Is it okay if I take a few minutes out of my day and lul over this? There’s nothing funnier than watching Republican candidates have to deal with the mob mentality that they’ve been fomenting over the past few elections. Seeing this tinfoil hatter ranting about conspiracies, followed by watching the sheeple in the audience attempt to validate her bizarre claims is simply precious.
A Dollop of Schadenfreude
Previous post: Hexy guest blogging is GO!
Next post: Henry Louis Gates Jr. arrested
Previous post: Hexy guest blogging is GO!
Next post: Henry Louis Gates Jr. arrested
{ 1 trackback }
{ 58 comments }
That is hilarious! Do these people have any idea what they make America look like?
I think the most speshul moment was: “…I don’t want this flag to change! I want my country back!” WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!! But also – what does this woman think is going to happen? Barack Obama’s going to make the USA a province or colony of Kenya!?
So, I see what you’re getting at with this. It’s funny in regard to its absurdity. But personally, it scares the absolute hell out of me. The problem is, I know folks like this. They really do exist–all over the country in fact. The ease with which their deception occurs is frightening. It makes me worried for 2012, but it also makes me worried for any POC that stops by a country store or walks down the street after dark.
I never know how to deal with people like her. Does anyone have a link to Obama’s original, typewritten 1961 hospital-issued birth certificate identifying the hospital and doctor that I can send to people who start spouting off like that? All I can find is the 2007 computter-generated print-out that his campaign put up on his web site. I’m beginning to think that the right wing has scrubbed the Internet of the original just to keep the controversy going.
Rep. Castle is actually pretty moderate and not that bad as Republicans go… I think what this really shows is how the kind of moderate, reasonable Republicans who genuinely want to get things done and who Democrats could work with are getting pushed forcefully out of the GOP by the racist and/or paranoid whackjob right-wing fringe.
Now who’s wearing a tinfoil hat? ;)
I mean, really. It would be virtually impossible for anyone to scrub the internet of anything and we’re talking about the kinds of people who think Limbaugh is an intellectual heavyweight and Palin is going to be their Party’s savior.
These people freak me out. They mean it. They have the character of a lynch mob, word used deliberately.
Northeast Elizabeth, send them the link to FactCheck.org’s page here: FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.
It’s all the proof anyone could ever ask for, provided by a non-partisan nonprofit that “accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals.”
If they still scream conspiracy . . . there’s no getting through to them.
Kudos to that lady for actually finding her birth certificate. It’s not really something that people look at every day. I’m the most organized person I know, and it would probably take me a couple hours to find mine.
However, she just holds up a bag of documents, and we’re supposed to take her word for it that her birth certificate is in there and that it’s from the United States. I’ve seen more of Barack Obama’s birth certificate than hers, so maybe she’s not an American citizen at all.
And if she believes there’s no proof that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is, therefore, not an American-born citizen, where the hell is the proof that he’s a citizen of Kenya? She doesn’t mind making that accusation with no proof, so she shouldn’t have to personally see Barack Obama’s birth certificate in order to know he’s an American citizen.
Hahah Lizzie, I love this line from the FactCheck.org article you linked: “Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday.”
The thing that cracks me up most about this conspiracy theory is that Obama has long carried a U.S. Passport, and voted, and been elected to state and federal office, and done all those other things that require proof of citizenship to do. Do the “birthers” really think that the government agencies that authorize these things are so down on the job that they are frequently accepting faked birth certificates? Hahaha.
Castle’s weary visage reminds of me of Danny Glover’s in Lethal Weapon Whatever: “I’m gettin’ too old for this shit.”
Of course, he’s the one keeping the (R-) in front of his name, so he gets the gasface too.
Just to make this conspiracy even more fun:
Ugh, more fail than I though…let’s try again.
1. What are the qualifications to be president? How old must you be? [eligibility, requirements, minimum age]
Reply: It is found in the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
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.
2. What does it mean in the Constitution when it says “natural born Citizen?”
From Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.”
the above is from this site
I don’t understand this at all. Even if he was born in Kenya, he would still be a naturalized American citizen and eligible for the presidency, just like born-in-the-Panama-Canal-Zone John McCain. Why is it that so much of the repudiation of this myth ignores this simple fact?
