“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!