Anyone else intrigued? Just a little?

[Nur Rauch]

This surfaced today. No word if it's real or not.

[Golden Skull]

The link is broken.

[Nur Rauch]

It broke after I posted it. Can't be arsed to find another image of the birth certificate, but Google should suffice for anyone who's sufficiently "intrigued". 

[Golden Skull]

How are we supposed to google it if we don't know what it is?  Search terms?

[Nur Rauch]

http://twitpic.com/au99s

[mocksluzer]

Ok, here goes nothing.

To start, GS, I seriously hope you weren't engaging in ad hominem attacks on the "Birthers". Your post began by linking two completely distinct groups through perceived "conspiracy" theories. I have trouble seeing how the veracity of the Obama Birth Certificate claims makes claims about entirely different subjects, the claims should be evaluated as such. It does disservice to any constructive discussion to conflate distinct and unrelated issues. Indeed some "Birthers" may be radical in their approach, however this does not detract from the veracity of their claims. After all, whether Obama was really born in Hawaii has nothing to do with how the Birthers act, the tax protesters act, or your distaste for either of these groups. Onto the substantive points...

1) I originally intended to answer these questions (were they really questions?) by making a similar argument to the one above such as "The truth is not dependent on how many people believe in it or actively follow it or, for that matter, how many people you subjectively perceive to be interested in it". Then I came upon this:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101368

For those uninterested in investigating the link itself, it cites a random poll of about 800 Americans recently conducted through telephone interviews consisting of 22 questions, at least two of which concerned Obama's eligibility. Apparently nearly 1/2 the respondents were aware of the eligibility questions, and a significant amount- above 40%- wanted Obama to release all documents. On face, does it not seem ridiculous to anyone else that Americans must make such a claim of their "leader"? 7.8% of the respondents were "troubled" by the eligibility questions. Even if the survey was skewed (there was a 3.5% margin of error) and the respondents even hand-picked, that's an alarmingly large amount. In a population of 350 million, 8% is 28 million people. For the sake of argument I'll grant that something in the methodology of the poll was "off" and only about half of the results are valid. That's still 14 million people "troubled" by these seemingly easily-answerable questions. Not exactly "fringe kooks".

2) Forget what I said about the "Birthers". That goes for just anyone interested, whether "Birther" or not. Anything else I would have to say about this point is dependent on responses to #1.

3) I'm still trying to see how this is a reasonable response is any way. I hardly believe Obama's camp is concerned about riling people up even more, and that is supposedly their motivation for withholding the only document that would put this entire controversy to rest. How is this line of thinking not completely and totally idiotic? To quote CCT, "Gawd". Let's put it this way in hypothetical where (if it exists) the long-form BC (LFBC) is released, there are two possible reactions: 1. Birthers get in an uproar, stir up some more shit, whine about it's legitimacy, etc.  2. People shut up because he actually did what everyone has been clamoring for. Analysis: I'm trying to see how scenario 1 is sooo terrifying it's preventing them from acting. It's basically what's happening right now. Sure it might stir up some more shit from the radical "Birthers" but most of the moderately interested people, like myself, would more-than-likely put it totally in the past.

Also, I want to be clear that I'm not taking a "proof by silence" line. I haven't made any decisions where I stand on the debate because I have yet to see any evidence. The lack of evidence is the basis for my hesitancy to adhere to either side. Like I've said before I'm merely interested in this debacle as a whole, not necessarily in any resolution.

4) See immediately above. I'm interested in why millions of people in our country still don't have a definitive opinion on the birthplace of our president. Millions more are troubled by this. All it takes is one document and the general uneasiness goes away. Yet the document remains in hiding... I'm interested that this is an issue in the first place, regardless of the controversy regarding any proof. I'm curious why an entire country, Ghana, believes Obama was born in Kenya. I'm interested why Obama's grandmother believe's he was born in Mombasa, Kenya because she was present at his birth. She must be senile. It's not like it's a misunderstanding either. 

