Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's BC says it's an "abstract," it's on modern computer paper, and it's dated "April 25 2011."
April 27, 2011 | me

Posted on 04/27/2011 8:58:36 AM PDT by grundle

I don't consider myself to be a "birther," but I am not a fool either.

The document that Obama released today says that it is an "abstract" of the record on file.

In law, an "abstract" is defined as "a brief statement that contains the most important points of a long legal document or of several related legal papers."

So it's not the actual form.

Also, it's printed on modern computer paper.

And it's dated "April 25 2011."



TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; naturalborncitizen; obama; officialbcrelease
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100 last
To: marstegreg

People sign the original document. They don’t show up to also sign an abstract. Obama can request a certified copy of the original document with an impressed seal and show that. That would end this, but that’s not what they want. I want to see the real thing.


51 posted on 04/27/2011 9:34:42 AM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Here is an interesting clip from a blogger

Note that the green security lines don't bend when the black lines do.

Until today I was not a "birther," but now I am. The reason is the document released. Look at the black line above block 1a where it curves down. Where it is horizontal (not curved), and behind it are two horizonal dashed green lines on the paper. That black line is just above the lower of the two green lines. Now where it curves down, at the far left side where it is shadowed and you will see the curved black line is far below BOTH dashed green lines. Furthermore, the dashed green line on the left side of the tear perfectly matches horizontally with the dashed green line in the shaded area, in other words the black line has curved downward, but the dashed green lines did not. This is physically NOT possible for either the black line to now be below the green lines, or for those green lines to match up, unless this is a forgery which I am convinced it is now. I am going to post this observation as many places as possible, and would like someone to explain away both of these anomalies as being something other than proof of a forgery. - JohnDD (Arizona and Washington State)

52 posted on 04/27/2011 9:34:59 AM PDT by george123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
I don't consider myself to be a "birther," but I am not a fool either.

I've got bad news for you: you are both.

53 posted on 04/27/2011 9:36:33 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

I believe the information from the original abstract is transferred to the computer paper but the font looks like 60s era typeface to me. At any rate, I think it’s legit and am ready to move on. Let’s have Obama explain how since his father was not a citizen, he is a natural-born citizen.

Wouldn’t it be easier to just photocopy and certify? Istead they match up the type on the original to issue it on modern computer paper? That makes no sense.


54 posted on 04/27/2011 9:38:39 AM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: milwguy
The local resitrar on Obama’s BC is one word Uklle?

It's Urkel:

55 posted on 04/27/2011 9:41:04 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: george123
Note that the green security lines don't bend when the black lines do.

Because the green security lines aren't original, but part of the paper it was printed on.

56 posted on 04/27/2011 9:41:48 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: cydcharisse

Well, it’s foolish to compare the reservations folks SHOULD HOLD about this certificate to the 9/11 Truthers. Real forensic engineering does show that the buildings would fail just as they did on 9/11 when hit by a high speed fuel loaded heavy passenger jet.

But here in the Birth Certificate issue, WHERE are the honest forensic examinations? None, at least as yet. And YOU know how HONEST Obama is, don’t you?


57 posted on 04/27/2011 9:42:00 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Hehehehehhe.


58 posted on 04/27/2011 9:42:02 AM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Missouri gal

http://theobamafile.com/_family/ObamaDunhamMarriage.htm


59 posted on 04/27/2011 9:45:18 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: maxwellsmart_agent

People sign the original document. They don’t show up to also sign an abstract. Obama can request a certified copy of the original document with an impressed seal and show that. That would end this, but that’s not what they want. I want to see the real thing.

So that makes 3 big problems with this and we aren’t even remotely experts. I can’t wait til the experts get hold of this.


60 posted on 04/27/2011 9:46:52 AM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

So, this is the same birth certificate, that, didn’t exist, and no one could find. How come, all of a sudden, it shows up out of nowhere. How can such a thing be?


61 posted on 04/27/2011 9:48:22 AM PDT by stefeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

Zoom in by 5x.

What is all the whitespace around all the words. Copy / Scanner artifacts?


62 posted on 04/27/2011 9:54:53 AM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: grundle

It’s a total forgery:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711164/posts?page=325


63 posted on 04/27/2011 9:59:42 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

How come there isn’t a raised seal on what is supposed to be a certified copy or abstract of the original? The Registrar has signed it verifying it as a copy. Shouldn’t a raised seal be on it as well? I just checked the two copies I have of my birth record, and both have a raised seal. I had to request those when I wanted to apply for a passport, because my original birth certificate from 1947, which was issued by the Health Department in Rochester, NY, had a seal, but it wasn’t raised.


