Back in October 26, 2008, Jerome Corsi wrote an article about Gov. Linda Lingle placing Obama’s birth certificate under seal:

It is important to note, however, the article does not explicitly indicate whether it was the short form or the long form that was said to have been put under seal. Let’s take a close look at the second half of the lead in the article:

“…WND has learned that Hawaii’s Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate’s birth certificate under seal and instructed the state’s Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.”

Interesting. The office of Governor Lingle soon made a form letter after the article was published stating:

“A recent article in (October 26, 2008) claiming that Hawai‘i Governor Linda Lingle sealed Sen. Barack Obama’s birth certificate is false.”

Now, let’s take a close look at a paragraph from an article in the Sonoran News published in October 29, 2008:

“Following Obama’s one-day trip to Hawaii last Thursday to visit his “deathly ill” grandmother, Lingle placed Obama’s birth records under seal and instructed the Hawaii Department of Health, under no condition may it provide access to the original document unless Obama authorizes it to be released.*” (emphasis mine)

Corsi didn’t say “birth certificates” were placed under seal, he said a birth certificate was put under seal.

So, wait, what did Lingle really say? What really happened back in 2008?

This is where things get EXTREMELY interesting.

Sonoran News received an e-mail from Russell Pang, Chief of Media Relations of the Governor’s office, soon after their article was published. He requested certain lines of their news article be retracted (Sonoran News refused to comply). In the letter, Pang said ‘The subhead, and the statement in the article, “Lingle placed Obama’s birth records under seal and instructed the Hawaii Department of Health, under no condition may it provide access to the original document unless Obama authorizes it to be released,’ are not true.”

Wow! It looks like the governor’s office did not appreciate those particular statements being written about Lingle. Just for reference, this is the official Hawaii statutes concerning who can have access to original long form birth certificates:

So, why does any of this matter? I’m not absolutely positive, but, I guess I could propose a few theories of mine.

When the long form birth certificate was first released to the public, the AP put up their own copy of the birth certificate online that they received from the White House. Abovetopsecret users soon discovered that there was another document visible behind the long form:

Using computer programs such as Photoshop and Windows Paint, they discovered the short form could be seen behind the long form birth certificate. Now, this may not be that interesting if the AP reporter scanned the long form with the short form behind it, but, what if the White House gave the Press the long form like that originally? Well, I personally went online and checked out different HQ copies of the long form, and saw the same short form manifestation that was on the one scanned by the AP. Interesting. In all fairness though, I do not see the manifestation in the original copy Guthrie photographed:

Then again, I have not taken enough time to put the copy in photoshop. Also, this is supposedly a photo of a copy instead of a direct scan. Some “birthers” go even further and claim the photos by Guthrie are fake. I wouldn’t have put much credence in this theory except for the fact that Guthrie had/has refused to discuss anything to do with the long form she photographed.

So, maybe that new short form was put in the same seal as the original long form. Keep in mind, the short form is “brand new” when you compare it to the original long form. Also, it was revealed recently by G. Gordon Liddy that there may have been tampering with official Obama birth records as far back as 1978.

What’s up with the concern by the Governor’s office? Why would Lingle need to “seal” any of Obama’s records when they’re protected by Hawaii law anyhow? What’s up with Obama’s records being “tampered” with as far back as 1978?

Hey, maybe I’m on the right track, maybe not. We may never get down to the truth until after the 2012 election if certain “birthers” and Republican politicians have their way (these people will remain nameless).