! Hawaii Department of Health PROVES Obama Birth Certificate FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!



http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm

Faked certificate suggests that Obama may not be "natural born" US
citizen
June 24, 2008

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.
.