Birth Certificate Page 3

The only anomalies that remain highly suspect are the added layers, not anything seen in the text layer or the background layer.  Those may be from an original PDF passed to a White House rep. (Obama’s lawyer) though there is no way to tell if anything was altered or not from how the original Hawaiian micro-image digital transfer appeared.  If the certificate information was composited from various sources, that would be most easily accomplished before the PDF conversion split the text into two layers.  So if the original digital file was in Group4 TIFF instead of PDF, it would be easy to alter.  But it would also have to be individually extractable from the main body of the digital system, which I assume is possible.  But there is no evidence of any alteration in the text, nor can there be, with the inescapable exception of the word “None” which is located in the body of the certificate and is not like the other layers added to the PDF -which are images of date and signatures stamps, along with an added dash inserted between the two 8s in the date 8 8 61.  It’s located in the right date stamp layer field.

If the Registrar’s stamp and his date stamp were present as the only added layers, then I would suspect that that might be a possible effect resulting somehow from conversion to PDF, but I also have to take into account  the date stamps in the main body of the document form, along with the “None” or “Non” layer, and nothing can explain how they could be singled out by the Adobe software, or similar software if it exists, to be isolated into their own individual layers.  The only common sense conclusion is that those layers were added by someone.  If only the two Registrar layers existed, one could guess that they were added to give the appearance of a completed certified certificate.  That would be evidence that the PDF image was a composite made for unknown reasons, with those layers added because they would have to exist on a real document, but the existence of the other layers go beyond merely contriving the appearance of certification, and would seem to have had a purpose that can only be assumed to have been to alter the information that existed before they were added.  I can’t think of any other reason that would make sense.  I can’t think of any reason behind altering the date stamp year but I can’t escape the conclusion that it was altered since it is missing from the layers containing both the stamps, and the “1”s that do appear on the main text layer look more hand-written than typed.  Unfortunately there are no other good quality BCs from ’61 to compare them to.  But the biggest flaw that raises suspicions is the large gap between the 1s and the other digits.  It is inexplicably large.  It isn’t reasonable to assume that a date stamp would be that sloppy in its construction when all the other digits are so close together.

That the 5 added layers must have come from a source that captured those text elements using a color capable process is added evidence of compositing of the certificate image.  They should be pure black but are greenish gray instead. That’s not a possible result from a digitization process that only outputs in black and white.


By Michael Isikoff  National investigative correspondent
NBC News  updated 4/11/2011 10:59:35 AM ET

The Hawaiian state health official who personally reviewed Barack
Obama’s original birth certificate has affirmed again that the
document is “real” and denounced “conspiracy theorists” in the so-
called “birther” movement for continuing to spread bogus claims
about the issue.

“It’s kind of ludicrous at this point,” Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the
former director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, said in a
rare telephone interview with NBC.

Fukino, sounding both exasperated and amused, spoke to a reporter in
the aftermath of Donald Trump’s statements on the NBC Today
show last week questioning whether Obama has a legitimate
birth certificate.  No matter what state officials release on the issue, the “birthers”
are going to question it, said Fukino. “They’re going to question
the ink on which it was written or say it was fabricated,” said Fukino.
“The whole thing is silly.”

As the top Hawaiian official in charge of state health records in
2008, when the issue of Obama’s birth first arose, Fukino said she
thought she had put the matter to rest. Contacted by NBC, Fukino
expanded on previous public statements and made two key
points when asked about Trump’s recent comments.

The first is that the original so-called “long form” birth certificate
— described by Hawaiian officials as a “record of live birth” —
absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on
the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said
she has personally inspected it —twice. The first time was in late
October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign,
when the communications director for the state’s then Republican
governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she
could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating
on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya.

Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the
files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital
records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered,
half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who
delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public
statement asserting to the document’s validity. She later put
out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the
original birth record a second time.
“It is real, [but is it truthful?] and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change
that,” Fukino said. [counterfeit money is real also, but is it legit?] The document is valid but no copy of it has yet been seen, only an altered PDF, and an out-right JPG fabrication.  Their statements about Obama’s birth location are not proof of anything, just political cover for facts that are being hidden from the public.

Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is
that the shorter, computer generated “certification of live
birth” that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007
[it’s dated on the back” June 2007″ but was said to have been requested and obtained in 2008] and has
since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody
requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would
receive from the health department. [false, the long form remained available by law, though in 2009 they claimed it no long was because they needed to help disallow the release of the long form birth certificate which may not even exist, and would not exist if Obama was not born in a hospital]

The certification states that Obama was born in Honolulu
at 7:2 4 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961 — was based on the content of the original document in state files,
Fukino said. “What he got, everybody got,” said Fukino. “He put out
exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate.”
© 2010

Note; that last statement is very well crafted since it does not proclaim
that Obama’s certification image represents a scan of an officially
certified print of a short-form Certification of Live Birth.
Rather it implies that what he put out looks exactly like what everyone
gets, which would be also true of a forgery, just as counterfeit
money looks exactly like real money.

