Obama Birth Certificate Gets a Curious Mention in Al Sharpton Speech

Al Sharpton
The so-called “Birther” movement was used as a major distraction, during the 2008 Presidential campaign and throughout the early months of Barack Obama’s presidency. Over the past couple of years, the issue has been largely forgotten. It is curious, then, that Al Sharpton chose to mention the President’s birth certificate during a recent speech in Newark, NJ.

Whilst the speculation surrounding Obama’s birthplace has been widely attributed to some imagined lunatic right-wing fringe element, it was actually given birth to – pun intended – by supporters of Obama’s main Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

According to a report in British newspaper The Telegraph, the rumor began in earnest when an anonymous email was circulated, which stated “Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy,” it said. “She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth.” A copy of what has been claimed is Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate surfaced, which was instantly branded a “crude” forgery – ironically, by the same people who laugh at the idea that the “long form” US birth certificate eventually released by the White House may be forged. How is it known that this email was circulated by Clinton’s supporters or, possibly, by her campaign? Because, the Telegraph report points out, it just happened to emerge at the height of a bitter fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. It is no secret that there was no love lost between Obama and the Clintons. Former President Bill Clinton was known to have made some very harsh remarks about Obama. An interesting side note is that neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton were ever branded racist, as every right-wing Obama critic is.

Evidence that the President’s Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery is sketchy. At the same time, evidence supporting its authenticity is also questionable.

On the one hand, it has been claimed that the document – which has only ever been made available in electronic format – has “layers”, which supposedly proves that it was created on a computer, as opposed to being a scan of an original paper document. The well-known myth-debunking website, snopes, lays out the case for the document being genuine, although that case is actually as flimsy as the case for it being fake; both sides in the argument cite “expert” testimony to support their claims. The problem with this, of course, is that even “experts” have personal political opinions, which will, inevitably, influence their assertions.

Testimony from Hawaiian officials, regarding the authenticity of the birth certificate can be immediately discounted; Quite apart from the Pacific islands state being deep blue territory is the fact that – were it ever proven that Obama was not, in fact, born there, the repercussions for Hawaii, for the hospital in which Obama was reportedly born and for the Democratic Party, as a whole, would be truly devastating. The vested interest of Hawaiian officials, therefore – both at the State government level and the hospital in question – is too enormous to regard any testimony from them as objective.

The birther movement, today, is spearheaded principally by two individuals: Property tycoon Donald Trump and Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Neither of these two individuals could possibly be viewed as objective; Trump, although held in disdain by most Conservatives, still aspires to be the Republican candidate for President. Arpaio, it is very well known, has an axe to grind against an administration that has continually attempted to intimidate him because of his anti-illegal immigrant stance. It is extremely difficult, therefore, to take any claim – from either man – about Obama’s place of birth seriously.

The best argument that the birthers have is the lengths to which Obama, his campaign team and, later, his administration appeared to go to stall the release of his birth certificate – including the initial claim by the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital that they could not release the document. Critics of the birther theorists point to the announcement of Obama’s birth in Hawaiian newspapers as proof positive that the President was born there. Such announcements, however, can easily be placed in any newspaper without verification.

It seems utterly inconceivable that anyone would dare to run for the office of President of the United States, knowing that they are not eligible, by reason of birthplace. At the same time, the only hard evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii is an electronic document that took an extraordinarily long time to appear and that, whilst not a proven forgery, is also not proven as being genuine.

Back to the recent speech by known liar, tax-cheat and race-baiter Al Sharpton – the man who supported, and may even have created, Tawana Brawley’s false rape allegation, 25 years ago. Speaking Sunday at the Metropolitan Baptist Church in Newark, Sharpton rambled on about Jim Crowe and attempted, as usual, to assume the mantle of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. During the speech, Sharpton referred to Obama’s critics, who, he said, have proved that America has no yet become a “post-racial society” by calling for the President’s birth certificate. This was a curious reference which makes one wonder where Sharpton is going: In his endless and determined efforts to tear the country apart along racial lines, is he so entirely bereft of ideas that he chose to dig up this subject in order to, once again, make the ridiculous assertion that questioning the President’s place of birth is racist? Did the White House, perhaps, ask him to throw the comment out, in an attempt to resurrect the distraction of the birth certificate? With the Administration’s continued desperate efforts to bury numerous scandals, such as Fast and Furious, the Benghazi consulate attack and the IRS political targeting tactic, it would be no surprise if the White House decided to resurrect this issue; knowing that Obama is no danger, whatsoever, of being outed as foreign-born.