Let’s say this crazy lady was pregnant and flying from New York to Chicago, and part of the journey was over Canadian airspace. The plane crashes and she miraculously survives, but the trauma triggered labour and her baby is born in Canada. Is she going to raise her child with the false belief that the presidency is closed to hir due to hir incidental birth in Canada? (Sorry for making it so complicated, but we know that people like that are too scared to willingly leave the States, so it has to be an accident.)
Prairielily, the Constitution requires a “natural-born citizen,” which is generally believed to mean someone who was either born on U.S. soil or born of American parents — a naturalized citizen probably would not be eligable. The issue hasn’t been decided; the birthers believe that “natural-born citizen” requires birth on U.S. soil, which is why they push the birth certificate issue. There are others who believe that “natural-born citizen” means someone who acquires citizenship through means other than naturalization.
The Obama issue is silly, though. McCain’s citizenship status (at least in terms of his eligibiity for the presidency) is much more interesting, but of course no one really raised it, because who cares?
White supremacism isn’t logical, folks. People of color are foreigners in the minds of many white folks in the US, it’s that simple. For a black man named “Obama” to hold the presidency drives them into paroxysms of fury.
Jill, I actually meant natural-born. The words are too similar when you’re tired! (I also just typed two instead of too and had to correct it, haha.) To me, natural-born means that when he was born, he was an American.
It doesn’t make sense otherwise. The nation would be penalizing the families who are serving American interests overseas, whether they’re soldiers, diplomats, foreign aid workers, etc.
Ah yes, that makes more sense :-)
Except don’t you know that Real Americans don’t have passports and never leave American soil?
NE Elizabeth: That just legitimizes it, and it wouldn’t help. Sending a “more genuine” birth certificate is tantamount to admitting there’s something questionable about the computerized one, and people determined not to be convinced aren’t going to find it plausible and sufficient anyway.
As I understand it, the theory is that Obama was born in Kenya, plain and simple. Thus, any document purporting to show otherwise is either erroneous or false. QED.
Also, the text at FactCheck implies you need proof of eligibility just to file in at least some states (though not mine, apparently, since a Nicaraguan-born candidate was on the New York ballot). So there’s no real justification for challenging any major party candidate’s eligibility (and would the DNC—or the RNC, for that matter—reallly have overlooked something that basic?)
Perhaps some people belive that other countries have automatic citizenship confered by being born in the country, like we do in the U.S. Many countries do not have such a policy, so some folks born in the country still have to apply for citizenship. Even if he was born in Kenya and could claim citizenship doesn’t mean he never had U.S. citizanship as well.
Also, my birth certificate was issued by Cook county, Illinois. The U.S. gov. had nothing to do with it.
Kenya? How the fuck could he be a citizen of Kenya? If anything it would be Indonesia, but facts apparently have no bearing on this woman’s opinions. She wants her country back! She wants it back from those evil dark-skinned foreign people!
Oh and Obama’s grandfather also fought in WWII. But, you know, wevs.
What, no torches and pitchforks?
It’s an odd sort of comeuppance to watch, but it’s kind of depressing that people need to wave around their birth certificates and engage in a compulsory pledge of allegiance to prove their patriotism.
Lol, this is what I was talking about! I ask for a link to the 1961 original, and no one can provide it. Instead, I get (1) a link to a FactCheck.org article that supplies only the 2007 print-out, (2) a statement that providing a “more genuine” certificate would be some sort of admission, and (3) an assertion that the Internet “can’t be scrubbed” which nevertheless doesn’t provide a link to the 1961 original. So, I don’t see why concerns about a right-wing conspiracy to keep the issue alive is “tinfoil hat” territory.
There’s no dispute that the 1961 certificate exists. Obama specifically mentions it in his “Dreams” autobiography. The Hawaii Secretary of State has stated that the document is in the state’s files. I don’t understand why it’s not available online. It’s absence is just fueling a tidal wave of frivolous lawsuit and misdirected anger?
Maybe it’s available somewhere on the White House’s site. Aside from the bogus controversy, there’s just something cool about seeing old-fashioned historical records like that. Help!
Its simple. The issue was ridiculous on it’s face, but the Obama camp decided to dispel it by doing what any other reasonable person would do: they got a new copy from the state that issued the original. But that wasn’t enough for the tin foil hat brigade. This told the Obama camp that it was a no-win situation, that whatever you did it would never be enough.
