A Czech newspaper has brought up a certain "inconvenience" re: Obama.

Namely, he may NOT be a "natural-born U.S. citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.:

No person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of President...

At least, this is what this blogger is thinking! A source called "The Invisible Dog"--an online opinion column from Czechoslovakia (in Czech)--brought this issue to the attention of "The Reference Frame" blog by Luboš Motl Pilsen, Czech Republic . The post there, "Obama: A natural-born U.S. citizen?" has Mr. Pilsen exploring this issue.

Among the points this blogger raises in the entry are these (and that seem to be suppressed here in the U.S. as "talking points"):

1.) Where was Obama actually born? His father--Barack Obama, Sr.--is/was a native of Kenya who allegedly "knocked up" an American woman, Ann Dunham, forcing a rather hasty wedding in 1961. Apparently Ms. Dunham at the time was under 19 years of age, therefore any child born to her outside of the U.S. would NOT, by the law of the time, have been automatically a U.S. citizen. The U.S. Department of State website outlines the rules for determining whether a child born outside the U.S. is a natural-born U.S. citizen. The applicable paragraph states:

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

The applicable portion of Section 301(g) INA states:

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9fef57852dc066cfe16a4cb816838a4

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...

Section 301(e):

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person

2.) Now, was Ms. Dunham (Obama) present in the U.S. for the requisite amount of time prior to the birth of Obama, Jr.? It seems that his Kenyan relations claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-natural-born-us-citizen.html

His black grandmother in Kenya and half-siblings apparently believe that they were physically present during the birth in Kenya.

They certainly, according to African newspapers, have convinced Kenyans that they may well get a "Native Son" voted into the White House; his Hawai'ian grandma may beg to differ here.

So did Phillip Berg, a lawyer in Philadelphia, PA, who sued (see here) to get Obama off the ballot on the grounds he does not qualify. A Federal judge recently decided that Berg had no standing to sue because the grounds were 'too vague' (and therefore got the default judgmentagainst Obama and the DMC declared to be moot); Berg is filing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

3.) It also seems that Obama is holding back a key document: His original, LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE, which apparently is in his possession. The short-form one he has released is NOT anywhere near an original document, and it's obvious it isn't. Not only is the blank form available on-line, but...it seems that Obama's supporters have let their "political correctness" show:

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Note the parentage: 'CAUCASIAN' and 'AFRICAN'. Seems they "forgot" that, in 1961, the "terms" used would have been "WHITE" and "NEGRO" (sorry...but that is the way it was, no racism intended).

Also, what is it with the mother's name, STANLEY Ann Dunham? Is this a "Boy Named Sue" situation here? Maybe not, for it may be that her dad decided she would be the son he never had:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

Ann Dunham was born in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas[3] while her father was in the Army.[4] She was named after her father,[3] who reportedly gave his daughter and only child his name because he had wanted a boy; however, she was referred to as "Ann."[5]

Her parents, Stanley Armour Dunham and Madelyn Dunham, met in Wichita, Kansas, and married on May 5, 1940.[6] She had Cherokee, English and Irish heritage from her parents. She was a distant cousin of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Note the Native American ancestry. At that time, being Native American, even in part, would bring up discrimination, especially if the child tended to look like their Native American ancestors; she lucked out a bit there if the photo with the article is the real deal.

Also note who is related to her...Democrat by "blood", eh?

The date on the certificate posted by Obama supporters does not help: The "Date Filed by Registrar" is August 8, 1961. Even if this "short form" was a recently generated copy, the racial classifications used should have been identical to the original birth certificate's. The truth is that re-issued birth certificates are rarely created from scratch, but are simply certified/validated photocopies of the original (at this time period, the archive available would be a microfilm record most likely and the copy so certified by the proper authority would be a printout from this record). There is certainly NO statement that this is a "re-creation" or other notation that would explain the discrepancies.

Seems like "smrstrauss" (a commenter to "The Reference Frame" post,Oct 26, 2008 2:28:00 AM) would beg to differ on the validity of the "birth certificate"...