64 posted on 04/27/2011 9:59:51 AM PDT by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Milton Miteybad
Trouble is Milton? There's an argument on whether that applies. According to one (assuredly lib)legal scholar, in the Michigan Law Review. Now, the source is wiki, but I could see them making this argument:

In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that "[t]here is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'".[21] In April 2010 Solum republished the same article as an online draft, in which he changed his opinion on the meaning of natural born citizen to include persons born in the United States of one American citizen parent. In a footnote he explained that "[b]ased on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a 'natural born citizen.'" He further extended natural born citizenship to all cases of jus soli as the "conventional view".[22],

Not saying I agree, but this will be the argument.

65 posted on 04/27/2011 10:02:41 AM PDT by Braak (The US Military, the real arms inspectors!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
Any idea why the old typewriter font appears on the modern security paper?

Assuming the original does exist bound into a book, as has been claimed, it was scanned and printed on security paper. The bend at the left margin of the image is exactly what you get when you scan from a book.

66 posted on 04/27/2011 10:03:36 AM PDT by Fresh Wind ('People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook.' Richard M. Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

Someone on Facebook posted that very thing...U K L Lee...ukulele......??? Huh?.....the finger to all of us stupid people perhaps? Obama thinks he is so clever something like that wouldn’t be “beneath” him to do....


67 posted on 04/27/2011 10:09:14 AM PDT by imfrmdixie (A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: everyone

I usually don’t pay much attention to forensics, but it looks suspicious to me.

Is it just me, or does it look like a physically transparent document laid over modern computer paper? (The paper pattern is visible BENEATH the data fields).

What’s up with that? I’ve never seen anything like that bekore.

And by the way, the document states that Barack Obama Sr. was born in “Kenya, East Africa.” So unless Obama Sr. later became a U.S. citizen, the POSOTUS is not NBC and is not prez.

The second document doesn’t contain anything really new and, so far as it’s accurate, convicts Obama of treason yet again.

Leo Donofrio seemed very pessimistic. I’m not sure why. The “new” document doesn’t settle anything.

God Save the First Republic (1789 to 2009).


68 posted on 04/27/2011 10:09:44 AM PDT by Art II Sec 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

From the .pdf document

/CreationDate (D:20110427120924Z00’00’)

The actual .pdf was created on 4-27-2011 at 12:09:24 Z, but the document is dated as having been signed by the officials on 4-25-2011


69 posted on 04/27/2011 10:12:09 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Mine also has a raised State Seal and the declaration: “This is a true and correct copy of the official record on file in this office.” Now, that being said, in 1961 the race of the father would not have been listed as “Africian”. It would have read “Negro”. Therefore this is NOT a copy of the original IMHO.


70 posted on 04/27/2011 10:13:19 AM PDT by mc5cents (Government doesn't solve problems, it subsidizes them. -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: grundle

It’s a certified copy of a document. It’s what you would get in most states if you lost your birth certificates and needed an “official copy” for some reason, such as getting a passport. They photocopy the orginal document, then the copy is signed (and maybe sealed) by the appropriate official and is stamped with the date on which he signed it.


71 posted on 04/27/2011 10:14:23 AM PDT by blau993
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voter#537
"race of father? African?"

Surely, this must be pretty easy to solve...are their other "Africans" born in Hawaii during this time period? Could we see their birth certificates, and see what they have for race?

72 posted on 04/27/2011 10:16:52 AM PDT by Lou L (The Senate without a fillibuster is just a 100-member version of the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Typical.

You hate “the stupid crap you read here,” yet you are here to read it.

Aren’t there some hand-me-outs and walking around money you should be picking up?


73 posted on 04/27/2011 10:17:02 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen (BHO II naturalized as U.S. Citizen after becoming an Indonesian National)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

The white halo should not be there. Also if it is a “scanned and photocopied” document it would be a solid image file. There would not be a clipping mask with removable text when opened in Illustrator.


74 posted on 04/27/2011 10:20:22 AM PDT by eyrish69 (Yellowstone Wolves - Smoke a Pack a Day!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: grundle

When did that kind of paper become available and used by the State of Hawaii?


75 posted on 04/27/2011 10:23:28 AM PDT by airedale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350
Here's the problem I have. The mother is supposed to be in HI to sign this doc on 8/7/61, yet she is placed in Washington state roughly one maybe two weeks later. In 1961 that would be virtually impossible, especially with a newborn.

So that would definitely rule out Kenyan birth then.
76 posted on 04/27/2011 10:24:18 AM PDT by FewsOrange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Braak

Sure. It’s not a completely baseless argument. And that’s a decision a court needs to render: what exactly is a natural born citizen within the context of Article II, Section 1?


77 posted on 04/27/2011 10:34:55 AM PDT by Milton Miteybad (I am Jim Thompson. {Really.})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

“Note that the green security lines don’t bend when the black lines do.