An official state body issued the 2007 copy. Say he offered the original, what would the next response be? Some fool would scream photoshop, someone else would see a wrinkle and call it tampering, a third would swear up and down that the document could be simply faked. Eventually there would be some crazy woman demanding carbon dating. So someone brings in a forgery expert to date the original, verifies that its from 1961, and then the next herd of crazies starts warbling on about Bavarian Illuminati, Freemasons, Rosicrucians, and lizard people. It never ends, it just gets crazier.
She wants her country back! She wants it back from those evil dark-skinned foreign people!
I really wish Rep. Castle had asked her from whom she wants her country back. Just to make it that much more clear.
William,
What you originally characterized as tinfoil hat territory was the notion that the 1961 original could be scrubbed from the Internet. Now, however, you’re making a very different point. You seem to be acknowledging that the original is completely unavailable online (is it?) and claiming that Obama’s side rather than the right wing, is suppressing it for strategic reasons. So it seems either way it’s tinfoil hat territory.
I agree that whether it’s available or not (again, is it?), Obama’s opponents will continue questioning his citizenship. I still don’t see why that’s a reason to conceal a valuable historical document. In fact, I think a substantial number of the birthers would give up and the remainder would become even more ridiculous and marginalized (if that’s possible). What’s much more difficult is trying to justify why a 2007 computer print-out should be accepted when the 1961 original is admittedly available.
Look, the only reason there’s even a call for the 1961 original (which can’t be put on the Internet because it’s a piece of paper) is because people claim there’s some defect in the 2007 print-out. If Obama even addresses this nonsense, and especially if he somehow releases the 1961 long-form, people will say “see, even he doesn’t accept the 2007 document as sufficient.”
And again, for people who believe he was born in Kenya, no document that states otherwise is reliable, and therefore no document that states otherwise is proof of anything.
What’s much more difficult is trying to justify why a 2007 computer print-out should be accepted when the 1961 original is admittedly available.
Did you actually read through the link? The 2007 birth certificate (the short-form) is not a computer print-out — it is an official issued birth certificate, complete with raised seal and signature stamp.
Plus, if you read the FactCheck.org article, it states the Hawaii Department of Health ONLY OFFERS THE SHORT-FORM: “The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department.” So the 1961 document that you’re obsessed with seeing (the long-form) is NOT available. To anyone.
So no, there is no copy of the 1961 long-form on the Internet. The Hawaii DOH has never released it.
HOWEVER. If you actually read all the information on that page and still think there’s a possibility that our president was NOT born in Hawaii, I’m going to have to stop participating in this conversation. The whole “birther” movement (if you can even call it that) is straight-up a desperate and racist reaction to the idea that a mixed-race man with an African immigrant father is the POTUS.
I was born in CA in the 60’s. When I requested a copy of my birth certificate in 2004 – SHOCKING! – I got a brand spanky new looking document from a – SHOCKING! – computer that looks nothing like the original. But it’s a bonafide real life authentic document.
Why is this hard? Short of me scanning a 40+ year old piece of paper into my computer and them posting it to a web page, no one but me will ever see the long form.
Reynold’s makes nice, thick foil. Just sayin’.
Look, the only reason there’s even a call for the 1961 original (which can’t be put on the Internet because it’s a piece of paper)
This sort of argument plays right into the birthers’ hands. ANY paper document can be scanned and placed on a web site. That’s what Obama did with the 2007 print-out.
Did you actually read through the link? The 2007 birth certificate (the short-form) is not a computer print-out — it is an official issued birth certificate, complete with raised seal and signature stamp.
Exactly — it’s a computer print-out that gets stamped. Again, you’re playing into to the birthers’ hands with this kind of specious argument. There’s no rationale for pretending that a 2007 document spewed from a database is preferable or equal to a contemporaneously-prepared 1961 hospital document. Putting an official stamp and seal on a document says nothing about the accuracy of the information it contains.
Plus, if you read the FactCheck.org article, it states the Hawaii Department of Health ONLY OFFERS THE SHORT-FORM: . . . So the 1961 document that you’re obsessed with seeing (the long-form) is NOT available. To anyone.
Simply wrong. The long form can be obtained by the person named on it or a close relative; the request simply can’t be made by using the standard form. The President could authorize its release (or post the copy he has) in a heartbeat.
Gratuitous accusations of racism also don’t advance the argument. Most of the birthers are motivated by disagreement with Obama’s policies and wish him removed by any lawful, Constitutional means. Releasing the original would quickly quiet most of the dissenters.
