Why anyone is voting for this criminal is beyond all rational thought.
Posted on 06/23/2008 8:15:00 PM PDT by Polarik
OK, here's the 411 on Hawaii's "Certification of Live Birth.
I just got off the phone after talking with their Vital Records office and the Office that issues these certifications.
HAWAII NO LONGER ISSUES COPIES OF ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES. WHAT THEY ISSUE IS THIS COMPUTER-GENERATED CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH THAT IS PRINTED ON GREEN PAPER USING A LASER PRINTER.
In other words, folks, we are not going to get any other kind of certificate from the Vital Records division of the Hawaiian government, except this certification.
OHSM 1.1 is the number of the Certification of Live Birth form, and the most current version of it is Rev 11/01 -- or, what we have seen in both images.
So, a person (such as a family member) who is authorized to obtain one of these for an individual born in Hawaii, would receive this Certification regardless of when the birth occurred.
HOWEVER, they absolutely referred to African-Americans born in Hawaiio as "BLACK" and not African, and no updates to the race classifications were ever made. If your birth certificate said "BLACK" in 1961, it would still say, "BLACK" on a Certification printed today.
BUT they also told me that, for it to be a "certified" copy, it HAS to be stamped with the seal of Hawaii and the signature block, and then signed by the Dispersement office and not Vital Records.
According to our Census Bureau, all statistical reports produced by the Bureau use the terms White, Black, Hispanic origin, and White, not of Hispanic origin, were used for all census years for consistency of presentation, even though, there have been changes in terminology in census reports, including from Negro to Black between 1970 and 1980 and from Spanish origin to Hispanic origin between 1980 and 1990.
The conclusion?
Calling the image of Obama's "Certification," that we have seen, a "birth certificate," is a valid statement insofar as the State of Hawaii distributes these as legitimate records of birth, providing that they have been properly certified as mentioned above.
However, all of the evidence I've examined to date points to what is a deliberate graphical modification of a copy of an original, or even a copy of a copy, given its degree of degradation.
The image of Decosta's Certificate shows that it HAS ALL OF THE CERTIFICATIONS that the Hawaiian Health Department issues, whereas the image of Obama's Certificate shows ZERO EVIDENCE OF EVER BEING CERTIFIED.
According to the caveat at the bottom of this certification, ANY ALTERATIONS RENDER IT INVALID.
Or, in other words, this image -- or the source of this image -- cannot be used as "prima facie evidence" in defense of any legal challenge to Obama's date, place, and time of birth, since it has not been certified by the issuing party as being a true and accurate representation of the facts on file.
All Obama would need to do to make this issue go away, is to request that Hawaii's office of Vital Records send him a properly CERTIFIED "Certificate," laser printed on the original green paper, that has no evidence of tampering or alteration.
Red Herring.
Oftentimes posts like this one come from a day or so in the future.
It is laughably easy to obtain a birth certificate — I tell you this as someone who has done paternity cases. He could get it if he wanted to.
It should surprise no one that this process (which so terribly many of us use every day) should show evidence of having been used.
Regarding what the documents on file say about Obama's father's race, the information there came from Obama's mother. I seriously doubt the nurse taking down the information argued with her about it.
Since those events took place in 1961 it's doubtful anyone now working at the hospital, or in the organization responsible for birth certificates, was working there then.
He's worked awfully hard (changing his name to something african sounding and calling himself black, instead of white or mixed) to further his career. He's not about to have that all blown up by the truth that he's just as much white as black.
“Red Herring.”
Still, interesting.
I believe the certificate is real.
I bet if you looked at certificates printed in 2007 they would would have similar imperfections, such as the overlapping framing bars (whatever they are called). I believe some of the other imperfections derive from graphic compression.
But,
the key is the date stamping. The date stamping on the back side of the certificate is viewable in both examples, Obama’s and the Decosta’s. The stamping is done near the same location, and looks like the same machine.
And,
on Decosta’s the signature block is also stamped on the back of the certificate and is visible too, like the date stamping.
But, on Obama’s no signature block is visible from the back side, unlike Decosta’s. It is non-existent, as the impressed seal is non-existent.
If this document were fake the forger would not have bothered to only forge the date stamping.
Conclusion:
The document is real. It was created by someone at the appropriate agency. But it never got appropriately signed and certified. The document was created by an “insider” at the agency and bypassed by the registrar to the Obama camp.
Just my guess.
“It should surprise no one that this process (which so terribly many of us use every day) should show evidence of having been used.”
Agree with you there.
“Regarding what the documents on file say about Obama’s father’s race, the information there came from Obama’s mother. I seriously doubt the nurse taking down the information argued with her about it.”
The Decosta document itself shows variant usages of ethnicity names. If Barack SR. said “African” the clerk wrote African. A forger would not go so wild to use a name like “African” when black or “negro” would be more expected. The use of the anomalous “African” makes it more likely it is “real”, IMO.