Because the green security lines aren’t original, but part of the paper it was printed on.”

******************************

your explanation does not make any sense. how can you print one document onto another without the original blocking out whole portions of the underlying paper? in other words, if the BC had been printed on green security paper, the BC would have to be transparent in order for the green security paper to show through? right??? can someone expand?


78 posted on 04/27/2011 10:35:14 AM PDT by matt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: grundle

I expect this from the lamestream media and moveon.crap:

Me KnO obama. oBamA wEre bOrn Haer.
ThiS Berth SertifakiT is Jen youwine.
Yoo make hayt speech iF yoo say hE not born hear.
BorN in 1961 in sumer, how mini timez?


79 posted on 04/27/2011 10:35:50 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876 (The only crimes that are 100% preventable are crimes committed by illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt1
your explanation does not make any sense. how can you print one document onto another without the original blocking out whole portions of the underlying paper?

Simple. The security paper comes in blank sheets. Take a blank piece of security paper, load it in a copier, and then make your copy of the original.

80 posted on 04/27/2011 10:38:40 AM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Ping!


81 posted on 04/27/2011 10:45:02 AM PDT by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Which is fake? Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
82 posted on 04/27/2011 10:46:58 AM PDT by mojitojoe ( 1400 years of existence & Islam has 2 main accomplishments, psychotic violence and goat curry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
I am still wondering what is so embarrassing on it...that was the original reason Obama used for not releasing it.
83 posted on 04/27/2011 10:53:56 AM PDT by surfer (To err is human, to really foul things up takes a Democrat, don't expect the GOP to have the answer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat

Someone said that it was copied onto patterned paper. I am going to look around and see if I have any patterened paper and then copy an open book page and see what it looks like.


84 posted on 04/27/2011 10:57:27 AM PDT by sportutegrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Simple. The security paper comes in blank sheets. Take a blank piece of security paper, load it in a copier, and then make your copy of the original.

****************************

i understand that. however, if you load the blank security paper into the printer and then photocopy the BC onto the security paper, the BC or any photocopied document would block out the portion of the security paper relative to the photocopied document UNLESS the BC or other document is itself is a transparency. can someone please explain that???


85 posted on 04/27/2011 11:22:00 AM PDT by matt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: matt1
i understand that. however, if you load the blank security paper into the printer and then photocopy the BC onto the security paper, the BC or any photocopied document would block out the portion of the security paper relative to the photocopied document UNLESS the BC or other document is itself is a transparency.

Huh? The image would just be printed on the security paper. I don't see what's confusing you or what you think should be blocked out.

Looks to me like they pulled the bound book of BCs from 1961, put a piece of security paper in the paper tray, laid the book on the copier and made a B&W copy. They then took that copy, stamped it with Monday's date, had the registrar sign it to make it official, then scanned it as a color pdf and e-mailed it to the White House.

I honestly don't see any thing funny here.

86 posted on 04/27/2011 11:41:33 AM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: FewsOrange
No way possible for Kenya if that is in fact his date of birth.

In 1961 you couldn't just fly anywhere at the drop of a hat. You had to be immunized to travel overseas so you could come back. I doubt seriously a prego that far along could be immunized.

Zippo would have been born a Kenyan so they probably wouldn't let him into the country without his shots, and he would have been too young to get shots.

Not to mention the time it would take to go to and from Kenya.

In 1961 I'm not even sure they would let a newborn that young on a plan.

87 posted on 04/27/2011 11:46:38 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

“I honestly don’t see any thing funny here.”

what’s funny here is that you can see the green paper THROUGH the BC. the BC is NOT be a transparent image. the ONLY way for that to occur is if you PRINTED a document onto the green paper. that would not be possible if you COPIED the BC onto te green security paper. can’t you understand that? anyone else know what I’m referring to???


88 posted on 04/27/2011 11:49:19 AM PDT by matt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: matt1
what’s funny here is that you can see the green paper THROUGH the BC. the BC is NOT be a transparent image. the ONLY way for that to occur is if you PRINTED a document onto the green paper.

OK. Try a little experiment. Take a piece of colored paper. Put it in your printer paper try. Then take a printed document on white paper. Copy it in b&w onto the colored paper.

What color is the background of that document on the copy?

On b&w copiers, the printer only sees and copies very dark images. If it does not see something, it does not lay any ink or toner in that area of the copy. Even if the original bound certificate was on a security paper, the background would not copy in b&w. They is the idea of using security paper in the first place.