Another possible explanation for Sharpton attempting to breathe life into the distraction that keeps on distracting is the emerging strategy of attempting to link gun-ownership and racism: This idiotic connection could be conjured up in the following way: People who support gun-rights are predominantly right-wing; people who question Obama’s Hawaiian birth are predominantly right-wing; people who believe that George Zimmerman had the law on his side when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin are predominantly right-wing; ergo, gun-rights advocates are all racist, birther lunatics who should be disarmed for the good of society.

Sharpton’s curious mention of the Obama birth certificate issue was certainly no accident. The contention has always been that birthers are racists and, now, the case is being built that gun-owners are racists. The push to disarm law-abiding Americans is being deliberately fashioned into some bizarre new civil rights issue.

The last time a United States government passed laws to forcibly disarm a segment of the population, it was black Americans who were disarmed, in preparation for the introduction of slavery. This is a matter of historical fact, that all Americans – both black and white – would do well to remember.

An editorial by Graham J Noble


98 Responses to "Obama Birth Certificate Gets a Curious Mention in Al Sharpton Speech"

  1. Velia Beddo   February 22, 2019 at 1:39 am

    Hi, just came across this website. Its a fantastic illustration of how small to medium sized businesses can use Awards based promotion to get their companies ranked on the 1st page of Google. Awards programmes offer many benefits to participants. After all they bring recognition and you can share the news of your win with your employees, clients, industry peers and target market as many times as you like. Additonally awards offer prestige and status, giving potential prospects peace of mind that they are working with a reputable company. There are many types of awards programmes, including those that host awards ceremonies (and you pay per table), organisations that award only their members (and you pay for membership and sponsorship) and those that provide promotional materials. The latter is a great choice for those who are wary about the benefits of using corporate awards programmes because generally nominees and winners do not have to pay a penny to be a participant. Participants often receives online recognition, usually with a reach much greater than their own marketing efforts can offer. Other free benefits can include the use of an press release. Most participants have the option to purchase additional marketing materials to further utilise their win, if they wish to, for use in social media campaigns, on their own website, email marketing campaigns or in customer newsletters.

  2. Montana   December 10, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    The Birthers/ Teabaggers have no evidence that would stand up in a court of law in the United States. To all the Birthers in internet land, its upon you to prove to all of us (the majority) that what you are saying is true. Take it to court you bunch of cowards!

    Let me be clear none of these Birther/ Teabaggers dullards have taken there “Birther Documents of facts, more like lies” and none have won a case in the “U.S. Courts”, maybe in their simple minds (if they have any) but not in our “U.S. Courts”, so unless Birthers/ Teabaggers, whatever you want to be called, win a court case, we will continue to see as dullards, liars or racist or maybe all three. Deal with the real truth baby!

    To all the Teabaggers / Birthers/ Chicken Littles that keep saying that the sky is falling, and the Unites States will fail, never count against the United States of America, we are coming back and you and your losers are wrong!

    • Graham Noble   December 10, 2013 at 5:42 pm

      Actually, it was up to the President to prove he was a natural born citizen before he was even eligible to run for President, which he didn’t (that is a fact, by the way; even he and his aides admit that he didn’t find his birth certificate until after he became President).

      Therefore, it is irrelevant that he was or was not born in Hawaii; he was not eligible to run for President, since he did not – at that time – satisfy the requirements.

      Take your hatred an insults somewhere else. You should remember not to stray from Media Matters in the future.

  3. Frank   August 7, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    The Birth Certificate is fake. If ANYONE just looks at all the evaluations from almost every expert that has looked at it.

    The bigger question is why did ALL THE MEDIA immediately accept it as authentic and never bring it up again unless to mock people that think it is fake.

    Another coincidence is that within 24 hours after the release, they kill Bin laden and all news shifts to that. Very convenient. Anyone who has looked at that death will also understand that the killing of Bin Laden is also fake.