What I can’t understand is the obsession on some parts of the left with NOT
releasing the 1961 original. There have been spirited debates on whether Obama should release torture memos and photos, materials which are clearly sensitive and classified. What’s the big deal about a 47 year old birth certificate?
Is it me, or does she sound a lot like…Sarah Palin..?
There’s a road-sign that directs you to Arguing With Birthers Boulevard, and it says “That Way Lies Madness.”
There’s a road-sign that directs you to Arguing With Birthers Boulevard, and it says “That Way Lies Madness”
Again, simply labeling our adversaries “crazy” isn’t constructive in a dispute which is easily resolved by documentary evidence. The right wing conspiracy crowd also challenged the authenticity of the 1970’s Bush Texas Air National Guard memos in during the 2004 election, and convinced a lot of people by recruiting typography and other experts. Simply asserting that government records “must” be authentic and accurate won’t convince anybody, especially where the document in question hasn’t even been released for examination.
It could be that Obama is simply stringing the right wing along by refusing to immediately release the 196 original so that at moment their anger over this “controversy” reaches a fever pitch, he’ll release the original and maximize their humiliation. Good, but potentially risky strategy.
Well, please, continue to ask commenters on random websites for documentary evidence. I think I’ll ask a classroom full of fourth graders to disprove my theory that the Mars Explorer landing and subsequent footage has been faked by producing the original computer hard drives from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Huntsville, Alabama.
And, in case your reading comprehension is as keen as your jeweler’s eyepiece used to decipher kerning on 40-year-old carbon copies, I didn’t say birthers are crazy, I said arguing with birthers is crazy. But certainly birthers are crazy.
I’m going to regret this, I know, but …
“Again, you’re playing into to the birthers’ hands with this kind of specious argument. There’s no rationale for pretending that a 2007 document spewed from a database is preferable or equal to a contemporaneously-prepared 1961 hospital document. Putting an official stamp and seal on a document says nothing about the accuracy of the information it contains.”
Of COURSE the 2007 document is equal to the 1961 document–government agencies routinely and boringly certify documents in this way. That “stamp and seal” you dimiss MEANS THAT THE INFORMATION IS ACCURATE. That’s why certain documents require the stamp and seal!
Not too long ago, I got my name legally changed, and when I needed an “original certified copies” of the name change order, I sent a check to the local courthouse and they sent me the documents. It wasn’t original in the sense that it was THE document signed by the judge who granted my name change, but it WAS independently certified as an “original copy” by the courthouse staff. This “original certified copy” of my name change order has been accepted by the Social Security Administration, the DMV, my bank, and the state of Texas when I–horror of horrors–got my birth certificate updated.
This is not at all exceptional, nor should anyone be surprised that this is not exceptional. Sending already overworked government employees to go spelunking in original paper-copy records from over 40 years ago is not a good use of employee time–it is, in fact, government waste that reasonable people deplore–and it doesn’t magically become a good use of employee time just because racist conspiracy theorists are acting like racist conspiracy theorists.
“Our” adversaries?
Y’know, I was puzzled for a long time by the term “concern troll.” I understand now. Thank you, NE Elizabeth!
To address your, um, arguments: you cannot put a piece of paper on the Internet. You can put a transcription of a piece of paper on the Internet. You can put an image of a piece of paper on the Internet. But you cannot put a piece of paper on the Internet.
Um, yeah, when a person posts 5 comments in a thread that are all variations of an incorrect and misleading frame, that definitely qualifies as concern trollery. In this case, the trolling frame is “The onus is on Obama to make this go away by producing another birth certificate”. It’s silly, since as others have pointed out (1) no amount of evidence will satisfy these assholes, and (2) obviously these absurd demands should not be dignified as though there’s merit to the question of Obama’s citizenship. It’s probably actually politically advantageous for Obama to let this fester and allow the Palin faction to become the GOP’s most visible face. It discredits the far-right and drives centrists toward him.
Anyone who doesn’t understand that this is about race, doesn’t understand America. This entire faux-controversy is a way to spew thinly-coded venom at The Other. That’s all there is to it.
