandmother, who may indeed know something about this subject.

After all, being born in Hawaii is part of the "family legend" and it would be unreasonable to expect this to vary from interview to interview, especially when a non-Hawaiian birth would invalidate Obama's run for the presidency.

It is indeed hard to believe that Obama could have gone through his life without having to prove that he was an American citizen. But the credulity with which the mainstream media has automatically accepted as valid the image that appears on the radical left Daily Kos blog and on the Obama campaign's polemical "Fight the Smears" website makes it clear that many have been unwilling, now and in the past, to demand proof of an authentic document. They prefer to accept on faith that the candidate or his campaign would not lie about such a thing, assuming he has nothing to hide and no motive to lie.

But until the certified paper birth document is produced -- either by media pressure or a legal challenge in any state -- the fact remains that Obama has not proven that he is a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President according to the Constitution.

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

I heard his mom had an epidural.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

REALLY?!?!?! I heard she didn't!! Great. Now what do I believe?

historian · Senior Member

The rumor I heard was that his parents were together in Kenya; his mom waited until late in her pregnancy to come home and the airline refused to let her fly that far when she was near term. As soon as he was born, she came home with the newborn.

Now I realize that's a rumor, and rumors are often not reliable. However, showing us his birth certificate - a real one with a certifying seal and the registrar's signature - should be a simple thing. In past campaigns some candidates have shown their IRS tax records to quell rumors. I think tax records might be more uncomfortable to show; we can all tell that he was born; we're just not sure of where that happened.

The Constitution specifies that the president must be a natural born citizen for good reason -- the president of all people should be loyal to this country. Where would we be with a disloyal or half-hearted president?

historian · Senior Member

Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery

Organist · Senior Member

RE: Is Obama a natural born US Citizen?

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'll second that.

arbilad · Head Chef

Organist wrote:

Guilt until proven innocent isn't a halmark of our society, especially when the accusations are from yellow-journalists.

If we're comparing this to criminal proceedings, then the evidence has to at least be examined and the district attorney has to determine if a) it was likely that a crime was committed and b) if it is reasonably likely that he will be successful in prosecuting the case.

So why are you totally uninterested in examining the evidence in this case? You have not refuted a single point. You have not demonstrated that a single assertion is unworthy to be called evidence. You are content to label it and ignore it.

It seems to me that you should at least evaluate the assertions made before dismissing it out of hand. When we had that mountain meadows massacre flap last year, I at least looked into the assertions made by the antis. I found evidence that disproved their assertions, such as the huge communications lag between the location where it happened and Brigham Young. And that was simply a transparent attempt to smear the LDS church.

All Obama has to do is produce an official birth certificate and that would be proof enough to squash these rumors.

arbilad · Head Chef

BTW, when hiring many companies do background checks. When I got hired at my current job I had to have my employment history verified as well as my education. Why are people so averse to checking Obama's qualifications for running for the highest office in the land? Organist, would you get offended if someone wanted to check that you are certified to practice medicine? Why should there be such a flap over asking Obama to prove his qualifications? He could do a lot more damage than someone practicing medicine unlicensed.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Call me naive, but it seems like in order to officially enter the race to run for president, he would have had to produce his proof of citizenship. I wonder if he hasn't already satisfied that requirement for whatever official accepted his application for candidacy, and this flap over his b.cert. is just that - a whole lotta bellyachin' over nothing.

Just a guess.

Organist · Senior Member

A medical degree and lisence compared to this discussion is apples and oranges.

I am not uninterested in examining this case, but rather am highly skeptical of the objectivity and qualifications of those rejecting the evidence given. Why? This is politics. I trust no one in politics, especially those trying to destroy a candidacy. Swift Boat Veterans? Code Pink? I don't trust them. They have definate agendas and will have no qualms coloring their words to fit what they already want. In the cited and quoted articles, there are many "if's" and "may's", which means that this is conjecture. And the following quote seems to refute the rest of the assertions. "I spoke to Ms. Okubo late Wednesday afternoon, and she said she had seen the version of Obama's certificate of live birth posted on the sites. While her office cannot verify the information on a form without the permission of the certificate holder (Obama), she said "the form is exactly the same" and it has 'all the components of a birth certificate' record issued by the state. In other words, she sees no reason to think the version posted on Obama's web site and Daily Kos is not genuine." The yellow journalists even admit No one is doubting that the form that appears on the various websites (including this one) is a replica of that used for valid certificates.He just doesn't believe it.

Since the information from both sides involves partisan politics with agendas that I inherently don't trust, I am going to believe the facts and submitted evidence over "if's" and "may's" until the "if's" and "may's" turn into "verily's" and "is's" with actual evidence.

-- Edited by Organist at 10:18, 2008-07-08

arbilad · Head Chef

A higher up Hawaiian official also stated that to be valid, a birth certificate needs to have the official seal, which the copy on the internet doesn't. The actual evidence is there before your eyes: a quote from a hawaiian official, and an electronic copy of a birth certificate that doesn't have it.
BTW, form isn't everything. Remember the quote "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof"? Yes, it follows the correct form. But it lacks the features necessary to make it official. And there are many suspicious points to it, such as having the exact same date of birth as an acknowledged photoshop fake, listing a father's nationality (African) that wasn't used on birth certificates in the early 60s, etc. That's real, hard evidence, drawn off the certificate posted on the liberal rag Kos.
Bok - I'm really not familiar with the process for applying to run for president. Do they check whether you're a natural born citizen? I've searched a bit, and haven't found the answer. Do you have a source? Also, if he did prove his citizenship in order to run, why not invite a skeptic over for dinner and show him his birth certificate? It should be easy, but all that is available is an obvious fake.
And I think that comparing it to a medical certification is comparing apples to apples. They are both necessary preconditions to practicing the job in question.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

No, arbi, I don't have a source.

But this statement doesn't seem to have a source either:

(From the israelinsider article in the OP)

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.'"
I haven't been able to find documentation of this claim anywhere. One website similar to snopes claims that there is no such law. I can't seem to find it, but my internet searching prowess is not legendary, so that's no proof.

However, I did find this in the US Code:

(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
Two years living in the U.S. or possession after the age of 14? If that's the real law, did Obama's mother qualify to give him natural born status even if he wasn't born on Hawaiian soil?

The waters seem purty dang muddy, don't they?

DoubleD · Senior Member

Citizen nor not,

An Obama Nation would be an Abomination!

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

The standard of proof is higher for someone who wants to run the strongest, last free country in the world.

It is real simple, whip out a valid birth certificate, that is all he has to do. This is not a criminal court, there is no burden of proof. If you have to provide proof of residency to work in the US, why not to be president.

His refusal to show a valid one when residency is questionable raises very valid concerns. But hey, he is black, so we should give him a pass just like the media does, say oh, on his qualifications, or rather absolute lack thereof. Plus, I still think he is a Muslim and since Christ is the God of this land, I do not like one who is not a follower of Christ to lead us, probably a reason I did not like slick Willie.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

But hey, he is black, so we should give him a pass just like the media does, say oh, on his qualifications, or rather absolute lack thereof.
Nobody here is saying that, Val. And I agree, I wonder why he doesn't just cough up the official BC.

I'm just curious as to what the real law is. And I suspect that this has all been blown out of proportion by anti-Obamaites.

I don't want Obama to be president. The thought makes me shudder. But I also hate to see people buying into hearsay and unproven statements from some web-zine. I'm highly skeptical -- of both sides.

arbilad · Head Chef

Val, is there an easy way to check to see if what they claim was the law back then, i.e. you had to have been a resident of the US for 5 years after 16 to bestow citizenship on your children? You're a lawyer - is there a system you can search that would give you the answer? Bok is right, it's better to work off of verifiable sources.

arbilad · Head Chef

Oh, and Bok, you're correct that there's enough reason to dislike Obama without this. But, would you admit that, if this charge is accurate, that it is also a serious problem?

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Of course it's a problem if Obama is not a natural born citizen. If he's not, then he's simply not qualified to run for president.

But for the life of me I find it hard to believe that it wasn't established - somewhere in all the paperwork that he had to file in order to run - that he was indeed a bona fide natural born citizen. Seems like a person without a valid BC would have a hard time running for state senator, US Senator, heck, even get a driver's license. So either he really is qualified (as a citizen) to run, or an awful lot of people have looked the other way for a lot of years for him to get to this point.

The fact that Hillary Clinton -- more desparate than most people to beat Obama down -- never raised this issue says something, imo. It says that it is a non-issue. I'd be thrilled if it turns out that he can't prove he's natural born, and was disqualified for it. I just don't think that's going to happen.