Tuesday, June 22, 2010


By Bob Unruh

Birth documents such as the "Certification of Live Birth" President Obama's campaign posted online to rebut questions about his constitutional eligibility prove very little other than that a birth happened, according to a federal report uncovered by WND.

The review of birth-certification procedures and documentation said there are too many open doors through which fraud can enter the system to rely significantly on the document. And even an original birth certificate isn't always sufficient, the report said, because much of the fraud committed at the time of the report was by imposters using genuine documentation.

(Alan NOTE: THE HEADING OF THE DOCUMENT BELOW IS "CERTIFICATION" NOT "CERTIFICATE". Certificate  indicates a real Long Form Birth document (shown later in this article).

Obama and his crew have tried to pass off the short form certifi-cation as a long form certifi-cate)

The report predates by several years the controversy over Obama's birth. The document, titled "Birth Certificate Fraud," was done in 2000 by Inspector General June Gibbs Brown for the Department of Health and Human Services in response to questions about the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

However, officials with several federal agencies, including Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security, told WND it appeared to be the most recent assessment of birth-certificate records and procedures available.

"A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded," the study reports. "For that purpose, it may be desirable that the public be allowed easy access to them.

"However, the agencies and organizations that use birth certificates as proof of identification for employment purposes, to obtain benefits or other documents (e.g., driver's licenses, Social Security cards and passports) and to assist them in determining eligibility for public assistance and other benefits, may have concerns with how easily certified copies of birth certificates can be obtained."
The report documents that there are more than 6,400 different jurisdictions now issuing more than 14,000 different versions of birth-certificate documents, and security features vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

"This large number of state, county, city, township and other entities that issue birth certificates increases opportunities for fraud, theft, bribery and other methods of illegally obtaining birth certificates," the report said.

At the same time, "technological advances" in the Internet, scanners, color printers and copiers "make it easier to obtain genuine birth certificates and create counterfeit ones."

Further, various agencies issue "113 different types of certified copies of birth records. … Fifty-one of the 53 primary vital-records offices issue certified photocopies of actual birth records, 27 issue certified copies of computerized abstracts of birth records, 17 issue wallet-sized birth certificates/cards and 8 issue commemorative birth certificates, each with their own unique security features and signatures.

"In addition, survey respondents report that, in 20 states, local entities issue full photocopies of actual birth records, 16 states' local entities issue certified copies from computerized abstracts, 17 states' local entities issue wallet-sized certificates, and 4 states' local entities can issue commemorative birth certificates.

"Agencies who rely on birth certificates as a means of establishing identity must understand the limitations of accepting a birth certificate as proof of age, citizenship or identity," the report warned.

"For example, genuine documents obtained with counterfeit birth certificates can be used to obtain genuine birth certificates. Thus, it is inherently illogical to require someone to prove their identity using potentially fraudulent identity documents spawned by false birth certificates in order to obtain a birth certificate."

The report also suggested that in addition to birth certificates, agencies may want to fall back on other identifying procedures, such as fingerprints or the testimony of relatives to determine identity.

The inspector-general report, which also reviewed previous studies and discovered similar concerns, documented stories of the use of fraudulent birth certificates by criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers and illegal aliens.

The report said while birth certificates originally were only proof of a birth, they now are used to document age, place of birth and identity.

"They are also used extensively for employment purposes, to obtain benefits or other documents … to assist in determining eligibility for public assistance and other benefits, to enroll children in school and as proof of age eligibility for sports and other age-restricted activities.

"However, because they were never designed to provide sole proof of identity, and because a birth certificate cannot be positively linked with an individual, their use for that purpose is questionable," the report said.

A separate report by WND in 2009 showed birth-certificate fraud is not an anomaly.

The report documented that in 2004, following a long investigation by the FBI and State Department, Jean Anderson, the former deputy registrar of the Hudson County, N.J., Office of Vital Statistics, pleaded guilty to taking money for falsifying county records.

According to a Department of Justice news release, Anderson was paid to insert phony birth records for illegal aliens into the files at her county office. The immigrants, in turn, approached county window clerks and requested copies of their birth certificates, after which the clerks looked to the files and, upon seeing the records Anderson had inserted, issued fraudulent birth certificates unknowingly.

The recipients of the phony birth certificates weren't seeking to become president; they were merely seeking status as American citizens.

The New Jersey case, however, has been referenced in blogs as reason for Obama to release his full, long-form birth certificate, rather than insisting the nation trust only his Hawaii Certification of Live Birth, a document that merely refers to the presence of another, unreleased document in Hawaii's files.

