The Birth Certificate — a totally innocuous document

The birth certificate is completely innocuous.  Best guess:  Obama was playing conservatives, trying to make them sound like nutjobs.

Trump is now going after the college transcripts.  Are they going to show a straight A student?

UPDATE:  Andrea Shea King argues that the birth certificate is irrelevant, because the real issue is now, and always has been, Obama’s father’s nationality at the time of his birth.  Since his Dad was African and his mother a minor, this still means Obama is not a U.S. citizen.  That is technically correct, but I suspect it won’t fly with most American people.  To them, the bottom line is that he was born in the U.S.A.  The technicalities of a father’s nationality, which is more of an interpretative thing than a constitutional one (because, remember, the early presidents all had British born parents) means that the issue is now dead in the water.

In any event, with the Court’s having shut the door on the “minor mother/non-American father” issue a long time ago, there is, simply, nowhere to go with this one.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. SADIE says

    “We’ve got more important stuff to do” – “I’ve got more important stuff to do”
    BHO April 27, 2011
     
    Ever wonder how the word ‘stuff’ is translated for the foreign press?

  2. suek says

    Hmmm. Totally innocuous.

    But…how can it be, since he was adopted, and the policy of Hawaii is to replace the original birth certificate with a new one when an adoption takes place? (I’m not sure how this works…are the adoptive parents then listed as birth parents??) So…he’s had this in his possession for all this time? how did he come by it?

    I’d like to see it examined by an expert – but that’s just me. You might possibly say I just flat don’t trust the man. You’d be correct.

  3. bizcor says

    I don’t trust the man either which is why instead of worrying about a birth certificate or college transcripts I am working to have him defeated at the polls next year. Tonight I meet Herman Cain at friend’s house. Friday night I am attending a dinner whose guest list includes Michele Bachman, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, as well as prominent NH Republicans. Our common goal is to vote Obama out.

  4. says

    Okay, he was born in he US. The BC answers one question only. It does not cover what citizenship Obama claimed at Occidental College since his citizenship was changed to Indonesian; Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship and it is apparently upon an Indonesian passport that Obama traveled to Pakistan when such travel was illegal for US citizens. US citizenship rules do not allow for reclamation of prior citizenship; an expatriate must undergo the naturalization process just as any other foreign born applicant. If he did the naturalization thing, then he’s still not eligible for the presidency. If he did not go through the process, then he is, again, not eligible.

    The so called “birther question” is not and never has been solely about the man’s place of birth; it’s the entire biographical package which, so far, is not surviving the light of day. It also brings questions more applicable to the 21st century that need answers: does an underage child retain a intrinsic ownership of original citizenship until such time they can freely choose their citizenship; should birthplace, reminiscent of blood ties, be the primary criteria for nationality and citizenship, and if not, what then determines American status, especially when the individual so obviously lacks the ‘essence of America’ we all recognize but can’t explain? 

    Then there’s the social security number issued to Connecticut, a state in which Obama neither lived nor worked.  Obama remains a cipher.

  5. SADIE says

    “It also brings questions more applicable to the 21st century that need answers: does an underage child retain a intrinsic ownership of original citizenship until such time they can freely choose their citizenship…
     
    Good point. I don’t know if the rules have changed. My mother was born in Israel in 1926. At the age of 16 she had to declare her citizenship in America. I never really thought much about it until you pushed an old memory button and don’t really know if it was an issue because her parents were not born in the US either.
     
    The left, in the meantime, are beating the racist drums non-stop and the post racial president is tapping his toes, while directing the band.
     
     

  6. suek says

    My understanding (and I don’t even play a lawyer on TV, so… for what it’s worth…!) is that the actions of the parents of a minor child to reject citizenship on the child’s behalf will not affect the child’s citizenship as long as the child doesn’t reaffirm the adoptive citizenship after the age of majority. Two questions here: the age of majority – 18 or 21, and what passport did he use to travel to Pockistan. Then a third kicks in – if he used an Indonesian passport, what was his age when he traveled there (and what was the age of majority at that time).

