Obama may not be "natural born" U.S. citizen

Faked certificate suggests that Obama may not be "natural born" U.S. citizen (New Evidence)
June 24, 2008 | Reuven Koret

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at web.israelinsider.com ...

Doesn't the fact that Obama's mother is a natural born American citizen automatically make him an American citizen?

What business is it of the Israelis anyway?

Stephanie wrote:Doesn't the fact that Obama's mother is a natural born American citizen automatically make him an American citizen?

What business is it of the Israelis anyway?

Right--it should be the business of the US MSM--but they are afraid of being called racist--or something.

CAN OBAMA BE PRESIDENT?

It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president after all for the following reason:

Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between "December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986." Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: "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 ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn't matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.

*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President.

*** Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia. Now you can see why Obama's aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. election law. I think the Gov. of California would be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. citizen, and it would set precedence.

So are you and this Israeli group going to bring an action to legally challenge Obama's standing to become president, and let the Courts decide based on the evidence? Or are you and they just going sling political mud about it and hope no one actually makes a legal challenge?

ziggy wrote:So are you and this Israeli group going to bring an action to legally challenge Obama's standing to become president, and let the Courts decide based on the evidence? Or are you and they just going sling political mud about it and hope no one actually makes a legal challenge?

Yes.

ziggy wrote:So are you and this Israeli group going to bring an action to legally challenge Obama's standing to become president, and let the Courts decide based on the evidence? Or are you and they just going sling political mud about it and hope no one actually makes a legal challenge?

What's your opinion on this Frank?

EXERTED FROM: Faked certificate suggests that Obama may not be "natural born" US citizen
By Reuven Koret June 24, 2008
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm

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 ................

[snip]

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.

What's your opinion on this Frank?

I agree with the Constitution.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

I think that it is incumbent on any candidate, whether for Mayor or for President, to show that he or she meets the legal and/or Constitutional qualifications for that job. If he or she can't show that, then they should not be a candidate, and if elected they should be prohibited from holding the office.

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.

A birth certificate is a public document, is it not- subject to FOIA request? One would think that with all the candidates in the hard fought Democratic primaries, if any believed that there is a real issue here, it would have already been raised by the Democratic opponents.

I think we are just seeing chaff throwing here- no substance, just chaff.

I think everyone here knows I do not, nor will I ever, endorse Obama. I think he will be a nightmare for our nation.

However, this is a new low. It's disgraceful, imho.

Ziggy I don't think FOIA applies to birth certificates because they can be used to obtain other forms of identification.

Think of all the things you can acquire with a birth certificate.

I know in RI you have to be a relative to obtain one.

Ziggy I don't think FOIA applies to birth certificates because they can be used to obtain other forms of identification.

That may be, Stephanie. It does make some sense.

Why would Obama's anti-smear site itself rely on a phoney birth certificate? Maybe they're saving the news of his parthenogenic origins for an "October Surprise"?

How many previous candidates have had to show their birth certificates as a part of the presidential campaign?

ziggy wrote:How many previous candidates have had to show their birth certificates as a part of the presidential campaign?

Barack "Barry" Goldwater? (He was born in AZ before it became a state...)

If it wasn't yet a state, then what state issued B. Goldwater that birth certificate?

ziggy wrote:If it wasn't yet a state, then what state issued B. Goldwater that birth certificate?

The territory of AZ? Arizona was the 48th and last of the contiguous states admitted to the Union on February 14, 1912. Goldwater was born in 1909.

Where was John McCain born? Can we see John McCain's birth certificate? Or is his a forgery, too?

ziggy wrote:Where was John McCain born? Can we see John McCain's birth certificate? Or is his a forgery, too?

John McCain was born in Panama Canal, Panama. His birth certificate has been released.

So, going back to the first post of this thread, how do we know that McCain's wasn't a forgery?

If you believe it to be a forgery you can bring an action to legally challenge McCain's standing to become president, and let the Courts decide based on the evidence? Or you can sling political mud about it and hope no one actually makes a legal challenge?

Aaron wrote:If you believe it to be a forgery you can bring an action to legally challenge McCain's standing to become president, and let the Courts decide based on the evidence? Or you can sling political mud about it and hope no one actually makes a legal challenge?

Good answer. Even Ziggy could not have thought of a better answer.

Hmm ............, come to think of it, earlier today:

ziggy wrote:So are you and this Israeli group going to bring an action to legally challenge Obama's standing to become president, and let the Courts decide based on the evidence? Or are you and they just going sling political mud about it and hope no one actually makes a legal challenge?

What a coincidence.

Oh well. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. So thanks for the compliment.

ziggy wrote:How many previous candidates have had to show their birth certificates as a part of the presidential campaign?

I would EXPECT that any who seeks an office that has any qualifying criteria to hold the office, that they would have to prove beyond all doubt that they meet the qualifications for the office in which they are running.

That seems logical to me. Does it not you Frank?

ziggy wrote:So, going back to the first post of this thread, how do we know that McCain's wasn't a forgery?

How do we know that you aren't a forgery, Ziggy?