http://www.mtxoom.com/political/ On Closer Examination of Obama's Birth Certificate A great deal of time has been spent over the centuries by document experts of different countries poring over letters, certificates, affidavits, and other important printed matter attempting to determine whether they were originals, copies of the originals, or forgeries. And it continues into the 21st Century, as handwriting analysis and numerous other forensic specialties using high-tech equipment are now routinely employed in this process of document analysis, especially where there are suspicions that critical documents, containing salient written information, are elaborate forgeries. How do such relevant suspicions arise? Well, take, for instance, an Hawaiian long- form birth certificate of the standing U.S. President, Barack H. Obama, who, from the beginning of his election campaign in late- 2007, has refused to make the birth document and his college/university educational records available for public perusal, in order to substantiate that he is, in deed, a natural born citizen of the United States. This President has continuously fought expensive lawsuits, before and after he was elected, in order to keep from being required by court order to produce the documents. Then, suddenly, the birth certificate mysteriously appears on the Internet during the third year of Obama's presidential term. Do Obama's furtive behaviors and the sudden appearance of the birth certificate on the Internet make the President look suspicious? I think that it does, especially when that President, before and after being elected, has spent close to 2 million dollars in attorney fees to oppose plaintiffs, in federal court, attempting to get a federal judge to mandate that he disclose his long- form birth certificate and educational records to the nation, all of which would cost him less than 20 dollars in copy costs. Mr. Obama spent most of 2009 and 2010 fighting attorneys, such as Dr. Orly Taitz, spending Democratic campaign funds and federal tax money to pay USDOJ attorneys, and private attorneys of the Perkins-Coie Law Firm, to represent him in numerous federal lawsuits. All the time, he was thumbing his nose at the American public saying, "You can't force me to show you anything." Then, suddenly in 2009, when concerned states like Louisiana began legislating rules requiring people seeking federal office to submit their original long-form birth certificates to verify their citizenship status before being certified as candidates for election or re-election, Obama releases onto the Internet a Hawaiian long-form certificate of live birth showing, supposedly, that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. But, on taking a closer look at the document, there is a significant problem with that certificate of live birth. While Obama wants everyone to make a loud sigh of relief and say, "There it is. He was born in the USA," an examination of the certificate reveals a poignant and startling irregularity. When closely compared to two other genuinely authentic Hawaiian certificates of live birth, of two female twins born in the same hospital during the same year, an egregious discrepancy is readily apparent. The oldest twin, Susan Nordyke, was born at 2:12 p.m. on August 5, 1961 and was given a certificate No. 151-6-10637, a number that was duly filed with the Hawaiian registrar on August 11, 1961. The second twin, Gretchen, was born at 2:17 p.m. and given a certificate number 151-61-10638 filed on the same day that her sister's number was filed, August 11, 1961. When Obama's certificate of live birth, the one the White House released, is compared with those of the twins, it is quite apparent that Obama was given a higher certificate number than those of the twins. Historically, in 1961, birth certificate numbers were assigned only by the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu. The numbers were stamped by hand onto the birth certificates by workers in that department, and those numbers automatically increased by one each time a certificate number was stamped with a particular rubber stamp. So, the suspicious issue created by this blaring irregularity is, simply, how did Obama get his birth certificate accepted by the Hawaiian Registrar General three days earlier than when the twins certificates were accepted, when the Nordyke's numbers are lower than Obama's. You see, Obama was supposedly born on August 4, 1961, given a certificate number 151-61-10641, and accepted by the registrar on August 8, 1961. So, how, in the name of reason, could the twins have had their certificates accepted by the Hawaiian registrar three days later than the registrar accepted Obama's certificate, and have lower numbers (10637 and 10638) than Obama's number (10641). The noted writer Jerome Corsi, author of "Obama Nation," and "Where's the Birth Certificate" pointed out this blatant discrepancy shortly after the Obama certificate of live birth appeared on the Internet; and contrary to what Obama's most ardent apologists will probably say to try to make it go away, it just ain't gonna go. If that Internet organization, Factcheck.org, pretends that there's nothing wrong with Obama's new certificate, and quickly stamps their seal of approval on it, they might hope that it will be much like the old story about the emperor's new clothes, where everyone fictionally ignores obvious reality. Instead, I look forward to a thorough forensic examination of a suspicious birth document that begs scrutiny. The type of glaring error that appears on it is, in my opinion, not an ordinary product of human negligence or inadvertence occurring on such a truly authentic document, but, perhaps, an error made by arrogant subterfuge in contriving what might be called a false, though, reasonably believable document. Such has happened before, and, in all probability, will happen again.