Kos posts copy of Obama’s birth certificate; Update: Certification, not certificate
posted at 12:13 pm on June 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
No word of how he got it — Team Barry isn’t actually leaking to dKos, is it? — and naturally he misunderstands Jim Geraghty’s point about Obama’s place of birth, which would have been relevant not with respect to his “Americanness” but whether he was constitutionally qualified to run as a natural-born citizen. But here it is.
Update: Not that it matters for purposes of addressing Geraghty’s concerns, but Flip notes that the posted document is a certification of birth, which is slightly different from a birth certificate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Aren’t these things usually notarized? Where’s the Notary Public’s seal?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 12, 2008 at 1:17 PM
To answer a couple of questions:
1. His birthdate on the certification is August 4, 1961, which is exactly what his Senate bio states as well.
2. Having done an adoption, I can tell you that the state goes back and changes the information in their database to reflect it. That’s one reason a recent certification actually works better than a photocopy of the original certificate. My son’s information got changed by South Carolina and a new certification got issued showing me as his father. Obviously, this takes a court order.
There’s simply nothing there, folks. This is a type of document that gets used by millions of Americans for identification.
Ed Morrissey on June 12, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Agreed. Enlarge and the text looks like it has been added on top of the green and white background, rather than typed on it as it would have been in 1961.
Also, father’s race is listed as “African.”
Sounds like, as distiguished from African-American. But, gee, in 1961, wouldn’t his race have been described as “negro?” His nationality was African, not his race.
I call fake. I don’t doubt his citenzenship and birthright, but that document is a fake.
iurockhead on June 12, 2008 at 1:20 PM
When I have to get a copy of my bc, it looks exactly like the original that was signed in Sacramento County, California in 1956 by my mother and her doc. It’s on microfiche or the like (probably computerized these days), and when I request it they pull it up, print it on the official paper, then make it all official with the requisite seals and signatures. it has looked exactly the same every time I have got one, only the signature of the registrar, the date the document was created, and official paper (well, and the cost to get it) have changed. The actual document is the same, because it’s a copy of the original.
I guess other states are different?
Bob's Kid on June 12, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Plus what profitsbeard said, a bit later, threw me too. I only glanced at it and am not so consumed with this copy of it. I have many other questions which need to be answered. Media and blogs get serious.
Entelechy on June 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Bid deal, they were silly rumors to begin with.
JeffreyLloyd on June 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM
You are implying a criminal conspiracy or coup d’etat. It’s staggering. Am I reading you correctly?
JiangxiDad on June 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM
JiangxiDad, I’m not implying anything. I want the media to get those questions answered. Where that leads is what we’ll find out, as we go.
Entelechy on June 12, 2008 at 1:26 PM
FAKE
I find it odd that every work is pixelated around it, yet the black box is not.
Those words are not on the document.
To me, it looks like it is from some HA HA funny site that you can do your own certificates.Select a background image, select text to put on the background image.
FAKE
WoosterOh on June 12, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Every state’s birth certificates are different and contain different information. I have my daughters’ PA birth certificates in front of me right now and there is no hospital listed on any of them. In fact they don’t even list the city of birth, just the county.
My son’s BC from Ohio lists the hospital and city and it’s the same for my daughter born in Michigan. The BC for my daughter born in England only shows district of registration, but her Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the USA shows the exact city of birth (sadly the same city as the 7/11 terrorists). None of ours showed race of parents, however, that may just be something they do in Hawaii.
I just don’t think anything can be surmised one way or another from that document. It’s funny that Kos felt the need to post it.
Candy Slice on June 12, 2008 at 1:27 PM
The first questin on this very thread which came to mind was “Why would the Obama camp want Moulitsas to put to rest something this significant?” Makes absolutely no sense.
Entelechy on June 12, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Ed. Are you disinterested in seeing the “original?”