    There’s still another issue that I haven’t seen many places: Indonesia has a limited visa policy – that is, you can only legally stay there on a visa for x number of days. It isn’t very long – two weeks or so, though I don’t know exactly. As I understand it, when Obama wrote his book, he went to Indonesia for a fairly extended period of time in order to do so. How did that come about, given the limited visa period?

    It’s a fascinating issue. I’m probably not going to live long enough to see the entire thing unraveled – I’d bet it won’t be for another 30 to 50 years till all the dirt gets dished. Two issues in particular bother me – why isn’t there an accepted means of testing a question about citizenship in federal courts if the issue is raised? _Before_ an election. This _was_ raised in court, and the judge’s response was that the individual bringing suit had no standing. I think _every_ US citizen has standing when it comes to candidates for the Presidency. It should have been addressed then. And that’s the second issue – given a question of eligibility, the court is the best place to resolve the issue. For example, Obama said today that the State of Hawaii had made an exception to the rule and “permitted” a photocopy of his original certificate of birth to be made. That doesn’t seem right to me. Why a copy? the state would normally send out a certified copy upon request. As it is, once again we have a copy being made public – who has verified it? I still say it should have been requested, sent directly from the State to a court, where the verification of certification would take place. That whole statement about the State of Hawaii just sounds fishy.

  7. SADIE says

    Has anyone mentioned that Obama let a career officer go to jail instead of releasing this document? Col. Lakin refused to deploy because he wasn’t positive that his orders were legal.
     
    Another oddity…is that on the BC his father is listed as Kenyan, except Kenya was not established as such until 1963.
     
     
     

  8. CollegeCon says

    Something tells me that the people who this mattered to won’t give up for anything.  Some people can’t put away their tinfoil hats for any reason.  This has been a dead issue since before the campaign even ended, and deader now, but hell if that’s going to stop people from thinking there’s some sort of conspiracy.

  9. jj says

    There’s nothing ‘innocuous’ about his father’s nationality – it’s central.

    In 1961, when he was born, the LAW (‘innocuous’ as it may have been) stated that to be a natural-born American citizen, both parents had to be US citizens.  In a case such as Obama’s, the LAW had the following to say (and I’m paraphrasing – if you want the precise wording, check out Findlaw under ‘requirements for citizenship’): if one parent is a foreign national – like a citizen of Kenya, like Obama’s father was – then the only way – the ONLY WAY – that kid could be a natural-born US citizen would be if the other parent had been a US citizen for at least five years AFTER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN.  (In other words, if the US citizen parent was 35, they had to have been a citizen at least since they were 30.  If 28, had to be a citizen since at least the age of 23.)  And, since the requirement was ‘five years AFTER  the age of sixteen,’ that means the youngest Obama’s mother could have been for him to be a natural-born citizen – given that his father was a foreign national – would have been 21.  She was not 21.  She was 18.

    That being the case, he is ipso facto NOT – by definition – a ‘natural-born’ US citizen, and in fact (check Findlaw, for Chrissake – there it is!), is not an American citizen at all, unless he has been naturalized.  The only way for him to even be a citizen with that parentage would be via naturalization, there IS NO WAY FOR HIM TO BE A NATURAL-BORN US CITIZEN, and he is therefore not a legal candidate to run for the White House, let alone end up living in the goddam thing.

    And I am awash with admiration for the Obama spin machine, who have filled the air with so much irrelevant bullshit about where he was born, that the ‘how,’ ‘to whom,’ and circumstances of that birth just vanished, never to be mentioned again.  Folks, with his parentage, if he was born in the Lincoln bedroom, and the birth was witnessed by the entire Kennedy clan and every one of Lyndon Johnson’s relatives, plus Earl Douglas’ entire family – with those parents, according to the LAW at the time, he’s STILL not a natural-born citizen, and still not eligible for the presidency!

    OK, the law was changed to be less absolute – in 1976.  But in 1961, when he was born, with a foreign national father and an 18 year old mother, he’s not a citizen of this country at all to this day – unless he’s been naturalized.  Under no circumstances is he “natural-born” and eligible for the office he holds.

