Posted on 06/21/2008 2:03:50 PM PDT by pissant
Friday we started a series on Obama’s birth certificate. The most recent post, Obama’s BIG Birth Certificate PROBLEM, featured two supposed “Certificates of Live Birth” from Honolulu, Hawaii: one presented as evidence of Obama’s 1961 birth; and the other certifying the birth of Patricia Decosta.
Here again is the document proffered by the Obama Campaign as evidence of his birth:
And here is Ms. Decosta’s certification:
We received confirmation from the Hawaii State Department of Health (HSDH) that:
1. Certified copies of birth certificates are NEVER sent electronically. Copies can be requested by qualified individuals in person, by mail, or on line; and the Vital Records (VR) office will MAIL the Certification of Live Birth within 4 to 6 weeks.
2. Certifications of Live Birth will ALWAYS include an embossed seal.
3. The Vital Records office will NEVER black out the certification number.
Thanks to our sharp readers, I’ve come up with a pretty interesting list of observations and questions so far. So, let’s review.
Observations/Questions:
1. Both documents reference the same form, indicated in the lower left corner: “OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) LASER,” likely meaning that this form was revised in Nov. 2001 for use with laser printers, AND therefore that both of these certifications theoretically would have been produced by the VR office in Nov. 2001 or later.
2. In the lower left section, Decosta’s document says “Date Accepted By State Registrar” and Obama’s says “Date Filed By Registrar.” If they were both produced on the same form, why is the language different?
3. Decosta’s “Certificate No.” in the upper right region is shown; Obama’s is blacked out with a clean-edged block. When was this done, by whom, and why would a birth certificate number be a secret? Again, this is never done by the HSDH.
4. Decosta’s shows an embossed seal in the lower center region; Obama’s has no embossed seal. Again, HSDH says certifications never leave the office without one.
5. Decosta’s shows a stamp with signature in the lower left region; Obama’s does not. Again, standard procedure?
6. Obama’s “father’s race” is shown as “African,” which many readers find odd given that it’s not descriptive for race. What was the term used on birth certificates in Hawaii in 1961 for an African American?
7. Both documents appear to show in the lower center region a faint date, such as the kind produced by a standard ink-pad stamp purchased in any office supply store. I cannot make out the dates. Maybe this is supposed to be the date that the certification was approved, or mailed? When does Obama claim that he “received” this document?”
8. The font on Decosta’s is much bolder than that on Obama’s.
9. Decosta’s reveals fold marks, which you’d expect from a mailed document; Obama’s shows no signs of being handled at all, as if it was never printed (and if that’s the case, how was the certificate number blacked out?).
In addition, Polarik finds all kinds of problems in the microscopic details, as have other readers with expertise in the fields of printing, graphics, etc.
Other questions based on reader comments and Google searches:
1. Obama obviously cannot claim that this document is his original birth certificate, so why doesn’t he comment on the whereabouts of the original?
2. Wikipedia says that “Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.” Are there records of his birth at that hospital? I have seen references that there are not, but have not researched further.
3. The HSDH provides for “late registration” of a birth, and some have suggested that Obama may have actually been born in Kenya and registered for birth in Hawaii later. Has anyone researched this?
And finally, a possibly related question is whether Obama registered for the Selective Service when he turned 18, as he was required to do by law. Did the SS registration require a birth certificate?
ha!
Hillary, you magnificent b****!
Even if it turns out Hussein is actually hiding nothing (which I somehow doubt), this is a very valuable exercise.
Just as President Bush and John McCain finally getting off the dime last week and strongly advocating new energy sources, offshore drilling and new nuclear plants, immediately energized supporters and rallied the base.
This does the same. Any post critical of Obama, is a post not (yet again) ... whining about John McCain.
That’s a clear win-win, on so many levels. :)
2. In the lower left section, Decosta’s document says “Date Accepted By State Registrar” and Obama’s says “Date Filed By Registrar.” If they were both produced on the same form, why is the language different?
________________________
Birth certificates are not filed by a registrar. Rather, they are filed with the office of the registrar (by the hospital.)
Also, is not one’s college application part of the public record subject to FOIA?
Doubt it. Obama's only a few years older than I am.
I registered at the Post Office. I doubt that I'd brought a birth certificate with me. More likely, I just filled out a form.
In a day when every little leaguer or other sports participant, regardless of age, has to provide a signed, raised seal, copy of certificate of birth in order to participate in various tournament play........WHO is responsible for making sure that ALL candidates for POTUS are legally able to fill the position BEFORE actively campaigning??
“2. Wikipedia says that “Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.” Are there records of his birth at that hospital? I have seen references that there are not, but have not researched further. “
AS I’ve posted here many times, the Obama site states that he was born in Queens Hospital in Honolulu. So again there is a discrepancy and need to provide the birth records NOT just a BC at this point.
Wouldn’t Hillary have dropped this little tidbit earlier in the campaign?
He waited until she suspended her campaign before he released this.
Any alterations invalidates this certificate. Blacking out the serial number is an alteration
All of the text (including the supposed pre-printed text) has a fuzzy border around it. They look like they were pasted and then had the edges feathered in Photoshop.
Not to mention that the blackout is computer created. So it was either blacked out by the Hawaii official or the creator of this fraudulent document (my bet’s on the latter)
Hawaiian FReepers.... do your birth certificates contain “island of birth”? Hawaii doesn’t have all that many cities and towns. When I lived there for two years, if you mentioned a town or city, most people automatically knew what island it was on (unless there were two places with the same name; for example, Waimea).
For the above point, and the lack of a Seal, lack of fold markes, etc, there is a plausible possibility:
Obama wanted to produce the birth info, he didn't want to wait 4-6 weeks. Probably everyone who works in Hawaii gov't is a democrat. Obama asked his Hawaii campaign staff to go and get it. Someone in the campaign staff knew someone who worked at the relavent agency... that person quickly printed the thing out and gave it to the staff member in violation of policy.
I am not saying I have any reason to believe this is the case, just that it would explain a whole host of issues.
I am beginning to wonder if this isn’t a way to throw people off the scent.
There is speculation about his mother arriving later etc. I wonder if what they really fear is that perhaps there were soem paperwork shenanigans or irregularities to get the paperwork straight. Obviously no one considered the infant would one day run for President, but is it possible there was something which needed a little redtape cutting?
In other words, perhaps they build the suspense, release the B.C and it actually looks fine, the media says “end of story”...but the real issue was/is HOW the BC came to exist.
Hiding in plain sight/diversion/red herring.
I dunno.
Then again, that just gets back into the fact his Mother was clearly an American anyway..so.........
I would imagine many others did so as well.
First change was just a revision to Windows. Second change was a new computer with a post 2000 chip and startup routine. Third change was with the corporate intranet.
As I retired in 2004 "they" were going through essentially the same exercise again.
Every single time "they" changed a major system component "they" made us rewrite our webpages ~ words changed left and right.
It is entirely conceivable that Hawaii state government went through similar post-millenium disaster exercises.
I would imagine many others did so as well.
First change was just a revision to Windows. Second change was a new computer with a post 2000 chip and startup routine. Third change was with the corporate intranet.
As I retired in 2004 "they" were going through essentially the same exercise again.
Every single time "they" changed a major system component "they" made us rewrite our webpages ~ words changed left and right.
It is entirely conceivable that Hawaii state government went through similar post-millenium disaster exercises.
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.