JiangxiDad on June 12, 2008 at 1:29 PM
That document would get you a driver’s license in Hawaii. The stamps (including the date of certification) are put on the back. The bottom line of the certificate states that the document is printed “This document serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” The info typed on the document could be fake but the document is not. Our marriage certificates and death certificates look like this too (WITH DIFFERENT INFORMATION OBVIOUSLY). Even if the parents are not married they are both listed. I don’t know if “African” is what they would have written back then.
HawaiiLwyr on June 12, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Well on the plus side, we now know that it was not a virgin birth.
jeanie on June 12, 2008 at 1:30 PM
ummm I obviously lost my train of thought in the middle – remove the words “that the document is printed” thanks.
HawaiiLwyr on June 12, 2008 at 1:30 PM
You are being cryptic. Are you suggesting that Clintons or someone else leaked it to Kos (a site that few would believe, as opposed to the WaPo, for ex.) in order to raise questions about the topic?
JiangxiDad on June 12, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I guess that could account for the pixels, but I am not even sure that accounts for it. You would have to assume that the generation means taking a scan of an actual certification, using it as an image, then generating text over that scan, then converting the text to an image, then laying that image down over the scanned certificate. Take the layers and flatten the image, then print the image.
Would the date June 6, 2007 have any meaning to him?
WoosterOh on June 12, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I found there slip-up. I was going about making him a new certificate out of that one, and found a problem, I noticed it when looking at it the fist time, but it std out when I went about making my new certificate.
Now, off to make my certificate.
WoosterOh on June 12, 2008 at 1:45 PM
If we could reduce this to one fair and simple question, it would be “what hospital was Obama born in?”. A question that the Obama people wouldn’t risk lying about and a question that creates a lot of discomfort the longer it goes unanswered.
The Obama people might need to invent some kind of midwife story.
Buddahpundit on June 12, 2008 at 1:48 PM
JiangxiDad on June 12, 2008 at 1:33 PM
No, I’m saying that Kos is providing a distraction of the much bigger issues/questions. I love with what ‘authority’, which is risible, he declares the case closed. We haven’t even seen the beginning of it.
Entelechy on June 12, 2008 at 1:49 PM
A few thoughts on Markos Moulitsas’ role in this affair:
Either Obama gave this document to Kos, in which case, why? The MSM have been asking for the BC for a long time. Why not give it to them? They aren’t exactly hostile towards him. Surely, the Obama campaign must know that giving it to Kos is sure to rouse suspicions on our side. There’s no way this’ll make the story go away.
or…
Markos Moulitsas himself or someone else associated with Kos bypassed the Obama campaign and got hold of the document. If so, how did they get it from the Hawaiian government? Only Obama or his family can legally request his BC. Kos doesn’t tell us how he got it.
or…
Someone from the Clinton or McCain campaigns or the RNC gave the document to Kos in order to cause some mischief. Unlikely.
Kos’s intervention has raised more questions than answers.
infidel65 on June 12, 2008 at 1:52 PM
I’ve been wondering where Hillary is – there’s a link in the HA headlines – does she need a full week to cry afer Saturday’s funeral, as the (hurt) woman she is…Not related to this topic, just a general question. I find her disappearance very odd. From a human perspective, sure, she deserves the rest. From a political perspective it’s weird.
Entelechy on June 12, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Provides a tiny, tiny distraction. That’s all.
Entelechy on June 12, 2008 at 1:55 PM
WoosterOh:
You’re absolutely right about the pixelation around the text. It’s completely inconsistent with the background, which is disontinuous behind the text. Zoom in on the faint image of the reverse “JUN 6 2007″ in the lower middle of the doc for comparison and you’ll see that the regular jpeg pixel blocking is uninterrupted. That’s part of whatever this original document was before someone photoshopped it.
JM Hanes on June 12, 2008 at 1:55 PM
markos is a lying gutless little punk.
jdkchem on June 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Don’t you find it curious, odd, peculiar, that the media, en masse, are not asking about the outcome of Passportgate?
A few are seriously looking into it, from both sides of the political spectrum, but the majority should be asking the questions by now. It’s been quite a while and how long can it take to resolve. It’s not that big of a case, and there are not that many involved, nor that many steps.
Entelechy on June 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM
They gave it to Markos because he asked for it. Did anyone in the national media bother to do that? Jim Geraghty linked to a Florida paper that made a request a few weeks ago, but apparently no one else put in a formal request.
Again, there’s really nothing here. He’s American. Let’s beat him on the issues.
Ed Morrissey on June 12, 2008 at 1:59 PM
This is about as real as all those gold medals I have from the 1932 Olympics where I pwned at Swimming….
Just take a look at the “Certification of birth” section, its the same exact color as the area where they blocked his SS (Or other number) Out. Its much different then the section at the bottem which is to look the same.
Around each letter is artifacting, as this was printed on a newer computer printer.
Plus whats with the July 6, 2007 stamp on it?
Rbastid on June 12, 2008 at 2:01 PM
As far as the “Certification, not Certificate” is concerned – it’s pretty much the same thing. The paper that we all call our birth certificates are typically entitled “Certification of Birth” (Pennsylvania), “Certificate of Live Birth” (Ohio and Michigan), or something similar.
I even have mine and my husband’s “Certification of Birth” from PA and they don’t even show our parents’ names on them. It really is getting silly to scrutinize this document so much. It most likely is real and the biggest crime is probably that it’s illegal that Kos made a copy of it – that’s probably the real reason he eliminated the outer edge from the scanned copy. At least that’s the location on our certificates where it says it’s illegal to duplicate by photostat or photograph.
Candy Slice on June 12, 2008 at 2:02 PM
In 1961 “negro” was the prefered nomenclature. But, possibly, there is a reasonalbe explanation to be found the wide ethnic and racial mixture of Hawaii.
snaggletoothie on June 12, 2008 at 2:04 PM
NO!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 12, 2008 at 2:05 PM
The “there” is that he would release it to KOS!!
ArmyAunt on June 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Notice the notation in the bottom left that says it was revised on 11/01.
Spolitics on June 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Sure, I’m all for beating him on “the issues”. Why did his camp initiate Passportgate?
Why is the media silent on it?
I don’t buy that Markos “asked for it”. Even if he did, he’d say that they gave it to him, what it is, how it came that he has it…just a distraction. The media are awol and derelict in their duties. Some are working on it, and I don’t think the blogs will leave it alone, based on Markos.
Entelechy on June 12, 2008 at 2:23 PM
How convenient,
That the certificate only has information relevent to current questions.
What was the name of the Hospital?…Who was the attending pysician?
Where are the other two dozen or so pieces of useless trivia noted on a birth certificate?
I see mischief afoot
franksalterego on June 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM
HawaiiLwyr, thank you. I think my questions are cleared up.
What we now know:
Barack Hussein Obama II was born at 7:24 PM on August 4, 1961, in the State of Hawaii. He is constitutionally qualified to become president. His father was Barack Hussein Obama who was still married to his first wife when he and Stanley Ann Dunham were married.
The Obama-Dunham marriage was bigamous and invalid under American law. Consequently, his father was definitely Muslim when BHO II was born. BHO II was born illegitimate. Stanley Ann Dunham was 18 years old when she gave birth. BHO I was about 25 years old at the time. BHO I’s race was listed as “African,” despite his racial ancestry being mostly Arab.
BHO II provided his birth record to blogger Markos Moulitsas instead of to the MSM for some unknown reason. Moulitsas posted the front side of the birth record on his web site, but not the back side which would have the certification and notary information. Moulitsas should post a scan of the other side of the document.
On another topic, could someone please sum up Passportgate and why it matters in two sentences?
indythinker on June 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Kini,
this is your mission for this week – find someone in Hawaii who was born in the same year and get a copy of their birth certificate scanned.
Entelechy on June 12, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I didn’t know his mother’s first name was Stanley. I guess his grandfather wanted a boy?
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM
As far as I know, Obama’s dad was from Kenya but in 1961 Kenya was a British colony called East Africa. Maybe the in the original document it listed the country of origin as East Africa and a clerk (either in 1961 or 2007) took that as a queue for what to enter in as race.
