• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Obama 'Birtherism' & Associated Conspiracy Theories

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
43,409
Location
HM The Tower of London
Obama re-takes Oath

President Obama has taken the Oath of Office a second time, having done it wrong first time.
Thought I'd mention it here because on the early reports I heard, there was mention of an idea that if he didn't say the oath correctly then he wasn't properly inaugurated, so he wasn't really the President, which might encourage conspiracy theories. Yeah.

Double Take: Obama Sworn-In Again

President Barack Obama has taken the oath of office for a second time after stumbling over the words when originally sworn-in as president.

In a highly unusual move, Mr Obama took the oath in the Map Room of the White House, the day after his inauguration as the nation's first African-American president.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who first administered the oath to Obama on Tuesday on the steps of the US Capitol, again performed the ceremony - this time with no bible and in front of only a handful of staff and journalists.

"We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the President was sworn in appropriately (on Tuesday)," said White House legal advisor Greg Craig.

"But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time."

The reporters present said Mr Obama was sitting on a couch and joked: "We decided it was so much fun ..."

He then stood and walked over to make small talk with the journalists as Justice Roberts donned his black robes.

"Are you ready to take the oath?" Roberts asked.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," Obama replied.

After a flawless recitation, which took 25 seconds, Roberts smiled and said, "congratulations - again."

One reporter, Wes Allison, of the St Petersburg Times, told Sky News: "We didn't know it was going to happen so we were a little shocked. It was just a technicality - just to be safe - to be sure it was delivered correctly.

"There was no Bible - just a plain ceremony. Justice Roberts in a plain black robe and Obama in a suit. No family was there - just seven staffers and four reporters."
 
I predict a theory that says that he deliberately fluffed the oath, because he's secretly a Moslem (or an Atheist) so that he could retake it without a Bible, and that this means that a) he doesn't feel that he's bound by the oath, b) he's not really President even now,,,

I have a sneaking suspicion that I may not be making this up...
 
This doesn't mean that Bush has still been in charge, does it? Tell me he's gone this time, please...

Timble, I think you might be right, someone somewhere will believe those theories.
 
Surely it was done behind closed doors because he was taking his 9th level Dan Masonic Illuminati pledge in his Lizard form?

I'll get me apron...
 
When I heard this on the radio this morning, he was quoted as saying that he'd done it twice to refute any claims of conspiracy. Like that's gonna work...
 
I posted this on the "Karl Rove and the IT Guru" thread:

The MSNBC commentators went out of their way to explain that since religion has no place in the American government, in spite of the XVIIIth Century deist notion of "God", the oath of office doesn't need to be taken over a Bible - or any other book for that matter - except for tradition (in this case using Lincoln's Bible).

It's still strange to observe that Obama's great historic moment in front of the cameras was compromised by the sheer incompetence and idiocy of a G.W. Bush-appointed member of the Supreme Court.

The appointment of Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court by Bush is the most egregious act of anti-democracy sabotage since Caligula appointed his horse to the Roman Senate - and the electronic rigging of the 2000-2008 US elections, of course.

From Wikipedia (on Chief Justice Roberts):

As Chief Justice, Roberts administered his first oath of office of the President of the United States at the inauguration of Barack Obama on January 20, 2009. Obama had previously voted against Roberts' confirmation to the Supreme Court, making this the first time a Supreme Court justice has sworn in a president who voted against his confirmation.

During the ceremony, Roberts paused momentarily after prompting Obama with "I, Barack Hussein Obama", and the new president began repeating these words at the same time the justice continued with the next phrase. Roberts then misplaced the word "faithfully" in the text of the oath and erroneously replaced the phrase "President of the United States" with "President to the United States" before restating the phrase correctly.[32] Roberts later took responsibility for the mistake.[33][34][35] When the oath itself was completed, rather than concluding his prompts in the first person, Roberts concluded by asking Obama, "So help you God?" which the president answered with the traditional, "So help me God."[36] The following afternoon, in the White House Map Room with reporters present, Roberts and Obama repeated the oath correctly, to ensure with "an abundance of caution" that the Constitutional requirement had been met.[37]

This brings to mind the rumours flying around Dick Cheney who pulled a back muscle while moving boxes from the White House to his Virginia home and had to attend the ceremony in a wheelchair. Some say he didn't want to stand up for the swearing in of a Black man... or a Democrat. Others, like myself, think "This is what comes from trying to abscond with the silverware". :)
 
On reflection, I'd say the Chief Justice is partly to blame for Obama fluffing his lines.
He could have broken the oath down into smaller chunks, but no, he read out a lot in one go.

Funny thing about this conspiracy theory - the same idea occurred to me after I watched Obama fluffing the oath. But I don't think Obama is a bad man, so I think this whole theory is without foundation.
 
A comment I found on youtube. Could it be a commonly held belief?

A Youtube User said:
Obama messed up the first time on purpose so he could take it again with the Koran. He really is a Muslim..
 
I might have known the Secret Muslim proposal would come into play eventually. As if being a Muslim would make him somehow less decent and worthy as leader after all he has said. For some people (ie, nutters) if Obama doesn't seem to be reciting Marx in his speeches to their ears he might as well be reciting the Koran.
 
(i'm not british, and i'm thick, but can someone explain to me steve bell's take on obama in his recent strips on the grauniad? i didn't get it) (and i don't like stevee bell in general. can someone explain him to me? and how he manages not to incur in "libel" accusations?)
 
Mythopoeika said:
On reflection, I'd say the Chief Justice is partly to blame for Obama fluffing his lines.
He could have broken the oath down into smaller chunks, but no, he read out a lot in one go.

...
According to David Scharma, on BBC Radio4's 'Today' programme, it was the Chief Justice who fluffed his lines first and Obama, who's apparently a stickler of the right form of words, tried to help, him out.

I doubt many people has ever stood in front of a crowd that size and given such a solemn oath. Nerves.
 
Timble2 said:
I predict a theory that says that he deliberately fluffed the oath, because he's secretly a Moslem (or an Atheist) so that he could retake it without a Bible, and that this means that a) he doesn't feel that he's bound by the oath, b) he's not really President even now,,,

I have a sneaking suspicion that I may not be making this up...

Oh, this is out there already - exactly like you said!

These theories are getting too predictable... :roll:
 
ginoide said:
(i'm not british, and i'm thick, but can someone explain to me steve bell's take on obama in his recent strips on the grauniad? i didn't get it) (and i don't like stevee bell in general. can someone explain him to me? and how he manages not to incur in "libel" accusations?)

difficult to take a libel action over a cartoon. there was another one recently where bell had bill clinton responsible for the death of the whitehouse cat. the cat had eaten clintons pet woodpecker. ma 'pecker! you killed ma 'pecker!
 
The woman on that show used the term 'fisting'.
I think perhaps she should have used the term 'fist bumping'.

:lol:
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
According to David Scharma, on BBC Radio4's 'Today' programme, it was the Chief Justice who fluffed his lines first and Obama, who's apparently a stickler of the right form of words, tried to help, him out. ...

That's correct, and that was apparent at the time ...

Chief Justice Roberts (who later admitted to having been reciting from memory alone / without notes) misquoted the official form of the oath, deferring the 'faithfully' bit until the end of that particular passage.

Obama hesitated in responding, apparently at a loss as to whether he should literally repeat the misquoted version or (presumably) the correct version.

It appeared to me that both Obama and Roberts immediately understood they had a screw-up on their hands, and then muddled on through the rest of it.

I wouldn't have been surprised if the two of them had burst out laughing when they recognized the goof-up.

To the best of my recollection, Roberts subdivided the oath into bigger 'chunks' than had been done in prior inaugurations I'd seen.
 
EnolaGaia said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
According to David Scharma, on BBC Radio4's 'Today' programme, it was the Chief Justice who fluffed his lines first and Obama, who's apparently a stickler of the right form of words, tried to help, him out. ...

That's correct, and that was apparent at the time ...

Chief Justice Roberts (who later admitted to having been reciting from memory alone / without notes) misquoted the official form of the oath, deferring the 'faithfully' bit until the end of that particular passage.

Obama hesitated in responding, apparently at a loss as to whether he should literally repeat the misquoted version or (presumably) the correct version.

It appeared to me that both Obama and Roberts immediately understood they had a screw-up on their hands, and then muddled on through the rest of it.

I wouldn't have been surprised if the two of them had burst out laughing when they recognized the goof-up.

To the best of my recollection, Roberts subdivided the oath into bigger 'chunks' than had been done in prior inaugurations I'd seen.
This being the case (and indeed it is apparent if you watch the footage), I think it's obvious that Roberts was simply not making the effort which you would usually expect from such a figure to get the thing right. This says more about Roberts than Obama, whether it was due to feelings of resentment that Obama had opposed his appointment, or latent racism, or any other factor which may have led to his "can't be bothered" attitude.
 
A pedestrian fact, but with more chin-rubbing-causing potential is this from factcheck.org - I already knew McCain and Obama could trace lineage back to William 1st of Scotland - but it proves that it is not who or what you know, but who begat you that makes you a leader:

"Obama's other relatives, by the way, include George W. Bush, who, according to the Sun-Times, is his 11th cousin. They share the same great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, a 17th-century Massachusetts couple named Samuel Hinckley and Sarah Soole Hinckley. And Harry S. Truman was Obama's fourth cousin four times removed, the paper says. The New York Post, using ancestry.com, reported that Brad Pitt and Obama are ninth cousins. Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga told the BBC that his maternal uncle was Obama's father, making them first cousins (we think).

We wouldn't make too much of this, though. After all, according to at least some researchers, a common ancestor for all humans now alive may have existed just several thousand years ago. That means you, dear reader, could have a cousinly relationship that may not go all that far back to everyone from Jack Kevorkian to Tina Fey to Hugo Chavez to the woman selling trinkets from a piece of cardboard on a Bangalore street corner.

- Viveca Novak"
 
beattie.jpg
 
Kellydandodi said:
A pedestrian fact, but with more chin-rubbing-causing potential is this from factcheck.org - I already knew McCain and Obama could trace lineage back to William 1st of Scotland - but it proves that it is not who or what you know, but who begat you that makes you a leader:

"Obama's other relatives, by the way, include George W. Bush, who, according to the Sun-Times, is his 11th cousin. They share the same great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, a 17th-century Massachusetts couple named Samuel Hinckley and Sarah Soole Hinckley. And Harry S. Truman was Obama's fourth cousin four times removed, the paper says. The New York Post, using ancestry.com, reported that Brad Pitt and Obama are ninth cousins. Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga told the BBC that his maternal uncle was Obama's father, making them first cousins (we think).

We wouldn't make too much of this, though. After all, according to at least some researchers, a common ancestor for all humans now alive may have existed just several thousand years ago. That means you, dear reader, could have a cousinly relationship that may not go all that far back to everyone from Jack Kevorkian to Tina Fey to Hugo Chavez to the woman selling trinkets from a piece of cardboard on a Bangalore street corner.

- Viveca Novak"

Much more remarkable is the fact that Obama may not be the first Black President of the US at all. A dirty little secret of US politics is the fact that Abraham Lincoln's mother Nancy Hanks (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Hanks_Lincoln ) was of melungeon descent, that being the quaint Creole word (mélangeon is still used in French today) to mean part white, part Black and part Indian (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melungeon ).

This also means that this little Blackface number from the 1942 Irving Berlin musical Holiday Inn was prescient in many ways. Not only does it pay homage to Lincoln for freeing the slaves, it also implies that he had Black roots on his mother's side:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tAHSTbD4A5M
 
This is a conspiracy theory that has been simmering away in the USA for some time now (amongst the usual suspects):

Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez
Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace
Posted: July 14, 2009
9:53 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"

She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."

A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.

"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.

The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.

Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be "war criminals and subject to prosecution."

