Posted on 06/17/2008 6:00:53 PM PDT by freespirited
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?
-PJ
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?
Ping.
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.
Good thinking.
It’s a date stamp on the back.
JUN - 6 2007 or 2003
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.