SPCOlympics on June 12, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Ed Morrissey:
As far as I’m concerned, Obama’s citizenship is a non-issue, and contra your own assumptions, I don’t think the Obama campaign has anything to do with this document. The issue here is forgery, and whether someone at KOS was a dupe or perpetrator — and the fact that either alternative raises questions of its own.
JM Hanes on June 12, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I believe that only means the standard document OHSM 1.1 (the documents used to print certifications on) was revised in November of 2001.
WoosterOh on June 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM
JM Hanes,
Well, I was ready to let it go, even advocated letting it go, until you turned up. ::grin:: You see something fishy about the document, I’ll take your word for it.
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 2:32 PM
See this, if you haven’t yet. There are many questions to be answered.
Entelechy on June 12, 2008 at 1:07 PM
and to your request of two sentences, I’ll put it in three questions
1. Why did Obama’s side break into the passport dossiers of Obama, Hillary and Cheney?
2. WHAT is in the dossiers that they wanted to use to do damage control, or to prevent something, or to be sure of, and why was Obama so ‘indignant’ if it was his own camp who did it (also why did he care about McCain’s already legal status)?
3. Why is the media and C. Rice completely silent on the status of Passportgate?
Entelechy on June 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Oh, my. I believe that producing this weird document is either a very big mistake which will lead to many questions, a la the still-missing discharge record for Waffles Kerry, or an intentional red herring, intended to foster just the sort of complicated speculation on the right that we are presently engaged in, attempting to induce unfounded attacks on Obama.
But at least now his actual birth certificate must be produced, if only to slap around Mulitsas and his angry band of butt-pirates, or to write another chapter in the Guilt by Association book on Obama – this time collaborating with dkos – by unearthing rafts of nasty, hateful, anti-American comments from the fever swamp, and printing them on Obambi’s forehead.
Jaibones on June 12, 2008 at 2:37 PM
In case someone hasn’t mentioned it, a lot of these old birth certificates are on microfiche and when you request yours, the authorities will send you a certification rather than a copy of the original. That’s what I received when I request mine ten years ago and when I recently sent for my great-aunt’s certificate. (She’s 86.)
That said, I find it interesting that they put “African” under race for the father. On my original certificate (same year as Obama but different state) “Negro” appears under race for both parents, though one is African and one is American.
baldilocks on June 12, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Considering the year this certificate was created (’61) I think we’re looking at another Rathergate here.
I call fraud.
LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Yep. I see kerning in this document. Somebody has faked it.
LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM
The document looks fake, like the text was layered over the background, not typed onto it.
So I downloaded the picture and checked the properties. According to the file’s details, this document was originated in Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh. That’s not proof of forgery, but there’s no “date acquired” listed which would have indicated this was scanned.
Spolitics on June 12, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Can you see the reverse date near the bottom-center of the image – 2007!
LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Do note that this is a document from 2001. Perhaps a copy was necessary for his senate candidacy. Question – if you are getting new documentation, why not get a Birth Certificate?
A Birth Certificate designates the hospital, city, state of birth. This document is what a person (foreigner) might get to allow school attendance, certifying age, sex, and parentage.
Hmmm.
Agrippa2k on June 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM
If Obama wanted a copy of his original birth certificate, he could get one. The one we are seeing, whether altered or not, is one they provide without pulling the actual document. For instance, if I live in Dallas County and was born in Travis County I can go to the Dallas County clerk’s office and request a certified copy of my birth certificate. What I’ll get is an official document that says Dallas County with the abbreviated information on it, including my birth in Travis County. Which is why this birth certificate didn’t look fake to me.
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Sue:
I think Fight the Smears should get right on this, don’t you? ::G::
(That’s a BIG grin:)
JM Hanes on June 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM
If I wanted an exact copy of the original, I would have to travel to Travis County or ask for it in writing. They wouldn’t send it, or they shouldn’t send it, with a verbal request. You would have to provide proof you are who you say you are before they would give you the document, complete original or an abbreviated version.
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 2:50 PM
FAKE FAKE FAKE
Zoom in on the lettering and check out the artefacts surrounding them.
I suspect this is a modern document, scanned, original data scrubbed, and overlaid with digital text. Problem is, then not all the text would match stylistically, so they had to go over every bit of text with new lettering.
LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM
JM,
I think so to. I wonder why they didn’t just put the document up on that site? Instead of giving it to Kos?
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM
That’s not quite right. Hawaii has both “certificates” AND “certifications”, the difference being the level of detail. If Obama’s parents were knowingly unmarried (in direct contradiction of Obama’s account), it would be reflected in the certificate, but not in the certification.
flip on June 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Not only FAKE, but AMATEUR RETARD FAKE
Those KoS halfwit clusterfucks couldn’t organise a shag in a whorehouse.
LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM
LimeyGeek,
I don’t understand what you, JM, and others are seeing. There is no question the document we are seeing is a recent document. Probably, if the reverse stamp is any indication, as recent as June of 07. That is the problem with releasing this one. People who haven’t gotten a certified copy of their birth certificate since the invention of the computer won’t understand that you rarely receive a copy of the original document anymore.
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM
I wonder why it’s date-stamped “June 6- 2007″ (with only a date and no “time” stamp which is also odd) on the back. Kos had this for the last full year, or, the Obamassiah has produced this for him?
It looks like an exceptionally EASY document to fake. My Birth Certificate is MUCH more elaborate with numerous embedded security measures and anti-fraud anti-identity-theft devices. For example, if my birth certificate is scanned or photocopied, there is an embedded water mark that will duplicate and shows the bold type word “VOID” all across the document. It’s also numerous different colors and has a “security thread” embedded in it much like the new United States paper money has. My daughter’s does as well, as does her mothers certificate of birth, and we’re all born in three separate states and the dates of birth range from 1983 back to 1960.
That certificate has fewer security enhancements than a DMV Vehicle Title Certificate (pink slip). After 9/11, and being that the “certificate” is obviously time-stamped June 6 2007 on the back, I would expect much MUCH more in the way of security enhancements in such an important document vital to maintaining homeland security. Especially in a relatively smaller state where the bulk of the Pacific Fleet is harbored.
Looks ‘chopped.
SilverStar830 on June 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM
I think it’s pretty unlikely this will be a fruitful line of inquiry.
I do note Obama’s mothers last name is Dunham and not Obama. As others have speculated, it is quite possible his parents never married. That’s a personal thing for him, and may be why he hesitated to release his records. I don’t think it’s a big deal.
MayBee on June 12, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Certification of Birth, lol.
So Obama ws born, we knew that.
I’m more convinced than ever that Obama is creating this “controversy” himself. I’m sure there will be more to come. Anything to distract potential voters from the Democratic nominee who is no where near qualified to lead this country.
reaganaut on June 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM
SilverStar,
I just copied a birth certificate to see if VOID or COPY would show up. It doesn’t, using a black/white copier and a color copier.
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Fixed. Kenya was a British colony until 1963. And the subjects didn’t necessarily follow British law at all times. My father who is a Luo but not a Muslim considered the idea of having more than one wife at a time, but discarded it. Smart man.
baldilocks on June 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Hehe, working with digital images on a daily basis as a web developer, I can tell you that warping around text is natural because of the more straight lines involved in text, whereas backgrounds are more diffuse and not prone to the same type of warping.
What’s funny is that Kos chose to publish a poor quality JPEG image of the certificate, rather than a high resolution raw copy of it without optimization artifacts. Saving on bandwidth costs, perhaps?
Seixon on June 12, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Maybee,
It wouldn’t be listed as Obama. In 1958, my mother’s maiden name was on my birth certificate, even though my parents had been married for 3 years.
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Contrast the artefacts surrounding the text on this document with the text in the top and bottom bars – that’s original text. The text in the body of the document has been doctored.
This document has no providence, Obama is not claiming it as a legitimate copy. I suspect it is somebody’s legitimate copy, scanned, scrubbed and doctored to look like Obama’s.
LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM
In 1958, you would know my parents were married by whether or not the birth was marked legitimate or illegitimate.
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Limey,
The text in the top and bottom bars? Are you referring to the text that says Certification of Live Birth and Any Alterations…? Because if you are, most clerk’s have single sheet papers that they insert into the printer and it prints the information on it. Like letterhead. Maybe you aren’t referring to that?
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM
I don’t see how. My certification says exactly:
which is the date that certification was issued.
However, the file date says:
which was a few weeks after I was born.
baldilocks on June 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM
You’re partly right. I know what artefacts you will have experienced in your line of work. However, as somebody that works with the math and code in such software, I can tell you that these artefacts are nothing of the sort. This is not a case of lossy artefacts due to image encoding (jpeg). Such artefacts would be consistent, these are not.
In fact, if you look close enough, you can see that the original lettering was slightly larger than the superimposed fonts. Dipshits couldn’t even get that right.
LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM
When blown up it is clearly a fake. At 2000% it is clear that the pixalation of the text is much finer than the pixalation of the background. It is an extermly low quality fake. If this served any purpose but to drive triffic to the KoS site I would be surprised.
Buford on June 12, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Yes, that’s what I’m referring to. I know they use a letterhead – preprinted sheets.
The point is that an original document would have consistent artefacts due to scanning, and additional consistent artefacts due to further encoding (in this case, jpeg encoding/compression)
Whatever the origin of this document, it has been doctored.
LimeyGeek on June 12, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Then I am of no help. I still have no idea what you are looking at that looks doctored. If Kos or someone else did doctor it without Obama’s knowledge, he should speak up immediately before it turns into Rathergate.
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Sue,
I just looked at mine. You are correct, the space says “Mother’s Maiden Name” rather than “Mother’s Name” and has the maiden name listed. On one of my kid’s, it has “Mothers Name” with my full married name.
So, Obama’s doesn’t really tell us much about his parents. Oh well.
MayBee on June 12, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Heh. The Obama Campaign was likely prepared for this event. They were watching McCain get peppered with the same questions about a year ago. They must have anticipated that it would eventually steer in their direction.
If I’m the Obama camp I’d have passed this information to friends of the campaign months ago with some instructions on when to release it. Like, say when the other side started to brew up a storm.
gabriel sutherland on June 12, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I challenge everyone here who calls the document fake: go to the web site of the state of your birth. Order a new, certified copy of your birth certificate. It will probably cost you $15 or so. Once you get it, you will see that it is printed by a modern laser printer and is in a modern looking font. You will see that it doesn’t look very different from what was posted. I recently had to order one so I know.
It is not impossible that this document was a forgery. It is very unlikely, however.
Maybe BHO II had his name changed between birth and the day that this particular birth record was issued (in June of 2007). I don’t believe it, though. Soon after his birth, his father abandoned his mother. Then she married an Indonesian named Soetoro. Then she left young Barry to live with her parents from 1967 until 1979 when he went to college. The most likely time for a name change would have been in the 1967 to 1979 time frame. His grandparents would have steered that decision.
Yet, his current name is Barack Hussein Obama II. I don’t feel it’s likely that white Christian American grandparents would change the name of their son from Barack Mohammed Obama to Barack Hussein Obama. If they were going to change it, they would have changed his first or last name, too. It’s very unlikely they would have changed his name to sound more Islamic or more Arab. They would have changed his name to make it less like that of the father who had abandoned him and not more like his father’s name.
I think that there are a few loose ends. It’s worth looking into them. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the document Moulitsas posted was fake, however. There is only unsupported speculation on that.
indythinker on June 12, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I would like to see Moulitsas put the document on a table, back off a foot or two, then take a picture of it with a digital camera. Then we can see if that looks doctored.
indythinker on June 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Indy,
I don’t think his grandparents could change his name. Not without the mother’s approval. Even under a guardianship, I don’t think you could just change the child’s name. Unless they went through a formal adoption, or the parents (or just the mother if they weren’t married) agreed.
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM
It’s exactly the same as mine. I had to get one in 2005, having lost my original birth certificate in one of my many moves. The date you can see is the the date it was received from the registrar’s office, on the back of the certificate. It would include a statement along the lines of:
Along with the State Registrar’s signature (or stamp of such).
I really doubt it’s a fake. If it is, it’s a really good one.
mauioriginal on June 12, 2008 at 3:50 PM
It’s a 100% forgery.
There are numerous reasons, but the the #1 reason:
Laser printers don’t add anti-aliasing to fonts.
Zoom in to 600% or greater in PHotoshop or Corel. Look at an “A”. Notice how it’s smoothed a bit?
You can see that the characters have been laid on top of the green gov’t background. There’s a hazy white area in between the strokes of each line of the character.
When a laser printer prints on the paper, it basically burns it on with a super high precision. It doesn’t turn the area behind the actually copy white.
I work in advertising. I have studied this..as well as our department’s graphic artist—it’s fraudulent.
Also:
File properties say Adobe CS3
Black copy is much darker than the rest
The official seal is blurry and pixelated.
RightWired on June 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Sue:
You have to download the document and zoom in on it to see the discrepancies. I’ve posted two enlargements on photobucket so you can compare the way the pixels look around the DATE FILED with the way they look around the JUN 6 date that appears to bleed through from the reverse side of the document (I flipped it around to make it easier to read). Blending high contrast type into a lower contrast background is particularly fussy work; it looks to me like the original text and original background started out at different resolutions as well.
I’m not much of a hand with photobucket uploading/sizing, so I have no idea how they’ll look on somebody else’s computer. I didn’t want to do too much messing around, but I can try blowing them up further and adjusting the contrast if it’s still hard to figure out what we’re talking about.
JM Hanes on June 12, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Also, the law reads:
338-13 (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm
RightWired on June 12, 2008 at 3:58 PM
With respect to those who would enjoy another Rathergate, I think some are trying too hard and may end up looking less than objective in this. The pixelation does look different for the text compared to the background, but that is also true for the boilerplate language at the bottom and top, the form number at the bottom left, and even the State Seal. If one concludes that it is a fake based upon the pixelation of the text entries, then one is suggesting that someone started with a green and white background and faked the entire thing, including the seal, etc.
It seems far more likely that it looks that way because of how the scanner perceived the text vs. the background. I could certainly be wrong, but I urge caution.
CourtZero on June 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Naturally, I got the hot links for DATE & JUN reversed…..
JM Hanes on June 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Karen Tumulty at Time had a report about this today, including information about Jim Geraghty “demanding” a certificate.
This is an interesting exchange, in the comments:
—
It looks like Obama’s campaign was going to put the birth certificate up, but gave it to kos instead(?)
MayBee on June 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM
JMH,
I can see what you are seeing now. I don’t know what it means, but I understand why you are questioning it. There is a difference. But, and I have no idea, could one (the date) be different because it bled through? Or would that not matter?
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Could someone check to see if those fonts were offered in Microsoft Word in 1961?
Kafir on June 12, 2008 at 4:17 PM
A word of caution. I use photoshop a fair amount and I just zoomed in on the text. I agree that this is not a scan of an original document “AS IS”. Nevertheless, it could well be a scan of an original document that has been run through a photoshop filter once or twice. And the original may well look pretty much the same to those who can’t zoom in on the photo. Why do that? To whip McCain supporters into embarrassing themselves? This is indeed released by the dailykos–I don’t put it past them.
G. Charles on June 12, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Kafir,
It wouldn’t matter. This document was printed in 2007 most likely.
Sue on June 12, 2008 at 4:25 PM
It’s that way on mine too. Does that mean that when I signed a power of attorney allowing my father, an attorney BTW and former police officer in Hawaii, to get a copy of my BC in 2005 (that magic date showing thru from the other side) for me that he just photo-shopped it instead? I didn’t know he had those kind of skills. The A$$. The nerve of him. I’m going to report him immediately.
I really think that jumping to conclusions too soon and assuming that it’s a fake just gives them ammunition. Why make it that easy for them? Take the time to accurately vet the document and compare it to other similar documents.
mauioriginal on June 12, 2008 at 4:26 PM
And as support for my “photoshop filter” theory, the seal carries the same pixelation artifacts. Therefore it is NOT simply text that has been superimposed–whatever explanation there is has to account for the seal and text having the same unnatural pixelation.
G. Charles on June 12, 2008 at 4:27 PM
I did eventually read that on your blog – but even looking at the different birth certificates (Certifications of Birth from PA and Certificates of Live Births from MI, OH, and Consular Certificate of Live Birth Abroad – UK) of my own children, none of them indicate whether or not my husband and I were married at the time of our children’s births (we were by the way).
The only thing on the actual Birth Certificates (OH and MI) that would indicate marital status is the same last name and we didn’t have to provide any proof for that. We did have to provide our marriage certificate in the UK, but I think that may have been for her passport.
I guess I’m just trying to say that the proof you want on the actual Birth Certificate may not exist. It was 1961 and if they considered themselves “married” they may have just portrayed themselves that way at the birth and the original birth certificate might reflect that as well with no on requiring any real proof of that marriage at the time.
Candy Slice on June 12, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Sue:
Here’s what I hope is a closer look at the “A” in August as well as a zoom of the Reverse 6 (which I didn’t flip around this time). While text that bleeds through from the other side of a document would look different from the crisp text printed on the front, it wouldn’t change how the pixels in the image itself are grouped. The integrity of the typcial 8 x 8 pixel squares which you can see in the 6 shot aren’t busted up by artifacts the way they are in the A shot. I may not be using the right techno terms here — alas, it’s easier to zero in on the anomolies when you’re used to dealing with recalcitrant pixels than it is to explain.
G. Charles:
The SEAL was probably scanned from another actual document and pasted up along with the necessary text. Nice try with the “photoshop filter” theory though! In any case, if someone were trying to make a real document look as fake as this one does, that would still be a hoax.
JM Hanes on June 12, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Shouldn’t it be a “Certification of LIVE Birth”?
Or was he still-born?
mojo on June 12, 2008 at 5:16 PM
The seal has the background coming through. It is not that difficult to do, but does take some time. Also the reverse text at the top and bottom of the document seem consistent with the unnatural text in the body.
I find it plausible that Markos and crew are yanking our chain. It is also possible that Hawaii has settings on its scanner and/or post-scan save, that “refine” the documents (read: filter) in ways that strengthen contrast, blacken blacks, eliminate “purple fringing” with whites”, smooth or sharpen, etc. all to help make the document more readable according to some criteria. I don’t know.
I agree it is obviously unnatural. We don’t know if any of it is false.
G. Charles on June 12, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Why would the campaign decide not to put the certification on their website, and give it to Kos instead? Karen Tumulty said as of last night, they were planning on linking to it and even had the pdf link dummied in.
MayBee on June 12, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Has anyone posted this yet?
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert
Candy Slice on June 12, 2008 at 5:40 PM
The same certificate is on Obama’s site. I tried to post the link but it didn’t come through.
Candy Slice on June 12, 2008 at 5:42 PM
At best this is a current copy of a certification of live birth, at worse it is an attempt to defraud, but in any case this is not an original document.
Remember John Kerry had his DD 214 updated after Carter granted amnesty to the Vietnam draft dodgers to upgrade his discharge from General to Honorable.
His original would not have a revised date of 01. Maybe he never had one, maybe his mother lost the original so anybody who wants to pursue conspiracy theories will certainly have plenty of ammo. The fact that it is posted over at Kos leads me to believe that is simply one of the Obama minions trying to quell the rumors, but as in most cases it is the cover up that is often worse then the original crime.
So the only thing I can is a fact is that this document is not an original.
Just A Grunt on June 12, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »