My doubts in this post have been retracted. Thanks for the lively discussion!
Whether or not Barack Obama has ever provided definitive proof that he is in fact a natural born United States citizen is up for debate, and rightly so: If he is not a natural born citizen, then he is a usurper to the office of President. Most of what I’ve read would seem to indicate that while there is certainly evidence of his having been born in Hawaii, his actual, original birth certificate has never been produced for the record.
I doubt the debate is going to go away anytime soon — it may even be discussed long after he leaves office. It’s already getting a bit old hearing about it (and you’re welcome for bringing it up here at KingdomGeek).
When I hired in at Walmart, I had to provide proof of who I was, that I was eligible to work in the United States. I’ve had a few jobs, and most of them have had that requirement. None of those that had the requirement would accept indirect proof; if they asked for a state identification, that is what I was required to present.
So why is it that a man can achieve the highest office in the land (and one of the most significant in the world) without providing a birth certificate to prove the conditions of his birth? Seems like the simplest thing in the world for the Democrats to do to shut Republicans up about the issue.
The whole thing reminds me of the Romans and the Jewish elite almost 2,000 years ago. They asserted that Jesus Christ was dead, gone, and that Christians were wholly misguided; some Jews, such as Paul, took to slaughtering Christians for their misguided ways.
Yet for all their actions, all their efforts against the claims of Christianity, they never did the one thing that would have forever shut them up: producing the body of Jesus Christ.
In the case of the Romans and Jews, they never produced the body because there was no body to produce. Jesus had come back from the dead, conquering the grave and eventually ascending body and all to Heaven.
So what about it, Democrats? Is there a valid birth certificate for the Obamessiah? Just produce it already, shutting up the naysayers, at least so far as that issue is concerned.
Oh, but wait, a birth certificate has been produced — and I say “produced” knowing that it either means they have presented the certificate as evidence or they manufactured it. It isn’t a secret that liberals tend to manufacture so-called evidence often enough, especially if such “evidence” sticks it to the Christians; you may remember the tomb of Jesus hoax from just two years ago, or perhaps the Piltdown Man would be a more recognizable hoax — chances are good you were taught it as fact in your science classes.
I found this image of a possible Barack Obama birth certificate on PolitiFact. Is this a genuine birth certificate or just another Piltdown Man?
Curious, I looked up Hawaiian birth certificates on Flickr, and sure enough, there have been several photographs shared of such certificates. Two of which were obvious fakes — one for John McCain, who was not born in Hawaii, and another done up for someone’s dog, I think.
Is it strange that the obvious fakes have more of a resemblance to Obama’s than do genuine certificates, such as Alamokihana Hookano’s?
Granted, I only have the image of the supposed birth certificate to go by — a copy of a copy — and it’s obviously been altered — the certificate number has been censored — despite the declaration at the bottom that alterations render the copy invalid.
Even ignoring the self-invalidation of what has been presented as evidence, the image bears none of the marks of being a legitimate birth certificate… It shows no signs of ever having been handled — no folds, no creases… And it bears no evidence of having been stamped or embossed on its reverse side, even though this is visible on the legitimate certificates such as Hookano’s.
Maybe it’s a legitimate birth certificate — every Obamapologist and Obamacolyte viewing this will no doubt say it is — but I don’t think dismissing a self-invalidating copy of a copy is too unreasonable, nor is hoping that a long form birth certificate (the above copy of a copy is of what is known as a “short form” certificate) with an official stamp or seal (or better, the original) is released for examination.
Join the Discussion