This entry was posted
on Monday, July 27th, 2009 at 1:15 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
52 Responses to “Why the Obama Birthers Are Right”
I am gratified to see comparison to left wing academic poppycock used as a method of ridicule. Be warned, though, that this is “anti-intellectual”. It’s really anti-nonsense and anti-sophistry, but this is a primary component of what is often derided as “anti-intellectualism”.
I haven’t seen a convincing case put forward by the “birthers”, so I don’t have any particular sympathy for their position. But, that article was probably the most long-winded variation on “the birthers are crazy” that I have seen.
Shouldn’t birth certificate and other identifying information be independently verified before being allowed to be a candidate, whether the position is appointed or elected? If you disagree, please give logical reasons.
If you’ve studied Obama’s biography, you know Obama is an expert in “cognitive relativism” — he soaked in the stuff at Occidental, seeking out the “cognitive relativist” Marxist professors and literary leftists (see Obama’s own memoir), and Obama soaked in the “cognitive relativism” of the Critical Legal Studies professors and “Critical Race Theorists” at Harvard Law.
This cognitive relativist stuff is stuff Obama mainlined in college and at law school.
What comes around goes around. Obama should find this to be a solid argument from his own epistemological framework.
I’m not a birther, but I remain befuddled why Obama would work so hard to keep the details of his early life unverifiable, when he could easily produce a certified copy of his actual long-form birth certificate.
And while he’s at it, unsealing his school records and passport history would be nice.
I honestly don’t care whether he’s technically a citizen or not, except that it’s a constitutional requirement for the office.
“Copy of what? Hawaii only has electronic birth certificate records.”
I don’t know, I’m pretty sure the State of Hawaii didn’t have laser printers in 1961.
A friend of mine who is hot and heavy into this stuff sent me a comparison of the long- and short certificates. The long certificate, which was heavily redacted, was from someone born in 1963 to an Army officer and contained lots of interesting information. It was a form that was filled in on a typewriter.
A similar document must have existed for Obama at some point in time. If it was lost in a fire or something, they should have asserted that long ago.
When I consider how many hoops I have to jump through to sign up my kid for kindergarten (original signed birth certificates with seals, vaccination records from doctors, etc.), I don’t think it’s asking too much for this guy to produce the long form.
#22 And how does one prove they were born in this country, because they said so?
Once upon a time just being recorded in a family bible was good enough. However to answer your question with respect to Obama only, nothing will suffice for some people. Jon Stewart had the best take on this when he explained the insidious Obama plan that was more than forty years in the making and included having phony birth announcements planted in two Hawaiian newspapers at the time of Obama’s birth.
1) It is good to know what one gets when one’s wishes come true.
2) If Obama is not then Joe Biden is
3) If neither is legit then Nancy Pelosi is
4) It is not always good to know what one gets when one’s wishes come true.
The matter became of interest to me only after the hand-waving and non-answers from the Obama camp. If a copy of the original long-form would settle the matter, not producing it, or a simple explaination as to why it isn’t available, is quite a loud answer in and of itself to me.
Not that I’d expect any change even should it turn out that Obama isn’t a legal citizen – with all the other Constitutional trampling the federal government has been doing over the past hundred years, does anyone honestly think a little thing such as this would be addressed?
My questions are asked in a generic context, not specific to Obama.
The only logical method for any office, elected or appointed, is to prove eligibility BEFORE someone can be a candidate. It may have been done a certain way long ago, but that doesn’t make the people of those eras any less stupid.
In this day and age one should have multiple records that are independently verified, considering how easy it is to produce false documents and how dishonest people are these days (my opinion is a higher % of people are dishonest than in the past).
My birth certificate is full of typos and it looks like the typewriter was offset by a few millimeters. Obviously a poor forgery. The seal is hard as heck to see or feel. Probably etched in later. And I only have one newspaper announcement. Gosh, maybe I’m not actually a citizen either?
Very funny, Radley; your comments make it clear that, at heart, you are a simpleton. The so-called birthers have, of course, proved absolutely nothing. Of course, neither has Obama: he hasn’t even tried.
We don’t know about Obama, but actually we do know that McCain was ineligible, as well. So much for our Constitution.
“If a copy of the original long-form would settle the matter”
The COLB as produced by the relevant Hawaiian agency is sufficient legal proof. That’s all that is required, for any purpose. Anyone demanding an “original long-form” birth certificate is just moving the goalposts.
The State Department has a list of some of the applicable requirements for people in Obama’s situation. There is a scenario in which Obama might not have been born as a citizen: if his mother had not been in the United States for at least 5 years before giving birth to him.
The law is very complicated, and most of you seem oblivious to the fact that there are technicalities in it which could theoretically bite Obama in the ass regarding his citizenship.
