The Barack Obama birth certificate reprint

I know the anti-Obama types have been trying to say the above birth certificate for Barack Obama is a forgery. I have been pretty good at spotting these and was one of the authorities exposing the 60 Minutes forgeries a few years ago. (Some trace of the Killian documents, Rathergate, and my commentary should still be online and it was remarkably easy examining the precise cut of the Times typeface on them—I still cannot understand why the arguments that time went on for so long.)
   This interests me. Clearly this is not a 1961-vintage certificate, mostly because it refers to ‘11/01’ and ‘Laser’ at the bottom. This is not his certificate, but a reprint or certification, correct?
   Because the most obvious problem is the Arial typeface that was not even done till 1982.
   I think most things such as the colour mismatch and the absence of a seal can be explained away by technology, and the fact this is a reissue. (Anyone who has used more than one scanner in their lifetime should know the former. No two scanners will duplicate colour the same way.) Someone wrote that the seals are verso, so the non-appearance on Sen. Obama’s can again, very easily, be explained by scanning technology. (Anyone who has used more than one photocopier in their lifetime should know this, too.)
   Anyone arguing these points is clouding the issue because they are arguing about a laser-printer-done reprint.
   The only question relating to the reprint I have is that one netizen says that the below is a genuine Hawai’ian birth certificate issued under similar circumstances. That same netizen points out that above the final date, the word ‘filed’ in the Obama certificate should be  ‘accepted’. Again, I wonder if this is due to laser printing on a reprint, and the change in terminology between 1930 and 1961 (the person below was born in 1930).
   Perhaps someone (either for or against the Illinois senator) could explain to me why there is such a reliance on these electronic reprints in this campaign, anyway, because all both sides need to shut up is to see the original from 1961. I have my original, typed birth certificate of 1972 vintage, not a reprint in a typeface designed in 1982. Come to think of it, I probably have my late mother’s 1939 vintage one lying about, too. In my world, you don’t misplace these things and if asked at a national level, running for US president, you show the original.
   One netizen has put up his from 1963 and this is what it looks like: He says it was certified in 1998. I assume he means the 1963 version was copied (or photocopied) and certified to be an exact copy of the original in 1998, as the typography and stamp are totally consistent with the early 1960s.
   All both sides need to stop arguing about all of this is to see the 1961 certificate, and I am sure a copy exists in Hawai’i. Not a certification, which is a different thing. I don’t doubt that Sen. Obama is American by nationality, so what harm could there be?