The political world was more or less stunned Friday by the revelation that, according to Research 2000, less than half of Republicans think President Obama was born in the U.S. In fact, 28 percent of the poll's GOP respondents said he wasn't.
After initial questions of whether this can be, it's clear that the polling methodology looks pretty good: Research 2000 polled a decent sample of 2,400 adults nationwide, and the regions are split evenly.
Polling on Republican opinion is undergoing dual phenomena right now.
With fewer and fewer people counting themselves as Republicans, sample
sizes of Republicans are smaller, meaning results could be less
reliable. The size of today's GOP sample was 527, compared to 601
independents
and 743 Democrats surveyed--not a huge difference, but a difference.
The
other phenomenon is the legitimate polarization of the shrinking
Republican base, as die-hard conservatives remain and moderates leave
the party.
In 2006, Pew clocked
GOP party identification at 28 percent of likely American voters; in April of this year, it was 22 percent. If we assume
that all those Republicans who left became independents, we can guess
at how today's poll would have turned out in 2006, since we know that
83 percent of independents today think Obama was born here*.
(This means running with a flawed premise: that the Republicans who
left their party and became independents are equally likely to question
Obama's citizenship as all other independents. It also ignores the
notion that party affiliations are more fluid than 21 percent of
Republicans simply bolting for independence, as a chunk--without some
becoming Democrats, and without the GOP picking up some new members as
those left.)
According to a mathematical expansion on today's pool of GOP
respondents, the 2006 results among Republicans on the question "Do you
believe Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?"
would have gone as follows:
R2000 results educated guess at 2006 resultsMore than half would have said Obama was born in the U.S...but the coalition of doubters would still be strong, even with the old members of the GOP base counted in.
Yes 42% 51%
No 28% 24%
Not sure 30% 25%
(Maybe we should assume that former Republicans are more likely to question Obama's birthplace than the rest of the independent field, and intentionally skew the independent effect here; maybe not.)
Since today's poll made such a splash, it'll be interesting to see if anyone else polls on the same question, both to see if Research 2000's results were a fluke, and to see how the birther "dialogue" is going--whether suspicions of foreignness have subsided. Major polling firms could, conceivably, include birtherism with other current-events questions in weekly surveys.
The established media is wholly against the essence of these citizenship doubts, and respected journalists freely refer to birtherism as racist. But, at the same time, everyone's rubber-necking. 42 percent of Republicans seems so low--can it be right?
Maybe a poll on this issue only fosters birtherism, in the same fashion that Conor Clarke has suggested polls can do with all public matters.
Maybe we can track birtheristic sentiment along with Obama's favorability and approval as his presidency goes on...Do you like President Obama? Do you approve of his job as president? Do you think he was born here?...at that point, things will have truly gone weird. Whether more news happens around birtherism will depend on how weird we're all willing to get.
*Given the 28 percent ID in 2006, and the 22 percent ID today, we can conclude that a proportioned GOP sample size would be 670, not 527, by multiplying the 527 sample size by 28/22 (the percent change in the size of the GOP's base). 143 of which would be independents. From those numbers, we can derive weights for the GOP and independent percentage results in today's poll--weighting the independents at .2134 and the current-day Republicans at .7866--and can produce percentages for a purported 2006 survey.
Ha! What is that headline supposed to mean? GOP base GETS weird?
That's a cute comment, but perhaps someone would like to see if they can offer a valid, intellectually-honest counter-argument to my discussion of MMFA's "The Definitive Birther Takedown".
For instance, if you want to present a valid counter-argument to the first, you'd provide a direct quote from a HI official in which they confirmed that what's shown on BHO's site matches what they have on file. (Hint: you won't find it because they've never said anything like that).
Or, for instance, lawyers who are willing to give their real names and their state could discuss the last point.
Rather than childish comments, how about even just one BHO supporter trying to present a valid, intellectually-honest counter-argument to anything I've written on this topic.
Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawaii's health director reiterated Monday afternoon that she has personally seen Obama's birth certificate in the Health Department's archives:
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."
On Oct. 31, Fukino originally tried to put an end to the belief among "birthers" that Obama was born in Kenya and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president.
In 2001, Hawaii's paper documents were reproduced in electronic format, but "any paper data prior to that still exists," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.
Okubo would not say where Obama's original birth certificate is but said, "We have backups for all of our backups."
Birthers denounce the notion that Obama was born in Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, despite court rulings and statements by Fukino and Hawaii's Republican governor, Linda Lingle.
Broken link, sorry.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
"was born in Kenya and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president."
Why would it even matter where he was born? His mother was a US citizen, which would make him a natural-born citizen (i.e., he would not have to be naturalized, since he got his citizenship at birth through his mother).
How is "natural-born" related to physical location at an arbitrary point in time? The US, like pretty much every country on the planet, decides citizenship based on parentage. We also have this weird alternative route that most countries don't offer, but it's a secondary route to citizenship that was never meant to replace the primary route.
atlantapril: You didn't provide a counter-argument as I requested, you only provided an MSM article containing a series of lies. If you had read my coverage of this issue, you'd know what I'd say:
1. The article lies: HI's gov. never said BHO was born in HI. In fact, she sends out a form letter pointing out that it would be illegal for her to verify he was born there. So, that's one major lie in the article you provide.
2. In October, 2008, the term "birther" had not yet been invented AFAIK, and the reporter is misleading about what Fukino said at the time. Read what she actually said in my extensive coverage of this issue.
3. If you go to the last link and do a find for "hospital", you'll see links to two posts. The first points out that Snopes, WP, and even BHO himself have changed their minds on which hospital he was born in. The more recent post about that discusses the hospital named above literally covering up a letter BHO sent them.
You don't need to be a "Birther" or engage in any "birther theories" to point out that the MSM has consistently lied about this issue, including just making things up.
And, people like Marc Ambinder and Chris Good are enabling the MSM to lie and mislead.
The Atlantic, the WashPost, and the WSJ have not done their homework. The birth certificate is a distraction.
It does not matter if Obama was born on US soil or not because Obama stated that he was subject to British rule at the time of his birth. From FactCheck:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."
SO ASK YOURSELF THIS:
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?
If this or any journalist wants to do real research start at this legal blog that actual has all relevant case information:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/the-relevant-obama-admission-2/
For an analysis of the WSJ article go here:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/wall-street-journal-caught-spreading-false-legal-propaganda-via-james-taranto/
The Obama docs:
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
s1234567: It DOES matter that Obama was born on US soil. In the United States, the simple fact of being born on US soil automatically grants you citizenship. It doesn't matter the citizenship of your parents one single bit. Since he was born on US soil, Obama was automatically born a US citizen. And he still is one.
Born on US soil grants citizenship. And born anywhere to one parent of US extraction (Ann Dunham in this case) grants citizenship if the parents with it.
s12 appears unable to distinguish Obama senior from Obama junior; they are different people. But good to know where the birthers will be going next.
Speaking of doing research...
I'm no expert, but it took me 30 seconds to find the wording of the British Nationality Act of 1948. And guess what?
"Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless...that person's birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State"
So, Obama Sr. being governed by that act didn't automatically make his son "governed by Great Britain", regardless of any other consideration.
Are you a legal scholar? Can you get a recognized legal scholar to speak to this issue? If not, then all you're doing is wasting peoples' time.
The cert issue is important because it can be used to discredit the MSM. As discussed below, they've consistently lied about this issue, and if enough others would point that out they'd be forced to choose between being misleading and their careers.
Since almost all MSM and sub-MSM reporters are simply careerists, they might end up doing actual reporting on this issue, such as getting statements about your issue from recognized legal scholars.
That doesn't mean that you should drop your issue. You might have a valid point, or you might not. But, unless you have a plan to get the MSM to use their resources and pull to get an answer to your questions, I'd suggest keeping your issue in the back of your mind and concentrating on the aspect of this that the MSM has already consistently lied about.
President Chester Arthur was born in the United States. His mother was American, but his father was a British citizen (not American). His father was naturalized when Arthur was 14 years old.
Curiously, there was no serious debate then that a man born IN the United States was a "natural born American citizen".
Also, your argument is totally bogus. What determines U.S. citizenship is U.S. law, not British law. The British can claim anything they want. If the US law says one is a citizen if born in an American state, then you're an American. Now, you may in fact have dual-citizenship (many, many military kids have dual citizenship), but generally only until you are an adult, at which time you must declare yourself to be a given nationality.
