The Phantom Birth Certificate, a Retraction

As a belat­ed fol­low-up to The Phan­tom Birth Cer­tifi­cate and main­ly as a brief response to Tori’s com­ment on that post, I want to with­draw my crit­i­cism of the short-form cer­tifi­cate I pre­sent­ed in that post.

The only images of the cer­tifi­cate I came across while writ­ing the post were very sim­i­lar (read: iden­ti­cal, save for crop/sizing dif­fer­ences) to the image of the cer­tifi­cate pre­sent­ed in that post. If such images were all there was to go by, my crit­i­cisms would remain. 

How­ev­er, Tori did what no com­menter had done and linked to a trove of images of the short-form cer­tifi­cate, ren­der­ing null my crit­i­cisms. Bet­ter images of the cer­tifi­cate reveal that it does have an embossed seal, it does have an offi­cial’s stamped sig­na­ture, it does have a real doc­u­ment num­ber, and so on.

While it has been said — though I can’t ver­i­fy this — that Oba­ma could have arrived in Hawaii short­ly after his birth and his par­ents then applied for a Hawaii birth cer­tifi­cate as the require­ment of local birth isn’t there to get such a cer­tifi­cate… Well, I sup­pose some peo­ple can dwell on that “what if,” but if the legal require­ment has been met (and it appears that it has been) and there is no evi­dence to the con­trary, then whether I like it or not, there’s no rea­son to doubt that Barack Oba­ma is legal­ly eli­gi­ble for the job to which Amer­i­ca elect­ed him.

12 thoughts on “The Phantom Birth Certificate, a Retraction”

  1. Rick,
    Good call! 

    Ques­tion what you feel is not prop­er­ly answered, bring con­cerns to light that have rel­e­vance and when/if the light is shown or the evi­dence to the con­trary is found then give the find­ings the same effort that you gave the question/concern. Account­abil­i­ty and hold­ing your­self to a high­er stan­dard, that is what we all should strive for.

    I did not vote for our sit­ting pres­i­dent either, how­ev­er, feel­ing that I vot­ed for the best can­di­date does not change the fact that I do sup­port the admin­is­tra­tion, but not blind­ly. We need to sup­port each oth­er and call each oth­er out, but we also need to be tact­ful and work toward the ide­al out­come, it is in all of our best interest.

  2. @Lukemcgook
    My thoughts would sur­round the idea of pri­va­cy and con­cern that some­one could attempt to dupli­cate the doc­u­ment in an effort for iden­ti­ty theft. It is a private/personal doc­u­ment, IMHO.

    1. Pri­va­cy? That is such a lame excuse, the man is a pub­lic ser­vant. Using that excuse I would also run for pres­i­dent, even though I was­n’t born in the U.S.

      Besides, it is up to each state to ver­i­fy the can­di­dates’ eli­gi­bil­i­ty before their name can be placed on bal­lots. Has any­one seen proof from any of the *57* states?

    2. @stephen pitts

      That’s what I tried to tell the peo­ple at the DMV! It’s per­son­al! But they made me dig up the birth cer­tifi­cate any­way. Noth­ing sacred.

    3. If some­one tried to steal the iden­ti­ty of the Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States… I doubt they’d get too far, you know? Aside from which, does the birth cer­tifi­cate give any infor­ma­tion that could be used to steal iden­ti­ties? Social secu­ri­ty num­ber? Cur­rent address? Cred­it card num­bers? Bank accounts? No?

      “Pri­va­cy” is about as lame as an excuse as there is: If he’s been forth­right about his past, then there is noth­ing on the cer­tifi­cate that we don’t already know… If he’s, on the oth­er hand, hid­ing some­thing, then I guess that would explain why pri­va­cy is impor­tant to him.

      But it’s not like if the gov­ern­ment want­ed to see one of our birth cer­tifi­cates we could brush ’em off with some right­eous claim of privacy.

      1. First, I am not try­ing to pick a fight or jus­ti­fy any­thing (see my first com­ment stat­ing the fact that I did not vote for the candidate). 

        Sec­ond, if the can­di­date was born in anoth­er coun­try, don’t you think that the Repub­li­can Par­ty would have pub­lished this? 

        Third, I have a friend that has had their iden­ti­ty stolen start­ing with a coun­ter­feit birth certificate.

        Fourth, I don’t think that any­one’s birth cer­tifi­cate should be pub­lic domain.

        Fifth, if the gov­ern­ment want­ed to see our birth cer­tifi­cate they would just have to con­tact the coun­ty of birth, sim­ple in Hawaii because there is only one.

        Sixth, there is prob­a­bly a means (and prob­a­bly includes some dozen or so gov­ern­ment employ­ees or more) to ver­i­fy this and oth­er con­tin­gent infor­ma­tion required for pub­lic office, espe­cial­ly for spe­cif­ic rules such as this.

        Sev­enth, and I will stop here, just because some­one is a pub­lic ser­vant, does not mean that they are pub­lic domain.

        1. @stephen pitts

          First. OK, you weren’t try­ing to start a fight.

          Sec­ond. Sure, the R’s would have pub­li­cized the fact, had it been known … which it was­n’t and isn’t and won’t be, one way or the oth­er, until Barky lets us have the facts.

          Third. So don’t put the Pres­i­den­tial Birth Cer­tifi­cate online. Just let enough reporters see it.

          Fourth. We’re not talk­ing about “any­one.” If the job descrip­tion, per the Con­sti­tu­tion, requires cit­i­zen­ship-at-birth, at a min­i­mum, and if there’s only one way to prove that the require­ment is sat­is­fied, then the pri­va­cy claim has to be waived, yes? Let Oba­ma mys­ti­fy with his secret school records, secret med­ical records, secret vot­ing records. But let him obey the law in the mat­ter of his eligibility.

          Fifth. Yes, well, that’s what we’re try­ing to do — get some­one in gov­ern­ment to con­tact some­one else in gov­ern­ment and get the birth info disclosed.

          Sixth. There is indeed a means to ver­i­fy O’s eli­gi­bil­i­ty, but it can’t be done with­out his per­mis­sion or, at this point, a court order. What on the world are you talk­ing about here?

          Sev­enth. See Point The Fourth.

  3. Actu­al­ly, it does­n’t mat­ter how you *feel* about the rules. There is a con­sti­tu­tion­al require­ment for the pres­i­den­cy, and it is up to every state to ver­i­fy the required doc­u­men­ta­tion. Has this been done? Don’t think so.

    You’d also hope that the self-appoint­ed pur­vey­ors of truth in the media would have done their home­work… But that nev­er happened.

    Would you also attribute the miss­ing col­lege tran­scripts and med­ical records to a non-exis­tent right to pri­va­cy? So much for trans­paren­cy in government.

    1. “Trans­paren­cy” is an illu­sion, made large­ly in part by Amer­i­ca’s depen­dence upon the main­stream media. With enough pow­er and mon­ey behind it, any lie can be cast to the Amer­i­can peo­ple as if it were gospel truth, and giv­en that at any giv­en time some­thing like 80–90% of peo­ple in any giv­en group are idiots, it would take a very pow­er­ful mes­sage of old-school Amer­i­can val­ues to actu­al­ly undo over 100 years of dam­age to our nation, return­ing pow­er and author­i­ty to state gov­ern­ments, mak­ing “Unit­ed States” a plur­al noun once again.

      “A plur­al noun? That’s your goal?” Well, no, that is just seman­tics. The truth behind the seman­tics is what is impor­tant: Either Amer­i­ca is unit­ed under an over­bear­ing fed­er­al gov­ern­ment that micro­gov­erns our lib­er­ties from mar­ble palaces in Wash­ing­ton… or Amer­i­ca is a col­lec­tion of states unit­ed by a basic set of val­ues — the Con­sti­tu­tion — and a fed­er­al gov­ern­ment which han­dles most­ly for­eign affairs on behalf of the states.

      “We the peo­ple…” has a lot more mean­ing when local gov­ern­ment actu­al­ly has sov­er­eign­ty. “We the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment…” is an abom­i­na­tion to that which ought to be the Unit­ed States.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Rick Beckman