It’s not just a matter of whether or not he is a US citizen, but also the nature of the citizenship he gained through his mother. The State Department’s website seems to imply that if his mother hadn’t been residing in the US for at least 5 years before giving birth to him that he would have been classified as a **naturalized** citizen.
IANAL, but I doubt there are any lawyers here who specialize in immigration law either.
I thought we covered this. The simple explanation is that Hawaii has only electronic records now. Additionally, Barack Obama has been affirmed to be a citizen of the US, born in Hawaii, by the governor of Hawaii, that state’s attorney general, multiple federal courts, the Federal Election Commission, the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and former President Bush.
The “simple explanation” is that no amount of evidence will every suffice for the birther claims, because they can always handwave it away with “kerning” and “laser printer” and a ton of other nonsense that has no meaning except as conservative shibboleths.
You said, “Hawaii only has electronic birth certificate records.” I don’t think that’s true. I think someone at some time typed out a whole lot more information than is shown on the COLB put forth by the state of Hawaii. If it exists for other people, why does it not exist for Obama? I can print up a pretty convincing COLB on my laser printer saying I was born in Hawaii, doesn’t mean I actually was. Given that people in his family purport to have seen him born in Kenya, would it be too much trouble for him to produce the typed-out long form to prove them wrong?
I’m not sure why the government lying to the public is considered incomprehensible nonsense.
Ok, I guess, but it’s a matter of public record that Hawaii’s Health Department went completely paperless in 2001. But, you don’t think it’s true.
Which is kind of my point – no evidence could convince you. If you can’t handwave it away with “laser printer” nonsense, you’ll just disbelieve it. I imagine the Governor of Hawaii could come here and confirm that, yes, Hawaii’s Health Department went paperless in 2001 and discarded all paper records, and it wouldn’t matter – you still wouldn’t “think that’s true.” Whatever, you’re a crank.
I can print up a pretty convincing COLB on my laser printer saying I was born in Hawaii, doesn’t mean I actually was.
Why, and I’m sure your laser printer could print two birth announcements in two different Hawaii newspapers, all the way back in 1969, too!
would it be too much trouble for him to produce the typed-out long form to prove them wrong?
Since it no longer exists? Yes, it would be a bit of trouble, I suspect.
States just destroy paper records and convert to electronic forms?
They don’t archive anything under Iron Mountain anymore?
No, I don’t get it “yet,” and thanks for dismissing me and everyone who doesn’t take the gubmint’s word as gospel as “cranks.”
In my line of work, I have to archive everything, things that are seemingly way less important than a senator’s birth record for what seems like forever. When I do, I scan the original document and store it on a disk. I don’t re-type it into a new format and then destroy the original. So I have what amounts to the original document as a PDF (older stuff on microfiche) and it looks a lot like the original document. If I saw the scanned copy of the long form, I personally would not nit pick over its validity — I’m sure others would, though. I’m not sure I would jump on board without hearing the evidence for why it was deemed fake.
If birth announcements in newspapers are sufficient proof of identity, then we should all be outraged. I can’t show up at an airport security checkpoint or even renew my driver’s license with 45 year old newspaper clippings, why let some guy run an entire country based on that?
When I do, I scan the original document and store it on a disk. I don’t re-type it into a new format and then destroy the original.
Well, great. You’re not the Hawaii Health Department, which (again) went completely paperless in 2001.
If birth announcements in newspapers are sufficient proof of identity, then we should all be outraged.
Right, I mean, it’s totally reasonable to expect that the parents of a young Kenyan boy would infiltrate Hawaiian newspapers so that their son could become president of another country, someday.
why let some guy run an entire country based on that?
It’s similar to the fact that it takes a dermatologist a week to determine if it’s a blackhead or a melanoma, but anybody with no training can instantly determine whether or not you’ve died – even though the second test is a lot more important than the first.
And, yes, you’re a crank. You’re literally an insane person.
Frankly, I have never given a crap where Obama was born, nor did I care where McCain was born. I don’t care which crook is claiming to be president; the matter is completely irrelevant, just like the Constitution these clowns claim to rule us by (while completely ignoring anything in it that would prevent them from doing what they want.)
A “certificate” of live birth has been proffered, along with some blurry newspaper announcements, but every attempt to get a public copy of the actual birth certificate–
Is stone-walled every single time.
Because Hawaii’s Department of Health has no paper records. The certificate of live birth is the actual birth certificate, now; there are no paper copies of any original record. There’s nothing to make a copy of.
I’m applying for another job and I have before me a Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification from Homland Security US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Do presidents, congressmen, supreme court justices etc have to fill one out? I also have a W-2 here-same question.
I suppose that Obama could check the box that denotes an alien authorized to work in the US. I mean, he won right?