Is his birth certificate authentic?

[rigney]

The debate of whether Mr. Obamas birth certificate is real or bogus has been ongoing for more than two years now. A computer geek working for Adobe Reader has made a pretty good case of explaining why he thinks it is a fake. Since I always "wade in over my head" in most cases, and know little about computers or politics, maybe one of you guys can explain the situation to me?

 

Edited April 30, 2011 by rigney

[insane_alien]

it'd be pretty easy to fake, but really, why bother?

 

i honestly doubt that if they were to fake it that they'd do it by way of digital editing. They'd just make a real one.

 

seriously, at some point you are just going to have to trust someone as it is impossible to trace back moment for moment the movements of any one person. his parents say he was born in hawaii, hawaii says he was born in hawaii and so on. it was ridiculous in 2008 and its ridiculous now.

 

you can't be calling for evidence then denying the evidence the moment its shown.

[rigney]

it'd be pretty easy to fake, but really, why bother?

 

i honestly doubt that if they were to fake it that they'd do it by way of digital editing. They'd just make a real one.

 

seriously, at some point you are just going to have to trust someone as it is impossible to trace back moment for moment the movements of any one person. his parents say he was born in hawaii, hawaii says he was born in hawaii and so on. it was ridiculous in 2008 and its ridiculous now.

 

you can't be calling for evidence then denying the evidence the moment its shown.

 

But wouldn't making a new one be just as obvious through dating? It really doesn't matter one way or another now. Mr. Obama is in office and if it turned out to be fake, it would likely take another two more years to bring him up on charges of impeachment. I just hope his next 2 yrs is better than his last 2. Edited April 30, 2011 by rigney

[Iggy]

Acrobat creates layers like that when a scanned document is saved as an optimized pdf, and I believe some other scanning software do the same.

 

Edited to add:

 

Fox News -- Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate Is Legit

Edited April 30, 2011 by Iggy

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Indeed. Layers are to be expected:

 

http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/428-After-Birth.html

 

What disturbs me more is that Trump is now claiming that Obama was not smart enough to get into Harvard and Columbia and is demanding he release his academic records. We're a year and a half from the election and the personal attacks are already at this level?

[Realitycheck]

Its just crazy that Trump alleges that ANYBODY would even attempt such a stunt. It is really just blatant racism, ridiculous. Now maybe I could see some undercover Russian spook trying to do such a stunt back in the cold war, but, oh wait, yeah, now I remember, he was the future undercover Moslem antichrist ... whatever.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Realitycheck

[padren]

Yeah, not only is it almost certainly legit, there is a certain point where it's impossible to prove anything - even Trump's birth certificate - isn't fake beyond unreasonable doubt. It all depends on "reasonable doubt" and whether the critics are... well reasonable.

 

 

The thing that really gets me is while they claim he's "the worst president ever, destroying America as we know it" etc, you'd think they'd have better talking points that are a little bit more relevant.

[Moontanman]

What the hell is that thing on Trump's head and is it eating his brain?

[louis wu]

Despite the release of a long form certificate, some amongst the Birthers still have serious concerns.

 

[swansont]

It doesn't matter. His mother was a citizen, which is not in question and that makes him a citizen regardless of where he was born.

 

Mitt Romney's dad was born in Mexico and he ran (in the primaries) for president; his citizenship status was not (seriously) questioned.

[lemur]

I wonder if this culture of questioning US birth certificates could go so far that it would begin to affect other people with US birth certificates as well? If so, will they get into alternative methods of establishing citizenship legitimation, such as lie-detector tests and bio-scanning? It could turn into Gattica with national identity instead of genetic identity.

[Marat]

Even apart from questions over whether the birth certificate could have been faked, there is the fact that living witnesses have now come forward to claim that they knew Obama when he was a very young baby in Hawaii, or knew his mother when she went to the hospital to give birth to him. There is also the fact that notice of his birth was entered shortly after the time of his birth in the local Hawaiian newspaper. So if it is all a fraud, it is a fraud which has been planned and plotted in great deal over the past half century, but for what reason? Was someone plotting a half century ago to make a little black baby President of the U.S. by bribing newspaper editors and witnesses to support the story in 2011? It all seems implausbile beyond belief.