    • bob   August 8, 2013 at 9:55 am

      No expert has ever evaluated President Obama’s birth certificate (long or short form). A few quacks have proclaimed themselves experts and played around with the digital images of those birth certificates. Big difference.

      Meanwhile, the State of Hawaii — the entity authorized to speak about the birth certificates’ authenticity — has repeatedly and expressly said President Obama was born in Hawaii.

      But please continue to insist that President Obama’s birth certificate and bin Laden’s death were faked by some vast conspiracy, yet still not understand why you are mocked for holding such ridiculous beliefs.

  4. GVA   August 6, 2013 at 8:43 am

    Again, just because a judge here or there makes a statement about natural-born citizenship in dismissing a case doesn’t mean much. This is a constitutional issue that should be fully hashed out in front of the Supreme Court. You claim that there is no dispute on the meaning of natural-born citizenship, which is a ludicrous claim on its face. Thomas Jefferson would surely disagree with you. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in December 1783 regarding British subjects and U.S. citizens:

    “There is no middle character–every man must be the one or the other of these.”

    Obama’s 2008 campaign claimed that Obama was both a U.S. citizen and a British citizen from birth to two years old, and then both a U.S. citizen and a Kenyan citizen from two years old to twenty-one years old.

    According to Thomas Jefferson, Obama could not have been both a “citizen” and an “alien” at the same time. Thomas Jefferson would have said that Obama was not a “natural born citizen”, not eligible to be the president under the Constitution. Unfortunately, Thomas Jefferson is not a judge in Indiana.

  5. GVA   August 1, 2013 at 12:48 pm

    (I originally submitted a longer reply that contained a few URLs, but I don’t see it here, so I’ll make it short without any URLs.)

    Rawle was neither a Framer nor a Founding Father. He is not authoritative. His “therefore” statement is a flimsy extension from his preceding sentence about how one born a citizen in a state is also born a U.S. citizen.

    THOMAS JEFFERSON wrote that there is “NO MIDDLE CHARACTER” between an American citizen and a British subject, and he applied this rule to both ADULTS AND CHILDREN.

    Obama’s father was a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth.

    Thomas Jefferson would have called Obama an “alien”, not a U.S. citizen, regardless of native birth or not.

    Obama is not a natural-born citizen. He is not, and has never been, eligible for the office of the president.

    • cehughes   August 1, 2013 at 1:29 pm

      Justice Oliver Ellsworth was a Framer.

      He wrote in the case of Isaac Williams.

      “The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution.”

      Under the Common Law anyone born in a colony or State was a natural born citizen/subject.

      James Madison was a Framer.

      “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”

      • GVA   August 1, 2013 at 1:53 pm

        James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, wrote how Common Law ceased to have any authority here since the Declaration of Independence:

        “That the Constitution is predicated on the existence of the Common Law cannot be questioned; because it borrows therefrom terms which must be explained by Com: Law authorities: but this no more implies a general adoption or recognition of it, than the use of terms embracing articles of the Civil Law would carry such an implication. . . . If the Common Law has been called our birthright, it has been done with little regard to any precise meaning. It could have been no more our birthright than the Statute law of England, or than the English Constitution itself. . . . As men our birthright was from a much higher source than the common or any other human law and of much greater extent than is imparted or admitted by the common law. And as far as it might belong to us as British subjects it must with its correlative obligations have expired when we ceased to be such.” (James Madison to Peter S. Duponceau, August, 1824)

        Common Law never spoke of “natural-born citizens”, but only of “natural-born subjects”. Two different things. The framers didn’t even borrow “natural born Citizen” from Common Law. You have to look at the law of nations for that. James Madison acknowledged that “the law of the land” was derived from “the law of Nations”, which contains some open questions:

        “The first instructions were no otherwise legal than as they were in pursuance of the law of Nations, & consequently in execution of the law of the land.” (James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, April 2, 1798)

        Your quote from James Madison in the case of William L. Smith is taken out of context. Madison concluded, “Mr. SMITH being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society, with respect to the question of independence and change of Government”, unless he “forfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act”. Since Mr. Smith’s parents were dead at the time of the change in government, Mr. Smith founded his claim upon “his ancestors”, who replaced the authority of his deceased parents. Therefore, James Madison concluded that the criterion of “place” was satisfied such that Mr. Smith’s ancestors became American citizens upon the Declaration of Independence, and by the “ties of nature”, Mr. Smith also became an American citizen through the transition of government, even though he was not living in the “place”, but was a minor under the authority of his family.

        I like how you keep ignoring the explicit, simple statements from Thomas Jefferson regarding how there is “no middle character” between a British subject and a U.S. citizen. Thomas Jefferson explicitly said that you are either one or the other. I can quote it for you if you would like.

  6. GVA   August 1, 2013 at 10:56 am

    The birth-certificate issue is important, but what is most important is the fact that Obama’s father was not a citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. Obama’s own campaign claimed that Obama was both a U.S. citizen and a British subject from birth to two years old, and then both a U.S. citizen and Kenyan citizen from two years old to twenty-one years old. Thomas Jefferson wrote that there is “no middle character” between a U.S. citizen and a British subject. The president must be a “natural born citizen”, naturally a U.S. citizen and only a U.S. citizen from birth onward. The eligibility issue is fundamentally a constitutional issue. Is Obama a natural-born citizen? No. He is therefore ineligible for office.

    • cehughes   August 1, 2013 at 11:22 am

      Sorry you are wrong.

      William Rawle – ““Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “ A View of the Constitution of the United States” 1825.

      Rawle was appointed by President Washington to be the first United States District Attorney for Pennsylvania.

      Justice Scalia has cited Rawle’s work in Supreme Court cases

      • GVA   August 1, 2013 at 11:51 am

        Rawle was neither a Framer nor a Founding Father, and he had nothing to do with the inclusion of the constitutional requirement that the President be a “natural born Citizen”. Rawle is not authoritative and his reasoning on natural-born citizenship is very flawed. Rawle’s claim that “[t]herefore every person born within the United States . . . is a natural born citizen” is only based on the preceding sentence, which simply states that those who are born citizens of the states are also born U.S. citizens. That is no foundation for his claim that one is born a natural-born citizen “whether the parents are citizens or aliens” merely by being “born within the United States”. Rawle’s claim is not founded on what the Framers or the authorities on the law of nations wrote or said. His statement is very flimsy and is not authoritative. What is authoritative is what Thomas Jefferson wrote.

        THOMAS JEFFERSON wrote that there is “NO MIDDLE CHARACTER” between an American citizen and a British subject, and he applied this rule to both ADULTS AND CHILDREN ( http://tinyurl.com/8zvmgy ).

        Obama’s 2008 campaign claimed that Obama was both a British subject and a U.S. citizen at birth ( http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html , http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html ). Note that the original webpages do not work anymore.

        The idea that a citizen, whether natural-born or naturalized, could simultaneously be a citizen of another sovereignty was an oxymoron to the framers and founding fathers.

        Obama is not a natural-born citizen. He is not, and has never been, eligible for the office of the president.

    • bob   August 1, 2013 at 11:00 pm

      Numerous court have expressly rejected the claim that natural-born citizenship requires two citizen parents. I know that you’ll disagree with these rulings, but the rulings of real judges in real cases carries more weight than some anonymous person on the Internet.

      • GVA   August 2, 2013 at 8:13 am

        You don’t have your facts straight. This issue has not been ruled on by the Supreme Court or any lower court. Eligibility cases, of which a minority have tried to get somewhere on the constitutional natural-born citizenship issue, have been dismissed on lack of standing, the political question doctrine, etc. The courts aren’t touching the eligibility issue. Just because a judge here or there makes a statement about natural-born citizenship in dismissing a case doesn’t mean much. Shouldn’t the Supreme Court hear the sides and offer an opinion? (Denying appeals does not count as offering an opinion. That is a common misunderstanding.)

        Does Thomas Jefferson carry enough weight? In December 1783, Jefferson wrote that there is “no middle character” between a British subject and a U.S. citizen:

        “There is no middle character–every man must be the one or the other of these.”

        Surely, Jefferson would have said the same about “every woman”, “every boy”, and “every girl”, just as he would have said that there is “no middle character” between a U.S. citizen and a citizen of any other sovereignty, for he also wrote this simple statement:

        “An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.”

        Obama was born of an American mother and a Kenyan father, a British subject at the time, so Obama’s 2008 campaign claimed that Obama was both a U.S. citizen and a British citizen from birth to two years old, and then both a U.S. citizen and a Kenyan citizen from two years old to twenty-one years old.