5) I'm trying to remember or find where I said it was "weird that Obama's first act..." Hmm- can't find it. Weird. Like I said before, it seems incredibly coincidental. I can't say this any clearer- I do not currently believe the Obama White House is engaged in some huge conspiracy regarding Obama's birthplace. The facts of the situation, including Obama's Executive Order on his first day in office, are just interesting to me. I'm a curious person. I posted it here because I was curious if other people were interested by this. Sue me.  Also, forgive me for trying to stir up some discussion on perjuries while I sit here at my desk wasting away slowly without intellectual stimulation.

Re GS's second post: I get it! Obama's not releasing the LFBC because he can't get it! Finally it all makes sense. The most powerful man in the world can't get a copy of his LFBC because Hawaii's website doesn't have a place for requesting it. I wonder why they even create those documents if they don't allow people to request them... Seems silly to me. Then again, this whole ordeal does. Tell me this, do you believe that if Obama were to call that hospital and ask for a LFBC they would turn him down because they only release SFBC's? Righhhht.

I love the newspaper comment too! It's utterly clear to me, now. So next time I want to go get my driver's license I just need to bring in a newspaper clipping from the day of my birth, and all issues will be cleared up? Wish I had known that before I paid $10 for a copy of my LFBC which, coincidentally, took one phone call and one personal check to receive. Not rocket science.

Let's explore another avenue not clouded by pre-conceived resolutions. Perhaps, just maybe, Obama's parents wanted him to be an American citizen. The gall! Remember, Obama's dad was Kenyan so he wouldn't have been an American through that route. His mother, at the time of this birth, had not held her American citizenship long enough for it to pass to Obama simply by virtue of his birth, regardless of location. She was something like a couple months short of her 19th (or 20th I can't remember) birthday when she had him, precluding him from receiving citizenship by virtue of birth alone.

So his status as an American citizen was dependent on the location of his birth. Is it that far-fetched to imagine that his parents didn't want him considered a British national in Kenya? After all, he was born less than 2 years after the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya which resulted in (according to some estimates) 70,000 dead Kenyans. Some put that in the hundred of thousands. Sure you can deride this claim by myopicly examining his parents motivations from our POV in 2009. Or you can employ logic, go back to the time of his birth and the decision to have him in Hawaii (or register in Hawaii) and then try to derive what could have been their motivation. 100,000 dead Kenyans would make me want to give my kid American citizenship status.

Still trying to see how GS has "dismantled this idiocy" though. He went online and in .3 seconds found a copy of Obama's short-form birth certificate. Commendable. Except that, as has been stated before, this particular document, under Hawaiian law at the time of Obama's birth, could be and was given out to those born outside of the United States within the past year. As a lawyer and former mocker you should be ashamed to be placated with such questionable and incomplete "evidence". If I walked up to you on the street, handed you a SFBC and said here, this says I was born in the US. Would you believe me? What if I told you that I could get such a document, under US law (not some black market means) even without having been born here? Would you still be convinced?

P.S. I can't see the images that Collin posted, so forgive me for not commenting on them.
P.P.S. Terribly sorry for the unreadably-long post. I just get carried away sometimes... 

[Nil Satis Nisi Optimum]

Rush says it's important... http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/07/should_the_gop_take_the_birthers_seriously_rush_does.php

[mocksluzer]

Thanks for the article. I saw something like that yesterday and found it particularly interesting because of the impromptu Pledge of Allegiance that apparently took place following the eligibility question. Also, hearing reports of the look on Castle's face was quite entertaining.

While the article itself is mildly entertaining and somewhat informative, the comments following the article are much more interesting. Some good arguments for both sides are offered, and even some decent blogs are submitted if anyone is curious enough to gander. The best argument I've seen for how this whole Birther thing is ridiculous concerns the location "Honolulu" on the SFBC (also called Certification of Live Birth- COLB). Some poster following the article made the argument, with a website to back it up, that COLB's were issued for people born outside the US, but the location put on the COLB would not have been in the US, it would've been their birth location. I'm curious if this is actually true. It would seem that, if it is true, there doesn't seem to be much controversy, unless someone is willing to argue conspiracy on the part of the Hawaii DOH. Someone making that argument, unfortunately, isn't too far-fetched.