Most people, I’d wager, don’t have their own original birth certificate. If you applied to get your records, in most states you’d get what Obama has - a certification of live birth spit out from a computer system. I doubt Hawaii has the original record any longer, either.

True enough, but did not Obama admit to possessing the original?

Even if Obama really no longer has the original long-form birth certificate? No problem, really: A birth certificate is a permanent archival record. It's kept forever, in microforms or databases if not in paper. Relying on the short-form certificate as "proof" of birth is legally hazardous. It might be acceptable for some purposes, but is not considered "authoritative".

In any case, one could well get a copy of the full document if that is what they need. Even if the archive was originally in another form and then was reformatted to be able to be "spit off" of a computer.

I repeat: Anyone could get a copy of their birth certificate, if they can prove to the satisfaction of the official involved that they are the "one". A Presidential candidate should have no problem at all getting the full archival record if he bothered to do so, would he?

4.) If one could show that there was no question of Barack Obama's citizenship to this point, would it put paid to the "does not qualify" question? Not exactly:

Ann Dunham married an Indonesian after she divorced Obama's dad; U.S.-Indonesian dual citizenship was not possible at the time. Therefore he would have lost U.S. citizenship automatically because his mother did upon marriage and/or if his step-dad indeed adopted him:

It seems plausible to me that the stepfather had to adopt Barack Obama (as Barry Soetoro) who therefore became an Indonesian citizen. At that time, U.S./Indonesian dual citizenship was not possible so Barack had to lose the U.S. citizenship even if he had one before.

Afterwards, he either had to go through INS and become a naturalized U.S. citizen or he would currently be an illegal alien in the U.S. Now, I am not quite sure whether the categories of "naturalized U.S. citizen" and "natural-born U.S. citizen" are mutually exclusive.

No, "naturalized citizen" and "natural-born U.S. citizen" are NOT legally the same thing.

The question really is "Can a "natural-born" U.S. citizen who renounces his American citizenship for any reason able to "restore" such "natural-born" status later on or are they treated as a foreign-born national when re-naturalized?" If this is the case, Obama--IF he was originally classified as "native-born"--may have regained that status and therefore be eligible for the U.S. Presidency. The U.S. Code section that applies: INA: ACT 324 - FORMER CITIZENS OF UNITED STATES REGAINING UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP

Sec. 324. [8 U.S.C. 1435]

(d) (1) A person who was a citizen of the United States at birth and lost such citizenship for failure to meet the physical presence retention requirements under section 301(b) (as in effect before October 10, 1978), shall, from and after taking the oath of allegiance required by section 337 be a citizen of the United States and have status of citizen of the United States by birth, without filing an application for naturalization, and notwithstanding any of the other provisions of this title except the provisions of section 313 . Nothing in this subsection or any other provision of law shall be construed as conferring United States citizenship retroactively upon such person during any period in which such person was not a citizen.

Does this section apply? Did Obama ever meet the requirements?

5.) Or, is this even a concern? Namely, could Barack Obama--the Elder--truthfully answer the question "Are you my daddy?"? It may be that he isn't...but this person may well be, according to "The Reference Frame" post:

For example, if the real father of Barack Obama is Frank Marshall Davis, a communist poet who [was investigated in 1950 by the House Un-American Activities Committee] was Barack Obama's spiritual father at the age of 10 or so, Obama shouldn't be afraid to publish this fact. Because of Davis' U.S. citizenship, it would also guarantee that Barack was natural-born regardless of the place of birth.

That would take care of the naturalization problem since he would then be a "native-born" U.S. citizen, period. Problem solved? Yes and no for this would bring up another "inconvenient" issue (other than the faked birth certificate): At the time Obama was born, Frank Marshall Davis was married to a white Chicago socialite 19 years younger than he. They married in 1946 and divorced in 1970, and had five children, including one son.