The Claim:
“an original birth record in the custody of Hawaii, -identifying birth in Hawaii, PROVES birth in Hawaii! Recall she’s SEEN the one in the vault. She KNOWS it exists!”
The Reply:
“It is very obvious, in reading the statement of the Director of Health, that the statement was very carefully worded, [as though with legal implications in mind] which leaves the inquiring mind asking, why?

When DOH Director Chiyome Fukino announced to the press, on October 31, 2008, that “Hawaii has Obama’s original birth certificate on record,” this should have been the time for Hawaii to also confirm the existence of the COLB posted online [and claimed to be proof of Obama’s Hawaiian birth], since that is what prompted hundreds of phone calls to Ukubo and company in the first place.  The fact that she didn’t only reinforces the fact that Obama’s genuine COLB contains something he doesn’t want viewed by the American people.
If the birth information on that COLB matched the birth information in his birth record, then why not say so?  It would have stopped them from being bombarded with phone calls, and may have ended the quest for his long-form birth certificate.
Conversely, if the birth information on that COLB did not match the info on his birth record, then they would be dancing around the issue and dodging all questions about it — which is exactly what they did — and what they are still doing.”

“…Hawaii’s reporting of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961 and his associated eligibility to the Presidency.”

His eligibility is not associated with US birth, just ask John McCain. Obama was a backer of the Senate resolution declaring McCain a natural born citizen because he was born to citizen parents, not on US soil.  So he is aware that he is not a natural born citizen, -being a Constitutional scholar and all.

“Since we know Obama was born in a Hawaiian hospital,…”

Since we all “know” that, we can all just shut-up and go home, having happily lobotomized our rational capability which tells us that no proof has yet been shown, nor has any hospital shown any record or even claimed to be his birth location. That’s why the suspicions will not evaporate.

As for the birth certificate, he clearly will never willingly show it, which means he has something to hide. If that something is birth outside the US borders, then he not only is not eligible to be President, but he isn’t even a US citizen because his mother was too young by one year to be able legally to confer US citizenship on her son.  That is why it is so important.


I’ve been reading blog postings all over the place going back 1 1/2 years on the subject of the State Seal and whether is creates an embossed or debossed image.  I have a common sense insight that I think will shed light on the subject.

When Hawaii moved to a digital image system in place of a photo-copy system, it changed many things in how they create certified copies.

Once they abandoned true representation and switched to “Abstract” representation for the various modern advantages that come with it, they also simplified the other elements of certification.  Since the Constitution mandates that all states recognize the official records of every other state, they could do anything they chose in how to represent certification, so they did.  They dropped having to physically sign every document and substituted a rubber stamp in its place, maybe.  If they first went with an official rubber stamp, I think they eventually realized that they could dispense with that by simply having a transparent image of a rubber stamp, which could be printed on a certified copy instead of using a stamp.  The Registrar’s date stamp may be an actual stamp but who can tell from digital images?  A real birth certificate would need to be examined closely and even then one might not be able to tell the difference since printers can replicate any image.

What they can’t replicate is a stamped seal.  But, Hawaii also abandoned using actual hand applied seals such as used by a Notary Public and switched to an automatically generated stamping technology, probably developed by IBM back in the ’50s, which relies on a series of dashes impressed into the paper.  It’s like braille but in reverse since braille is raised (printed on the backside of the paper).  Such dashes can be arranged into any form whether it be image or text.  It is the basis of the IBM logo, which is formed from a series of horizontal dashes.
I don’t know how long a fresh seal stamping device would produce crisp images but I’ll bet that someone would get mighty tired of using one on hundreds of documents, so for that reason alone they might have decided to throw the true certification stamp method over-board.  After all, why not?  They already had bastardized their image replication method, and their signature method, so why not the seal also?

At such a point, the IT folks didn’t give a rat’s ass about what the Hawaiian codes said about certification, they were obsolete relics of the past and in need of being updated or replaced.

So by what I gather, the method Hawaii settled on was a straight-forward dash indentation process that results in a debossed image which they semi-correct by applying to the back so that it produces a raised image on the front.  The fog of mystery and conspiracy kind of dissipate when you see the facts as they are in the real world.

When a Seal is not really a Seal but a substitute

Excerpt from 51 Ineligibility Bullet Points

8. Hawaiian Certi-Fiction

Shortly after began clamoring for a more thorough review of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility, the image of a document containing sparse information about Obama’s alleged birth was posted on the internet by undisclosed sources, from an unknown origin. The image appeared on extreme left-wing websites like the Daily Kos, The Huffington Post and later on two websites claiming to be non-partisan reviewers, and

One of the fact checking sites is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation from which the Chicago Annenberg Project received a large educational grant. Obama served as the chair on the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Project in 2002.

9. Certification of Identity, not Natural Birth

The 2008 document image was determined to be created by an unknown source from a digital template form of a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” which is a surrogate, independently published, municipal cover document issued to those applying for copies of birth certificates in the state of Hawaii since 2000. In response to Y2K system updates the State of Hawaii began migrating from paper copies of original birth records to digitally created printed documents. The state of Hawaii openly admits to changing its document format under the guise of preventing identity theft.

21. Hawaiian Document Proven Deficient

In August, 2008, a former U.S. Department of Health, Office of Vital Statistics Registrar stated that the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” cannot be considered an original birth certificate created at the time of occurrence of the birth because

“…it does not contain the signature of the licensed medical professional qualified to determine the characteristics of a live birth in accordance with administrative requirements established by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division, and it does not contain the name and location of the hospital which issued the original record, which would be a U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” if the child was born in the United States.”

Further investigation of Hawaii’s revised statutes reveal that the Hawaiian Department of Health not only contends with federal law, it also contradicts its own self-declared authority to issue falsified birth nativity under HRS 338-17.

22. Hawaii’s Self-endowed Permission To Violate Federal Law

Hawaii Revised Statute HRS 338-17.8 states:

“Certificates for children born out of State.(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”

The law permits anyone born to parents who claimed Hawaii as their residence within one year of their birth, at any time before or after the enactment of the law, regardless of the actual location of the birth, to receive an original birth record which states that the location of birth is Hawaii, and, therefore, occurred in the U.S. Hawaiian lawmakers have confirmed that the law is not constrained to the date of birth. It is applicable to the date of application for the certificate.

This means this law would enable Obama, anytime after the age of 21 to apply for and receive a newly created original Hawaiian birth certificate after providing evidence that his mother or father merely resided in Hawaii for one year prior to his birth. He could have applied for this certificate any time since is parents are known to have resided in Hawaii since 1960. He could have been born outside of the U.S., however, the State of Hawaii is obligated by law to grant him an original birth certificate stating that Hawaii is his birth place simply because he was able to show that his parents claimed Hawaii as their residence.

Moreover, the evidence provided with Obama’s application may not be reviewed by any third party under this law. Only the Director of the Department of Health is granted with the authority to determine the validity and deadlines required in providing such evidence. In essence, under Administrative Rule 91, the state of Hawaii has empowered a state-level, municipal employee to determine the federal, natural-born status and therefore, the Constitutional eligibility, of any individual, even a sworn enemy of the United States, seeking the most powerful office in the world.

40. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii’s Reluctant Accomplice

On October 31st, 2008, and, again on July 27th, 2009, the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health released the only two official statements by the government of the State of Hawaii about Obama’s natal records. In her October, 2008 statement she release the following:

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

The statement, no doubt written by a lawyer, does not specify the type of original birth certificate on record nor verify in any way that her claim is not false, and it directly contradicts statements made by an official of the Hawaiian elections Office that the State of Hawaii does not possess an original birth certificate for Obama, which was corroborated by a statement by the governor. Fukino further clarified her statement eight months later with the following:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records [she’s no longer calling it a birth certificate] maintained on file [digital file no doubt, not archival file] by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. [no one has the authority to declare someone to be a natural born citizen since it’s legal meaning has never been established] I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.” [her lawyer told her that she had to shut up and not say anything beyond her useless, unverifiable, unexplained elementary claims, but they were enough to give cover to the forgeries]

The problem with this second statement is, first, she, again, does not identify the title of the “original vital records” documents she has seen. Notice she uses the word “records”, plural. Whether they are a U.S. Certificate of Live Birth, a Delayed Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Foreign Birth accompanied with testimonial documents, medical records or other evidence is not disclosed by Fukino.

Second, she violated Hawaii’s identity protection law, the very same HRS 338-18 she cited in her first statement, by disclosing information from the vital records about Obama’s unverified birth place. If she is so willing to provide this private information, why not disclose the rest of it? Answer: Because this information serves the bias of the State of Hawaii’s endorsement of Obama’s legitimacy. Otherwise, Fukino would also disclose the other information that perhaps is NOT so favorable to Obama, as well, such as the title of the ‘original vital records’ or whether the certificate had been amended.

Third, and most grievous, as a state-level, municipal employee way out in the State of Hawaii, Fukino neither has the federal authority, nor the qualifications to determine the Natural-born status of a candidate for federal office. In fact, Fukino’s audacious, bizarre proclamation is laughable and only exposes the State of Hawaii’s fragile confidence in their documentation procedures, let alone its ability to declare the historical meaning of Natural-born citizenship.