In fact, British laws you cite require that Obama would have had to formally renounced his US citizenship to be a British citizen; by contrast, the US citizenship is conferred by birth and can only be lost by declaring citizenship in another nation. Since Obama never declared himself to be British, by both our laws he is an American citizen.
There may also be a sizable number of Republicans who simply know that Obama spent a lot of his youth abroad, assumed it began at birth, but also assumed he was a US citizen due to the nationality of his mom. Non-birther Republicans probably didn't spend much time caring about his past as his supporters did, and might be drawing assumptions from the bits they have.
What's more surprising - that 42% of Republicans think Obama was born abroad, or that 36% of Democrats thought Bush new about 9-11 before it happened?
Citation for the latter? Because if it's that question that he "should have paid more attention to warnings about Al Qaeda" then I'm surprised the percentage isn't higher.
Mushing together the wack jobs and the people who thought the Bushies fell down on the intelligence front just to boost your numbers is poor statistics.
And how did Democratic lawmakers respond to that 36% of wingnuts who thought 9/11 was an inside job? Did they introduce legislation to legitimize their beliefs, much like birther congressmen are doing, or did they disavow them? I seem to remember Bill Clinton rebuking a "truther" quite forcefully during one of his speeches and the crowd siding with Clinton. The wingnuts in the GOP have taken over the party to the extent that GOP lawmakers are legitimizing beliefs that have no basis in reality, and crowds heckling them if they dare throw water on the birthers.
How did the Democrats handle their own version of the birthers when people were questioning McCain's eligibility since he was born in Panama? None other than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton put a stop to the nonsense by introducing a resolution stating unequivocally that McCain was eligible. Again, the GOP response to the birthers? Instead of acting like adults and putting a stop to the nonsense, they play footsie with the birthers because, basically, the inmates are now running the asylum and they don't have much choice. There's your big difference. Both parties have their wackos, but the modern GOP seems to be, if not embracing them, at least openly tolerating them with a nod and a wink. And frankly, that's outright dangerous and irresponsible.
Steve,
All sorts of Republican leaders and politicians have denounced the "birthers."
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the mainstream media has consistently lied and misled when it comes to the Obama certificate issue?
See that link for my extensive coverage of this issue, coverage that no one has been able to present a logical, intellectually-honest counter-argument to. The posts linked after the summary detail that a wide array of MSM sources have lied about this. For instance, a recent CNN debunking just made something up: HI's governor never confirmed that BHO was born there. Perhaps the poll is a reaction to CNN just making things up.
Or, perhaps it's a reaction to the fact that Weigel, Ben Smith, NRO, and a long list of other MSM and sub-MSM reporters have consistently failed to tell the truth and the whole truth about this issue. And, The Atlantic has never once called any of them on their outright lies.
What catastrophie of an article. Is this the work of someone taking college statistics? I am dummer for trying to follow the logic. Besides, who cares where obama was born. He is a radical socialist, from kenya, or hawaii. That aside, i am sure he was likly born in kenya, but even if that came to light, i am sure the democratic congress would pass a law that that was ok.
Dumber, J3, dumber. Ironic.
"i am sure he was likely born in kenya".
I hereby award you The Royal Distinguished Medal Of Idiocy. It's seldom given, but rest assured you are deserving.
Congratulations!
Sir,
your comment is a catastrophe
"birtheristic" - wow. I'm totally agog at this word. that's entertainment. Please use it again and again.
Not that it matters because as Deborah notes, being born on US soil grants citizenship, but... my friends who were born abroad to at least one US parent were dual/triple citizens until 18 when the US forced them to choose a citizenship. The US rules have changed now and dual citizenship is allowed, but my friend who was born in Germany to an american and canadian parent held all three citizenships until she was 18 and forced to choose one. Other countries may or may not have acknowledged multiple citizenships beyond their own for minors, but that's how it worked for my friends.
And what first time mother flys halfway around the world when 7 months pregnant to give birth amongst strangers who don't speak her language when her mother is right down the street. Angleina Jolie and probably no one else, ever. Even today, it takes 30-46 hours to fly from Hawaii to Kenya via 3 to 6 flight segments, 24 hours in the air, and $3000 round trip. And back then it would have taken longer and people smoked cigars on the plane. I'm sure all expectent mothers were thrilled to spend a couple days cooped up in heavy smoke just for they joy of giving birth
My husband was born abroad to US citizens and was just a US citizen, since dual citizenship would have required him to serve in the Turkish military. And John McCain was born in Panama, George Romney in Mexico....1000s of children born abroad each year whom the wackadoodle right wants to retroactively de-citizenize just to keep throwing crap to obscure this non-issue. (As you note, the idea that they scraped up airfare to head off to worse medical care is ludicrous. Plus faking the birth announcements and birth certificate and all the other stuff.)
With regard to a lot of the other comments, Marc: "The commenter base gets weird..."
Let's stop ignoring the ten-ton elephant in the room (and I don't mean Rush Limpballs.) The birthers don't give a rat's @$$ where Obama was born or even the fact that he's a Democrat. They just can't accept a black man as president. That's why they should be called:
"John Birthers"
Most birthers don't really care about where he was born any more than I do. They can't think of any reason to impeach him yet so they're grasping at straws. What they fail to appreciate is that most Americans don't care if he was born on the moon if he can get us out of the mess the last administration got us into. And it's driving them nuts that he's intelligent, articulate, even tempered, like-able and pragmatic (that last one is driving the left nuts too.) Their slogan "We want our country back" says it all. If they can be the captains they want to take the ball and go home. Sorry guys, it's not your ball.
Pretty similar to the results of polls that asked Democrats if they thought that George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks and was involved.
Birthers and truthers are a lot alike, and the partisans of the party out of power do tend to get a little deranged.
a) Check the wording of your poll question before tossing that around. Believing that Bush's people should have paid more attention to what they had on AQ is not conspiracy theory, and trying to lump those respondents in with the truthers is just lazy.
b) There was one Congresswoman who gave this credence and she was promptly defeated by a Dem in the next election. The Great Orange Satan refused to post any more Truther diaries because they had nothing and the association made Kos look dumber. Republicans, in Congress or in the media, are not similarly trying to distance the extreme element of their own party--and as the poll shows, it appears to be taking over the party.
correction: can't be captains.
Sorry. In a rush.
I suspect that nobody really believes that Obama is disqualified to be President. But people who subscribe to the cult of personality about him are driven absolutely nuts about the mere existence of heretics and infidels. Not a long drive, by the way. So why not twit them.
If they are provabley false, why are people so threatened by the very existence of the birthers ?
Because one of these birthers is going think that the logical next step is to perform his patriotic duty to rid the country of its "illegitimate" President.
Precisely. If they're going to preach about his being not a citizen (foreign name and nonwhite; you know those people aren't citizens), an illegitimate president, a socialist planning to sell the country to (insert country/religion), what are they urging their followers to do? I don't think "write a stiff letter to their Congressman" completely covers it.
As for the "twit theory," a vast conspiracy whereby the majority of Republicans/Southerners are aware that, when asked, they should claim Obama is not a citizen even if they know it's nonsense--that's awfully optimistic with your conspiracies. Trying to convince yourself the party really isn't this crazy, couldn't be this crazy, the birther thing is just a little joke--that's optimism to the point of delusion.
tcrosse
I'm no adoring fan. I just happen to recognize quality when I see it. And I'm not threatened by the birthers existence. I find it laughable and a little sad. But I am concerned that one of them will decide to take matters into his own hands.
There is a column on the liberal ThinkProgress.org website which documents the whackyright is getting increasingly angry and even violent, and it points out that GOP-affiliated and lobbyist-run groups (they name Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks -- who organized the tea-bagger parties) are distributing advice and instruction sheets on how to disrupt and harass Democratic politicians trying to have constituent meetings.
See http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/recess-harassment-memo/
Its a small step from disruption and yelling, to threatening violence (as in hanging Rep Frank Katovil (D-MD) in effigy), to actual violence. Do I need to remind people that the recent string of violence we've been hearing on the news is not liberals attacking Republicans, but quite the opposite (Dr Tiller's murder, the right-winger in Tennessee who shot people in a "liberal" church only because he wanted to kill liberals)!
Most of the republicans I know aren't worried about where Obama was born, they worry about how well he learned about politics "Chicago Style" When the history of his admistration is written, corruption and lack of ethics will frame his history.... Notice how much his campaign recieved from Goldman Sachs and how his administration is going very easy on the good old boys and how he has caved to the union bosses and the looney left elites as long as they have money.
Has anyone done a comparison to the number of people who still think Pres Obama is a Muslim? Wasn't that overall number 12% too? And How come know one is mentioning the 7% of so-called Democrats who doubt his citizenship?
"How come know one is mentioning the 7% of so-called Democrats who doubt his citizenship?"
Because it's not nice to make fun of "persons of Appalachian origin"?
Hey..
Lovely day here in 'birther land today'. Some interesting reading from more of the 'elite' Obama fans.
As far as I am concerned I am not at 'birther' you see I could care less that he was born in Hi, Indonesia, Kenya. I have followed this topic sinse I first became aware of it back when he was campaigning against Hillary. And I have voted democrat since I was in Vietnam and could legally vote, so I am not a Repuke.
My issue is the FACT that he has spent over 1 million dollars of Campaign money to keep his ORIGINAL hard copy of his Birth SEALED. He has managed to completely seal all documented evidence of his attendance in ALL schools and ANY information regarding who or what makes him qualified to become POTUS.
The only documentation that is available is his 'ghost' written books. Anyone that knows about his upbringing is keeping quiet... or has passed away. No ONE OUT here in 'birth land' to speak about knowing OBAMA. How does a B- minus, pot smoking, cocaine using high school student manage to get into Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard.
There has been mention of Black Radicals providing letters of recommendations and Arabs, Rich elite black radicals providing funding for his college education as well. (Now I challenge anyone to find mentin of that in 30 seconds or less.)
Try to disprove the rumor that his Selective Service paperwork was not a forgery. Try to find any documents when he was a State Senator.. seems they were lost.
The big issue.. it would appear that he has NOT had any SECURITY BACKGROUND work done on him by the FBI, CIA or any government agency PRIOR to his being elected into the State Senate.
For those of you out there in la-la-land.. that have undergone a Secret or Top Secret Clearance background check, you know about the FBI knocking on neighbors doors, visiting you high school and even visiting the college campus.(I had to have one done in the 70's when was in the Military.)
In my 'birther' world.. you judge a man... not by the color of his skin, (I am a Combat Vet, so it is who you can trust)but his actions.
You and I are a product of our environment, our education, the people we ASSOCIATE with, our life experiences.
In the case of the Messiah.. EVERYTHING about him has been sealed and LOCKED. We know about Viper Wright, we know about Ayers but we also know that he disassociated himself from ANY ISSUE that did not present his POLITICAL image.
I would like to have FREE access to all the SEALED information that he has managed to seal away from public view.
I suspect that he has something to hide that shows who the HIDDEN OBAMA IS.. not just the political face.
And we may not like what we see
I judge people by who that ARE.. not what they seem to be.
In Obama's case... I would not want him in my Combat Unit is any capacity. You see I do not trust him as a politician and do not know him well enough to put my life or the lives of troops that I have commanded.
I have never heard of this much information being requested - no, make that demanded - of other presidents. Regardless of how you personally or militarily feel about President Obama, enough of your fellow American citizens felt they knew enough about him to elect him as president. He is the president. Please deal with it and move along.
By the way, there are lots of people who had voted Democrat all their lives until Barack Obama's name was on the ballot. Then they voted Republican. So, simply stating that you have heretofore voted Democrat neither bolsters nor validates your arguments.
Another point: it is not unusual for private citizens not to undergo an FBI or CIA background check if their professions do not require one.
One last thing, I keep hearing about the "millions" the President is spending to "keep his records sealed." Could you please post a citation for this?
Bill Maher did a great piece on the birthers last night. Watch it here:
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/08/bill-maher-on-birthers.html
This birth certificate nonsense is only a story because the media insists on covering it. As soon as they stop writing about it, it will go away. Oh, the birthers will keep nattering on, but what they really want is publicity and they'll starve without it. O happy day!
No one will never be able to convince birthers that Obama is anything but the Antichrist, in their minds. A witness to the birth, the gold standard of "evidence", would still not be enough.
They are nothing short of insane. They are stupid. They are racist. They are angry. They are violent. This is a lethal brew. We will never hear the end of them. They will never learn, and we will be forced, on occasion, to listen to their hate speech. It is quite sad, and pathetic.