Personally I think it’s pretty funny. Red-faced venom-spewing racists don’t scare me, I’ve been fighting them — literally, physically — all my life. If I were intimidated by this kind of thing, I wouldn’t have made it through a day at school.
and if NE Elizabeth doesn’t accept the “stamp and seal” of a certified copy, what is going to stop her from dismissing the stamp and seal on the original? is she going to question the handwriting of the doctor as fake? demand carbon dating? I mean, at some point you just have to make BASIC assumptions about our reality. and yes, even if he scanned a copy of the original onto the internets, then people would just call it a photoshop. there is literally nothing that would satisfy the skeptics (like those that claim the earth is 6,000 years old, no amount of counter proof can sway them from clinging to their preferred reality) and there is no need to appease such a stupid fucking complaint. what next, demand obama show us his real, live dick to prove he’s not gay married? require him to pledge allegiance to the flag every hour to prove he’s not a communist? i mean honestly. give it up.
It’s probably actually politically advantageous for Obama to let this fester and allow the Palin faction to become the GOP’s most visible face. It discredits the far-right and drives centrists toward him.
Exactly.
To address your, um, arguments: you cannot put a piece of paper on the Internet. You can put a transcription of a piece of paper on the Internet. You can put an image of a piece of paper on the Internet. But you cannot put a piece of paper on the Internet.
Yes, and it’s exactly this sort of disingenuous, literalistic nitpicking that plays into the birthers’ hands. A few weeks back, Press Secretary Gibbs told the resident WND birther to “go on the internet and get the birth certificate” without the assembled media expressing shock that paper could be put on line.
By the way, I saw the Gibbs press conference on TV. Actually, the conference was not actually “on” my television set. It appeared to be “inside it.” However, you can not put a press conference inside a television set. So perhaps what I should have said is that I saw a transmission of a press conference, or at least an image of the transmission as formed by light particles on my retinas.
You’re fun. It’s helpful to have someone outside reality to talk
toat, it’s the blog equivalent of thinking out loud.Anyway, part of the problem is that you birthers can claim — and have claimed — digital alteration. This is possible for any scanned document. So if the short form is discarded and a scan of the long form is made available on the Internet, such claims, which have previously been made about the short form, can simply be made about the long form.
If you have a flat-screen TV, Robert Gibbs could not, indeed, fit inside that. It’s reasonably likely that his image and voice were not deliberately altered more than is necessary to transmit them digitally, and that the reproduction was faithful. But there’s no way for you to know, after all; if you were invested in his having said something different from what he appeared to have said, it’s as logical to claim alteration as it is to claim the birth certificate was falsified.
I’ve had a real BALL with this video clip, thanks… showed spouse, friends, neighbors, and the guy fixing my light fixture.
It’s roll-in-the-aisles funny, GOD, it’s funny. Tears-running-down-the-face, LMAO funny.
We’re just wondering why she had to bring her OWN birth certificate too. What do you suppose that was about?
This thread is as funny as the video.
John Scalzi’s law of internet invocation: if you name them, they will come.
We’re just wondering why she had to bring her OWN birth certificate
I’m sorry, but I didn’t see a birth certificate — just some sort of piece of paper in some kind of plastic baggie. I’ll have to assume she was actually born in Outer Mongolia until I see her original long-form birth certificate and speak to the doctor who delivered her.
Hershele,
If I were REALLY a birther I’d start asking for links to baby pictures of the newborn Obama in Hawaii. Pictures of the proud mother cradling her first born in her Honolulu hospital bed; holding him while standing on the front lawn of her Hawaii home; on the beach posing in front of surfers; in a group shot with his beloved grandmother and other Hawaiian relatives. You know, the kind of pictures that EVERY American family keeps by the crateful, especially those of the baby boomer generation.
:: Pausing to foam at the mouth::
Just kidding — I know pictures are paper that can’t be put on the Internet, or if they were, might be photoshopped to substitute Kenyan scenery for Hawiian. Plus, the Hawiian Secretary of State has custody of all baby pictures and there’s no space on the form to request anything but stamped and sealed written descriptions of them.
Just kidding!
(But do you got a link, Hershele?)
Just kidding :)
(But do ya?)
Am I the only person who has, over time, lost multiple copies of my birth certificate? I couldn’t produce the original if demanded because I don’t have the bloody thing. In fact, the original was lost by my mother well before I got involved in the old family tradition of losing important documents.