Join citizens4freedom on facebook and share us with your fb friends. We are 3700+ strong for freedom!
Posted in: Political Articles, Judicial, Birth Certificate , Featured Articles

50. Hawaiian Governor Offended

In December, 2010, newly elected Hawaiian Democratic governor, Neil Abercrombie proclaimed that he is undertaking an effort, in consultation with the Hawaiian Attorney General, to make Obama’s original birth documentation available to the public. In making his proclamation, Abercrombie claims that since he was a friend of the Obama’s during their attendance at the University of Hawaii and thereafter, he is personally offended by accusation from doubters that the Obama’s were involved in nefarious dealings with regard to Obama’s natal identity. Abercrombie said he also feels it is disrespectful to the office of the presidency to question Obama’s eligibility.

Despite being an alleged friend of the Obama family, Abercrombie was not invited to the couple’s alleged Hawaiian wedding in 1961, nor was he present at the alleged 1961 Hawaiian birth of Obama.

In response to Abercrombie’s proclamations, both Fox and MSNBC, while reporting on the story, admitted for the first time that Obama had not yet released an original version of his official, 1961, federal, U.S. Certificate of Live Birth signed by the attending physician bearing the name and seal of the hospital.

After exercising all of his gubernatorial power, Abercrombie later admitted to media that he could not find any official, original standard Certificate of Live Birth for Obama. Four months later, the White House released an image of the very document Abercrombie could not find.


“Where’s the Real Birth Certificate?”  Or put another way; “Where’s the TRUE COPY of an original Birth Certificate?”  After Hawaii copied their record system into digital format from micro-film, they ceased issuing what had accurately been labeled a “TRUE  COPY” and switched to issuing “ABSTRACT” copies instead.  So the PDF released by the White House is nothing more than a forgery made from abstract copies of digitized images of micro-film photographs of real paper documents.  But in Obama’s case, there is no real paper birth certificate, so one had to be manufactured.
“Hawaii Department of Health spokeswoman Janet Okubo explained to WND in an email that the certified copy issued to Obama is a photocopy on safety paper “of the original Certificate of Live Birth.”  This claim is a flat-out lie it would seem because photocopies are no longer used.  Just look at the original Nordyke twins BCs. Those were print-outs made from the original mico-film negatives, equivalent to a photocopy, but the PDF is not the image of a real document but merely a digital ABSTRACT,  so Okubo must be lying.
“Okubo added that Alvin Onaka, the state registrar, whose signature is on the Obama document, “certified the copies.”  There are no copies in existance and no one has seen them to prove otherwise.  Onaka did not certify the non-existing copies because he certifies nothing by using a rubber stamp which can be counterfeited easily rather than a genuine certifying hand-written signature.  Or possibly even worse, it’s merely an image made by superimposing the digital image of a rubber stamp certification signature.

One Response to Birth Certificate Page 3

  1. arnash says:

    January 12, 2012 butterdezillion says:

    I’ve invited people to explain to me how Okubo’s statement about “date filed” and “date accepted” (given a BC# by the HDOH) being the same thing for Oahu BC’s could possibly fit the “date filed” and BC#’s on the collection of supposed BC’s we’ve got right now. You’ve said I should just believe the HDOH. Fine – but if I believe what Okubo said about “date filed” being “date accepted”, that means we’ve got about 3 or 4 forged BC’s out there right now, including the Waidelich one which CNN claims they filmed Waidelich picking up from the HDOH. So which HDOH claim do I believe – Okubo’s statement, or the COLB they gave Waidelich? Nobody has shown me a way they could both be true. And for any rational person, those contradictions fail the cross-examination test and call the credibility and/or LEGALITY of the HDOH’s claims into very serious question.

    Which is why I have called for an investigation. That’s all I have ever asked for, and it is what any reasonable person would ask for given the contradictions by the HDOH and the blatant anomalies (physical impossibilities, even, as I’ve shown) in what Obama claims are the documents he received from the HDOH.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Earlier, Hawaii’s former Health Department director, Chiyome Fukino, the one official who claimed to have examined the original birth document under lock and key in Hawaii, was interviewed by NBC News’ national investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff. Isikoff said Fukino told him she had seen the original birth certificate and that it was “half typed and half handwritten.”

    However, the document released by the White House was entirely typed. Only the signatures and two dates at the very bottom were “handwritten.”

    Fukino moved to center stage in the Obama birth certificate controversy after issuing a statement on Oct. 31, 2008, in which she stated: “Therefore, I as Director for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    What she didn’t say is that they saw a real hard copy of a Hawaiian birth certificate. One must assume that what they saw was a digital record on a computer monitor from a data base of digitized information “in accordance with state policies & procedures”. They did NOT see, nor say they saw, a Hawaiian hospital birth record. She used legal language to blow smoke to fog-up the issue and make it sound like they observed something that they didn’t. All to protect they home-grown knight in shining armor by any means necessary, but mostly by obfuscation and ambiguity. AN

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: