• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate

The intrepid journalists at WorldNetDaily have discovered this document and ask, “Is this really smoking gun of Obama’s Kenyan birth?”

The 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 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).

A site dedicated to exploring the whole birther issue finds several other problems and strange coincidences.

Of course, there simply is no conceivable evidence that would convince those who think Obama isn’t legitimately the president that he was born here.

Related Posts:

About James Joyner
James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway, an associate professor of security studies at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. He earned a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter.

Comments

  1. DC Loser says:

    I just with these people can let go and move on, but they won’t. It saddens me greatly to see political discourse moving ever more into the realm of nutjob conspiracy theories as the main argument against one’s opponent. They can’t get over that the American people dared to elect their opponent and won’t accept the obvious repudiation of their candidate and agenda. I’d just say get over it and take your next shot in 2012.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  2. Furhead says:

    According to others, there’s another problem, which is that the given birth city of Mombasa was actually part of Zanzibar in 1961.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Mack says:

    A simple original birth certificate would satisfy most of the birthers. It hasn’t been seen yet. Obama has given two hospitals as the site of his birth. It would be simple for him to do, but the “transparency” President keeps hiding it as well as his educational records.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  4. rodney dill says:

    For some odd reason, the document is dated 1964 (Obama was born in 1961)

    The 1964 date, corresponds to the signing date when the copy was made, certifying that it is a copy of the original entry. Pretty easy to see when you zoom in. Still doesn’t prove anything, but I’ve had to get ‘official’ copies of my birth certificate several times for various reasons, and it is certified by someone at the county clerks office, at the the time the official copy is make. The year 1964 does correspond to the year his parents were divorced when getting new records may be deemed to be necessary. It will take more than either of these documents to prove lack of Obama’s citizenship.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Furhead says:

    My guess at this point is that most birthers would simply say, “Why did it take so long? It must be a well-crafted fake.”

    Besides, one doesn’t interrupt his enemies when they are making a mistake.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Listen, I’m tired of all this anti-birther snarking. It so happens I know the man who found this birth certificate and it’s the real thing.I don’t know his name, but I do know that he’s a Nigerian general and/or government official who has a fortune in a certain bank and just needs my help to get access to that money. He found me on the internet because I’m known as a person of high moral standing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. I think we need to get Dan Rather on this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. anjin-san says:

    Guess Republicans need to hang their hats on something in the face of a recovering economy…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  9. PD Shaw says:

    The 1964 date, corresponds to the signing date when the copy was made, certifying that it is a copy of the original entry. Pretty easy to see when you zoom in.

    Yes, it appears that the birth is originally recorded in a registry. So now the principled birther must demand a view of the original book, not a mere secondary recitation of the contents of the book. Right?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. markm says:

    Just saw this:

    http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/290426.php

    As you were.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Derrick says:

    Yes, it appears that the birth is originally recorded in a registry. So now the principled birther must demand a view of the original book, not a mere secondary recitation of the contents of the book. Right?

    Nice!

    As it’s been previously said, this long-form/original bs is just code for moving the goal posts. They believe what they believe and everything corresponding will be proof of a MUCH LARGER conspiracy at this point. This all goes to prove people’s first inclinations about the “Tea Party movement”. It’s like an unholy mix of Truthers (libertarian variety), Birthers and other nut jobs who can’t accept Obama’s president but are too lazy to actually try to deal with it on a substantive level.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  12. Michael says:

    Yes, it appears that the birth is originally recorded in a registry. So now the principled birther must demand a view of the original book, not a mere secondary recitation of the contents of the book. Right?

    Score:
    PD Shaw: 1
    Birthers: 0

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Michael says:

    A simple original birth certificate would satisfy most of the birthers.

    Not it wouldn’t. A certified copy from the State of Hawaii is enough to satisfy any rational person. For everyone else, nothing will satisfy them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  14. rodney dill says:

    Yes, it appears that the birth is originally recorded in a registry. So now the principled birther must demand a view of the original book, not a mere secondary recitation of the contents of the book. Right?

    Why would a birther demand a view of the of the Kenyan original book? Presumably Birther’s would already believe this copy. The document already has a 1961 birth date, I was just pointing out there is a rational reason for there to be a 1964 signature date on a certified copy.

