Barack Hus­sein Oba­ma II

Long Form Birth Cer­tifi­cate, released April 27, 2011


Obama Birth Certificate

Press Con­fer­ence video

Tran­script of the Pres­i­den­t’s Remarks

THE PRESIDENT:  As many of you have been briefed, we pro­vid­ed addi­tion­al infor­ma­tion today about the site of my birth. Now, this issue has been going on for two, two and a half years now.  I think it start­ed dur­ing the cam­paign.  And I have to say that over the last two and a half years I have watched with bemuse­ment, I’ve been puz­zled at the degree to which this thing just kept on going.  We’ve had every offi­cial in Hawaii, Demo­c­rat and Repub­li­can, every news out­let that has inves­ti­gat­ed this, con­firm that, yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii, August 4, 1961, in Kapi­olani Hos­pi­tal.

We’ve post­ed the cer­ti­fi­ca­tion that is giv­en by the state of Hawaii on the Inter­net for every­body to see.  Peo­ple have pro­vid­ed affi­davits that they, in fact, have seen this birth cer­tifi­cate.  And yet this thing just keeps on going.…

I know that there’s going to be a seg­ment of peo­ple for which, no mat­ter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest.  But I’m speak­ing to the vast major­i­ty of the Amer­i­can peo­ple, as well as to the press.  We do not have time for this kind of silli­ness.  We’ve got bet­ter stuff to do.  I’ve got bet­ter stuff to do.  We’ve got big prob­lems to solve.  And I’m con­fi­dent we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them — not on this.

Tran­script of the Press Gag­gle 

MR. PFEIFFER:  Thanks, Jay.  What you have in front of you now is a pack­et of papers that includes the President’s long-form birth cer­tifi­cate from the state of Hawaii, the orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate that the Pres­i­dent request­ed and we post­ed online in 2008, and then the cor­re­spon­dence between the President’s coun­sel and the Hawaii State Depart­ment of Health that led to the release of those doc­u­ments.…

MR. BAUER:  The cer­tifi­cate with the sig­na­tures at the bot­tom — and that’s a key dif­fer­ence between the short form and the long form — the long form has sig­na­tures at the bot­tom from the attend­ing physi­cian, the local reg­is­trar, and the moth­er, is the orig­i­nal birth cer­tifi­cate, which sits in a bound vol­ume in the State Depart­ment of Health.

 The short from is a com­put­er­ized abstract, and that’s the legal birth cer­tifi­cate we request­ed in 2008 and that Hawai­ians are enti­tled to.  Since the mid-1980s, the State Depart­ment of Health, for admin­is­tra­tive rea­sons, only pro­vides to peo­ple who request their birth cer­tifi­cate the short form.  They do not pro­vide the long form.

So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiv­er.  We had to actu­al­ly deter­mine that there was a legal basis for pro­vid­ing it, and then ask them to exer­cise their author­i­ty to pro­vide us with the long form.  The steps required to accom­plish that were a let­ter from the per­son with the direct and vital inter­est — the Pres­i­dent — so you have a let­ter from the Pres­i­dent, and then there was an accom­pa­ny­ing let­ter from coun­sel basi­cal­ly for­mal­iz­ing the request.  So the rea­son we includ­ed that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of this waiv­er.

Image size 1000 x 1199

AP Hi-res image” 4047 × 4851  2MB



CLAIM: The doc­u­ment is forged. It has lay­ers. I read an expert say­ing it was Pho­to­shopped. I saw a video that shows how it was forged. 

  • Com­put­er Foren­sics expert Dr. Neal Krawetz, pub­lish­er of’s reports. SFBC: June 2008August 2008, LFBCApril 2011.
    • Before I begin, I need to point out two crit­i­cal items for this eval­u­a­tion. First, dig­i­tal doc­u­ment analy­sis can detect manip­u­la­tion, but it can­not deter­mine whether the orig­i­nal sub­ject is authen­tic. The authen­tic­i­ty can only be deter­mined by the State of Hawaii, and they already said that it is authen­tic.”
  • Accord­ing to WND Reporter Aaron Klein, they com­mis­sioned reports from three cre­den­tialed doc­u­ment exam­in­ers. WND nev­er pub­lished these reports. 
    • Ivan Zatkovich of eComp Con­sult­ing has 10 years of expe­ri­ence as an expert wit­ness in state and fed­er­al courts, civ­il and crim­i­nal lit­i­ga­tion, doing doc­u­ment val­i­da­tion. Mr. Zatkovich has post­ed his report on the Inter­net. 
      • His con­clu­sion on April 29, 2011: “All of the mod­i­fi­ca­tions to the PDF doc­u­ment that can be iden­ti­fied are con­sis­tent with some­one enhanc­ing the leg­i­bil­i­ty of the doc­u­ment.”
    • Jon Berry­hill of Berry­hill Com­put­er Foren­sics has pro­vid­ed expert tes­ti­mo­ny in and been cer­ti­fied by Cal­i­for­nia and Fed­er­al courts as an expert in the field of com­put­er crime and com­put­er foren­sic analy­sis. 
      • His con­clu­sion on May 1, 2011: for a com­plete analy­sis, access to the orig­i­nal doc­u­ment would be best.
  • Nathan Gould­ing, the Chief Tech­nol­o­gy Offi­cer of The Nation­al Review Online said on April 27, 2011: “I’ve con­firmed that scan­ning an image, con­vert­ing it to a PDF, opti­miz­ing that PDF, and then open­ing it up in Illus­tra­tor, does in fact cre­ate lay­ers sim­i­lar to what is seen in the birth cer­tifi­cate PDFYou can try it your­self at home.”
  • Jean-Claude Trem­blay is an Adobe Cer­ti­fied Expert in Illus­tra­tor CS4/CS5 / Inde­sign CS4/CS5 / Pho­to­shop CS4/CS5 / Acro­bat Pro 9/X. He told Fox News on April 29, 2011: 
    • He said the lay­ers cit­ed by doubters are evi­dence of the use of com­mon, off-the-shelf scan­ning soft­ware — not evi­dence of a forgery. “I have seen a lot of illus­tra­tor doc­u­ments that come from pho­tos and con­tain those kind of clippings—and it looks exact­ly like this,” he said.
    •  Trem­blay explained that the scan­ner opti­cal char­ac­ter recog­ni­tion (OCR) soft­ware attempts to trans­late char­ac­ters or words in a pho­to­graph into text. He said the lay­ers cit­ed by the doubters shows that soft­ware at work – and noth­ing more. 
    • When you open it in Illus­tra­tor it looks like lay­ers, but it doesn’t look like some­one built it from scratch. If some­one made a fake it wouldn’t look like this,” he said.“Some scan­ning soft­ware is try­ing to sep­a­rate the back­ground and the text and split­ting ele­ment into lay­ers and parts of lay­ers.”
  • The PDF file was cre­at­ed using Mac OSX 10.6.7.Quartz PDF­Con­text. Nowhere in the Arpaio report is this men­tioned, and there is no evi­dence that any Apple prod­ucts were used in their attempts to recre­ate the PDF. Here are the prop­er­ties of the file: (Note: the PDF is stamped with UTC time, but the dis­played time shown here is that UTC time in your time zone. The PDF was cre­at­ed ear­ly in the morn­ing on the day it was post­ed, not at 1:09 pm.)




CLAIM: Back in 1961 peo­ple of col­or were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can the Oba­ma ‘birth cer­tifi­cate’ state he is ‘African-Amer­i­can’ when the term was­n’t even used at that time? 

Hawaii has nev­er had a white major­i­ty. The State of Hawaii let peo­ple put what­ev­er they want­ed down for race, then man­u­al­ly put those descrip­tions into sta­tis­ti­cal cat­e­gories for report­ing. (That’s what the pen­cil marks on the forms are.) In 1961, if you were black from Africa, you were African. LOOK at Oba­ma’s birth cer­tifi­cate. It does­n’t say he’s African-Amer­i­can. It says the FATHER is “African”. Because he was. That’s what blacks in Africa were called. 

Here’s a trav­el guide to Africa from 1961.  Note it talks about the major races in Kenya — Euro­pean, African, Asian (Indi­an and Pak­istan), and mul­ti-racial. 

Also look at the 1962 Kenya Cen­sus instruc­tions.

Race.- Write Euro­pean, Arab, Soma­li, or African, etc. Asians must write Indi­an or Pak­istan.



CLAIM: The birth cer­tifi­cate that the White House released lists Oba­ma’s birth as August 4, 1961 lists his father as born in ” Kenya , East Africa”. Kenya did not even exist until 1963. How could Oba­ma’s father have been born in a coun­try that did not yet exist?

Kenya has exist­ed since the 1920s. Princess Eliz­a­beth was at the Tree­tops Lodge in Kenya when her father died. She went to bed a princess, and awoke a queen. Head­lines all over the world from that time were date­lined Kenya. Also look at that 1961 trav­el guide. It’s open to the Kenya sec­tion. It calls the ter­ri­to­ry Kenya. On a pri­or page, it says “Kenya is the most vis­it­ed of the British East Africa ter­ri­to­ries.” In 1963, Kenya became the Repub­lic of Kenya. Before that, it was called Kenya. 



CLAIM: On the birth cer­tifi­cate released by the White House, the list­ed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Mater­ni­ty & Gyne­co­log­i­cal Hos­pi­tal”. This can­not be, because the hos­pi­tal­in 1961 was called “KauiKe­olani Chil­dren’s Hos­pi­tal” and “Kapi’olani Mater­ni­ty Home”. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Mater­ni­ty & Gyne­co­log­i­cal Hos­pi­tal until 1978, when these two hos­pi­tals merged.

The name of the hos­pi­tal is cor­rect. Here’s some oth­er Hawai­ian COLBs from the web that say the same name. Search the name Kapi­olani Mater­ni­ty & Gyne­co­log­i­cal Hos­pi­tal in Google Schol­ar, you’ll get hun­dreds of jour­nal arti­cles from before 1961. Here’s one such arti­cle from 1938




Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow