I was also just reading this:
When Barack Obama’s birth was registered in Hawaii in 1961, who or what was the source of his birth information? Was it a hospital? A doctor? A midwife? Or was it based solely on a parent’s or relative’s statement?
If a child’s family has no reason to falsify a child’s birth information, we might accept a family member’s statement “as is”, without independent corroboration. Unfortunately, Obama’s parents may have had a compelling reason to commit birth certificate fraud. When Obama was born (on August 4, 1961), his father (Obama Senior) was not a U.S. citizen, and his mother (Stanley Ann) was too young to confer U.S. citizenship to a foreign-born child. Consequently, if Obama were born overseas, he did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.
If Obama were born outside of the United States, he was not a U.S. citizen by birth. Nevertheless, his parents could have acquired U.S. citizenship for him through birth certificate fraud. They could have (a) registered his birth in Hawaii as “unattended,” and (b) claimed (falsely), on his birth registration form, that he was born in Hawaii. Since Obama’s parents may have had a compelling reason to misprepresent their son’s place of birth, their uncorroborated statement, by itself, is insufficient to “verify” the President’s birth in Hawaii.
Since birth certificate fraud can and does occur, the U.S. State Department no longer automatically accepts non-hospital-generated birth certificates as proof of U.S. birth and citizenship. If an individual was born at home, his/her birth certificate, even if signed by a doctor, is not sufficient for passport application purposes.
If Barack Obama were to apply for a passport today, his published Certification of Live Birth would not be adequate. He would need to provide additional documentation showing that he was born in a hospital or other “appropriate medical facility”.