I have read say that Obama’s document may have the certification impression but not visible due to the way it was scanned. Maybe. What I think is inarguable is that his document does not show the “signature block” bleeding through from the other side. This is not due to “scanning” because the date stamping bleeds through in both documents.
This document is authentic, but not authorized. If it were a forgery the forger would not have bothered to create the date stamping but forget the essential signature block. IMO this document was created inside the correct Hawaii agency, but bypassed “normal procedures.” Maybe a clerk created it for the Obama team.
“The Decosta document itself shows variant usages of ethnicity names. If Barack SR. said “African” the clerk wrote African. A forger would not go so wild to use a name like “African” when black or “negro” would be more expected. The use of the anomalous “African” makes it more likely it is “real”, IMO.”
Thinking that over, the use of the word “African” makes it more likely it reflects the actual birth certificate on file.
Or maybe not.
Interesting!
“If it were a forgery the forger would not have bothered to create the date stamping but forget the essential signature block.”
Correcting that, it could be a “forgery” if that definition doesn’t preclude documents made where they purport to be but have some false information and...oh, you know what I mean. ;)
I suspect there IS something fishy about the entire birth certificate PROCESS, but this is just a diversion to essentially obfuscate something close. A magician’s trick. Get everyone focused on the BC itself rather than how it was obtained in the first place?
Just a thought.
Polarik
Since Jun 22, 2008
Would they be refered to way back in 1961 as ‘black’? Wouldn’t it have been Negro?
“Negro” and “colored” remained the popular terms until the late 1960s.[37]
The term black was used throughout but not frequently as it carried a certain stigma. In his 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech,[38] Martin Luther King, Jr. uses the terms Negro 15 times and black 4 times. Each time he uses black it is in parallel construction with white (e.g., black men and white men).[39] With the successes of the civil rights movement a new term was needed to break from the past and help shed the reminders of legalized discrimination. In place of Negro, black was promoted as standing for racial pride, militancy and power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people
The image of the Certificate of Live Birth says Sen. Obama's father is "African", not "black".
Perhaps the significance of the term "African" is that Sen. Obama's father truly was African, and not a black American.
That would have to be a firing offense, if not a criminal offense, to steal a blank government form and generate a document with no intent to authenticate it through government channels.
-PJ
You are too new here.
Why anyone is voting for this criminal is beyond all rational thought.
Some of you are still missing the essential points here, so, let me take it from a different tack, and maybe you will understand then why there is fakery afoot. All of the following Q & A refer to the Obama image:
Q: Is this image a copy of a document called a “Certification of Live Birth” that the Vital Records office within the Hawaii State Department of Health issues upon request?
A: Yes.
Q: Did the Vital Records office produce this image?
A: No, The Vital Records office does not produce nor transmit any electronic documents.
Q: Then, is this an image of a scanned document?
A: Yes, but not totally. Meaning, that additional information was added to the scanned document.
Q: Is this scanned document an actual “Certification of Live Birth?”
A: Yes and No. Yes, for most, but not all, of the textual information that matches what would be found on a scan of an original document. No, because there are discrepancies in the textual information presented and in the manner by which it is presented. For example, there are different statements regarding the actions of the Registrar, and, more importantly, there is textual information that appears to have been overlayed or superimposed onto the original scan — information that casts doubt on the image matching the original document.
Q: So, what you’re saying is that, at one time, this was an the image of an actual document issued to a person who was qualified to receive it?
A: Yes.
Q: And Was this document was actually issued to an individual?
A: Yes.
Q: But you’re saying that the scanned image of this document was altered in some way?
A: Yes.
Q: How was this scanned image altered?
A: The typeface used to enter the information about Barack Obama’s given name, the time and place of birth, the names and races of his birth parents was done by a graphics program. Since the text on the original document was produced by a laser printer, all of the text on the scanned document should have all of the characteristics of laser printed text that is subsequently scanned.
In conclusion:
!. there is text on this image that was produced by a graphics program, when there should not be any text produced by a graphics program. Remember, Vital Records creates documents that are printed on green, patterned paper. When these documents are scanned, the text on the scanned image SHOULD ONLY BE TEXT THAT MATCHES A SCAN OF TEXT PRODUCED BY A LASER PRINTER.
There is graphically-generated text that was placed AFTER THE FACT on this image to obscure or replace whatever existing text there was on the original scanned image.
An image can only be altered or unaltered, and there is no chance in Hades that this image is an unaltered one.
The text on this image was altered by a program like Photoshop, and the evidence supporting this claim is irrefutable.
If the mother’s race is Caucasian and not White, why would the father’s be Black and not Negroid or Negro?
That doesn’t compute.
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.