So, if Obama was sired by this guy? Obama would literally be a "bastard", a "love-child" conceived in adultery...not good either although the thorny question of whether Obama is a "native-born" American would be answered in Obama's favor.

Re: Obama's birth certificate as posted at "fightthesmears.com":

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Looking at it carefully, what is missing if this were an official document issued by the Hawai'ian government?

This is what is missing: Even a short-form birth certificate needs to be certified to be official! Note that there is NOTHING on that pictured certificate that indicates that the document was properly certified by any official: No seal, no attached certificate of authenticity of any kind, no notarized statement, no signature of anyone at all. Something should be in evidence, even a "shadow" of an impressed seal.

Nothing of the sort is present.

Important omission? You bet! Certification of an official copy would certainly be required to prove that the document was produced from the official record; such a document, without the attestation, would not be "official".

The only thing that is visible that is not a simple transcription of the birth "information" is a date stamp, which is a 2007 date (exact day and month is not easily decipherable). Nothing wrong with that per se; it could simply be the date the document was issued. However, not in this case. Why? Look at where it's located: The date stamp is "bleeding through" from the back of the document!.

Is this a problem? You bet! If the date were stamped by an official of the Hawai'ian government, it would have appeared on the FRONT of the certificate, NOT the back.

Also, a simple date stamp without any other notation could have been applied by anyone. The location of this particular stamp would be consistent with someone checking in the mail in any office and/or one added by whomever submitted the document to the campaign office. After all, such an important document should not be defaced by the recipient so stamping the back would have been prudent.

One more thing: Would such an important document use such cheap paper that ordinary stamp pad ink would bleed through that easily? Yes, the paper used might vary in quality, but is this the issue? NO; this document was evidently computer-generated AND there is a background pattern that would supposedly "disguise" any marks on the back of the document. Therefore, the stamp should not show to that extent, if at all. The pattern is similar to that used on checks; checks are stamped on the back all of the time AND are scanned and therefore may suffer from "back lighting" issues. "Bleed through", however, is not a problem; just look at the scans of checks on any bank statement or on-line from a bank these days. The "bleed through" in this case is sufficiently clear to identify the year the document was stamped and it may be possible--just using the picture on the website!--to determine the exact date if one were willing to study the image.

Also, where are the fold marks? It's unlikely that the document has been kept flat all this time. The date stamp on the back indicates it may well have been mailed to the destination, and the document is large enough to have to be folded if it were sent in a regular business-size envelope. Paper stiff enough that a larger envelope would have been required to ship it "flat" (since it could not be folded properly) would also be thick enough that "bleedthrough" of any notation on the back would not happen.

"Snopes.com" has an article discussing whether John McCain may find himself in the same position that Obama appears to be in. However, there are some important differences, according to "Snopes":

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp?print=y

At the time (in 1936), McCain's father was stationed in the Panama Canal Zone as an officer in the U.S. Navy. Obama's parents were NOT in the military.

The technicality that would have declared McCain ineligible was corrected in 1937; the fact it was a year late for him, in turn, has been overcome by the Senate passing a non-binding resolution declaring McCain a natural born citizen:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

The text of S.Res. 511:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text

SRES 511 RSATS

Calendar No. 715110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. RES. 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 10, 2008

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

April 24, 2008

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment

April 30, 2008

Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United Calendar No. 715110th CONGRESS2d SessionS. RES. 511RESOLUTIONRecognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.April 24, 2008

Reported without amendment.

Indeed, as Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman, Committee On The Judiciary stated:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/043008d.html

John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.

Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” requirement. As far as I am aware, no one has unearthed any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to military families stationed abroad or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.

Indeed, McCain was born on an American military base:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/042408a.html

McCain was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.

Both parents were citizens, without question. Also note that the birth was on American-controlled property (the Canal Zone, at that time, was an American territory) AND his father was there because he was ordered to be by the Navy.

In Obama's case? His putative father was NEVER a U.S. citizen as far as we know.