 

The fact is that there is no 'evidence' in the world which is beyond dispute if held up to the standards of skepticism which are being applied to the evidence that Obama is an American. You can even convict someone of murder on a certainly 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' which is definitely not a certainty above the possibility of any metaphysical doubt.

 

There was, incidentally, doubt about Michigan Governor George Romney's legitimacy to be a candidate for the Republican nomination in 1964, since he was from a family of Mormons hiding from U.S. law in Mexico. The doubt never had a chance to flower into a full-blown campaign against Romney, however, since his presidential efforts collapsed after he said he had been 'brainwashed' on an inspection tour of Vietnam, and everyone seized on that as proof that he was too easily manipulated to be President. U.S. politics was then just as foolish as it is today.

[swansont]

Regarding Romney, you need to be a citizen to become governor. He was either natural-born or naturalized. Was he naturalized? Another presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, was born outside the US — in Arizona before it became a state. There was even a brouhaha about McCain being born in the canal zone, and some murkiness about the status of that. Nothing approaching the idiocy of the current birther/afterbirther movement, though, AFAICT. Competent legal authority long ago established Obama is a citizen. This is just rank denialism, rating up there with the anti-vaxxers.

[jackson33]

The debate of whether Mr. Obama's birth certificate is real or bogus has been

ongoing for more than two years now. A computer geek working for Adobe Reader

has made a pretty good case of explaining why he thinks it is a fake. Since I

always "wade in over my head" in most cases, and know little about computers or

politics, maybe one of you guys can explain the situation to me?[/Quote]

 

rigney; The issues involved go much further than "where" Obama was born, even from there what the consequences might be. Former Governor Bill Richardson(D), who also ran for President if the US in 2008 was born of two Mexican Nationals in LA, then moved back to Mexico City after his birth and is said to be both Natural Born and eligible to become President and was elected Governor. Whether Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii, any case against eligibility is dependent on other factors, that being his Fathers citizenship, our laws (holding duel citizenship), or other actions required to become eligible under law.

 

Then the STATES, are charged with determining qualifications, even citizenship and 50 States and the District of Columbia all accepted what was offered, in many cases nothing, and he was duly elected and inaugurated in 2009, the elections having been properly ratified by congress.

 

The consequences; If for some reason, time dating the alleged birth long form or scanning for erasers and inserting of new items, leading to viable charges of fraud, which is very possible, on to impeachment and removal from office, would happen even with a Democratic Senate IMO, then every single bill passed by Congress, any action taken by the Executive branch, including by executive order, could and would be challenged, where talking tens of thousands already.

 

It's for those reasons, I no longer care where he was born or even eligible to become President, he should serve out his term and if re-elected those years as well. Through history in the US, virtually every serving President has been politically accused of some un-American conduct or abuse of the Constitution and to date we haven't resorted back the chopping off "Heads of State".

 

 

Here is a pretty good link, explaining some of those involved extenuating circumsatances, with the quote directed at swansont...

 

Born in Kenya

If, in fact, Obama was born in Kenya, under the laws of the United States, in effect at the time of his birth, if a child was born abroad, and one parent was aU.S. citizen (which here, of course, would be Obama’s mother, Stanley AnnDunham), Obama’s mother would have had to have lived ten (10) years in theU.S., five (5) of which were after she reached the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18), and therefore didnot meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama)U.S. Citizenship. The laws in effect at the time of Obama’s birth did notrecognize U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizenparent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age ofnineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama’s mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a citizen.[/Quote]

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17559086/Obama-Not-Even-A-United-States-Citizen-The-Case-Against-Obama-The-Illegal-Alien-

[rigney]

rigney; The issues involved go much further than "where" Obama was born, even from there what the consequences might be. Former Governor Bill Richardson(D), who also ran for President if the US in 2008 was born of two Mexican Nationals in LA, then moved back to Mexico City after his birth and is said to be both Natural Born and eligible to become President and was elected Governor. Whether Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii, any case against eligibility is dependent on other factors, that being his Fathers citizenship, our laws (holding duel citizenship), or other actions required to become eligible under law.

 

Then the STATES, are charged with determining qualifications, even citizenship and 50 States and the District of Columbia all accepted what was offered, in many cases nothing, and he was duly elected and inaugurated in 2009, the elections having been properly ratified by congress.

