Will Release Of Obama's Purported Birth Certificate Give Rise To New "Certer" Movement?

This morning’s White House release of President Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate will, of course, do little to derail the “birther” movement, which will now analyze the document with the kind of verve previously directed toward those Texas Air National Guard memos faxed to CBS from that Kinko’s in Abilene.

So here’s a few nutty points about the birth certificate sure to be seized upon by the nonbelievers:

• 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?

• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.

• 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: It is spelled “Ukulele.”

Comments (1500)

Nothing in the Constitution is silly. Some states have already passed legislation to require the proof of birth. My previous post cites the last time this issue was visited and ruled upon under law in a Senate hearing.
No one said that the Constitution is silly. WordFinder said your ideas are silly. I must say, I agree with WordFinder.
In 2008 the Senate resolved unanimously – with Barack Obama as one of the sponsors – that McCain was eligible because both his parents were U.S. citizens.That was the standard they set. The Constitution's intent is to prevent those with foreign interests becoming President. Nationality Act in 1790 declared that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
Timmi, seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about. The Naturalization Act of 1790!?!?!? Seriously?!??! A law written BEFORE the Constitution?!?!? BEFORE the 14th Amendment?!?!? BEFORE the Naturalization Act of 1870?!?!? BEFORE US v Wong Kim Ark?!?!?! A law REPEALED in 1795?!?!? Let me repeat that, in case you missed it REPEALED IN SEVENTEEN-NINTEYF@#KINGFIVE!!!! This law has been superseded numerous times. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to all people born in the US regardless of their parents' race, citizenship, or place of birth. The Naturalization Act of 1870 extended citizenship to people of African descent who were born in the United States. US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) established the judicial precedent of jus soli ("right of the soil" as opposed to jus sanguinis - "right of the blood") being the sole factor in determining one's citizenship. You're citing the very first citizenship law of the United States, and it has been null and void for the last 216 years.
The differentiation is " natural born' citizenship and citizenship. The requirement for holding the office of President is the former. The U.S. Constitution was ratified 1788. Good to see someone doing research. See also: U.S. Title 8, Sec 1401; Savage vs. Umphries; U.S. State Dept. Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1131.6-2. obama's claimed father was a British subject, therefore conferring upon the child dual citizenship. The intent of the Constitution is to prevent foreign allegiance. Law of Nations, “natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens,” “society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Sorry, Timmi, you're just flat-out wrong on this. Instead of citing some court decision from the 19th century, try citing something from at least the 20th. Here's a little nugget from the 21st - Akeney v Governor of Indiana (2009), which specifically applies Wong Kim Ark to President Obama's eligibility. www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf Research means more than just cut-and-pasting something you read on Oily Taint's website. I might suggest instead of wasting your time reading ridiculous birther websites you should take a minute and learn the about legal principle of locus standi. Why do you birthers continue to cite legislation and judicial decisions from a time when blacks were still property and women couldn't vote? Is that the way you would like this country to be again?!?!?
See Senate decision on McCain 2008. I am unfamiliar with oily taint or birther. I do know Constitutional law.Your pdf link is cut and paste. I await the legitimate birth certificate. My time is my concern. I am a black man, born in Georgia in the 1940's, I know all about the days of legal discrimination.
Senate decision on McCain was a NON-BINDING RESOLUTION. Only reason they did it was because there actually was a law on the books that would have prevented McCain from becoming President (He missed being granted "natural-born" status by one year, and everyone felt that this was unfair and against the spirit of the law). Oily Taint = Orly Taitz. Never heard of her? And your little story originated on the Post and eMail, the reference to Ms Taitz was meant as a joke. Birther = "A conspiracy theorist who believes that Barack Obama is ineligible for the Presidency of the United States, based on any number of claims related to his place of birth, birth certificate, favorite birthday, or whether or not he has heard the song Africa by Toto." You've made it abundantly clear that you DO NOT know Constitutional Law. You don't even understand basic law, even a fundamental principle like locus standi - "standing" in lay terms. You, and the rest of the birfer movement can't get your nonsense into a court because you can't show that the case has any standing, that is to say that you can't prove that even if Obama is who you say he is that he has done anything to cause harm or injury to someone because of it. If it weren't for locus standi, we'd be free to clog up the courts with frivolous cases based on the hunch that we think someone is something, or is going to do something, like you think your neighbor is a former KGB agent who is plotting to assassinate you, and you take him to court to prove that he isn't. You'd have no standing in the court. I do not believe you are a black man born in Georgia in the 1940's. Please provide a copy of your long-form birth certificate to prove it...
You are a very anger filled person. Liberals are emotion driven, I understand. I have a staff of three people who help with my research, they have informed me of the terms and websites you mention. Legitimate documentation must be presented by obama. He has not complied. His status as a citizen has not been proven. He hides all his past family documents. I hope you this zealous for the next conservative President. I will provide my birth certificate to you when obama provides his. Have a good day, Mr Dog. p.s. my neighbor is a Russian immigrant and an obama supporter
[facepalm] Why did I even bother? Congratulations on being the last Birther on Earth. You obviously have no sense of humor nor do you have any concept of irony or sarcasm. Are you from the State of Georgia or the Republic of Georgia? Your postings don't read like English is your first language. Not that I care where you're from, anyway, I think someone from another country showing an interest in American politics is great. And I was a big supporter of John McCain as a Senator, I thought he was great. I just felt like the guy that ran for President wasn't the same guy. I really liked Obama after reading his books and finding out what he was about. He's my President, sorry if that offends you. This whole birther thing isn't something that the courts are set up to try, if you have an issue, the only course of action is for Congress to pass new legislation that more clearly defines natural-born status (and subsequently for the courts to find it Constitutional). The higher courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled on this issue multiple times. Instead of wasting time writing on website message boards, write your Congressman, if it's something you feel that strongly about (and you're actually an American citizen and have a Congressman...)