Despite all their pretensions otherwise, they can't mask their hatred and anger for Obama being what he is. He can't change the color of his skin, or his name, or his political affiliation, nor do I imagine he would want to, just to satisfy the racist prejudices of a insignificant minority of (probably white, conservative, older) Americans. While Obama is the best example that America can produce as a symbol for America, birthers are the worst.
If you are a member of this insignificantly racist minority, like the KKK, trolling the internet to post your frequently childish, misspelled, illogical, and frankly stupid rants, please go away. There are a million other message boards out there, and since you won't listen to my reasoning, why, then, should I listen to yours?
By the way, where I come from, to insist that you are not something is the same thing as saying you are that thing. Even worse is to drag out your bona fides to prove that you are not racist. That just cements in everyone else's mind that you are a racist. This is America, your First Amendment rights are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, so it's okay to be racist, even if being racist is repugnant, and equates you with the Nazis.
I can thank the birthers for one thing, and that is their consistent use of key words, like Messiah, Ayers, quotations from the Bible, birth certificate, and the like, that make it easy to quickly scan through and skip their posts.
The only exception I'd take to all that is calling birthers an insignificant minority. With over half a major political party's members either believing Obama was born outside the US or unsure about it, that's pretty significant. It's also pretty damn terrifying in many respects. And yes, there's nearly certain to be at least a few Tim McVeighs among them. It's not a matter of if, but when they start making that obvious.
Republicans are ignorant dummies. Sky is blue. Dogs chase cats.
I wonder how much the current discussion on calling us “birthers” is any indication of the growing understanding of our legitimate concerns and the administration’s efforts to get ahead of this issue to frame it as hogwash racist intentions. (I believe with all the discussion that we must have hit a nerve). There needs to be a well reasoned spokesperson, armed with these facts to argue affectively throughout the MSM as the multitude of legal arguments progress through judicial channels. Here is another great article I came across
http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/08/was-obama-adopted-by-indonesian-citizen.html
along with McCarthy’s piece
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=&w=Mw==
I do believe that the proper points are beginning to surface but its pronouncements need to be spearheaded.
I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. It's the questions about his adoption in his sealed long form birth certificate and his use of his Indonensian citizenship in his visit to Pakistan and applying to college which complicates his citizenship. I am NOT A BIRTHER. I am a realist and challenge Obama supporters to address the issues by the above articles the media is trying to obfuscate and bury by calling us looney or racists.The birther thing to many is to get Obama to release his sealed birth certificate after Soetero adopted him.
Trying to reason with you is like trying to wrestle a pig. The pig will get annoyed and I'll just get dirty. Obama was not adopted by his stepfather so that short-circuits that allegation. He traveled to Pakistan as an American in 1981; contrary to some misinformed people (Jerome Corsi, move to the front), travel by Americans to Pakistan was not illegal in 1981. In fact the New York Times assistant news editor (Barbara Crossette) visited Pakistan during this time and wrote an article with tips for other Americans who might want to visit Pakistan.
McCarthy's article was so pocked with inaccuracies, unsubstantiated rumors, and outright fabrications that it makes me wonder how he can be regarded as a journalist.
In summary, yes, so-called birthers are hitting a nerve. It's called my last nerve. "Realists" like you are amazing. You have no facts to offer to support your claims. You have cobbled together threads of nonsense and then wonder why reasonable people look at you askance. Your ignorance is frightening. Your refusal to understand and acknowledge facts is breathtaking.
C'mon, be honest, the birther thing is not really about forcing the President to release another copy of his birth certificate, now is it? He has already done that and your side played semantics with that (birth certificate vs certificate of birth vs certification of live birth, etc). In the words of that forlorn woman at Rep Castle's townhall meeting, I think you "want your country back." What I'm truly realizing now is just how far you will go to make that happen.
I don`t think that what Research 200 said is true.
Just my thought.
licitatii
I imagine "The political world was more or less stunned Friday by the revelation that.....less than half of Republicans think President Obama was born in the U.S.", because that statement in your article is NOT TRUE.
The poll asked for one of two answers. 1)Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or, 2) not?
30 percent of Republicans did not answer the question. Of the remaining respondents who answered the question, 60% answered yes, and 40% answered no.
You might want to send Chris Good (and his editor) to a course on statistics and how to read polls.