He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him "something is amiss."

"That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody," he said. "Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.

"You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth," he said.

Cook said he was scheduled to report for duty tomorrow, on July 15, to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama's plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.

He told WND he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.

Before news of the orders being revoked were reported, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann tonight called Cook a "jackass" and Taitz a "conwoman," as he labeled both of them the "worst persons in the world." He flayed the soldier as "an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice."

Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto president of the United States."

According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

According to the claim, "Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general."

The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider "a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question."

"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the 'long-form' birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.

Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because more members of the military have joined the cause.

"We are going to be asking for release of Obama's records because now this completely undermines the military. It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people," she said. "Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?"

Taitz said the issue "must be resolved immediately," and she will continue working to ensure Obama proves he is eligible for office.

"We're going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president," she said. "We're going to say, we have orders every day, and we'll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided."

She said there cannot be any harm to the president if he is legitimately holding office.

"If he is legitimate, then his vital records will prove it," Taitz said. "If he is illegitimate, then he should not have been there in the first place."

Asked what this decision means for every other serviceman who objects to deployment under a president who has not proven he is eligible for office, Taitz responded:

"Now, we can have each and every member of the military – each and every enlistee and officer – file something similar saying 'I will not take orders until Obama is legitimately vetted.'"

Multiple questions have been raised about what that would mean to the 2008 election, to the orders and laws Obama has signed and other issues, including whether he then is a valid commander-in-chief of the military.

etc, etc....

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Needless to say, this conspiracy theory is popular amongst various Republicans, and those who yearn for the golden era of the Klu Klux Klan...
 
As far as I recall the long form birth certificate has been produced, and rejected by the conspiracy theorists, for dubious reasons.

And of course, they have explanations for why the Republicans weren't all over a situation that would gift them the presidency....
 
Barack Obama was almost certainly born in Honolulu, Hawaii, in the USA, on August 4th, 1961.

'Fact Check dot Org' on the subject.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Born in the U.S.A.

August 21, 2008
Updated: November 1, 2008


The truth about Obama's birth certificate.

Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.

Analysis
Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

Fukino also was quoted by several other news organizations. The Honolulu Advertiser quoted Fukino as saying the agency had been bombarded by requests, and that the registrar of statistics had even been called in at home in the middle of the night.

Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1 2008: "This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy." . . . Will this be enough to quiet the doubters? "I hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done."

Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Since we first wrote about Obama's birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News.

Corsi:Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life?

Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site?

Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.

Doocy: Well, couldn't it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?

Corsi: No, it's a -- there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce.


Corsi isn't the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:

* The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal.
* It isn't signed.
* No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
* In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.
* The certificate number is blacked out.
* The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008.
* The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."

Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.

The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller

Alvin T. Onaka's signature stamp

The raised seal

Blowup of text

You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.

The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.

We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641.


Blowup of certificate number

Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama's information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn't have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible.

We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen."

We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."

In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:


Obama's birth announcement

The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.
Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn't tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It's certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.

When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised." He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes."

–by Jess Henig, with Joe Miller


Sources

United States Department of State. "Application for a U.S. Passport." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.

State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.

Hollyfield, Amy. "Obama's Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008.

The Associated Press. "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine" 31 Oct 2008.

Nakaso, Dan. "Obama's certificate of birth OK, state says; Health director issues voucher in response to 'ridiculous' barrage" Honolulu Advertiser 1 Nov 2008.
The right wing, 'World Net Daily on the subject:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

The left wing, 'Huffington Post', on the article in 'World Net Daily':
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/whats-worldnetdaily-hidin_b_224496.html

Snopes on the subject:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Yet, the almost entirely discredited 'Birther Conspiracy', continues to crawl along, sometimes helped by no less than the likes of, 'FOX News, as reported by, 'Newshounds dot US':
http://www.newshounds.us/2009/07/14/fox_news_legitimizes_birthers.php

One of the topics that exposes the whole racist can o' worms, at the heart of a certain kind of right wing agenda in the US.


:(
 
Back
Top