        This so-called state of dual citizenship, of dual allegiance, would be an oxymoron to the framers and founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson and the others would be very confused as to how a person could be both a “citizen” and an “alien” when a person “must be the one or the other of these”. If we are to take Obama at his word, through his 2008 campaign, that he indeed had foreign citizenship, then I must conclude that he was not a “natural born Citizen” as required of the president by the Constitution. Obama is ineligible for office.

        • bob   August 6, 2013 at 7:21 am

          You don’t have your facts straight: Numerous courts have expressly dismissed cases because birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship. Ankeny v, Governor of Indiana is the leading case, but there have been many others.

          And, no, it isn’t the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to respond to every legal question; its job is to resolve disputed points of law, and there’s no dispute in the courts about any of this nonsense.

  7. Bob   July 31, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    If Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth certificate is authentic, why did he spend literally millions of dollars for his attorney’s to block court investigations into his eligibility? All it would take is to simply hand over a stamped paper copy and be done with it. For $10 I got a beautifully detailed full copy of my original birth certificate, complete with raised state seal. It came in the mail in a couple of weeks. Isn’t that easier than paying attorneys millions to fight court battles, making every defense on technicalities of the legal “standing” of the plaintiffs, rather than simply to provide authentication of the documents in question?

    • Steve   July 31, 2013 at 7:50 pm

      How do you figure he spent millions fighting these lawsuits? He wasn’t the defendant in some of them. In others, the birth certificate wouldn’t have settled anything.
      And he did release his birth certificate. Twice.
      That you choose not to accept that is not his problem.

    • cehughes   July 31, 2013 at 9:21 pm

      Can you provide any documentation to your claims that President Obama has spent anywhere near what you claim he spent?

    • Bob Weber   August 6, 2013 at 1:41 pm

      Poor Baby! Obama didn’t “spend millions to block court investigations”. Courts don’t do investigations – you bring your evidence to court. Obama filed simple, inexpensive motions for dismissal in the few suits in which he was named as a defendant; he won because birfers failed to submit any evidence and failed to state a legal claim that the court could act on.

      In certain administrative courts where his eligibility was challenged, birfers again failed to provide any evidence, and their “two citizen parents” arguments were summarily rejected. In one case, birfers “lost to an empty chair” – No legal representative for Obama showed up, and the birfers still lost. Get a life.

  8. Bob   July 31, 2013 at 6:22 pm

    Why does Obama’s Selective Service card have only a 2 digit date stamp that is off center instead of the USPS regulation and required 4 digit stamp? It says “80” instead of “1980”. The law enforcement investigation found that if you take a 2008 date stamp, cut it in half, turn it upside down and stuff back into the Pica stamp holder, it comes out looking exactly like Obama’s. Since the “8” is upside down, the slightly wider bottom loop would now make it look “upside down”. Unless you slice a tad off the top to disguise the fact. Just like on Obama’s. The United States Post Office has never used nor authorized any 2 digit date stamps. To forge a federal document such as the selective service is a felony which also makes the forger ineligible to hold any public office.

    • cehughes   July 31, 2013 at 9:19 pm

      For several reasons – It is a poor quality copy and there was poor ink transfer from the stamp to the paper. Look at the word “HONOLULU” in the stamp – it is missing the first “O” and the second “L”.

      Now it’s your turn to answer some questions:

      Where did the forger get a 1980s style – Honolulu Makiki Station Post Office stamp?

      Why did the Bush Administration verify the that Senator Obama registered for the Selective Service in 1980?

      Where did the forger get the 10 digit DLN (printed on the card) which can be shown was issued in 1980?

      Where did the forger get the 10 digit Selective Service Number (issued to President Obama) that can be shown was issued in 1980?

      How did the forger get this information into the Selective Service Administration’s database and microfilm rolls?

    • bob   August 1, 2013 at 12:37 am

      Jeffrey Coffman contacted the Selective Service, which told him that President Obama was duly registered: http://www.scribd.com/doc/118769858/Affidavit-DHS-Special-Agent-ret-Stephen-Coffman-Obama-Selective-Service-Registration-Forged-1-2-2013

      So we can add the SSS to the birther lore of government agencies that are in on the vast conspiracy.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.