Skip to comments.Was Obama's "Certificate of Birth" manufactured?
Posted on 06/17/2008 6:00:53 PM PDT by freespirited
What are the letters in the middle of the document? Very faint and appear backwards.
They do respond with a computer generated document. He is saying that this is a fake computer generated document
[... It’s interesting that the person who wrote this
analysis ignored the reverse datestamp on the document...]
I didn’t think much about it because I thought it was
a water mark.
My sister law was born at St Francis Hospital in Honolulu around the same time . Her birth certificate is hand written with ink . Her assessment is this is strange since most were had written back then on the islands except the base babies.
“Check out ExposeObama.com and look at the ads the Willie Horton people are planning to drop on the airwaves after Labor Day.”
Some day we’ll get an American running for the President again.
This document seems to be a correct document, just not what is claimed. See: http://suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2008/06/kos-tries-to-pa.html
But there’s a bigger problem here than the document’s chain of custody. It involves the difference between a “Certificate of Live Birth” and a “Certification of Live Birth”. This is the latter, despite Kos’ identification of it as the former.
Per the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (a state agency that happens to detail the difference):
In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
Indeed, the Kos document offers scant details, limited to name, gender, date, location, and names and races of parents.
Without signatures, stamp and date issued it looks to be something whipped up for public consumption. A fake.
JUN 6 2007. It looks like bleed through from a date stamped on the back.
Thank you OP!
I saw all of this, too, when I downloaded this form and looked at the backgrounds.
Look at the two I’s in Hawaii. Really sloppy.
I do not know if this helps, but I found a marriage certificate of the same Hawaii issue type on another bbs. I downloaded it, but it is too blurry to read. Maybe OP can see what is on it in terms of official seals, form numbers and so on.
We are looking for your sister-in-law’s birth certificate type. Is it hospital-issued? With baby footprints? Does a doctor sign off on her birth time and health status?
It’s amazing. Another PR work in progress. Let someone else like Daily Kos do the dirty work and just in case it passes muster Obama will take the credit and if it doesn’t so what; we didn’t authorize, etc this and had nothing to do with it. We swear.
Actually not. They reprint the old one and certify it is a true and correct copy. The original usually stays the same.
My problem is the lower left hand corner which says ‘Rev. 11/01.” That means the form was REVISED November 2001. At least in Florida that is the way it would be.
But modern birth certificates have watermarks and other anti-copy features. Also, that seal looks crappy. In addition, would a birth certificate filled out at a US hospital in 1961 list “African” as the father’s race? No, he would have been listed as black or possibly Negro or colored.
If the birth certificate is phony, those involved in creating it have engaged in a criminal act.
The best way to handle this is to take a copy of Obama’s “certificate” to a Republican prosecuting attorney in Hawaii (there must be at least one), and discuss the issue with him. If it is phony, charges can be filed against those responsible.
Another option would be to take it to a Republican private attorney in Hawaii, preferably someone active in state GOP politics.
Now we have another reason why we can’t interview his maternal grandmother.
The more interesting question is why Obama’s campaign refused to release it but Kos could get a copy ?
Shades of Kerry’s “full disclosure”.
If you hold the Messiahs “certificate” upside-down, then look at in reverse in a mirror, it is very faint, but I believe it says...”Paul is dead......I burried Paul.”
Move along folks, nothing to see here......
The Daily Kos probably got their inspiration for this phony document posting from Dan Rather and his friends on CBS!
Your statement about race is true. In 1961 white or black or negro or colored would have been on there for race.
The other thing is that a certified copy is certified by someone who made the copy in the office of vital records. The original was signed by someone and that signature remains a part of the permanent record. Then the copy is certified by the clerk making the certified copy.
That’s what I don’t understand. Birth Certificates are hardly national secrets. I had to give a copy of my kid’s certificates just to get them into soccer.
Why doesn’t he simply order up a clean copy of the certificate and hand it to the New York Times?
I doubt there is anything to this story, but Obama is doing his best to make it look like there is. Maybe that’s the point — to drag it out, and then release it and make everybody who questioned it look stupid.
That’s why I focus on the stupidity of not releasing a simple document, rather than what could be IN the document.
Is the Revised date for the printed certificate or is it for the blank form on which the individual's personal information is printed?
Also- for the record- it appears Obama is using the same one as Daily Kos.
That would be the blank form.
It’s interesting that he was named Barack Hussein Obama II and not Jr. on his birth certificate. One is usually not called II until a III comes along as with the birth of a grandchild who is given the same name.
The guess here is that the creator of this bogus document didn't have the real document at all, and thought that putting a phony certificate number on it might give the forgery away - if that number could be checked against the state birth registry.
That's the catch. It was not consistent with a laser printer printout of a document. It was consistent with a digitally created image not a laser printed form. If it was simply laser printed, the background where the printing occurred would match the background where there wasn't printing.
Obama would not have changed the race to African since he would love to maximize the impact of having his father called a Negro or colored to emphasize it and once again play the race card.
I don’t see how the fact that it was produced on a computer proves anything. That’s probably how the State of Hawaii produces them.
Of course, under such a law we would never have had Clinton as a President, either... :-)
FWIW, & for full disclosure, I had to pass a FTS investigation before I was allowed to take my final USAF training. Those investigations are amazingly thorough. The OSI even noted that, in high school, my buddies and I called each other, "Comrade Idiot" -- as an insult -- when one of us did something really stupid! LOL!!!
The only thing that matters is was he born in Kenya, or Hawaii?
It should. If a legimate Hawaii birth certificate for Obama really exists, a legit photocopy of it, without any computer technology on its face, should be available for a reasonable fee from the state or local government. Any person of even moderate intelligence would want to obtain a true certified copy of such a document to prove beyond doubt that Obama was really born in Hawaii on the date indicated. Otherwise there are reasonable questions as to the document's authenticity, which in turn raise questions as to Obama's real place and date of birth.
No, but it's possible that the politically correct state of Hawaii issued an order changing the usage from Negro to African American. Since his father was NOT an African American, it would have been logical to change it to African. Obama would not need to have had anything to do with it.
Again, just speculation. But it's disturbing that birth records can be repeatedly changed like this at the order of a court or the whims of politicians.
We also can’t declare his boyhood home an historical landmark, since he won’t tell us where it is.
I didn’t bother to read the whole thing. Reasons? First, the fuzzy outlines he complains about are a product of the compression of a graphic image. It doesn’t mean it’s been Pshopped.
Second, the State Seal is pressed into the paper of an official certificate, so it would NOT be in color.
Critique busted. I say the certificate is genuine.
Can we move on to more meaningful critiques of Obama? There are plenty of them to take up.
Does that mean that we can finally move to Stage 2 of the scandal, finding out what Kos's expectations were by putting this in the blogosphere in the first place? Then we can find out if this was a lone individual who posted this as a lark, or trying to "help" Obama, or planted by others in the Obama campaign?
Obviously, the Birth Certificate form used by the state for Obama’s supposed birth there would not read “(Rev 11/01),” which indicates in bureaucrat-speak that the form was revised in 2001, 40 years after the birth. Thus the form itself is not the one that would have been used in 1961.
Thanks for the clarification.
Again, it seems logical that we should demand that Obama give permission for trustworthy persons and/or legitimate investigative reporters to access his birth records directly from the state of Hawaii, and not from an untrustworthy third party, converted to an internet image, and authorized by some anonymous person.
The certificate, as you say, not the certification.
Interesting how the 'blank form' doesn't have a consistent and even some places blank background where the printing is. I think there are enough discrepancies here to believe the document is likely a fake. Unless the jpeg compression around the letters is what altered the background.
According to the page at your link, "OHSM" = "Office of Health Status Monitoring".
Same acronym. I don't see that as an issue...
OK, I just went back and read more of the critique, and he’s won me over on his point about the corners of the doc. It’s a fake.
Oh there could be lots of interesting details. What was his real name? Is his religion listed? Was his father listed on the birth certificate? Were his parents married? Has Obama lied about his past?
Yeah, I saw that right away, too: “2007” reversed in pretty large letters near the bottom.
Dude, read the analysis!!!! It has nothing to do with it being a computer document per se. That is completely understood. It is that it is a fraudulent computer document.
Yep, stamped JUN - 6 2007 or possibly 2003 on the back.
That is the one thing that makes it look legit. I would imagine they do stamp on date they issued the document on the back. Other than that, there are a lot of oddities with this image.
It’s a date stamp on the back.
JUN - 6 2007 or 2003