    Lacking an further evidence of a forgery, cover up, or conspiracy around the Hawaiian Birth Certificate that one has to be accepted. A lot of records have been misplaced or lost over the years in this country. Obama has as much evidence of citizenship on this country as many others.

    I find both sides of this argument to be ‘hysterical’ in their support of their views.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Michael says:

    I find both sides of this argument to be ‘hysterical’ in their support of their views.

    So, you think the people who believe he is a naturally born citizen, that believe the Hawaii birth certificate is authentic, are as ‘hysterical’ as the birthers?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  16. PD Shaw says:

    Why would a birther demand a view of the of the Kenyan original book?

    Because the birthers are unsatisfied with the Hawaiian certificate of live birth because it is a secondary document. It is a certification of an original document that Hawaii won’t make public.

    A principled birther would apply the same standard here. The original record of Obama’s birth is in a book somewhere. The book, not the secondary certification of its content is what should matter.

    Perhaps I should have put “principled” in quotation marks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. rodney dill says:

    So, you think the people who believe he is a naturally born citizen, that believe the Hawaii birth certificate is authentic, are as ‘hysterical’ as the birthers?

    I think “most” people are the third group, that accepts his citizenship, but would be open to real evidence to the contrary. I find the argument’s that he can’t possibly NOT be a US citizen as hysterical as the arguments that he can’t possibly be a US citizen. I personally lean toward the belief that he is a citizen. I also believe that if he weren’t, there won’t be any real evidence to prove it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Michael says:

    I find the argument’s that he can’t possibly NOT be a US citizen as hysterical as the arguments that he can’t possibly be a US citizen.

    What? Who is making that argument? As far as I can tell, the two sides are the “third group” you describe and the Birthers. Or, as Alex described it, those who accepted objective reality and those who don’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. just me says:

    I am really ready for this issue to go away.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Gus says:

    If the Birthers weren’t all agitated about the lack of really-super-dooper-proof of Obama’s citizenship, they would be all agitated about something else — perhaps something else that isn’t obviously insane.

    I’d like to think that Obama learned a lesson from the Clinton administration — left to their own devices, many Republicans would have an ongoing investigation of any Democratic President, to destroy through innuendo and association or simple lies (Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster!) and a perpetual fishing expedition to see if the President has ever broken any law ever or provided misleading information to anyone.

    What better way to neutralize this faction than to leave them going around in circles on the patently insane claims? It discredits them, and it wastes their time. And it means that any actual substantive investigation of Obama has to deal with countless Birther idiots.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  21. Davebo says:

    It saddens me greatly to see political discourse moving ever more into the realm of nutjob conspiracy theories as the main argument against one’s opponent.

    This is not a new phenomenon to anyone who lived through the 90’s.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. floyd says:

    Finally, the definitive strawman!
    …………………………………………..

    “”Of course, there simply is no conceivable evidence that would convince those who think Obama isn’t legitimately the president that he was born here.””
    “”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

    How about a copy of his Birth Certificate? Even though the delay has been enough to feed conspiracy theories, It couldn’t hurt?
    No “CONCEIVABLE” evidence?? VERY FUNNY!![lol]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. rodney dill says:

    Gus pretty well proves my point…. I can’t stop laughing (hysterically).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Michael says:

    How about a copy of his Birth Certificate?

    Um, he did release a copy of his Birth Certificate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. floyd says:

    HMMM, No he didn’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. Michael says:

    Oh, a Certification from the state of Hawaii isn’t enough for you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. DC Loser says:

    Michael – yours is a rhetorical question? Of course the answer from the birthers would be a resounding “No.” But for everybody else just google “Obama birth certificate” and go down the list of hits to see just what everybody else says.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. Michael says:

    DC Loser, I agree on all points, I’m just not sure if floyd is a Birther or, like Eric, just contrary.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. PD Shaw says:

    From my recollection of reading the complaint filed by that California lawyer/doctor/realtor, it’s clear that authentication of the Hawaiian birth would not be enough. There are alternative, cascading theories in play.

    Plus, a growing argument that Obama has lied about the incidents of his birth, leading to the hope of perjury charges, regardless of how everything else sorts out.

