Was Obama's "Certificate of Birth" manufactured?

Blogtownhall ^ | 6/20/08 | Polark

[ltc8k6]

[BIGLOOK]

I thought that Obama's natural born citizenship issue had been settled......

But looking over documents, mine and my son's, Birth Certificates in California ( mine, US Navy hospital) and in Hawaii (my son's), a lot of information has been omitted or redacted from Obama's copy.

1. The name of the hospital
2. The name, title and signature of the attending physician
3. The name of the hospital administrator
The notation; In Witness Whereof the said Hospital has caused this Certificate to be signed by duly authorized officer and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed. Of course that's just a mere formality.
4. The name and signature of the Local Registrar (of the state) and the date of the registration.
5. The State's Registration file number.

There is also the Name of the Mother, Race of mother, Age of mother, Address of mother, Signature of Mother and date.

Ditto information on the father, plus Occupation, signature and date.

It's nice to have the Hospital Certificate, sorta like a graduation diploma, but it carries little to no weight if you want to obtain a Passport. For that you'd need a Certificate of Live Birth from the State Registrar with all the information above and all the signatures and details.

Wait one......There's also the Seal. The Official Seal of the State of Hawaii at the top of the certificate is very nice but the seal used on both the Hospital Certificate and the Registrar's Certification is a punched seal (like a Notary's) over the signature and date of the Registrar.

[usmcobra]

I disagree based upon the two examples shown his own vs the Obama Forgery there is a clear difference that cannot even be shrugged off as compression.

The text on the Obama document is too prefect to be anything else but a forgery.

Full size here

Now Compare Obama's with this unabashed photoshop and see how well it compares?

[Political Junkie Too]

My only point about the datestamp (perhaps poorly made) is that given how complete his analysis was, he failed to mention anything about the datestamp.

-PJ

[Brilliant]

I read the analysis. How can you tell that it’s fraudulent? The supposition is that the State of Hawaii would not use such a method of producing the certificate, but there is nothing that demonstrates that the State of Hawaii does not use such a method. It’s purely supposition.

What they should have done is obtained a copy of another Hawaii birth certificate of the same era, and compared it.

[Tammy8]

Some states also had the word bas*ard on them if parents were not married- I have seen that on old BCs, where it asked for father’s name- don’t know when they quit doing that. Maybe long before 1961- but I don’t know- I saw it on certificates from the 1940s.

[txhurl]

That’s what I’m talking bout!

Yes!

[pissant]

The creation of the border alone shows its a fraud. But here’s a dirty secret. I looked at the one on Obama’s site and the one on Kos’, and someone re-aligned the border intersections on one, I can’t remember which. But I called it out the other day.

[eXe]

"Not to mention that, if I’m not mistaken, it came from Daily Kos"

Not only that.. but how did the Daily Kos get it?

From the Hawaiian State Dept of Health

What Information You Should Be Prepared to Provide

An applicant/requestor must provide the information needed to 1) establish his/her direct and tangible interest in the record and 2) locate the desired record. This will normally include:

Applicant's name, address, and telephone number(s);

Applicant's relationship to the person named on the certificate;

Reason why you are requesting the certificate;

Full name(s) as listed on the certificate;

The certificate’s file number (if known); Month, day, and year of the event; and

City or town and the island where the event occurred. For birth certificates, also provide the full name of the father and the full maiden name of the mother.

If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else, you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you.

So if I am reading that right... Obama himself would have had to sign off on Kos getting the cert, and if he did not allow them to get it.. they could not have ever gotten it.

[spanalot]

Wow - whats the kern frequency , Kevin.

[ltc8k6]

Well, it means the piece of paper was in existence on that date on the back, so it was not recently requested and printed by Hawaii.

[smalltownslick]

Granted, these could be interesting details, but they wouldn’t have any effect on the election. If, on the other hand, it could be proven he WASN’T born in Hawaii.....

[usmcobra]

I believe that the name is a residual from the original document that was used as the template for the forgery, and as such left there on purpose to give it some authenticity.

Which brings up an interesting possibility, was Barack Obama in Hawaii to get this document on the day marked on the backside?

If as we have been told they only issue these certifications to those that they are about wouldn’t Obama need to be there to get it?

[txhurl]

BUMP

[Always Right]

I read the analysis. How can you tell that it’s fraudulent? The supposition is that the State of Hawaii would not use such a method of producing the certificate, but there is nothing that demonstrates that the State of Hawaii does not use such a method. It’s purely supposition.

There was no such supposition. States print out new birth certificates and certifications of live birth all the time. This is obviously a new document that was supposedly printed recently, June 2007 to be exact. All that is OK. What is not OK is that it appears to be a photoshopped image, not an image of a laser printout of a form document.

[usmcobra]

Name=Date

[Always Right]

Granted, these could be interesting details, but they wouldn’t have any effect on the election. If, on the other hand, it could be proven he WASN’T born in Hawaii.....

Just because they wouldn't make his eligibility for President questionable, I think there are many details that could effect the election. Obama lying about his background would be very significant.

[Prole]

This revelation comes as no surprise to me.

Everything about Obama's existence is a gigantic deception, and its origin dates back to his birth.

I know that we will never see his real birth certificate because of the following possibilities:

1.) Obama was born under the name "Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama," "Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama," or something of that nature. Regardless, there may be a Mohammed in there somewhere.

2.) Obama was born under a name different from Barack Hussein to a normal name given by his mother. He or someone in his family may have changed his name during his Indonesian Muslim days to "fit in" with his fellow Mohammeds at the mosque/madrassa/whatever. This alteration of his name proves that he was raised Muslim, and is lying about that to everyone.

Either way, Obama is a pathological liar and that REAL birth certificate will never, EVER be available to the public.

Obama knows about the justifiable anger and distrust that many Americans have toward the Mohammedans in a post September 11, 2001 world.

That is why the lying worm hides his birth certificate. His entire life is one gigantic deception, and it starts with his first day on the planet.

[usmcobra]

Which one had the borders change I have a copy of the Kos One so it must be Obama’s?

[Political Junkie Too]

What they should have done is obtained a copy of another Hawaii birth certificate of the same era, and compared it.

If I understand this document issue properly, it is datestamped in 2007 to say that it was generated no earlier than 2007 to certify that a birth certificate is on file in Hawaii.

The question is:

1. Is this supposed to be a scanned image of physical certificate?

2. Is this a computer-generated JPG that never made it to paper, but posted on the web instead?

3. If it is a scanned image, a) was the certificate generated using computer graphics and printed to plain paper stock, or b) was the paper stock a form with all the graphics pre-printed and only the data fields added from the computer?

4. If it is a scanned image and was generated using computer graphics and printed to plain paper stock, why would it need the word "laser" on it? Doesn't "laser" on a form indicate that the form stock is intended for laser printers? If the form is blank and all the graphics are computer-generated, what purpose is served by indicating "laser" after the fact?

5. If it is a scanned image and the form was pre-printed with a border and nothing else but the bottom text (including "laser"), why don't the border grapics line up cleanly in the corners, as one would expect from a professional printer, instead of the overlapping slightly off border boxes on this document?

-PJ