Neither parent was in the military and assigned to any foreign location under orders when he was born.

The documentation presented--an apparently unofficial, unattested-to COPY of the birth certificate--would not hold up in a court of law as valid. (If it was attested to on the verso, why was that not shown on Obama's campaign site? )

Never mind that Obama's mother may not only have been living outside the US when he was born, but if that was not disqualifying Obama from "natural born" status in itself? The fact that she remarried to a citizen of a country--while he was a minor--or which dual-citizenship was NOT legal at the time she married the guy, therefore the step-father's citizenship may well have accrued to the child (Obama); if there was an adoption, it certainly would have. There is also no record of proper resumption of American citizenship for either Obama or his mother after they returned to the U.S..

None of these problems show up in McCain's case, which was a simple matter of clarifying the citizenship status of a man who was born to parents stationed to a foreign duty station under military orders. The Resolution--which passed both Houses of Congress AND was supported by Barack Obama--simply acted to correct the potential injustice of this "murky" Constitutional question for this Navy "brat".

Another note: a commenter to this "Fastcase" blog entry of Tuesday, October 28, 2008, "Worse than 2000? How About a 269-269 Electoral Tie?" got really "testy"--and provided the links for this post--in response to what they saw as an attempt to NOT get "out the vote" for Obama. "The REAL Deal" wrote today (11/4/2008):

Wow. As I read some of these "comments" it is readily apparent that some people actually believe the BS emails sent out in millions that are pure fiction and are meant ONLY to try to hurt a persons chances at being elected to the highest office. I mean.... do you REALLY believe that "O" has not produced a birth certificate? That is INSANE and not even close to reasonable. Look at this link for the TRUTH about that bull, Einstein: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcerti... AND TO TOP IT ALL OFF.... "M" 's status as being eligable for that office has FACTUALLY come under question.... In fact, the Senate passed a bill early this year that simply stated that "M" IS eligable to hold that office. Now why would they feel the need to do that I wonder? The bill has NO legal standing by the way. And the link to this FACTUAL information, is: http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp Enjoy !! And please make sure to pass that information around in a ton of emails, just to set the record straight. lol ... yeah RIGHT !! You do want the truth to be known don't you, even if it does not help your political stance? Or maybe this is not about politics FOR YOU, as much as it is about other issues YOU may have with O. I think that is more likely. God Bless America !

I clicked on the link to the Obama "Snopes" entry, and it got a '404' as presented; the real link is http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp. "Snopes" view is that the statement that Barack Obama's birth certificate as being fake are false. But the text of the post actually brings up the exact same questions many--including myself--have been asking:

1.) The use of the the racial terms "Caucasian" and "African" are inconsistent with what would have been used in 1961, at least for the mother (she would have been referred to as "White"), even if the father's "race" would have been stated as being the same as his citizenship ("African"), which is rather a "stretch" (foreign nationals would normally be referred to by the nation they are a citizen of).

2.) The Hawai'ian officials would be required to transcribe the information AS PRESENTED on the ORIGINAL certificate, even if the terminology used would be inconsistent with current practice.

3.) If the certification is indeed on the verso? Why did Obama's campaign site not scan BOTH SIDES of the document to show such certification?

4.) Why a short form certification? Birth certificates are permanent archival public records and the long form should be available for certified reproduction. A Presidential candidate certainly could "convince" a registrar to release an official copy of the complete certificate; ordinary people can, even if it costs a bit more to do so.

The lack of the image of the certification does raise legitimate questions (the apparent date stamp bleeding through from the rear could well have been a digital alteration or an unofficial stamp). Also, why not present an affidavit from the Hawai'ian official who issued the document to further authenticate it in a critical case such as this one?

5.) And why a copy? If Barack Obama actually possesses the original issue document, why not post THAT one, getting an affidavit of authenticity if needed? No better evidence would exist than the original.

6.) If push came to shove? Why did Obama not get a Resolution put through Congress for himself? Since, in essence, the same question was coming up in his case, getting Congress to "clear" his citizenship status in a similar manner to McCain's would have been prudent, wouldn't it?

7.) "Snopes" may well have gotten this one wrong since there is no proof that Snopes got a hold of the documentation as presented but are stating their case via. inference and assumption:

There is no indication that "Snopes" saw the actual "reissued" certificate, but only what was posted on-line. Neither did they apparently contact Hawai'ian officials to confirm that the certification was indeed on the rear of the document and/or if one was even issued to Barack Obama and/or when. And they could have done so since another site, "PolitiFact.com", claims they checked it out, supposedly getting the ORIGINAL document as posted on-line and verified by Hawai'an officials:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

The ultimate document we sought was Obama’s birth certificate. Unlike the other documents, Hawaii birth certificates aren’t public record. Only family members can request copies, so when the campaign declined to give us one, we were stalled.

On June 13, 2008, Obama’s campaign finally released a copy, while launching a fact-check Web site of its own, Fightthesmears.com. ...

When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

8.) Why did Obama's campaign NOT send a copy immediately? After all, if the date of issue "bleeding" from the back of the scanned document was in 2007, and the request was in 2008, they should have it available for examination. And why would the campaign send the ONLY COPY they apparently had to some website under the ageis of the St. Petersburg Times...IN FLORIDA? That is something they would NOT want to risk losing!

9.) The fact that the name on the certification is consistent with later documents only shows that the name and other information used by the person--in this case Obama--has been consistent, nothing more. It would not also indicate if the birth certificate is a SUBSTITUTED one where some information changed to "protect" the child.

Remember there is a possibility that Obama is the "love child" of his mother and a married man? If this were indeed the case? It would obviate questions of his citizenship, it would also mean that the birth certificate would give the name of someone who was NOT Obama's natural father but rather that of the husband of the woman who married the already-pregnant woman, and legitimately so (the statement by the Hawai'an spokesman would be technically true). The only way to remove all doubt of Obama's "natural-born" status would be to truly establish that: 1.) Obama's mother indeed was in the U.S. at the time of the birth; and, 2.) Full disclosure of Obama's true parentage, even if it proves to be embarrassing.

Neither has taken place.

10.) Why was the copy not sent until Obama's campaign had launched "fightthesmears.com"? The delay raises questions as to the validity of the scanned document, even if Obama got an apparently "valid" copy later on.

11.) The "PolitiFacts" site also seems to discount the possibility of long-term fraud by Obama.

The truth is that it would be difficult to perpetrate fraud over decades. BUT it's NOT impossible to do it, particularly when a determined, charismatic individual with possibly something to hide wants something they might not be eligible for otherwise, such as the Presidency. One should certainly question why a key document was not scanned in its entirety AND why the Obama campaign would not, again, go the extra mile to provide timely documentation of Obama's citizenship on demand to news organizations (and possibly "Snopes") unless...well...

I hear skeletons rattling in that closet...

It appears that the "short-form" document is genuine:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

And "Fact-Check.org" found a birth announcement posted in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961 which gives Obama's birth date as August 4, 1961.

However, this still raises questions as to why the Obama campaign did not post BOTH SIDES of the certificate since the stamps on the verso are part of the key needed to prove the validity of the document. Neither was the resolution as good as it could have been. Let's face it, if "Fact-Check.org" would take the time to do high-resolution scans/images, why would the Obama campaign not have made doing the same "Job 1"; the posts were put up within a relatively short time of each other and when one has a Presidential campaign on the line, going above and beyond the call of duty to get the best images they possibly could...both sides...would have been sensible.

This also raises the question whether "Fact-Check.org" (it's affiliated with and funded by The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania) is really as "non-partisan" (and presumably objective) as they claim they are (all the staff are either journalists and/or university students or staff, both groups tending toward the VERY liberal side of things).

In any case, the one place that this question could be settled for good--the U.S. Supreme Court--won't hear the case:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_OBAMA?SITE=VACUL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT