Fake Certificate: Obama may not be "natural born" US citizen

The Israeli Insider had this article posted recently:

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 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.

Read More Here

IED Casualties Down 89 Percent in Iraq

Deploying more U.S. troops in Iraq has resulted in a dramatic decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in that country.

IED-caused casualties have dropped 89 percent since the surge went full force last June, according to a Cybercast News Service database of Iraq casualties.

IED-caused casualties spiked in the early part of last year as the surge began. In January 2007, the U.S. started deploying an additional 30,000 troops to the country. The surge in forces was completed in mid-June.

The Cybercast News Service database shows that U.S. IED-caused casualties in Iraq peaked at 84 in May 2007, the month before the surge was completed.

In June 2007, as Petraeus launched his operations into al Qaeda sanctuaries, IED-caused casualties dropped to 71. In July 2007, they dropped to 36. By December, they were down to 8, the lowest number since August and September of 2003, the first year of the war.

U.S. IED-caused casualties spiked again in early 2008, rising to 23 in January. This was a byproduct of new offensive operations launched in the northern part of Iraq, Fred Kagan, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute and an advocate of the surge strategy, has said.

However, overall U.S. casualty figures in Iraq have begun to fall off again, reaching their lowest levels in four years, and IED casualties have closely tracked this downward trend.

There were 37 U.S. IED-caused casualties in January 2007 compared to the 23 this January, a decline of about 38 percent.

There were 25 in February 2007 compared to 18 in February 2008, a decline of 28 percent. There were 54 in March 2007 compared to 20 in March 2008, a decline of nearly 63 percent.

Over the past several weeks, the decline in IED-caused casualties has been even steeper. There were 63 IED casualties reported last April versus 14 this April, a drop of 78 percent. And from May to May, casualties dropped from 84 to 9, a decline of almost 90 percent.

"The networks that build, finance and place IEDs have been disrupted, and more of the stockpiles are being uncovered before they can be used," said James Phillips, a Middle East expert with the Heritage Foundation. "There is also greater cooperation from the Iraqi civilians and better intelligence on the cells that plant IEDs."

The "Anbar Awakening" and the "shift in Sunni opinion" most certainly figure into the progress that has been in canceling out IED explosions that would otherwise lead to casualties, Phillips added.