That doesn’t prove I’m not an Australian citizen, or that my replacement birth certificate (um, the location of which I am uncertain) is fake/unable to be verified. It just proves that some people find it difficult to keep track of a piece of freakin’ paper for multiple decades.
@Hexy – I think I am on my 10th (or so) copy of mine. And I have made it to at least 3 lost copies of each of my children’s. Same for my social security card. Every time I moved or had to clean up after a hurricane I inevitably lost at least one important document.
You seem to be missing my point entirely. I don’t think the 1961 certificate has ever been on the internet. I’m sure its sitting in a file somewhere in Hawaii, but that seems kind of irrelevant. What is the point of going through the effort of finding, scanning, and posting a document that you know won’t satisfy anyone? Why bother? Sure, theres a paper document somewhere, but the state of Hawaii moved over to a computer system long enough ago that getting a copy of a birth certificate no longer requires fucking about with paper and a notary public.
Continuing to whinge about the paper copy because someone doesn’t like the…well…paper copy from a computer (!) is like arguing that my driver’s license doesn’t seem valid because the photo is printed out from a computer rather than laminated on. Its a bullshit argument. A birth certificate is a government body certifying a live birth. The form they issue the certification in is irrelevant.
Even then, thats completely beside the point. The birth certificate argument isn’t really worth addressing because his mother was a citizen. Any discussion about the birth certificate then starts to become delusional. Thats really all there is.
Finally, lets not forget what this is about. A black man with a funny name won an election. Now white people with a poor grasp on the law are desperately trying to find some way that it was a mistake. It doesn’t take a psychoanalyst to work out whats going on here.
I just don’t get why birthers are so dismissive of the official, state-issued copy, yet pretend that if they received the official, state-issued long-form that they would drop all objections. If you think the state is lying, why would you think they would be truthful with an original? And it is suuuuch a joke that ANY amount of proof would satisfy them. Baby pictures? how do you know it’s Barack in those pics? i think we need his old toys so we can carbon-date his baby-spit! I mean really, there is no REAL way to unequivocally prove anything, because we have to make extremely basic assumptions about everything. Anyways, there’s no point in arguing with these people, they’ll desperately cling to their fantasy until they die.
I just don’t get why birthers are so dismissive of the official, state-issued copy, yet pretend that if they received the official, state-issued long-form that they would drop all objections.
Simple. The available “official, state-issued copy” was created from a computer database in 2007 and contains limited information, whereas the 1961 original was prepared by contemporaneous witnesses to his birth and contains additional, verifiable information such as the name of the hospital and delivering doctor.
Suppose a collection agency was coming after you for a speeding ticket issued ten years ago. You know were never issued one, but somehow there’s a notation on your DMV records. You demand the original summons identif
. . . identifying the police officer, your car, the location etc. so you can refute the charge. I don’t think you’d settle for a computer printout simply recording that you were cited for speeding, even if the record were stamped and sealed
sorry, this is too stupid and boring to continue.
Northeast Elizabeth, hehe your wacky persistence is, er, admirable, but with all due respect I think it’s time for you to be banned.
Kai,
Only commenters who who hurl empty characterizations such as “boring” or “stupid” or “wacky” without addressing or offering any arguments should be banned :)
I’ve established without contradiction that:
(1) The 1961 original birth certificate is the best evidence of Obama’s birthplace, and that it hasn’t been made public despite its availability.
(2) No baby pictures depicting the newborn Obama in Hawaii are available on the internet or elsewhere.
Those who have actually offered arguments have either (1) provided strategic reasons for withholding the certificate or (2) argued that 2007 certificate is sufficient because it was stamped and sealed (an appeal to authority). So the paranoia on the left on this issue seems at least equal to that on the right.
I also point out that some of you are “sure” that the birth certificate “is sitting in a file somewhere in Hawaii” (William”) or”lost” (Pega). This sharp factual dispute doesn’t mean that one of you is “wacky”– it just mean that one of you is wrong. In this case it’s Pega, because it is undisputed that the state of Hawaii has a copy and Obama mentioned finding it in his “Dreams” book.
Finally, you should note that barely a year ago a bunch of right-wing crazies were peddling nonsense about the origins of another baby — John Edwards’. After all, why would a man announce for the presidency knowing that his wife and others knew about his affair, and then rekindle the affair in the middle of his campaign and impregnate the woman? Why would he put himself up for the Vice Presidency just weeks before the Democratic convention? Ridiculous, yes, but true. The appeal must always be to the facts, not what you wish them to be.
Sorry a lurker here, but this was just too stupid to pass up.
So what these a**hats are saying is that since they haven’t personally seen this document any proof they’ve been shown to the contrary is specuous and that automatically means our President isn’t? (I missed alot of the controversy on this election I was in Iraq when most of this happy horsesh*t occurred) That’s dumb, as others have pointed out, as long as at least one of his parents was an American citizen, no matter where in the world she was when she gave birth, so is he.
By their logic, my baby brother, born to American parents residing in Germany at the time, would be barred from holding my nation’s highest office because his father decided to join the Air Force nearly a decade before my brother was born and, following the orders of his superior officers (as he was sworn to do) moved his family overseas.
Apparently I’m supposed to immediately deport my brother back to Germany, where he is REALLy from, according to these morons? Or maybe since we’re white (and not any of those other scary colors) it’s all good and none of them care where he was born. My head hurts with the twisted logic of it all. Seriously, these morons need to get a life.
I am contradicting you on the idea that the long-form birth certificate is somehow better evidence than the short-form one. I am also contradicting your claim that it is available except in the very, very broad sense of “extant.”
Now then, “appeal to authority” means taking authority’s word for it on an issue of metaphysical Truth. In this case we’re taking the State of Hawaii’s word for it that this is an official document of the State of Hawaii — and they’re the ones who’d know.
My, my, someone has a high opinion of themselves.
Ahh, you’re using the internet definition of “established without contradiction,” meaning “have made a subjective assertion.” Thats clarifies things somewhat.
No pictures of Obama defecating are available on the internet or elsewhere either, but I’d wager money that the man has done so at least once…
Still, the underlying logic of your argument is flawed. Obama could have been born in outer Mongolia. As long as one of his parents was a citizen he holds birthright citizenship and is thus eligible to be president.
Its part strategy and it’s part principle. Demanding the long form of Obama’s birth certificate is like demanding that he provide blood tests to prove he doesn’t smoke crack. Its offensive, racist, unnecessary, of little utility, and frankly comes from a place of ignorance and fear that is unlikely to respond to the facts. Obama is under no legal obligation to provide the certificate, and doing so would only be playing into this little racist delusion.
I hate to break it to you, but asking for any government document is an appeal to authority. There is no legal difference between the 1961 long form and the 2007 form. If you believe that the 1961 form is valid you must necessarily believe that the 2007 form is valid because both are signed and sealed by the same authority. Arguing that either is valid is an appeal to authority.
You’re using that word incorrectly. Paranoia is not what we’re seeing on the left, we’re seeing incredulity. There is a difference. On the right, we’re seeing some potentially delusional thought with a paranoid flavor, but I’m not sure it would count as paranoia. Paranoia describes a specific cluster of beliefs, interpretations, and ruminations involving others seeking to hurt you. Its necessarily idiosyncratic. Precision matters.
While I thank you for your support, I still wonder why you’re continuing on with this point. Again, the birth certificate is irrelevant. If you really want to question Obama’s eligibility to be president you would need to be talking about his mother’s birth certificate. The fact that you’re focusing on an irrelevant document, a document which could not possibly do what you claim it might, speaks volumes.
Facts are funny things. One of the things that makes them interesting is that they are contextual. A fact cannot exist in a vacuum because it depends on a network of other facts around it provide meaning. The fact itself is basically useless, it is a floating piece of data devoid of reality. Only with interpretation does a fact carry any weight. This is the problem with the entire birth certificate discussion.
Whatever the “facts” surrounding Obama’s birth certificate, they are only of interest to people other than biographers or genealogists because of what they tell us about Obama’s citizenship and eligibility for president. This is the underlying context of the facts themselves. In order to understand what these facts mean, we must understand the questions we are trying to answer. Facts are hierarchical things, and facts further down a chain are unimportant if a prior fact answers the question that one believes more distant facts might answer.
If one would like to question Obama’s status in order to illuminate the issue of his eligibility one must move further up than merely where he was born. Instead, one must ask to whom he was born. Where he was born only matters if both of his parents were not US citizens. Thus, in order to actually answer the question you would like to answer with his birth certificate you would need to perform DNA analysis. As you said, we must appeal to the facts (or rather, their context) as they are rather than to what we would like them to be.
Comments on this entry are closed.