In spite of this recent argument concerning the Honolulu location on the COLB, I still find this whole controversy incredibly intriguing. After all, from the beginning of this whole issue we've seen:
1. Claims that Obama was born at different hospitals within Hawaii. These contradicting claims came from, among others, members of the MSM, Obama himself, Snopes, Wikipedia, and the country of Ghana (via the newspaper Modern Ghana). Regardless of the facts, how is it not just slightly funny/interesting to other people that there has been such utter confusion about the President's birthing hospital? Have a sense of humor!
2. Obama's grandma claim, on several separate occasions, that she was present at Obama's birth--- in Mombasa, Kenya. That sh*t is straight out of a movie, seriously.
3. Obama spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent the release of his long-form birth certificate (LFBC). I can (somewhat, but not really) understand not wanting to release the form because it might stoke the fires of the Birthers; but spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and tying up the legal system because of this anticipated response is somewhat silly.
4. A soldier refuse his deployment orders under questions of BHO's eligibility as president. That in itself is a media story. But there's more to that one. Not only did the military rescind his orders, without explanation (still wondering if that's typical or not...), but apparently someone in the Pentagon "strongly encouraged" the soldier's private employer to fire him! Seriously, wtf is going on here?
LINK- http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104208 From the Article:

According to the CEO of Simtech Inc., a private company contracted by the Defense Security Services, an agency of the Department of Defense, the federal government has compelled the termination of Cook.

5. BHO apparently wrote a letter to the Kapi'loani (or however it's spelled) hospital celebrating it's 100-year anniversary. The hospital had it up on its site for several months, even using it as a fundraising item in a mailer it sent out. Following the WND (world net daily) report of this story recently, it was taken off the site completely. Now apparently it's back, or at least recently confirmed by the hospital as completely real. The catch? No one, not even the MSM, can get the White House to admit authoring such a letter. Why is it so hard to get someone to say a simple 3-paragraph letter was written to the hospital where the Pres was born? It has his freaking signature (apparently)!

Seriously, I absolutely do not care whether or not Obama was born in the US. Hell, even if it's proven he wasn't I wouldn't be totally and immediately opposed to some sort of special Supreme Court case being held to see if the natural-born citizen thing should remain (if that's the proper venue for the argument, anyway??). However, I find this whole ordeal incredibly entertaining. The main reason for my entertainment is that people keep thinking "It's been proven" bla bla bla, when in reality it hasn't been definitively proven. Sure, people take on faith that the Pres was born in the US, and I believe that guides many people's opinions about this whole Birther movement. However, the facts simply aren't all aligned perfectly to unambiguously kill this issue that has such a simple freaking solution! I'm starting to think Obama's desire to not release the LFBC is a political move, thereby allowing the Republicans to stay focused on it while he tries to ram through a massive health-care bill that should several years to pass, but is trying to be forced through this month! Hell, the Massachusetts healthcare reform legislation process took 2 full years of incredibly intense and detailed expert analysis, vettting of policies, compromise, and work. It passed the Mass legislature by a combined 198-2 vote. A similar healthcare reform (but on a nearly-infinitely biger scale) should be given a little more time. After all, maybe those hundreds of thousands of dollars are being well-spent...

[Golden Skull]

I think I am going to have to break up my response into two posts: the first (this one), will be about the citizenship "controversy," the second will be about Birthers.  There's a lot to respond to at once.

You are absolutely right that I didn't "dismantle this idiocy."  I wasn't really trying to.  What I was writing was more of an attack on the birthers and their modes of thought.  I'll get into that more in an upcoming post, but having been challenged, I will present my understanding of the evidence:

It seems to me that all of the evidence points to the fact that Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii.  We'll start with Sarah Obama.

SARAH OBAMA

I'm interested why Obama's grandmother believe's he was born in Mombasa, Kenya because she was present at his birth. She must be senile. It's not like it's a misunderstanding either.  (italicized emphasis mine)

Obama's grandma claim, on several separate occasions, that she was present at Obama's birth--- in Mombasa, Kenya.

These alleged statements by Sarah Obama are the only real evidence that Barack Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya.  My understanding is that if you stop listening to / reading the transcript of interview immediately after Sarah Obama allegedly makes that claim, then Sarah Obama's statement sounds exactly as mocksluzer described it. 

However, Sarah Obama was speaking through a translator, and after I did a little background reading, it became reasonably clear to me that the "present at his birth" comment was a misunderstanding based on translation issues.  After the interviewer asks some follow-up questions, Sarah Obama says -- through the translator -- that Obama as not born in Mombasa, but in the United States.  This link is from the Economist and contains an excerpt of the transcript (post-"present at his birth" comment).  Scroll down to the bottom of the article for the excerpt.  "Ogombe" is the translator.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/11/born_under_a_bad_sign.cfm

Also, for accuracy, Sarah Obama is his step-grandmother, not his biological grandmother.  Not that it matters much.

By the way, I would be really curious to see the evidence that, on several occasions Sarah Obama claimed to be present at Barack Obama's birth in Mombasa, Kenya.


THE NEWSPAPER ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were birth announcements for Obama's birth in two local newspapers in Hawaii.  Per a former managing editor of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, the listings for newspaper birth announcements were sent in by the Hawaii Department of Health.  Assuming the truth of this -- and the source has no apparent memory problems or motive to lie (note that this editor made these statements outside the context of the birther "controversy") -- this would seem to undercut the conjecture Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, had Obama's birth announced in the paper because she wanted him to be a U.S. Citizen.

Source = http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08, linked from wikipedia. 

THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE

According to Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health, if you were born outside of Hawaii, you could get a certificate from Hawaii saying that you were born in that outside country.  You could not get a birth certificate from Hawaii saying that you were born in Honolulu unless you were born in Honolulu.  "The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-24 and text accompanying Note 24.  I tried to follow Note 24 to the Honolulu Advertiser, but apparently that news story (which was from about 8 or 9 months ago) has not been saved or has been archived.

And, the article that I linked to before?  I wasn't trying to prove that I could find Obama's birth certificate online.  The point was, FactCheck.org examined the birth certificate and determined it to be legitimate (notably, birthers had claimed it was a forgery).  Also contained in that article, the state health director told the Associated Press that she had "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

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


SUMMARY

So, let's recap.  We have: (1) Sarah Obama saying that Barack Obama was born in the United States, with contrary statements that were likely the result of translation problems; (2) two birth announcements from Hawaiian newspapers, which likely came to the newspapers from the hospitals; and (3) a birth certificate that, although "short-form," contains enough information to satisfy the State Department, has been verified by FactCheck.org, and has been confirmed by the Hawaiian health authorities. 

Now, it's impossible to prove anything to an absolute scientific certainty, but take these pieces of evidence together and you get a fairly persuasive case that Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii.  Plus, that evidence jives well with common sense.  I think the Economist put it well when they wrote:

For starters, there is no record of Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's late mother, ever travelling out of the United States in 1961. She married Mr Obama's father (a Kenyan national living in Hawaii) in February 1961, when she was already three months pregnant. The two moved into a small house in Honolulu. Six months later, Hawaii's two newspapers reported that a son had been born to "Mr and Mrs Barack H Obama". The conspiracy theory alleges that Dunham, 18 and pregnant, took an expensive international flight to a third-world country to meet a family that, by all accounts, disapproved of their son's choice of a second wife. No one, at the time or since, has ever discussed this.

Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/11/born_under_a_bad_sign.cfm


COUNTER-"EVIDENCE"

As I noted above, the Sarah Obama statement is really the only evidence that Obama was born out of the country -- and there is good reason to believe she never even said that.  The other stuff you cite as intriguing -- (1) the different hospitals; (2) Obama spending a lot of money on litigation; (3) the soldier issue; (4) the executive order -- while some of it might seem fishy, none of it is evidence that he was born out of the country. 

Lastly (for this post), I find this just a touch ironic:

As a lawyer and former mocker you should be ashamed to be placated with such questionable and incomplete "evidence".

[Nil Satis Nisi Optimum]

Here's a great article dismissing the whole "birther" notion: http://www.twincities.com/ci_12971203?source=most_viewed

[Golden Skull]

And now, I promised a second post: on conspiracy theorists.