89 posted on 04/27/2011 12:09:13 PM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

“On b&w copiers, the printer only sees and copies very dark images. If it does not see something, it does not lay any ink or toner in that area of the copy. Even if the original bound certificate was on a security paper, the background would not copy in b&w. They is the idea of using security paper in the first place.”

you’re EXACTLY right. the design on the security paper would NOT show through on a copy. Rather, it would appear as solid white, as you indicated. however, looking at the attached image (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/barack-obama/birth-obama-certer-movement-098513?page=2), you can see the green security paper THROUGH the BC which indicates to me that the BC would have to be transparent in order for that to happen. the entire portion of the BC should be white and therefore block out the underlying green security paper. the image appears to be PRINTED on green security paper rather than an a photocopied image SUPERIMPOSED onto green security paper. do you see?


90 posted on 04/27/2011 12:19:27 PM PDT by matt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: matt1
you’re EXACTLY right. the design on the security paper would NOT show through on a copy. Rather, it would appear as solid white, as you indicated.

It would appear as whatever color the paper it's being printed on. The copier just picks up the dark parts and moves them over to the new paper.

91 posted on 04/27/2011 12:29:56 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: matt1
Rather, it would appear as solid white, as you indicated. however, looking at the attached image (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/barack-obama/birth-obama-certer-movement-098513?page=2), you can see the green security paper THROUGH the BC which indicates to me that the BC would have to be transparent in order for that to happen. the entire portion of the BC should be white

Uh.... my friend.... copy machines do not have white ink. They can't print white. The can't see white. They can only copy images. White is the absence of an image.

92 posted on 04/27/2011 12:29:56 PM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: matt1

the BC or any photocopied document would block out the portion of the security paper relative to the photocopied document UNLESS the BC or other document is itself is a transparency.
********************************************
The white sections would not be copied ,, only the black or dark sections ,, what I don’t understand is the “curve” in the left of the copy ... the security paper should be flat and undistorted with print as scanned (distorted at scan time due to the binding) being “bent” .. the security paper cannot be “printed” at the time the document is produced ,, you quite simply don’t have the ability to keep the template secure and you cannot incorporate the security features..


93 posted on 04/27/2011 1:40:15 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

Sequence numbers are WRONG compared to Nordyke ,,, Nordyke’s local registrar is different although they were at the same hospital at the same week... 8-8-61 was a tuesday , 8-11-61 was a friday ... I would like to see the microfilm these records were originally copied onto ... a single sheet would contain perhaps 120 images and would be far too large a job to fake convincingly... It appears as if the microfilm record was converted into a computerized record sometime in the (somewhat) recent past ,, large capacity optical storage (nobody would use dasd to store images in the 1980’s or 1990’s ,, FAR FAR too expensive.. IBM 3380K’s were only 2gb in capacity and cost $250k each ) came into use in the mid 1990’s ... As the microfilm is compact and easy to store it is usually RETAINED even after conversion ,, the conversion allows decentralized offices to re-create documents ,, especially important in an island environment where inter-island travel slow or expensive...


94 posted on 04/27/2011 1:56:57 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents
I looked at the choices oo the 1960 Federal census. White, black, asian.....

I would investigate whether the group surrounding his number also lists African. That's how I would investigate it.

African at that time makes no sense.

Don't forget Hawaii was a pretty new state so I'm sure they set standards because it was NOW required.

95 posted on 04/27/2011 2:51:34 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: All

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab26.pdf


96 posted on 04/27/2011 2:57:21 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: grundle

So the doctor signed it on the 8th and it got recorded on the 8th?? That doesn’t sound right. Someone ran it to the registrars...local and state? and this all got done in one day. Not in my world.


97 posted on 04/27/2011 3:05:29 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
The Smoking Gun News has the registrar as “Ukulele”.

That's definitely significant!

98 posted on 04/27/2011 3:31:12 PM PDT by CommieCutter (Promote Liberal Extinction: Support gay marriage and abortion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: eyrish69

bump for later


99 posted on 04/28/2011 6:08:28 AM PDT by freebird5850 (Of course Obama loves his country...it's just that Sarah Palin loves mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Milton Miteybad
The current occupant of the White House would have been a natural born citizen because he would have inherited no other citizenship as a result of his birth.

Except that, according to both British and American law, Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been married because Barack Hussein Obama was already married to Kezia.

Again, according to British law, American law, and the common law, any child born to the unmarried Stanley Ann Dunham could not have inherited nationality from any man, because the law in 1961 in all relevant places only recognized "putative" fatherhood for bastards. Without an acknowledgement of paternity BY THE MAN, there is no way the child of Stanley Ann Dunham could have inherited his nationality.

And, in this very strange matter, there is no evidence whatsoever that Barack Hussein Obama EVER acknowledged paternity. There is some suspect evidence that he told Kezia and others that he had taken another wife, but none that he had a son.

100 posted on 04/28/2011 6:21:30 AM PDT by Jim Noble (The Constitution is overthrown. The Revolution is betrayed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson