Skip to content
Tags

, , , , , , ,

Arizona ‘birther’ law; Obama’s birth certificate vs. mine

by rescuetruth on April 16th, 2011

Recently, Arizona state legislators passed a bill that would require presidential candidates to prove their citizenship before being listed on the ballot. If the Arizona secretary of state deems the birth certificate inadequate, the candidate can be restricted from the ballot.  As per Arizona HB 2177, presidential candidates must provide all of the following in order to qualify:

  • Certified copy of the presidential candidate’s long form birth certificate, or
    • Early baptismal or circumcision certificate
    • Hospital birth record
    • Postpartum medical record for mother or child signed by doctor or midwife or the person who delivered or examined the child after birth
    • Early census record
  • Sworn statement identifying candidate’s places of residence in U.S. for fourteen years

The first requirement within the affidavit of qualifications for presidential candidates is clearly directed at President Obama; in fact, the bill originated from a fringe group that believes the president is not a natural-born citizen.  Under the proposed guidelines, numerous Americans would be ineligible despite meeting the actual requirements as put forth by the Constitution, leaving presidential desires to the whim of a partisan elected official.  Donald Trump, who claims to be interested in running for president, also started rehashing the birther conspiracy theories as way to earn cheap political capital from a very limited demographic.

After reading about House Bill 2177, I found myself thinking about my own birth certificate, which I have used to gain employment, obtain a driver’s license, and for other government services.  In light of the birthers’ claims including their new pack leader, Donald Trump, should we question the legitimacy of our own citizenship?  After all, the birth certificate, or “Certification of Birth,” generated in my home state, Pennsylvania, is less detailed than the “Certification of Live Birth” generated by the state of Hawaii.  Are the birthers not arguing over semantics at this point?

Legal scholars have called the Arizona birther law “laughable,” and clearly unconstitutional.  If Governor Jan Brewer chooses to sign the bill into law, it will undoubtedly be challenged by the Department of Justice.  In the end, the birth certificate provided by Barack Obama is, and always has been, adequate for purposes of proving his citizenship, and is much more detailed than anything many Americans have in their records.  This conspiracy theory has been debunked numerous times, and needs to be put to bed for good.  Ask yourself this: Did you get a birth announcement when you were born?

Hawaii’s Certification of Live Birth vs. Pennsylvania’s Certification of Birth

Obama (HI) Mine (PA)
Name X X
Date of Birth X X
Hour of Birth X
Sex X X
Location of Birth X
Island of Birth X
County of Birth X X
Mother’s Maiden Name X X
Mother’s Race X
Father’s Name X X
Father’s Race X
Date Filed X X
Share

From → Politics

  • Iska Waran

    Rubbish and you know it. Hawai’i law allowed people to get a Certificate of Live Birth merely upon the statement by a family member attesting that the birth had happened in Hawaii. Grandma Dunham merely had to attest that her grandson had been born in Hawaii – without any evidence – and the state of Hawai’i would have both registered that supposed birth AND sent the reported data to both local newspapers (which is why the data is identical and the births announcements preceding and following BHO’s were identical in both papers). It would have been eminently logical to do this, had BHO not been born in the US, in order to ensure that he would be considered a US citizen, which would otherwise not be a foregone conclusion, given that one of his parents was a non-citizen. Grandpa & Grandma Dunham may have been a lot of things, but dumb is not among them. A desire to establish US citizenship is not prompted only by the thought of a presidential run in the distant future. Many people would prefer to bear a child (to in Obama’s case prefer to have borne a child) within the US for the very purpose of establishing citizenship.

    This really isn’t that complicated. The odds that BHO had been born outside of the US are clearly greater than the odds that Obama has a logical reason for refusing to release his “long form” original birth certificate – you know, the one referenced on p26 of his first autobiography, “Dreams From My Father”, the one that he says existed in the ’70′s – well before the one posted by his campaign was ever crafted.

    Supposed details like his being born at 7:24 pm are hilariously irrelevant, even if they were true. How about the name of an attending physician? How about the name of the hospital? Your refutation of the seriousness of the issues is a joke.

  • http://twitter.com/rescuetruth Chris Strosser

    Irrespective of doubts about President Obama’s birthplace, even if he was born outside of the United States, he would still be an American citizen by virtue of the fact that his mother was a natural-born U.S. citizen. Nevertheless, President Obama was born in Hawaii, and it is quite sad that people cannot accept that.

  • Grandexpo2

    Dear Rescuetruth,
    You need to want the truth harder in finding where Obama was born and also realize that per the constitution, even if Obama was born in the US he will never be a natural born citizen because one needs need both parents being citizens and his father was not. Obama is CLASSIC example why the the forefathers installed the natural born citizen clause in the constitution: They wanted the BEINGNESS of the president to be American and OBAMA’S IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!