If Obama was born out of the country, some skeptics of the president's eligibility contend, his parents might have wanted to ensure his American citizenship. A payoff in Obama's birth year of 1961 could have generated fraudulent Certifications of Live Birth ever since.

"It is deadly serious in this day and age when we have people like Anderson and her co-conspirators making it possible for anyone to present themselves as lawful U.S. citizens when they are not," said Chris Christie in 2004, then–U.S. attorney and current New Jersey governor. "The possibilities run from the benign to the horrific."

Officials in the White House have laughed at suggestions that the online Certification of Live Birth may not be the definitive proof of Obama's birthplace.

More than a year ago, Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, raised the question to press secretary Robert Gibbs.

"Just one question concerning what the president said in his speech on Thursday, and I quote, 'I ran for president promising transparency, and I meant what I said. This is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.' End of quote. Do you remember that statement?" Kinsolving said at the time.

Gibbs: "I can confirm that he said that."

Kinsolving: "Good. In consideration of this very good promise of transparency, why can't the president respond to the petition to requests of 400,000 American citizens by releasing a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate listing hospital … 400,000. …"

Gibbs: "Are you looking for the president's birth certificate?"

Kinsolving: "Yes."

Gibbs: "It's on the Internet, Lester."

Kinsolving: "No, no, no -- the long form listing his hospital and physician."

"Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the president's birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people … that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president's birth there, but it's on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy," Gibbs said.

He may not get his wish. Recent multiple polls show a growing number of people have questions about the president's eligibility. A recent CBS–New York Times poll revealed that only 58 percent of Americans even "think" that Obama was born in this country.

And WND has reported how Hawaii law at the time of Obama's birth would have allowed a Hawaii birth document to be issued on the application of a relative, irrespective of where Obama actually was born.

WND also has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

A key to the defenses presented by Obama supporters always has been the "Certification of Live Birth:"

The document contrasts with an actual Hawaii birth certificate from 1963 (the same era as Obama's birth), which while redacted includes detailed information documenting a birth, including the name of the birth hospital and the attending physician.

(Alan NOTE: a real Certifi-cate copy)

(Alan note: an election official in charge of absentee ballots in 2008 categorically states there is NO repeat NO Obama birth certificate in the State of Aloha/Hawaii - read about it at:  http://noiri.blogspot.com/2010/06/hawaii-election-clerk-categorically.html )

Obama's birth certificate also is not the only document at issue. WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes:

his kindergarten records,
his Punahou school records,
his Occidental College records,
his Columbia University records,
his Columbia thesis,
his Harvard Law School records,
his Harvard Law Review articles,
his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago,
his passport,
his medical records,
his files from his years as an Illinois state senator,
his Illinois State Bar Association records,
any baptism records, and
his adoption records.

WND has reported no controlling legal authority ever directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution's requirements to be president. The Constitution requires that the president be 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a "natural born citizen."

There also have been multiple attempts at legislation that simply would require candidates to document their eligibility for the office they seek.

At the federal level is a plan by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

Posey's H.R. 1503 states:

"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The bill also provides:

"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

The sponsors' goal is for the bill to become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

ALAN NOTE: The way Obama's  popularity is nose diving, it's only a matter of time till the truth leaks from Hawaii, from Kenya (perhaps) but with the way he bashes England, more likely from the archives of the British Colonial Office in which the Kenyan birth documentation ledgers reside!


Just a matter of time. Another ticking political time bomb among a bunch of others appearing on the radar. (Like the rumor that George Soros' son is in prison and he asked Obama to get him freed but was turned down and now resents  Obama!)

Saturday, June 19, 2010


June 20, 2010
Islam: Antithetical to Religious Freedom
By Janet Levy
Freedom to Believe: Challenging Islam's Apostasy Law
By Patrick Sookhdeo, Isaac Publishing, 2009

The religious allegiance of Barack Hussein Obama has been the subject of intense debate across the United States. Is Obama, who was raised a Muslim, a committed Muslim or a Christian convert? A Harris Poll conducted in March of 2010, revealed that fully 57% of all Republicans and 32% of Americans overall believe that Obama is a Muslim. In 2008, a University of Texas survey found that 23% of Texans were convinced that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

The American public has been confused by Obama's statements and actions that bring into question the Christian faith he professed prior to his election. It is certainly confounding that Obama would recite the Muslim call to prayer in Arabic during a New York Times interview in 2007 and call it the "prettiest sound on earth." In an infamous September 2008 interview on ABC's "This Week," host George Stephanopoulos corrected Obama's ostensible slip of the tongue when the candidate stated, "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith." In addition, following the election, it was quite puzzling to hear the leader of a Judeo-Christian nation refer to the "holy" Koran, publicly proclaim civilization's debt to Islam, and avow that "America is not and never will be at war with Islam."

Barack Obama's religious practices have raised questions about his affiliation with Christianity. For twenty years, he attended the church of controversial former Muslim Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In 2007, Wright, who wrote his University of Chicago Master's thesis on "Islam in West Africa," honored Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan with Trinity Church's Man of the Year award. Since becoming president, Obama stopped attending church, even on Christmas day, and specifically requested that no religious decorations grace the White House tree, which featured an ornament with the image of Mao Tse-Tung. In 2009 and 2010, much to the consternation of American Christians, Obama canceled the White House National Day of Prayer ceremonies.

Obama's official actions while president have fueled speculation about his continued allegiance to the Muslim world. As president, his first phone call as the nation's highest foreign statesman was to Abu Abbas, the terrorist leader of Fatah who was responsible for financing the Munich Olympic massacre in 1972. Obama's first television interview was with Dubai-based Al-Arabiya. In it he emphasized the importance of engaging with Iran and explained how the Israelis recognized the importance of achieving peace and would be willing to make sacrifices. No mention was made of any Arab-Palestinian sacrifices, the Arab-Palestinian vote to install the terrorist group Hamas as their official government, or the barrage of rockets they were directing toward Israel from Gaza. One of Obama's first speeches as president was at Cairo University, where he greeted the audience with "assalaamu alaykum," a greeting typically reserved for Muslims to extend to their fellow Muslims. In his speech, he focused on the wrongs committed by the West against Muslims and never once referred to the Islamic doctrine of jihad and its threat to the West. Curiously, Obama explained that as president, it was his responsibility to combat negative Islamic stereotypes, yet he remained silent about the protection of other religious groups. He did not describe his duty to fight Islamic terrorism or the threat of jihadist attacks on America. At the G-20 summit in April 2009, Obama bowed to Muslim Saudi King Abdullah, a shocking and unprecedented departure from U.S. presidential protocol.

In his book, Freedom to Believe: Challenging Islam's Apostasy Law, Patrick Sookhdeo contemplates a future in which Muslims extend to apostates the respect he believes they conferred on Barack Obama when he was invited to speak at Cairo University in 2009. However, Sookhdeo may be mistaken. Obama's religious status is ambiguous, and it is unclear if he is truly an apostate. The president may quite possibly be inappropriately labeled a Christian, and thus his case is unrepresentative of the dilemma posed by Islamic apostasy and cited by Sookhdeo. Nevertheless, as Islamic apostasy law is explicit and historically incontrovertible, Sookhdeo's dream of freedom of religious affiliation, that he imagines is now enjoyed by Obama, is probably out of reach for the majority of Muslims.

Patrick Sookhdeo is a British Anglican canon who serves as the director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity. A Christian convert from Islam, he is a spokesman for persecuted Christian minorities in Islamic nations worldwide. Sookhdeo has authored several books on Islam, including Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam and Understanding Islamic Terrorism.

In Freedom to Believe, Sookhdeo describes how freedom of religion is not recognized in the Muslim world because Islam is viewed as a way of life with both political and religious implications. Religion and adherence to Islamic doctrine is not viewed as a personal or private matter, but a function of the state. Any concept of an autonomous individual expressing free will is absent from Islam. Leaving Islam is viewed as treason and betrayal of the umma, or Muslim community, and disruptive to the social order. Muslims may also be accused of apostasy if they are not orthodox enough in their observance of Islamic doctrine.

Although conversion to Islam from other religions is actively encouraged, the reverse does not hold in Islamic doctrine. Sookhdeo cites all five main schools of shari'ah, or Islamic law, that consider apostasy from Islam a severe crime punishable by death. No disagreement exists about whether an apostate should be put to death; the only debate is whether the individual should be allowed a period of repentance. The death penalty for apostasy is brutal and can include decapitation, crucifixion, burning, strangling, drowning, impaling, and flaying. Muslims who participate in the killing of apostates are rewarded by a place in paradise. The humiliation of apostates continues into the afterlife, and those who leave the religion are denied a decent burial.

In actual practice, observes Sookhdeo, apostates usually lose all civil rights. Their marriages may be dissolved, they may lose their families, and they may forfeit their inheritance rights. Apostasy accusations are often accepted uncritically with scant or no evidence. Apostates are often framed for spurious charges, arrested, tortured, and jailed. They may be dismissed from their jobs by their employer and suffer severe harassment, plus shame is visited upon their families and communities. Often family members try to have apostates declared insane to spare their lives, or they may even attempt to kill them or drive them away.

In Freedom to Believe, Sookhdeo also reviews the law of apostasy. It is based on the shari'ah and founded in the Koran and the practices of Mohamed, or the Hadith. The Hadith is very clear on the requirement to kill apostates, Sookhdeo writes. In Bukhari, the most authoritative of the Hadith collection, Mohamed is recorded as saying, "Whoever changed his religion, then kill him" (9:84:57). Whether or not the apostate is given a chance to repent is unclear, as there are verses that support either position. No designated punishment exists in Islamic doctrine for killing an apostate.

Ostensible contradictions in the Koran -- illustrated in the verses "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256) and "Fight and slay the non-believers wherever you find them" (9:5) -- are discussed by the author. He explains that this apparent discrepancy is an example of abrogation, a method of interpretation that imposes the precepts of later-day verses over earlier ones. More violent and definitive later-day verses, written after Mohamed had been victorious in Medina and Mecca, take precedence over earlier, milder verses written when Mohamed lacked sufficient power.

Sookhdeo also explains that apostasy is linked with blasphemy -- the cursing or insulting of Mohamed -- under the category of kufar, or unbelief. In contravention to Western principles of freedom of expression, the 57 Muslim states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) have called for criminalizing religious defamation. Their goal, cites Sookhdeo, is to give Islam a privileged place among the world's religions. It would seem to be working. Non-Muslims are increasingly self-censoring to avoid charges of Islamophobia and to prevent actual violence, such as that which occurred with Cartoongate -- the protest against cartoons of Mohamed published by the Jyllands-Posten in 2005, which resulted in over one hundred people killed and embassies destroyed. Of course, Muslim violence against others, such as the persecution of Christians in the Muslim world, Muslim anti-Semitism, and slavery in the Sudan, are off-limits.

The OIC has been trying to use the United Nations to support incorporation of shari'ah-based, anti-blasphemy prohibitions into international human rights law. In 2008, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution against the defamation of religion, specifically mentioning Islam four times to the exclusion of all other religions. In March 2009, Pakistan put forth a draft resolution on behalf of the OIC to combat the defamation of religions, specifically mentioning Islam and Muslims but no other religion or religious groups. The effect of such a law, Sookhdeo believes, will be to stifle religious freedom, outlaw conversions to other faiths, and persecute non-Muslims.

He contrasts Western tolerance of religious freedom with various religious restrictions in Muslim countries. For example, in Saudi Arabia, non-Islamic religious worship is strictly forbidden. Individual judges are able to make decisions regarding apostasy in secret proceedings. In Pakistan, the desecration of the Koran carries a sentence of life imprisonment. Oftentimes, charges of apostasy and blasphemy are spurious and used to settle a personal vendetta. In Malaysia, non-Muslims are prohibited from using the word "Allah" in their publications. In the Maldives, all citizens must be Muslim, and the public practice of any other religion is not allowed.

Sadly, recounts Sookhdeo, Muslims who immigrate to the West in search of religious freedom are gravely disappointed. Apostasy still remains a problem for Muslims who convert and move to countries where religious freedom is guaranteed. Such immigrants are often at risk from their own families as well as radicals in their communities. Many are harassed with death threats and find it necessary to keep a low profile or even go into hiding. Often their adoptive countries lack an understanding of the risks they face and are unsupportive of their plight. If refugees, they also face the threat of deportation to a death sentence in their home countries.

Sookhdeo concludes that Islamic apostasy law stands in direct contrast to Western principles of human rights and religious liberty. He sees scant hope for change -- that Muslims will be able to freely change their religions -- as Muslims remain shocked and repulsed by apostasy and believe harsh punishment is justifiable. Further, dissent invites blasphemy charges, which effectively silences opposition, and criticism, which, in turn, stifles reform. Given the conclusions in Sookhdeo's book, it is likely the respect shown by Muslims to President Obama is simply acceptance of a Muslim brother, not a foretaste of a future in which Muslim apostasy is tolerated and accepted.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/islam_antithetical_to_religiou.html