No one needs to question Barack Obama's qualification to be President. It is just as genuine as the pronunciation of his first name, (which his father and namesake pronounced Bair'ak).

Obama has seen to the job of having him vetted by doing it himself. He has offered us a cyber-photo that every person in the world with a decent word processing program can examine to determine is fraudulent, but no individual can determine where the heck that nine layer cyber-image came from.

Its origin wasn't in the White House, -it was in the Hawaiian Dept. of Health. It was created using their files and their equipment. Clandestinely? Perhaps, perhaps not. Higher-ups like to maintain plausible deniability of actions they support but can't be a part of nor have direct knowledge of.

Since no one can examine a real paper Certificate of Live Birth, -one that is signed by a human hand, stamped with a real notary type metal-die embossing device, and which represents a TRUE COPY replication of an actual document, no one can prove that a certified hard-copy from Hawaii even exists.

Obama has never been seen with one. In fact, he has never been seen with even a copy of one. Why so? (-since he made a big deal about its release?) Plausible deniability.

He wasn't allowed by his attorney to even be in the room with a copy. Nor has he ever mentioned it directly. Instead he spoke about his widely accepted short-form Certification of Live Birth jpg. image from 2008.

But who needs a hard copy? After all, we have the word of the priests and monks in the White House who would no more lie to us than they would lie to the Almighty. Surely we can trust those who have politics in their blood. Politicians never lie. Everybody can be assured of that, and when they ask us; "who ya gonna believe, us or yer lyin' eyes?", we know it's them that we can trust and not our lyin' eyes.

But if you succumb to weakness, then what might your lying eyes and common sense tell you? A whole lotta things, beginning most recently with the Verification of Birth letter issued by some clerk in the Hawaiian Dept. of Health dated May 22, 2012 and addressed to Ken Bennett, Arizona Sec. of State.

It "verifies" 12 "facts," and states: "I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files."

That statement has at least two huge flaws. One is failure to describe the certificate as anything other than a copy for Mr. Obama. It is not called "a copy of the Hawaiian Health Dept. Certificate of Live Birth," or called "the Certificate of Live Birth issued by the Hawaiian Health" Dept.

Is that significant? Based on the fact that it has never been so described and no one has attested in any legal venue that it was officially issued by the Hawaiian government, one cannot take such a "verification" at face value.

But the bigger reason not to do so is the use of the term "original record." It seems logical that the use of the word "original" adds validity to the noun "record" but in fact it adds nothing. Instead it raises the question as to why it was even used at all, and even serves to bring up the issue of the practice of falsely using the word "original."

It would have been perfectly adequate to say it "matches the record in our files," because what is the alternative? A non-original record? An altered record? A counterfeit record? A substitute record? In truth, all of those are possible because original does not mean "first" in Health Dept/ Vital Statistic Office parlance.

Whatever "record" they have in their computer data base is called the "original record" even if the original is locked away under court seal because of subsequent adoption, change of the record of who the father is, or a Witness Protection program new identity issuance.

There are millions of Americans who were adopted, and whose birth records were sealed, who wouldn't be able to prove who they are without a new "original" record which contains false information including parentage and date of birth.

Obama was adopted, though not as an infant, so his record wouldn't be under seal, but where is the missing adoption "amendment" to his birth record? It is not seen because his pdf image is not a copy of a real document which would contain such an amendment.

It is instead a compilation of information digitally extracted from microfilm images of original records. That extraction process is what explains the text characteristics in the pdf released online by the White House.

That is the reason that no verification is given that the pdf image matches that of their record. No one in Hawaii has ever said, (nor will ever say) that because they do not issue images of their records anymore. They now only issue digital "abstract" images of what is seen in their records. That serves three purposes. (1) No more handling of hundreds of dusty bound volumes of real documents, nor (2) cumbersome, and possibly fragile back-up microfilm original photos of the hospital records, and (3) the ability to create certificates on desktop computers.

That is a great simplification of the process, making their digital records very useful. But it comes at a cost. That cost is the loss of the ability to legitimately certify what they issue as certificates. Calling what they issue a "Certificate" does not constitute certification. As Abraham Lincoln said; "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does it have? Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
by Adrien Nash 2012 http://obama--nation.com