Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Despite the establishment media declaring “case closed” on the birther issue, the release of what purports to be Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate has only caused a firestorm of new suspicion amongst Americans, with the document only serving to confirm unexplained anomalies, such as why Obama’s birth certificate number is higher than that of people born after him at the same hospital.
If early reaction is anything to go by, the deluge of editorials in outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times claiming the birther movement is dead are completely off the mark. A poll taken by the Colorado Springs Gazette shows that 55% believe the birth certificate is “probably forged” with only 31% believing it to be genuine.
As we have illustrated, when subjected to in-depth analysis, there are so many inconsistencies within the document itself that it’s almost as if the White House wanted to get caught releasing a dud – it’s that bad.
“When sections of the document are enlarged significantly, we discover glaring inconsistencies. For instance, it appears the date stamped on the document has been altered. Moreover, the document contains text, numbers, and lines with suspicious white borders indicating these items were pasted from the original scan and dropped over a background image of green paper,” writes Kurt Nimmo.
But it’s not only the forensic aspects of the birth certificate that don’t stand up to scrutiny, the details contained on the form only serve to confirm inconsistencies first highlighted by the “receipt” of birth form that Obama released in 2008.
Leading “birther” Jerome Corsi has highlighted one anomaly in particular that the new birth certificate does nothing to dismiss. Corsi writes that the issue represents the, “Rosetta Stone of deciphering both Obama’s previously released short-form Certification of Live Birth and the newly released purported copy of his long-form birth certificate.”
It centers around the fact that two twins born in the same Kapi’olani hospital listed on the Obama document the day after Obama was purportedly born actually have birth certificate numbers lower than Obama. The number should be lower on the Obama certificate if he was born before the twins.
As Corsi explains, “Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.The Nordyke twins’ birth certificates appear below.
“Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.”
“Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth displayed by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign – and now according to the long-form birth certificate the White House released today – Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordykes.”
“Note, Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.”
The birth certificate numbers were not assigned by the hospital, they were the responsibility of the Hawaii Department of Health at the main office in Honolulu, which stamped them with an automatic stamp that increased in number by one each time it was used, rendering obsolete the theory that the Nordyke twins had earlier numbers because their mother entered the hospital before Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.
Why does Obama have a higher birth certificate number than the Nordykes when he was born before them and his birth was allegedly registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days before the twins?
Does this indicate that the birth certificate number on the Obama document is fake? If so, someone born in Hawaii at the Kapi’olani hospital in August 1961 has a birth certificate with the same number as the alleged Obama birth certificate, which would demolish the notion that Obama was born in the U.S. completely.
Did the people behind the forgery deliberately choose the number on Obama’s form – 10641 – because the real person born with that number is now dead and unable to contradict the anomaly?
Again, this brings back into focus the alarming concept that if the document is a fake, it’s a really terrible ham-fisted effort that will only serve to make the spectacle rumble on well into the campaign season. It forces us to ask whether the Obama administration is deliberately fanning the flames of the controversy so that Donald Trump – a massive donor to the Democratic Party – can be used as a spoiler to ensure an Obama victory in 2012.
As CBS News reports, “Billionaire Donald J. Trump, an early presidential favorite among tea party activists, has a highly unusual history of political contributions for a prospective Republican candidate: He has given most of his money to the other side.”
If Trump ends up running as a third party candidate, either on a Libertarian or “Tea Party” ticket, he could siphon away enough votes from a Republican to help Obama secure a second term in the White House. Otherwise, he could just be denigrated as a birther buffoon by the establishment media and used as a weapon through which to discredit Republicans, including Congressman Ron Paul, who as has been documented, is the only GOP candidate that stands a good chance of defeating Obama.
There are so many questions swirling around the birther controversy that Obama’s decision yesterday to publicly wade into the issue for the first time can only mean that the White House has embarked on a deliberate political ploy to embrace the topic and use it towards its own ends.