Now World Net Daily has a document that purports to be a Kenyan Certified Copy of Registration of Birth for Barack Obama: Is this really smoking gun of Obama’s Kenyan birth?
For some odd reason, the document is dated 1964 (Obama was born in 1961) and yet this document appears to mean more to the Birthers at WND than do contemporaneous birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers at the time and the official birth certificate as issued by the state of Hawaii.
It also appears to be the case that Kenya did not declare itself to be the “Republic of Kenya” until December 1964, yet the document in question is dated February 17, 1964 and uses the phrase “Republic of Kenya” (see here). Still, this is clearly a more compelling document than those issued by those good-for-nothing, untrustworthy Hawaiian bureaucrats who are obviously in on the conspiracy to install a foreigner in the White House!1
Update: LGF has what might in fact be the real Birth Certificate!
Sphere: Related Content- Just in case it isn’t obvious, that last sentence is dripping in sarcasm. [↩]
August 2nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
It’s a fake. The document purports to be dated in February 1964 but according to a variety of contemporary newspaper accounts the Kenyan legislature did not make the country a republic until 12 December 1964, many months after the document’s date. No government document prior to 12 December 1964 would have said “Republic of Kenya.”
August 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 pm
QUESTION:
What happens to Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation as Supreme Court Justice if the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” Presidential eligibility requirement is subsequently determined applicable to Barack Obama on the basis of Article 2’s exclusion of dual citizenship birth (doesn’t matter whether Obama born in Hawaii since his dad was Kenyan/British citizen at the time)? It would seem prudent, if not dereliction of Constitutional duty in not so doing, for the United States Senate to defer voting on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation at the very least until there is determination, now imminent, on standing in Kerchner v. Congress (USDC NJ) on that precise issue (Congressional failure to take up the raised and known constitutional ineligibility question prior to declaring a Presidential winner in the vote of the electoral college). For the full Senate now to proceed to vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor (an otherwise lifetime appointment) before then, would be a knowing and very substantial exacerbation of any inherent Constitutional crisis — compounding the previous Congressional dereliction. That is, the Executive Branch, as well as conceivably all actions of a Congress under a President determined ineligible, would leave the Supreme Court as an essential unfettered remaining Branch of the Federal Government, that is unfettered so long as Mr. Obama’s nominee to the Court is not yet confirmed by the Senate.
Will not one Senator, let alone Republican Senator, raise this issue on the Senate floor? The nation is watching.
Leave a Reply
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:28 am
The desperation of this “movement” has gone from humorous to just sad. I think this one is worse than the tea-baggers. I guess they must do something to make their lives meaningful.
I don’t know how you feel about Jon Stewart, but this is another hilarious take on the Birther conspiracy theories: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ketJSP-bv3k
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:10 am
Jack, I can answer your question. No, not one senator will raise this issue, because senators would prefer not to be exposed as idiots. The only people who believe that Obama was born in Kenya are mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, drool-cup-carrying idiots. It is a miracle that they’re able to work the copy-and-paste function as well as they can, as is evident from your post. Most people who want to be taken seriously in life would sooner be associated with flat-earthers than with birthers.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:16 am
Jack,
The constitution says absolutely nothing about one’s parents. A person could have two foreign born parents who were not citizens at the time of one’s birth and still be a natural born citizen of the US. I have seen this assertion before about parentage from birthers before, and it is utter false. Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 states the following:
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:19 am
[...] short answer is No. As Steven Taylor notes, For some odd reason, the document is dated 1964 (Obama was born in 1961) and yet this [...]
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 am
Steven, it would have been OK if one and/or both parents were foreign born IF at the moment of BHO’s birth they had already been naturalized as citizens. So you raise a false argument. Natural born citizen only requires that both parents be “citizens” at time of child’s birth, not necessarily that they were “natural born citizens” themselves.
gotcha!!!
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:42 am
No, that is not correct. The constitutional requirement is focused solely on the person running for president, not his/her parents.
You are making up the requirement that a president’s parents had to be citizens at the time of his/her birth out of thin air. Read the provision again.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:48 am
Steven, precisely.
The constitutional requirement is focused on the person running for president.
Hence, that person to be president must be a “natural born citizen”, while it is OK for his/her parents merely to have been “citizens”.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
Jack,
The constitution does not say one word about the parents of a president. If you have found such a provision, please share.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:45 am
Obama’s real birth certificate has been discovered!
Save the image because liberals want to censor it!
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1892/obamasrealbirthcertific.jpg
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
I see that Jack has figued out the copy/paste function but hasn’t quite figured out how to read. Or maybe he “sees” something that is there that the rest of us can’t… Maybe it’s written in lemon juice…
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I would really like to have faith in humanity and say that Jack and the other Birther are just trolling, but in my sadness I think that he believes this dribble…and what’s worse is that I suspect they have reproduced.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Why can’t the birthers simply just provide us with the long form original copy of his Kenyan birth certificate?
(Sorry. Couldn’t resist!)
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
LOL Alabama Moderate!
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
[...] 2.) http://www.worldboxx.com/obama-kenya-birth-certificate-found/comment-page-1/ 3.) http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=16475 4.) [...]
August 5th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Okay, I can answer a couple of the bloggers above. Though not an attorney myself, I have over 30 years’ experience handling legal research and evidence, so I’ve watched this controversy with a critical eye to being legally correct.
First, why the Kenyan doc is dated 1964: When I applied for a certified copy of my BC in the 1950s to travel overseas, the document showed my birth date in the 1930s, but the certification was dated 1955. This doc, according to information I’ve read, was requested by the attorney representing Ann Dunham in her divorce from Barack Sr., a routine request that was met by a prompt reply from Kenya, unlike requests for info in 2008 and 2009. Dunham wanted to retain sole custody of the toddler Barack. And this answers with a logical explanation a question that has gone through my mind along with many other bloggers—how could they be so precient in 1961 as to “know” that someday the toddler would run for president? The reason for all the secrecy and manipulation, including filing for a “late registration of birth” in Hawaii (not available in most other states) and sequestering the fact he was really born in Kenya was to tag the toddler with American citizenship so that his daddy couldn’t claim custody! See, perfectly logical–no tinfoil hat required. (I’ve been through divorce and custody proceedings–in 1963 in fact–all perfectly normal part of the process.)
Next, about the definition of “natural born.” This bothered me also because it is not defined in the Constitution itself or in the Federalist Papers. I also came back at people who said things like “Born on the soil = US citizen; Born on the soil with 2 citizen parents = natural born citizen” and told them “Show me the legal proof.” They did. There are citations on the internet to a case in 1898, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, and another case, as well as a page from Congressional Record at the time of the first US Congress all supporting this 2-citizen-parent requirement. To be continued . . .
August 5th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Fury, a few things:
1. The date was not the only item of dispute on this document. Several things were off. For one thing, it was signed by what appears to be a brand of hand soap. The type is also fairly new, as it’s not faded in the creases of the fold. The font is off considering the date the document was supposed to have been released. Even if, as birthers argue, Kenya was using its own stationery between 1963 and 1964, why on earth would it not have its own official crest? If it doesn’t have its own official crest, why not the British one? What we see on this document is an odd version of the British crest.
2. The State of Hawaii issued an official statement before the election saying that they have the original birth documents and that the copy released by Obama was authentic. The Kenyan government has issued no such statement. In fact, both the Kenyan government AND the hospitals have both said they have no such records of any such birth. Yet the document that seems the most suspicious with the least amount of feasible evidence to back its authenticity is the one that the birthers seem to thing is legitimate. Which leads me to #3…
3. Who would this Kenyan birth certificate have been released to? How? Why? And who released it? The questionable origins of the fake (and yes, it’s fake) certificate should be enough to raise suspicion in and of itself.
4. A SCOTUS decision, while setting a possible precedent for interpretation of law, does not equal law itself. It certainly does not equate to the U.S. Constitution. SCOTUS decisions, as also argued by the far right regarding the issue of Roe v. Wade, can be and have been overturned.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
More on “natural-born” citizenship:
It is common for attorneys in constructing their “points and authorities” in support of a position to quote from learned writings and from legally acceptable documents. In this case, the citation for the 2-citizen-parent requirement goes back to a writer named Vattel in The Law of Nations. The following is from a blog on the topic:
“After the constution became our law, there was a definition of ‘natural born citizen’, but not Blackstone’s ‘natural born subject’, and I quote Chief Justice John Marshall’s prevailing decision in The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 who quotes Vattel from the Law of Nations, our common law: Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands.” Vattel: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Barack’s father was never a citizen. He cannot be president.”
The phrase “natural born citizen” appears only once in the Constitution, and that is in reference to the presidential office. From reading those early citations, I am of the opinion that the concept of “natural born” was probably more widely understood in the fervor of revolution in the 1780s than it is today, so the Founders probably overlooked the need for a definition in the Constitution itself.
There is also on the internet a photo of a page of proceedings from the First US Congress discussing this same issue. I can’t find it right now, but I have saved these posts and the website, and if I do find that picture again, I’ll come back and post it.
This birth issue has NOTHING to do with Obama’s race. (I can name in 10 seconds at least 6 or 7 black people for whom I would vote in a heartbeat–and not half-breeds either.) It doesn’t even have to do with Obama’s philosophy. It has entirely to do with the circumstances of his birth to a Kenyan national and an “underage” mama who could not pass her citizenship to him under the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (which I looked up and studied in detail).
The reason our founders wanted presidents to be “natural born” of parents who were already citizens (even if those parents were naturalized) was to insure loyalty to the United States of America. One thing is for sure—Barack Obama, the Pretender, has not shown nearly as much loyalty to this nation, as desired by our Founders, or to the Constitution he swore to uphold as the Founders intended and as most Americans expect, and he is thus the perfect example of why the Founders demanded a natural born citizen for that office (and the VP too, since he could assume the presidency).
Bottom line: If the courts authenticate the recently released Kenyan BC, then it proves Barack Obama fails the elibility test of being natural born and cannot hold the office into which he has entered. It also means every act he has taken therein is “void ab initio” (a fancy legal term for invalid from the get-go). The longer he stays there, the more damage will have to be undone.
Nor can a constitutional requirement be overridden by a mere “resolution” of Congress to declare him natural born.
I have watched elections since FDR (I was a precocious kid), including a similar question of eligibility in 1964 re Barry Goldwater. NEVER in those 70 years has there been even one lawsuit on eligibilty. Now there are something like 30! Never has anyone seeking to be president spent in the neighborhood of a million dollars to keep his past a secret. Indeed, Obama was probably not even eligible to hold the office of senator—so those acts are void ab initio also!
You have to ask why he bleats “transparancy and accountability” for the rest of us but keeps his own life so secret. As someone said yesterday, a person with nothing to hide is forthcoming; the person with much to hide will dodge the question. Obama has protested too much. Ya gotta ask, what more is he hiding and why?
The guy has to go on constitutional grounds!
August 5th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
The reason I noted the 1964 date was because it struck me as a weird for a Birther to accept a document other than the original birth certificate as some sort of slam-dunk evidence, since they reject any Hawaiian document other than the original. But not, that wasn’t my main point.