Will Release Of Obama's Purported Birth Certificate Give Rise To New "Certer" Movement?

This morning’s White House release of President Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate will, of course, do little to derail the “birther” movement, which will now analyze the document with the kind of verve previously directed toward those Texas Air National Guard memos faxed to CBS from that Kinko’s in Abilene.

So here’s a few nutty points about the birth certificate sure to be seized upon by the nonbelievers:

• If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document's safety paper be so seamless?

• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?

• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?

• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.

• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?

• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: It is spelled “Ukulele.”

Comments (1500)

"The real question here is why is there no religous affiliation on the document? There is on any other birth certificate. " ............................................................................................................................... In that case it shouldn't be hard to link to a few examples of Hawaiian birth certificates showing religious affiliation. Go right ahead.
Well obviously you are extremely unintelligent, so I'll try to keep this simple... Do you really think that a fetus and/or a day old infant is capable of having religious beliefs? That's like if Bush's certificate noted under medical conditions: Alcoholic. Please read a book (besides the Bible).
Let me clarify what I meant to say. It states the mother's religous affiliation. If Obama's mother was muslim than Obama was raised Muslim. I am not ignorant. I graduated from a very prestigious private university.
No, that wouldn't normally be included on a birth certificate. "Religion" is only asked for in relation to emergency contact information for next-of-kin. Basically, it's for hospital patients, workers, soldiers, or students, so that administrators know what kind of chaplain may be needed in a crisis to aid a family especially when a Catholic needs last rites or a death notification needs to be made. Even a marriage certificate may have just the pastor's name but not his title or their church's name so you'd have to guess at their religious affiliation. Otherwise, you'd just be asking so you could discriminate against someone, and America, as a policy matter, frowns on that.
jj1234, you're a complete idiot. Your religious affiliation at birth is not necessarily your religious affiliation as an adult. I was born Christian and now I'm an atheist and think Christianity is nearly as bad as Islam. I bet you don't find that hard to believe do you, because it makes it easier for you to discredit me.
You are right, your religous affiliation can change when you become an adult. However, if the american public knows that as a child he was raised Muslim then we know where his true beliefs are. Who you are and what you believe are strongly formed as a child, not as an adult. Which is why if you grew up being taught about Christianity, than in your heart you know it is true. God Bless!
I grew up learning Christianity and live as an Atheist. Your theory is grossly flawed, hey... like Christianity itself!
Just like you know in your heart that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are true. When I first started to realize faith was intentional ignorance and there was no legitimate reason to believe Christianity, it was life-shattering. I prayed constantly for guidance and spoke to pastors of a dozen denominations. Then the clouds cleared and I became free from the mind-virus of religion and my life has been better ever since. While I respect religious freedom, if you ever elected me to office, my actions would reflect those of an atheist. Obama's actions clearly show him to be a goofy religious person just like you.
I see that the 4th of August 1961 is a Friday which would make the time of birth of 7.24pm a bit late to expect the entry in the Register to be made that day. It is probable, like most places, that the entry is done at a time to be agreed for the Registrar AND the father to be present, this would explain why it was signed on the 8th of August 1961 (the following Tuesday). I don't see anything untoward in this whatsoever.
Why waste a trip for just 1 or 2 birth certificates? The hospital probably just waited until they had, say 10, certificates and took them over all at once, say once a week, on Tuesday. What would be the rush?