On Closer Examination of Obama's Birth Certificate

Document Sample
On Closer Examination of Obama's Birth Certificate Powered By Docstoc

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
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
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,, 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.

Shared By:
Tags: Obama, bush
Description: bush Obama
river111 river111