 

The consequences; If for some reason, time dating the alleged birth long form or scanning for erasers and inserting of new items, leading to viable charges of fraud, which is very possible, on to impeachment and removal from office, would happen even with a Democratic Senate IMO, then every single bill passed by Congress, any action taken by the Executive branch, including by executive order, could and would be challenged, where talking tens of thousands already.

 

It's for those reasons, I no longer care where he was born or even eligible to become President, he should serve out his term and if re-elected those years as well. Through history in the US, virtually every serving President has been politically accused of some un-American conduct or abuse of the Constitution and to date we haven't resorted back the chopping off "Heads of State".

 

 

Here is a pretty good link, explaining some of those involved extenuating circumsatances, with the quote directed at swansont...

 

 

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17559086/Obama-Not-Even-A-United-States-Citizen-The-Case-Against-Obama-The-Illegal-Alien-

 

My problem Jackson is that I'm not politically motivated, nor smart enought to really digest the differences you explain. I simply don't don't like the guy. But then, I didn't particulary like Bush either, but he came into office with a plate full that I could understand. And Obama?, How can a person become a millionaire yet never holding a job in his life other than a couple years as a front man? Anyone ever check his tax return? To me, he is a twerp trying to destroy a system that has lasted for centuries! If he were a right winger making the same mistakes, I would feel no different. At present, his birth certificate is immaterial. Edited April 30, 2011 by rigney

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And Obama?, How can a person become a millionaire yet never holding a job in his life other than a couple years as a front man?

By working for ten years as a civil rights attorney and lecturing at a university. Oh, and writing a couple of very popular books.

[lemur]

By working for ten years as a civil rights attorney and lecturing at a university. Oh, and writing a couple of very popular books.

Just think how much he's going to be able to sell his birth certificate for now!

[padren]

He turned me into a newt!

 

 

I got better... but now he has to prove he's not a witch, because "I don't like him" and what's more, I don't understand him or why intelligent, rational people would like him so there has to be something fishy. Oddities like him don't "just happen" in any world I understand. It's just a matter of going through his entire life with a fine tooth comb again like we did when he was a candidate, and question the legitimacy of every item and action until we find out what kind of conniving duplicitous fraud actually explains how this person actually came to exist, since a legitimate basis is clearly a ludicrous notion.

 

 

It's just a game of "Prove you could exist without having to resort to fraud or witchcraft" and it's dumb. What was gained from all the speculation about Bush being a draft dodger, or Clinton on the same charge for that matter? It's just part of the natural inclination to say "Someone like that couldn't have gotten this far and not stink" when that person's popularity and success doesn't make sense. Sometimes it is fraud and something does stink, but once critics start barking about proving negatives it's the detractors that end up sounding like idiots. Even when you do get evidence of misdeeds if you don't vet it appropriately you get "Dan Ratherred" and understandably so.

 

I never felt satisfied that Bush was "proven not to be a draft dodger" but I never liked the guy, I never understood how he had the wherewithal to win a sandwich from Quiznos so naturally as a President he made no sense to me. However, there was never any sort of positive proof that he was so frankly it was a non-issue politically and all you could do is give the guy the benefit of the doubt on the topic in good faith and readdress it should positive proof genuinely surface.

If we don't take that approach with people on both sides of the spectrum, we'll never get past the tossing around of accusations.

[rigney]

By working for ten years as a civil rights attorney and lecturing at a university. Oh, and writing a couple of very popular books.

 

A civil rights attorney on the Chicago south side? Wow! "I'm impressed" That's probably where he got all of his book material.

 

He turned me into a newt!

 

 

I got better... but now he has to prove he's not a witch, because "I don't like him" and what's more, I don't understand him or why intelligent, rational people would like him so there has to be something fishy. Oddities like him don't "just happen" in any world I understand. It's just a matter of going through his entire life with a fine tooth comb again like we did when he was a candidate, and question the legitimacy of every item and action until we find out what kind of conniving duplicitous fraud actually explains how this person actually came to exist, since a legitimate basis is clearly a ludicrous notion.

 

 

It's just a game of "Prove you could exist without having to resort to fraud or witchcraft" and it's dumb. What was gained from all the speculation about Bush being a draft dodger, or Clinton on the same charge for that matter? It's just part of the natural inclination to say "Someone like that couldn't have gotten this far and not stink" when that person's popularity and success doesn't make sense. Sometimes it is fraud and something does stink, but once critics start barking about proving negatives it's the detractors that end up sounding like idiots. Even when you do get evidence of misdeeds if you don't vet it appropriately you get "Dan Ratherred" and understandably so.

 

I never felt satisfied that Bush was "proven not to be a draft dodger" but I never liked the guy, I never understood how he had the wherewithal to win a sandwich from Quiznos so naturally as a President he made no sense to me. However, there was never any sort of positive proof that he was so frankly it was a non-issue politically and all you could do is give the guy the benefit of the doubt on the topic in good faith and readdress it should positive proof genuinely surface.

If we don't take that approach with people on both sides of the spectrum, we'll never get past the tossing around of accusations.

 

Simply said I didn't like him, not hate or detest him. Bush had one hell of a paper trail following him during his entire eight years in office. Thank goodness that's one thing Obama won't have to worry about.

[jackson33]

In late 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year,[34] and president of the journal in his second year.[30][35] During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990.[36] After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude[37] from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.[34] Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review gained national media attention[30][35] and led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations,[38] which evolved into a personal memoir. The manuscript was published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father.[38][/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

 

CR; I think you might be embellishing the facts, just a tiny bit. It's my understanding, he basically did research work for a couple law forms, arguing only one case in Federal Court and I can guarantee you, that's not a high paying job nor did he make much lecturing. His book deals did pay off, but not really until the late 2000's.

 

 

My problem Jackson is that I'm not politically motivated, nor smart enough to really digest the differences you explain. I simply don't like the guy. But then, I didn't particularly like Bush either, but he came into office with a plate full that I could understand. And Obama?, How can a person become a millionaire yet never holding a job in his life other than a couple years as a front man? Anyone ever check his tax return? To me, he is a twerp trying to destroy a system that has lasted for centuries! If he were a right winger making the same mistakes, I would feel no different. At present, his birth certificate is immaterial. [/Quote]

 

Believe me rigney, I hate his policy and direction he taking the country, a whole lot more than you. You were getting politically motivated comments and I thought it might be better understood with the link I offered. While I did defend Bush's Foreign Policy under Ms. Rice and others, I opposed "No Child Left Behind', "The Prescription Drug Act", "TARP", whatever he called an "Amnesty" and his NOT VETOING, but one Republican Spending Bill, in six years. I guess all my harping about how "Compassionate Conservative" was not possible in 2000, panned out.

 

He was not a millionaire at least until 2004 or 5. He was a Community Organizer, that was groomed for Chicago politics, that means with a lot of financial help, IMO. If you google his tax records, most have been pulled, but I did locate this one. If still active, his actual returns are also available.

 

 

 

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html

 

 

I have really mixed feelings as to motivation, trying to understand his background. Although nothing seems to make sense, at least in my mind, he really could be concerned with his perception of how Imperialism effected both is Father, Step Father and their families, the historical plight of Blacks not only there, but in the US and in his mind is repaying (reparations) for those perceived wrongs. The trouble I have, is those same actions are hurting more minorities today and without any doubt, will hurt everyone (those doing the paying) for years into the future.

[lemur]

I have really mixed feelings as to motivation, trying to understand his background. Although nothing seems to make sense, at least in my mind, he really could be concerned with his perception of how Imperialism effected both is Father, Step Father and their families, the historical plight of Blacks not only there, but in the US and in his mind is repaying (reparations) for those perceived wrongs. The trouble I have, is those same actions are hurting more minorities today and without any doubt, will hurt everyone (those doing the paying) for years into the future.

You must be kidding. Stimulus spending caters to the general mentality that in order to help the poor, you have to fund the profit margins of existing corporations and their payrolls. If Obama and the left wanted to pay reparations for historical inequalities, they would have to replace the existing industrial world with one run by and for historically oppressed people. That would require either disenfranchizing everyone who benefits from historical privilege or dividing the nation into separate territories with the best natural resources owned and managed by historically disenfranchized people. Obviously the intent isn't to do that but to re-invigorate the infrastructure and economic privileges that have been created by historical inequalities. Obama said himself in speeches that capitalism is an economic system that has created unprecedented wealth. Then the party focussed on getting the auto industry and infrastructure strong again. Sure, they claim to be for change and solar power because it sounds good but if you look at what the unions want in terms of jobs and lifestyle for the workers, it is automotive-intensive consumerism. That's the only "change they can believe in," i.e. more of the same for more people.