Today I saw the TV news that Obama had released his original certificate of birth. Now obviously the original document could not have been released, since Hawaii can never release the actual document. It must be kept on file in their vital statistics records. So at best, the document released by Obama could only be a photocopy of the original. To see the document, I went to both the CNN website and the official White House website where it is stored, and saved copies to my computer. I highly recommend that everyone reading this post do the same as quickly as possible, as once you understand the full impact of what I will expose, and once the mainstream media and the Obama camp realize it, the document in its now existing form will no longer be available. Instead, you will see it replaced by a new version. So please save your copy, and then open to view it and follow along. For your convenience, I show here an image of a portion of the document. If you examine this alongside the Obama pdf, you will see it is a true image of that portion of the pdf document. I created this image by loading the pdf document that was released to CNN by the White House, pressing the PrtScrn key on my keyboard to copy the screen contents to my Windows Clipboard, pasted the image to MS Paint, and cut the image from the screen contents before saving the image file. At a quick glance, the Obama document may appear to some people to be an authentic copy of an original record. Closer examination, though, reveals irregularities that would not be seen on a photographic image of an original document. Look, for example, at the loop of the letter "b" in Ann Dunham Obama's signature. The inner portion of the loop is all white, whereas it should show the paper's background pattern inside the loop if it were a photocopy of an original record. Notice also how typed words have white space between and around letters, which would indicate likely pasting of prepared words onto a patterned paper image. And let us further note that there is no visible official raised seal to be found anywhere on this image, or anywhere on the Obama pdf document image. Let's contrast these irregularities against the following image, which is of a 1962 Hawaiian birth certificate photocopy:One can clearly see that the irregularities noted in the Obama document are not present on this one. The signatures and typewritten words are clearly written upon the background pattern, with the background showing around and inside the lettering. Also, the image of a raised seal is clearly seen, centered over box 7c on the form. Notice also that while the background pattern is somewhat similar to the pattern on Obama's "certificate," the coloration is different - it is not green. The coloration shown must be very close to accurate, as the thumb and fingernail at the left edge of the certificate certainly appears natural in coloration. Granted, this is a 1962 certificate, issued ten months after Obama's birth, so the coloration and pattern could have been changed from what was used in 1961. To determine what Obama's original background coloration and pattern should look like, I show here the certificate issued to Susan Nordyke, who was born the day after Obama:
As you can see, the coloration is very close to that of the Edith Coats certificate, although the background pattern is unlike that of either the Coats or Obama documents. Notice that the Nordyke document, like the Coats one, bears a raised seal (this one centered near the certification date at bottom) while Obama's document has no seal at all. Further notice that the certification for this document states, "THIS CERTIFIES THAT THE ABOVE IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD ON FILE...." while the alleged certification by Alvin Onaka on the Obama certificate states, "I certify this is a true copy or abstract of txe record on file...." (emphasis mine). It's definitely not a true copy, but in what manner is the Obama document even a legal document abstract? In this instance I would only consider the word abstract used as an adjective (thought of apart from concrete realities or actual instances) or verb (to divert or draw away the attention of; to steal). The only thing real about the Obama document is that it is a real fake, pieced together from parts either manufactured or lifted from other documents. And what's with the "txe" in Onaka's purported certification? It is either the word "the" carelessly (or intentionally) misspelled, or is a reference to a type of computer image file known as a txe document. And now let us compare the certificate number of the Nordyke document (61 10637) with that of Obama's (61 10641) and note that while his certificate is said to have been approved by the Registrar General on August 8 (see box #22), Nordyke's was not approved until August 11th. In 1961, the date the birth document was accepted by the registrar general was the date the birth certificate number was stamped on the birth record. The birth certificate number was stamped on the form by a rubber stamp that automatically increased by one digit each time a birth certificate was stamped. So if Obama's record was accepted and stamped 3 days before Nordykes, why is his cerificate number 4 digits later than Nordyke's? This reeks of fraud, and causes me to wonder who the number shown on Obama's document was actually assigned to. No doubt it is probably someone who died and would therefore never question Obama's use of the number. In my opinion, the irregulaties that I have pointed out in this post definitely show compelling reasons why the Obama document cannot possibly be a true copy of an authentic, original birth record. Upon close examination of the points I have made, and comparison with the second and third images, which are authentic document images, any reasonable person would surely concur with my conclusions. I know there are a lot of die-hard Obama supporters out there, however, who will probably attempt to either trash this report without looking at the evidence shown, or who will attempt to disprove the logic of it somehow. I welcome any sane and polite attempts to disprove what I have shown, and will answer any such replies which are posted in a courteous manner without name calling or personal attacks.
If need be, I will show further proof which I have uncovered, and I do mean further conclusive and undeniable proof that the Obama pdf document is not a true copy of an original document and was faked. Before doing that, though, I want everyone to have the opportunity and experience of saving and examining the "official" White House document. One thing that should already be evident to anyone reading this post is that if there is in fact an existing birth record for Obama on file in Honolulu, and if the document produced by the Obama camp is a true photocopy of that record, then the record on file in Honolulu was faked, since neither the alleged photocopy nor the document it was produced from show the necessary attributes of an original statistical record.Rickoff
So much about this "official" document is obviously faked.Much of the fakery is described in this video, but there is still a lot more involved, and which can readily be observed as fact by anyone who has eyes to see and is not blinded by refusal to accept the truth when it is shown.A prime and unrefutable example of document fraud is one pointed out at http://www.ObamaNotQualified.com , where the question was asked, "Why does the security paper pattern not follow the curved bend of the paper on the left side?" This is an excellent question. Let's take a closer look at the area that is referenced:As you can see, I have added a thin line to this area, drawn between the horizontal green lines of the background pattern. The pattern lines remain in straight alignment all the way across - even through the paper curve! This simply is not possible on a curve of this nature. The pattern lines should curve and slant downwards, just as the black line does. It is quite obvious that the preparer of this document, while careful to curve the black line, either carelessly overlooked the need to curve the background lines, realized it was a difficult task beyond his or her ability to achieve, thought that no one would notice this through the added shading, or intentionally left this as one of many clues as to the blatant fraudulence of this document. While I'm on the subject of blatantly obvious clues, here's another:This is a zoomed-in view of box 5b of the Obama long form document.Look at the letter "M," which is out of alignment with the other characters, and is also a different font size, as is the punctuation mark directly after it. One might argue that the "M" was preprinted on the form, just as you would expect the "5b" and "Hour" would have been, but look closely at all the character groupings and you see quite noticeable white space around them, as well as the lines, which indicates that all of this was cut and pasted upon the patterned backgound. If the lines had been printed on the background, and the characters typed onto it, as on an original document, there would be no white space voids visible. Conclusion - the "document" shown to us by the Obama camp is a photograph, but is definitely not a photograph of an original birth record. It is a photograph of a falsified document that was manufactured via computer in several developmental stages:
This has absolutely nothing to do with race or hatred, other than the fact that you have no intelligent rebuttal to the facts that have been stated here, and so you play the only card you have left - the race card. I could care less if Obama is white or black, and as a matter of fact he is both. I could care less that he was born a bastard child due to the fact that his father illegally married Stanley Ann Dunham (He was already married to someone in Kenya, as you may know). I could care less. This has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with race or hatred. If John McCain were sitting in the oval office instead of Obama, I would be calling for him to step down for being equally ineligible. McCain was no more qualified than Obama to call himself a "natural born" US citizen. The fact is that he was not even legally a US citizen at the time of his birth, having been born at a military base in Panama. The US State Department makes this quite clear. Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, the US State Department policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual) reads:
"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
if obama killed and ate a baby on live TV there would still be people insisting that WE were angry at him because of his race .notice how its only his defenders who ever bring up the issue of race at all ....yes , it IS shamefull and no .its not that funny .
@ unregistered: We aren't asking, we are demanding to see Obama's original birth record, if he has one. So far he has not produced that. When you first wanted to drive a car, you had to pass an examination and had to show a valid birth certificate, isn't that right? When a man is going to be sitting in the driver's seat and steering our country, shouldn't we expect no less of him? What should disturb you is that we know absolutely nothing about this man who sits in the Oval Office, because he refuses to release any truthful and relevant information about his life. If you think that his latest document is a true copy of Obama's original 1961 long form birth record then tell please offer some statements to support that conclusion. Quite noticeably you haven't even attempted to argue with the evidence of fraud that I have shown. That, of course, would be difficult to impossible, so instead you make an utterly baseless attack accusing anyone who questions Obama's eligibility as being responsible for the shooting of Gabriel Gifford. When you come up with such an insane notion, it can only make people wonder if you are just as whacked out as Gabby's shooter. Incidentally, in case you didn't know it, he was a Democrat who performed volunteer work at Gifford's campaign headquarters and received a letter from her thanking him for his efforts. Kind of shoots down your theory, doesn't it?
Supported videos include:
Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!