Though I don't find the birther "controversy," as such, that interesting -- as it seems to me there's not much room for legitimate doubt as to Obama being born in Hawaii -- I find conspiracy-theorist types incredibly interesting.  Emery came down on me pretty hard for what he perceived as ad hominem attacks, and he's right in a way.  My original post was going after these types of people more than the views they espouse.  Yet, I don't think that's always inappropriate, as I'll explain here. 

I should preface this by saying that this post is entirely my opinion.  It's not really an argument from readily-provable facts.

I think it's entirely appropriate to be dismissive towards conspiracy theorists, and the theories espoused by them, for two reasons: they aren't interested in rational argument, and you can't trust the "evidence" they present.  Ordinarily, ad hominem attacks wouldn't have a place in argument, but when there is something about the person him- or herself that makes their argument less credible, I really don't see the problem with calling the messenger into question.

Conspiracy theorists don't care about rational argument.  They adopt a position for emotional reasons, convince themselves of its truth, select the evidence that supports their position, ignore the evidence that does not (or vilify the people presenting such evidence, or both), and surround themselves with people who will reinforce their worldview.  If you disagree, it's not an invitation to dialogue.  Either you are uninformed, or you're an enemy.  That's why you read about the woman shouting down a congressman at the town hall meeting.  She cared what he had to say, but only insofar as he was proving himself an ally or an enemy.

You can see this, too, in the way that birthers reacted to several of the items that are tangible proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii.  First, they demand to see the birth certificate.  When the "short-form" is released, first, it was claimed to be a forgery (see the FactCheck article).  Once that was revealed to be untrue, it was claimed to be insufficient and a "long-form" demanded.  Some birthers say that they're just interested in the truth, and they just want to know, and shouldn't Obama answer doubters?  But in my searching, I found websites that were pre-emptively trying to claim that Obama was working on a long-form forgery -- they are already planning for how to rebut the next evidence they expect to come, before they even see it!

Emery, you asked why not just present the evidence, and quiet the doubters.  When I suggested it wouldn't change anything, you asked "well what's so bad about just putting it out there?"  That's not the point.  He's already answered the questions and he's not beholden to keep answering, so long as there are questions.  You don't respond to their crap for the same reason that you don't negotiate with terrorists or indulge a child having a tantrum. 

On top of the lack of interest in rational debate, they also color the truth so that you can't really tell what is legitimate evidence.  Just look at the Sarah Obama situation.  Birthers apparently claim that Sarah Obama made a statement that Barack was born in Kenya (based on an inference from her statement that she was "present at the birth") and completely ignore the context of the rest of the interview.  They select a part of the interview that actually sends a 100% different message from what it appears that Sarah Obama meant to say, pretend the rest didn't happen, and then try to deny the other stuff. 

I made the comparison to tax protesters because they're also conspiracy theorists.  I find the psychology of that stuff terribly interesting, and I think there are some parallels to draw in how all the different groups behave.  It doesn't have to be protesters, it could be holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, 9/11 "truthies" or whatever they're called, people who believe The Da Vinci Code represents an accurate account of European history -- any group.  I just happen to know more about tax protesters.  As an example of how they fit into the "false evidence" stuff, they take court cases and statutes, deliberately misinterpret them, and then present that as real legal analysis.  Did you know that, for tax purposes, only D.C. and the territories are states -- that the states themselves are not states under tax law?  This is because a statute says that, for tax purposes, the term "state" includes DC and the territories (that much is true).  And, according to them, "includes" means "exclusive of all else," so that only DC residents and residents of the territories can be taxed.  I can't make this s*** up.  I mean, how do you engage in any worthwhile dialogue with that?

[Nil Satis Nisi Optimum]

Very well put GS. Also, if anyone wants their very own Kenyan birth certificate, here's your chance: http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/!

[JohnKwon]

Just thought I'd share this.

http://gawker.com/5368086/the-birthers-have-their-own-infomercial-now

[Golden Skull]

Orly Taitz was sanctioned earlier this week for her conduct in pursuing a "birther" lawsuit:

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/872153.html

Also, the more I learn about wnd.com (a website cited by Emery in presenting this "interesting" topic), the less inclined I am to consider it a reputable news source (or even a news source at all).