I’ll probably regret wading into this morass but since my other post subjects are still being developed, I’ll put my useless two cents into this bizarre debate that still obsesses far too many Americans. Where was Barak H. Obama born?

These musings were prompted by finding a copy of my birth certificate indicating that I born in New York City at Colombia Presbyterian Hospital in the Borough of Manhattan. (For some people in the U.S., NYC is arguably not part of “real” America, which might make me ineligible to run for the Presidency.) Sadly, it appears to me that this document could easily be forged. Even if I ask NYC officials for another certified copy, I’d be stuck with a printed copy of a digitized copy that would not likely pass muster in Arizona, Texas and a host of other regressive states. Regrettably all the people who originally signed it are dead.

I’ve held a U.S. passport for decades and I’ve voted every two years in all November elections since I turned 18 – unless I was living outside the country. (In the eyes of some Americans, having lived in Europe for extended periods of time and being able to speak two other languages besides English also reinforces their belief that I’m not a “real” American.) I lost my social security card and haven’t bothered to get a new one. I receive annual letters from the social security administration explaining my prior contributions and likely future payments – as if I’ll receive any of them by the time Republicans get finished with the program.

My father was born at his parent’s home in Hoboken, NJ – his mother was assisted by a mid-wife. Until the latter half of the 20th Century, this was far more common than many people imagine. We still find people being born outside of hospitals today – such as in cars, taxis, police vehicles, and other impromptu but fixed locations. There has even been a small resurgence in using mid-wives and avoiding hospitals by those who prefer a “natural” childbirth experience, by those who don’t have the money or insurance to pay for a hospital birth and by others for various legitimate reasons.

My son was born in a hospital in suburban Chicago because my spouse had a very difficult pregnancy and we didn’t want to take any chances – plus my then employer’s insurance picked up most of the bill. Twelve years ago his mother and my spouse was a permanent legal resident originally from Colombia. (This might not be enough for U.S. citizenship in the eyes of many politicians in Arizona and elsewhere. There are efforts in Arizona to make such kids ineligible to attend public school – particularly if I went missing and she tried to use my NYC birth certificate. Sheriff Joe is already licking his chops.)

One strident complaint by “Birthers” is that President Obama’s birth certificate does not contain any physician or hospital names. (Neither is a prerequisite to being born naturally.) There is only a certificate of birth issued by the State of Hawaii upon the request of his grandparents. There were also birth announcements published in two different Honolulu newspapers that did not mention any hospital or physician names. (Lincoln was allegedly born in a log cabin allegedly in Kentucky and he never produced a hospital birth certificate.)

What is known at the time of the President’s birth was that his mother was living with her parents in Hawaii. His father was no where to be found. (Fathers are not needed to deliver babies unless they are physicians or trained individuals who can assist the mothers.) By using the existing and uncontested data, the straightforward conclusion was that his mother gave birth to Barak at home and not in a hospital. His grandparents had the presence of mind to do everything legally necessary to publicly record his birth when and where it occurred. They simply had to take the initiative since no hospital was involved.

There is absolutely no believable or objective evidence that President Obama was born in any other country. Even in 1961, Indonesia and Nigeria got the vast majority of their births recorded and there is no proof his mother was living in either country or outside Hawaii at the time of Barak’s birth. There is no proof of any conspiracy on the part of his grandparents and other individuals to set the stage for a “Manchurian” non-American to become President in 2008.

If there had been validity to any of the “Birther” charges, former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton (the team aka “Billary”) would have moved mountains to find such proof in order to beat Barak Obama in the 2008 primaries. Those individuals and politicians who persist in such stubborn stupidity should be barred from voting and seeking public office. However willful ignorance, overt prejudices, obsessed with delusional conspiracies and persistent denials of reality are not impediments to citizenship or voting – otherwise 20% of Americans would be disenfranchised.

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

This section from Article II is internally inconsistent and depends upon how one interprets various phrases separated by commas and words such as “natural born,” “or,” and “at the time of the Adoption.” It doesn’t matter what the U.S. Supreme Court held in the past because today’s Supreme Court could easily interpret words any way it wishes. There is no writing in the document indicating the original founders and authors thought the U.S. Supreme Court was to be the sole interpreter of the Constitution. (I always wondered about a person who was conceived in vitro and came out prematurely via caesarian section – would that be considered “natural” under a strict interpretation? What if the person’s mother worked at Planned Parenthood and the pregnancy wasn’t “planned?”)

There are plenty of things with which to criticize the President – particularly his policies and actions in office – but debating his place of birth is really a pathetically moronic place to remain. I always preferred an interpretation of the phrase “natural-born citizen” to mean that the President had to be a human being, not be some other species that was hatched, spawned or delivered by extraterrestrial beings. If you can be born in the U.S. Canal Zone that has long returned to Panamanian authority, and be eligible to run for the Presidency, then any individual born on this planet should be eligible under the phrase “or a Citizen of …” It is more important under the express words of the Constitution that the person is a “citizen” for at least 14 years and over the age of 35.

At this point I would prefer a foreign-born and naturalized U.S.” citizen as President so long he or she was not a shill or paid representative of our corrupt wealthy oligarchy. Rather the person could objectively (and without outside financial influence) represent the best interests of the majority of citizens and residents living in the U.S.

The way the U.S. Supreme Court is now trending in its opinions, we might soon see two Presidential candidates competing against each other who were both legal fiction “persons,” incorporated in Delaware and Nevada respectively (though the two corporations were owned by a variety of U.S. and foreign enterprises and individuals.) Their faces and voices would be digitally produced for TV and video. One would appear and sound as former President John Kennedy and the other as former President Ronald Reagan. Sadly, both of them would be servants of the one oligarchy that controls our nation’s merged political/economic system and its social and information media. That would at least be honest with reality.

We really need to stop obsessing over birth certificates when it appears that certificates of incorporation are far more important in 21st Century America.

Submitted 4/11/11 by Marc Pascal happily ranting in Phoenix, Arizona.