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)

Messiah's don't need elections, they are ordained.
According to the historical interpretations, There are only two types of citizenship: Natural Born, and Naturalized. Naturalized applies to immigrants only. Natural born applies to anyone either born in the U.S. and its territories OR who is born to a parent or parents who are citizens of the U.S. Obama's mother was a citizen. He is therefore born a citizen regardless of location. The Birth certificate may make a difference in terms of cooperative honesty, but in terms of citizenship, it does not matter.
bugsy1108, please don't take offense, but you information is not correct. "Born in and subject to" identifies those individuals born in the United States as citizens, native/nature born USCs. Some are Naturalized via naturalization court procedures-those who previously obtained a "green card" legal resident alien status for at least five years and were in good character, etc. There is also those who receive " Certificate of Citizenships"-children of those naturalized. Derived US Citizenship- the charts and spec on this are much too extensive to even summarize-basically those born to US citizen parents while abroad, John McCain derived his US citizenship because he was born in Panama to USC parents. On the otherhand, those folks born in US territories are not US citizens, they are US nationals, who are not authorized to vote in Presidental elections.. Folks born in Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Island, US Marshall Islands, American Samoa are all US nationals and not US citizens...just for your information..
That is the correct view of the law. The dual citizenship problem came up with Chester Arthur, as his father was a British citizen as was obama's. We all know how that turned out.
It's nice to find people discussing things in a civil manner. Don't you think?
Yes, and it is much more productive than sniping and name calling. Legal U.S. citizens want what is best for their country, we just have different views on how to achieve it.
I find no offense whatsoever and I agree with you in part. I would say you and I both have partial pieces of a bigger picture. Statute laws and interpretations of those laws have been changed many times, leaving it a bit disconcerting. One such interpretation; According to an April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, most constitutional scholars interpret Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the "natural born" requirement. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President. Another such reference; The definition of the United States, for nationality purposes, was expanded in 1952 to add Guam, and in 1986 it was expanded again to include the Northern Mariana Islands.[27] Persons born in these territories (in addition to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) currently acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States. The category of outlying possessions of the United States (whose inhabitants generally have U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship) is now restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island.
Very good.....carry on
Why then was the birth certificate from Kenya not presented immediately upon request?
First, you missed my point. He is a natural born citizen by way of his mother regardless of where he was born - UNDER THE LAW. Second: Regarding the Kenya "certificate" - the only one I've heard about existing was revealed as a forgery by its creator. It was a hoax. Any that I haven't heard of would also be false because Kenya wasn't a republic till about eight months after Obama's birth. If another birth certificate did exist authentically, It would not affect the legal status, though it would make the man a first rate jackass.