Here are the key “snark-astic” questions the site poses:
• 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 in box 19a?
• 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, however, it is spelled “Ukulele.”
The site is apparently trying to get “ahead of the game” in terms of the scrutiny that this new online image will obviously produce.
But what about Susan Nordyke’s certificate, born one day after Mr. Obama? One can clearly see differences (click image for larger picture):
Bryan Keith Nixon, an associate creative director for an Atlanta-based advertising agency, pulled up the White House-released image in Adobe Illustrator. This is what he found (click on image for larger view):
And attorney Leo Donofrio responded to today’s news by saying that his prediction of a long-form birth certificate has been fulfilled to the potential detriment of certain legal questions, such as parental citizenship (last three paragraphs):
They simply played a better game of chess. And due to this sick game, Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President. Obama’s defeat of the dual nationality issue, in both the courts and the media, means that the President’s parents do not have to be US citizens. If that is true, then the natural born citizen requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is basically rendered meaningless.
If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don’t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. To become naturalized as a US citizen, one must at least swear an oath of allegiance to the US by renouncing all other allegiances. But a person such as Obama, who was born with dual allegiance is apparently not even required to renounce all previous allegiances under oath.
The BC was a conspiracy theory. The dual nationality issue is a legal question. Obama always controlled the issue of whether or not he would produce the BC. But the legal issue was never under his control. So he exercised as much control over it as possible by allowing the birth certificate to fester casting a huge shadow over his dual allegiance. Well played, sir.