    Perjury would be especially delicious as most people would necessarily concede being present for their birth, but knowing only the lies knowledge imparted by a parent. IIRC studies have shown that a surprising number of fathers listed on birth certificates cannot have been the actual sperm donor. Let the nationally-televised exhumations begin!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. Cranky Xenophobe says:

    Personally, I want to see the long-form birth certificates of all these people questioning the President. Absent that evidence, I’m going to assume that they’re foreign agitators trying to get decent Americans to fight amongst themselves.

    Every real American and real patriot knows that Obama is the President. He is commander-in-chief. But Orly Taitz is a damned Russian, for god’s sake! I’ll bet Putin is behind this!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. rodney dill says:

    I guess we won’t be seeing a long-form birth certificate from Mr. Cranky Xenophobe anytime soon.

    What were Mr. and Mrs. Xenophobe thinking to give you a first name ‘Cranky’, or is that just a nickname.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. G.A.Phillips says:

    Guess Republicans need to hang their hats on something in the face of a recovering economy…

    lol, here we go……..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Christopher says:

    I just caught the certificate, and by the looks of it, that is pure forgery. The reasons:

    1. 1964 is not the birth-year of Barack Obama, Jr. 1961 is his birth year.
    2. Mombasa, Kenya was part of Zanzibar, which was part of the British Union.
    3. S.P. Lavender, the signature, is not a real name. I heard it was a name of a laundry detergent.

    Someone tell me if I’m wrong or not, because a birther from the Republican Fascist Party said she retrieved the certificate. I would love to see this put to rest.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Joe Camel says:

    It is a white mans conspiracy of course, meant to take down another stand up black politician in the mold of Hastings, Jackson(s), Jefferson(s), Sharpton, Conyers, Barry…Yes, if only whitey can get past this black president and what he is accomplishing.
    Nothing to see here. Move on. I hate to see the outcome if things keep “looking up” as some are saying. Spooky time to be alive.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  35. rodney dill says:

    1964 is not the birth-year of Barack Obama, Jr. 1961 is his birth year.

    Maybe you should have looked at it instead of ‘caughted’ it. The certificate clearly states 1961 as the birth date, 1964 is the date this ‘certified’ copy was signed. So you have no credibility for the other two claims.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  36. Franklin says:

    Uh, Rodney, whether he has credibility or not, Mombasa was indeed part of Zanzibar in 1961.

    Also, I have yet to see one anti-Birther as hysterical as the people in the video posted the other day in another Birther thread. Those people were really quite scary. Lynch mob scary.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. anjin-san says:

    Just caught an interview with Orly Taitz. Wow. Makes Palin look rational and eloquent by comparison. The “conservatives” seem to be seeing ever higher cliffs to hurl themselves from…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. rodney dill says:

    Uh, Rodney, whether he has credibility or not, Mombasa was indeed part of Zanzibar in 1961.

    …and the document was created in 1964. It says it is a true copy of the birthing record (whatever that means). Whoever was in charge in ’64 would likely be listed on this document. You can’t tell what this is as a stand alone document. You would need to understand their process at the time and what was normally done for records as a comparison.

    And I tend to believe this document is false, and the Hawaiian one to be true, but people shouldn’t use disingenuous challenges to that point. If you think some anti-birthers aren’t ‘hysterical’ then you haven’t really paid attention to Anjin, Christopher, Gus, and some other comments above.

    Either document will be proven out or disproven based on thorough, real investigation, not based on what people want to believe they see based on an image of what someone posts in a blog.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. sam says:

    This just might be the final word on this nonsense:

    Is This the Source of the Forged ‘Kenyan Birth Certificate?’

    Short synopsis: Someone lifted an Australian birth certificate, and changed a few initials and other things. Voila! a Kenyan “birth certificate”. I wonder if Orly Taitz and Co. can be fined for filing a frivolous lawsuit?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  40. anjin-san says:

    If you think some anti-birthers aren’t ‘hysterical’ then you haven’t really paid attention to Anjin,

    Why don’t you show me when I am being “hysterical” Rod? Sorry, but this Taitz woman is a nutjob, if you want hysterics, catch one of her interviews.

    Or is this comment of mine “hysterical”?

    Guess Republicans need to hang their hats on something in the face of a recovering economy.

    .

    No one expects much from you Rodney, but even you can do better?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  41. Our Paul says:

    Leave it to Ann Telnaes to have the final word!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0