    I am flabbergasted that no one even mentions this, and thinks that he’s now ‘proven’ something by this nonsensical form he’s released, which doesn’t even mention the nationality of the parents.  (Mine does.  It’s from the state of New York, and it damn well absolutely sees fit to note that both of my parents were citizens.  Hard to believe a multi-ethnic place like Hawaii doesn’t.)

  10. jj says

    Oh yeah, and New York’s apparently a lot looser than Hawaii, too.  When I needed some copies a few years back it didn’t take a ‘special’ – or any other kind of dispensation – to get it.  It took a phone call, and eleven bucks.

    I conflated Earl Warren and Willie Douglas.  They could both have been there with their relations, it wouldn’t have helped him be a citizen.

  11. SADIE says

    Do you think Obama would be able to get a passport under the proposed guidelines?

    The U.S. Department of State is proposing a new Biographical Questionnaire for some passport applicants: The proposed new  Form DS-5513 asks for all addresses since birth; lifetime employment history including employers’ and supervisors names, addresses, and telephone numbers; personal details of all siblings; mother’s address one year prior to your birth; any “religious ceremony” around the time of birth; and a variety of other information.  According to the proposed form, “failure to provide the information requested may result in … the denial of your U.S. passport application.” http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/state-dept-wants-to-make-it-harder-to-get-a-passport/

  12. says

    jj: That being the case, he is ipso facto NOT – by definition – a ‘natural-born’ US citizen, and in fact (check Findlaw, for Chrissake – there it is!), is not an American citizen at all, unless he has been naturalized. 

    Fourteen Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
     
    This clause was adopted to prevent Southern states from denying civil rights to freed slaves as they were not considered citizens up to that point. Ironically, this has to be mentioned with regard to America’s first African-American president. 
     

  13. BrianE says

    Well, except it’s not completely innocuous!

    Karl Denninger is on the case and noticed that the pdf, the one on the White House website has been digitally altered. The conspiracy can live on!

    Go ahead, open the document and zoom in on the file number. The last 1 has been obviously added. And it wasn’t particularly well done.

    Somebody hiding something or is the White House just messin’ with us? HMMMM.

  14. suek says

    >>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States>>

    The definitions of “citizen of the United States” and “_natural born_ citizen of the United States” are different, Zach. You haven’t been keeping up. It is required by the Constitution that the President of the United States be a _natural born_ citizen – not _just_ a “citizen” of the United States.

    There may be arguments about his even being a citizen, but that’s a different issue, and one that would hinge on his actually being born in Kenya, or perhaps the fact that after his adoption by Sotero and the rejection of US citizenship by his parents in favor of an Indonesian citizenship. My understanding is that he has had people in Indonesia policing up the info available…and with the dollars to make sure they are no longer available. There’s that Kenyan birth certificate…quite possibly a wild hare, but apparently at least as legitimate appearing as the one from Hawaii…

  15. suek says

    >>I am flabbergasted that no one even mentions this, and thinks that he’s now ‘proven’ something by this nonsensical form he’s released>>

    jj, you make my day! I’ve been feeling very lonely on this particular topic!!

    Now maybe we’ll learn something about Trump. Is he really the political opponent of Obama he says he is, or is he a stalking horse? If he points out those flaws, _maybe_ he’s for real. If he doesn’t…stalking horse. It seems entirely possible to me that the whole thing has been a charade to eliminate the issue – which as you point out, is that his father’s nationality conveys dual citizenship upon him at birth, which fact alone makes him ineligible for the presidency.

  16. suek says

    Heh. Just thought of something…

    Obama’s fingerprints are now on the document, so to speak. _He_ has directly stated that this _is_ his certificate of birth. If it’s proven to be fraudulent, what then?

  17. says

    suek: The definitions of “citizen of the United States” and “_natural born_ citizen of the United States” are different, Zach. You haven’t been keeping up.

    We’re keeping up just fine. Jj had indicated that Obama was “not an American citizen at all.”
     
    suek: It is required by the Constitution that the President of the United States be a _natural born_ citizen – not _just_ a “citizen” of the United States.

    That’s correct. Obama is clearly a natural born citizen, having been born in the United States, under the jurisdiction of the United States, and being a citizen. 
     

     

  18. suek says

    >>Obama is clearly a natural born citizen, having been born in the United States, under the jurisdiction of the United States, and being a citizen. >>

    Changes in the laws determining citizenship since Obama’s birth were not, as far as I know, retroactive. That means Obama is at the very least, a dual citizen, since British citizenship was conveyed to him by his father’s citizenship. Dual citizenship is in direct contradiction to “natural born”. The idea of “natural born” is that the individual has no loyalty owed to any other nation. Obama _is_ a dual citizen, and _may_ be a triple citizen. Or, if he traveled on an Indonesian passport after age 18 (21?), maybe not a citizen at all, regardless of where he was born.

    Read jj’s comment #12 again.

  19. says

     
    Insulting your allies will only max out your foolishness meter. In the real world, even if your most important possession is your ego, it still requires the help of others to cooperate in the plan.
    This is called a benefit of life experience, otherwise known as wisdom. It is what people learn as they progress in life and encounter obstacles. Even though people do not agree on the methods if they value different things, if people’s goals are the same, it is enough of a common starting point. Of course, immature individuals value their own arrogant view of things and will continue to prioritize their method as being the best and only in existence, thus rendering it impossible to achieve common goals through cooperation.
    Which is why in the real world they get smashed in the teeth for such methods. Since it doesn’t work the way they think it does. Their ideal is flawed.

  20. says

    suek: Changes in the laws determining citizenship since Obama’s birth were not, as far as I know, retroactive.

    Citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
     
    suek: The idea of “natural born” is that the individual has no loyalty owed to any other nation.

    Natural born refers to place of birth. If someone is born in the United States, under United States jurisdiction (which precludes children of diplomats), then they are natural born citizen. 
     

  21. suek says

    Zach, you’re ignorant of the issues. I know law is hard, but we have to deal with it.

    Read jj’s #12 again and _try_ to comprehend. “Natural born” as required by the Constitution does _not_ refer to place of birth _only_. Unfortunately, the definition of “natural born” has changed over the years which does add confusion. It also requires that you refer back to the laws as they existed in 1961, the year Obama was born.

  22. says

    suek: you’re ignorant of the issues.

    Jj said this: {Obama} “is not an American citizen at all.” This statement is false. Obama is an American citizen because he was born in the United States, under the jurisdiction of the United States. 

    Suek said this: “Changes in the laws determining citizenship since Obama’s birth were not, as far as I know, retroactive.” Changes in the laws are irrelevant to Obama’s citizenship, as his citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. 
     
    suek: Unfortunately, the definition of “natural born” has changed over the years which does add confusion.

    The term has roots in English common law. Natural born refers to having been born under the jurisdiction of the nation, and was affirmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898. 
     

  23. suek says

    >>Jj said this: {Obama} “is not an American citizen at all.” This statement is false. Obama is an American citizen because he was born in the United States, under the jurisdiction of the United States. >>

    Ok. Once more. Slowly.

    Assuming that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii – which _may_ not be a valid assumption – I would grant that he is a citizen. Not natural born, but a citizen. However he was adopted by an Indonesian (Sotero) and apparently also had an Indonesian citizenship – had to in order to attend school in Indonesia. Indonesia at the time was unfriendly to the US and prohibited dual citizenship, which meant that his parents had to reject US citizenship. Normally, the actions of parents to reject the citizenship of a child born a US citizenship wouldn’t affect said child’s citizenship _as long as_ said child did nothing to affirm the foreign citizenship after his/her majority was attained. Obama went to Pakistan in ’81 – at age 20? maybe 21. We still don’t know what passport he used. The State department was not authorizing visas at that time due to conditions in Pakistan. _If_ he used an Indonesian passport – which seems probable – then he was affirming his Indonesian citizenship, and thereby confirmed his parent’s rejection of US citizenship. It’s entirely possible that he isn’t a US citizen at all.

  24. says

    suek: Assuming that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii – which _may_ not be a valid assumption – I would grant that he is a citizen. Not natural born, but a citizen.

    Is Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a natural born citizen. 
     
    suek: Obama went to Pakistan in ’81 – at age 20? maybe 21. We still don’t know what passport he used. The State department was not authorizing visas at that time due to conditions in Pakistan.

    The problem with many such claims is that people don’t bother to check even the smallest facts.
    http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/travel/l-lahore-243000.html
     

  25. jj says

    Immigration law applies, not the 14th amendment – if the amendment was blanket on this subject, why bother to have the specific law?  You are quite wrong Zach, and the fact of the matter is that with his parentage he’s not a citizen at all unless he’s been naturalized, which disqualifies him from the White House.

  26. says

    jj: Immigration law applies, not the 14th amendment – if the amendment was blanket on this subject, why bother to have the specific law?

    The Constitution always trumps law. The law helps define other cases, such as children of citizens born overseas, adopted children, diplomats, etc. Maybe this will help.
    http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-citizenship-naturalization/immigration-citizenship-naturalization-did-you-know.html
     
    jj: You are quite wrong Zach{riel}, and the fact of the matter is that with his parentage he’s not a citizen at all unless he’s been naturalized, which disqualifies him from the White House.

    Of course he’s a citizen, per the Fourteenth Amendment. 
     
    Fourteen Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
     

  27. jj says

    So, I guess the guys who spent time and got paid to write citizenship requirements and laws were just jerking themselves off, eh Zach?  There was never any need for them to be employed, or get specific, because the 14th amendment covered.  They could have gone to the beach that day and just phoned in: “see amendment #14,” and that would have covered it.  Well, silly them, wasting time that way.
     
    I begin to believe you’re kind of simple on this one, Zach.

  28. Moose says

    I hate to open up a tangent, and I won’t here, but:

    Z: “Constitution always trumps law.”

    Let’s file that one away. I’m sure Z’s lesson will come in handy with other “conversations.”

  29. Charles Martel says

    Moose, not to worry. Zach careens where he will, and pointing out the great discrepancies and gaps in his arguments makes no difference to him whatsoever.

    But we can have fun with them!

  30. says

    jj: There was never any need for them to be employed, or get specific, because the 14th amendment covered. 

    Please point to some provision of Title 8 or any part of the U.S. Code that contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
     

  31. says

    jj: if one parent is a foreign national – like a citizen of Kenya, like Obama’s father was – then the only way – the ONLY WAY – that kid could be a natural-born US citizen would be if the other parent had been a US citizen for at least five years AFTER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN. 

    That only applied to persons born outside U.S. jurisdiction. 

     

  32. suek says

    Getting even more interesting as we comment:

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=185202

    Again, as I said… this time, Obama’s fingerprints are all over this mess. The point about the Kenyan birth certificate and the Hawaiian birth certificate having exactly the same date and time of birth is a very interesting one. Significant?? I have no idea.

    Historians are going to _love_ this whole mess!! Obama will probably go down in history for this alone! (Actually, I hope that’s the only thing he’ll go down in history for !)

  33. says

    Ymarsakar: Z ignores the Constitution on a daily basis concerning economic and firearms laws in the US.

    The U.S. Constitution? We’re quite aware of it. Very important document in the history of government. In what way do we ignore it? Please be specific, and you might include quotes from our previous comments.
     

  34. says

    Did Z somehow forget everything he said about nationalizing the economy in a recession and how democratic union votes supersede the Constitutional protections that cover the workers?

    He appears to think there isn’t any proof of Z’s fundamental hand waving away of the US Constitution when it inconveniences him. Is there one fundamental policy Z supports on the Left, that actually has even one US Constitutional justification behind it.

  35. says

    Ymarsakar: Did Z somehow forget everything he said about nationalizing the economy in a recession and how democratic union votes supersede the Constitutional protections that cover the workers?

    We’ve never advocated nationalizing the economy. Workers have the right to organize by majority vote. 
     

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply