That's the thesis of the First Readers of NBC News, after viewing this astonishing clip from a town hall meeting that Rep. Mike Castle held in Delaware for his constituents. What's most notable, to me, at least, is not how scared Castle looked or how passionately the woman argued for Barack Obama's foreign birth. It was the reaction of the audience, a good portion of which erupted into cheers and youbetchas. Birthers, for the uninitiated, is a term used by the media to ridicule those who believe that the president's Hawaiian birth certificate is fake and that because he was ostensibly born in Kenya, not the United States, he was never eligible to be president in the first place. To the extent that one can conclusively prove such things in our postmodern age, this claim has been extremely thoroughly debunked. The birther movement may be premised on a fictional belief, but it is savvy: birthers now wear the term "birther" as badge of honor, as if they were a persecuted minority -- which, come to think of it, is one mechanism for solidarity in the face of evidence to the contrary. ("Hitler had the "Untermenschen," Pol Pot had the "Intelligentsia," and now Obama has the "Birther.") The most prominent birthers are Alan Keyes, the former presidential candidate and Obama Senate challenger; Orly Tait, a wonderfully named lawyer from California; Phil Berg, a Democrat; and Michael Reagan, son of Ronald Reagan, and a prominent radio talk show host. This is, at once, a fringe movement and something greater. It's fringe because no important Republicans believe it, and most are offended by it. It's greater because some fairly prominent local lawmakers are beginning to sign birther petitions.
At least nine members of Congress have cosponsored a birther bill that would require prospective presidents to affirm their U.S. citizenship. What we don't know is how widespread the belief is among Republicans -- and even if the belief is confined to a narrow minority, whether the belief will spread as Republicans begin to pay closer attention to electoral politics in 2010 and 2012. In the same way that Democrats in 2004 always got a stolen election question (which, to be fair, was at least closer to reality than the birther's claims), Republican presidential candidates need to figure out how to diffuse angry birthers who are bound to show up and demand their attention. .... The buried lede to this post: Rush Limbaugh claimed today that Obama "has yet to prove that he's a citizen." Republicans have to be extra careful. If they give credence to the birthers, they're (not only advancing ignorance but also) betraying the narrowness of their base. If they dismiss this growing movement, they might drive birthers to find more extreme candidates, which will fragment a Republican political coalition.
Birthers is taken from truthers, the name given to those who believe that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks. That claim has been as debunked as the birthers' claim, and yet it's still believed by a significant number of Democrats, including some prominent ones like Rosie O'Donnell and Colleen Rowley.
Republicans should treat birthers the same way Democrats treat truthers: use their energy, thank them for their passion, and assure them that they have nothing to worry about if a Republican is elected.
This seems to assume that truthers are predominantly Democrats. They aren't. I think a straw poll of truthers would see Ron Paul and *Green party candidate of the day* beating either Obama or McCain.
As someone born in Hawaii with a birth certificate that looks almost exactly like the one Obama released, this whole thing is hilarious. The WND article says he's spent hundreds of thousands avoiding the release... really? It looks to me like he just doesn't have the original for whatever (obviously nefarious) reason and got a new copy from HI.
"Almost?"
JK!
Indeed on all counts, Alchemy. I've voted Green in the last two presidential elections (because I'm not sure about Nader's ego, in part), but this is one of several reasons I refuse to register as a Green.
Actually, the term "birther" is a term of ridicule the MSM uses that includes those who outright claim that BHO was born in Kenya as well as those who entertain in arcane legal theories.
Meanwhile, if anyone wants the actual truth about this issue - just the facts, no speculation - see me completely fact-based coverage of the Obama certificate issue.
A note of warning: an endless parade of sockpuppets will drop by and almost none of them will have a valid argument. They won't even bother to read my argument, they won't be able to understand it, they'll lie or mislead, or they'll just engage in ad homs. I have yet to find anyone who can present a valid counter-argument to anything I've written about this.
And, for those who won't click the link: I'm not claiming the BHO was born in Kenya. My claim is that BHO has not provided definitive proof of where he was born. A picture on his own site is not proof, especially since - despite what you've been told - that picture has never been verified by the issuing agency. Announcements in papers aren't proof because they didn't list where or in what hospital he was born and because no one has offered proof that they could have only come from a birth hospital. The claims by FactCheck and Politifact aren't proof because they've been caught in lies.
In fact, Wikipedia, Snopes, and even Obama himself can't make up their minds on which hospital he was born in. The people who claim to know for a fact where he was born can't even get his birth hospital straight.
Don't believe the lies from Obama cultists, see the links above for the truth about this issue.
Birth certificates (and marriage licenses, death certificates, etc.) are public records that are easily obtained by going to the county clerk/recorders office and requesting a copy. Anyone can do it, you don't have to be related. If you really care so much, you would contact the county clerk/recorder. This isn't rocket science.
edit: Apparently in Hawaii you have to establish that you need the info for some real reason. Any of these people involved in legal battles over this would have no problem getting his birth certificate. I don't see what the problem is.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/elig_vrcc.html
A noisemaker enters!
In actual fact, HI law forbids that as discussed here (see the "prohibits the release" part).
Many people have already asked.
@24Ahead
It's not forbidden at all. All someone has to do is show a tangible interest. A lawsuit would do that, several of which are underway, as I understand. You could also check Kenya's records, or Indonesia's, or wherever you think he might have been born, though it's a waste of time because he was undoubtedly born in Hawaii. It all just seems like sour grapes to me.
Ok, here is a non-lie, non-misleading, non-ad hominem argument in direct response to your summary.
You say:
That is true, however you cannot get a Hawaii birth certificate that says you were born in Honolulu if you were born outside the country. The fact that Obama's Certificate of Live Birth says he was born in Honolulu is a confirmation that he was born in Hawaii, and thus rendering it irrelevant that such a law is on the books.
One of Hawaii's state officials stated as much on the record:
http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam
Oh my. If someone sends you a picture of their pink slip, is that proof that they owned or still own the vehicle? A picture of a thing and the thing itself are not the same thing. I don't think BHO would be hold enough to shoop his own cert, but there is that possibility.
"But, FactCheck saw it!" you say. For over eight months, FC's main page about this issue (born in the USA) has been spreading a massive lie: that HI's DOH director verified that BHO was born in HI. She did nothing of the sort. FC is not a credible source.
Further, the original pictures they posted had camera data (EXIF) from months before they supposedly took them. Some time later, they silently replaced the original photos with recompressed versions without that EXIF data.
Regarding Okubo, I spoke to her after that article appeared, and she refused to confirm the impression that Dave Weigel was trying to give.
Not only that, but to some other hack she said that HI has only issued short-form certs since the 80s. That's contradicted by - you guessed it - the picture of a long-form that's easily found through a search. More on that here.
If BHO's background is as cut-and-dried as his supporters would have you believe, why are there always so many obvious (to me) holes in their various stories?
I think the biggest problem with the argument of yourself and other Birthers is that you are layering circumstantial evidence upon circumstantial evidence.
The argument on your website boils down to something like: "Hawaii issues birth certificates to foreign residents, so it is possible Obama, being foreign born, was able to get a birth certificate"
So what you are offering is circumstantial evidence of the fact that Obama was not born in Hawaii.
So I reply providing direct evidence that the circumstances you suggest are impossible based on Hawaii law.
To which you reply with the argument that "Since the state official would not confirm to me the specifics about Obama's birth, this casts doubt on whether her broader statement about the law is true."
But this is just more circumstantial evidence.
At some point, you guys need to offer direct evidence, not just suggestions of possibilities of how the facts fit with your theory. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in court sure - but on its own, it's not going to get you a conviction.
It's the same thing with another of your arguments - "The picture of Obama's birth certificate was reposted with the metadata removed".
Ok, how does that directly, not circumstantially, indicate that Obama was not born in the United States, or even that the birth certificate is fraudulent.
Finally, can we please put this "picture" argument to rest?
The picture argument and the car example do not make sense because you are confusing the significance of possessing a legal document with its contents.
I agree that if someone wanted to sell me a car by sending me a picture of their title, that wouldn't be sufficient. To convey a car, you need to actually possess and transfer the legal document. However, if someone sent me a scan of their title to prove to me that they owned the car, and the title listed them as the owner, that would be at least prima facie evidence that they owned it.
In this case, there is no significance to possessing the document. For the purposes of me, you, and everyone else, all that matters is the content of the document. Whether you, or I or Obama has the certificate in our possession is irrelevant as to whether the facts on the certificate are true, which is what we all care about?
As the certificate itself says, this is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding - the burden of proof is on you and your fellow Birthers. Prima facie evidence cannot be overcome by circumstantial evidence, no matter how voluminous.
Oh, and here's Okubo confirming that Obama was born in Hawaii:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html
por20001: You don't understand what I'm doing. I'm not trying to prove that BHO was born here or there. The main thing I'm trying to do is to show that the MSM and their friends at WP, FC, etc. aren't credible. To show that, all I have to do is what I've already done: point out their long series of lies and misleading statements.
Regarding your long series of misunderstandings, the law is only moot if you assume the cert shown by BHO is valid. I think there's a very good chance it's valid, but there's also the possibility it isn't.
Regarding the metadata, that goes to FC's credibility. I can't imagine uploading a picture of something and using it as proof, and then silently modifying it later on. Yet, that's what FC did.
And, once again, there's a huge difference between a picture of a thing and the thing itself. Even having a pink slip doesn't mean you own the car if it's in hock or was repossessed the week before.
People go through more documentation hassles selling cars at eBayMotors than BHO has becoming president.
por20001: as I stated elsewhere on this page, Okubo isn't a credible source. On one Politifact page she says one thing at the top and changes her mind at the end. She said they only handed out short-form certs since the 80s, yet there's an easily found picture of a long-form cert that the owner says he got in 1998.
And, if what Okubo told the Tribune reporter were true, then she would have replied differently to these questions I sent. Why did she tell him one thing, and then refuse to tell me the same thing?
And, of course, when I spoke to her on the phone on the 17th, she repeatedly refused to say that she'd verified anything, repeating only that she wasn't qualified to answer the question.
That's some witness you've got there.
But you're not actually pointing out any lies or misleading statements - all you are doing is reciting facts and then asserting that the sources aren't credible.
You: "FactCheck can't be relied on to verify the birth certificate."
Me: "Why not?"
You: "They're not credible"
Me: "Why?"
You: "They said Hawaii's DOH director verified that Obama was born in Hawaii and she didn't - they are liars."
Me: "What about this article where the Hawaii DOH Spokeswoman confirms that the DOH Director verified Obama was born in Hawaii?"
You: "The spokeswoman is not credible."
Me: "Why?"
You: "Because she said that they haven't issued long form certificates since the 1980's and some random guy said he got one in 1998."
So your source said he got a long form certificate in 1998, which makes Okubo a liar, which makes FactCheck a bunch of liars, which makes their verification of the birth certificate noncredible, which casts doubt on Obama's birth.
Am I missing anything?
Hope you have faith in your source - his memory is holding together your whole argument.
por20001: You're missing a lot. My arguments about Okubo not being credible are mostly unrelated to my issues with FC. I think I've provided enough evidence above that Okubo isn't a credible source; if someone can get her on the phone and get her to respond to her conflicting statements and the like that would be useful.
However, regarding FC, here's what they say at factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html:
Now, compare that to what the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health actually said. Feel free to verify it using the original PDF; a link is provided to the PDF on hawaii.gov.
Maybe UFOs stole the letters where that Director confirmed he was born in Honolulu, because if that didn't happen then FactCheck is blatantly lying.
i don't know how you deal with people who refuse to accepts facts because they don't match the fiction they've created in their heads. i would say, if they're this devoted to the myth that obama isn't a citizen, then it actually becomes impossible to have a rational, logical conversation with them because nothing you can say will convince them otherwise of what they want to believe. i mean, you can show them an actual copy of the birth certificate and they'll be like, "it's a fake!"
i'd say you just remind them that the president IS a citizen and that his birth certificate is a matter of public record that a simple google search can bring up.
nothing else can be said or done to assuage them. and if you pander to them or take their conspiratorial claims seriously, then everyone who ISNT a fringe birther will look at you funny.
One and half years ago I had to provide a certified copy, with raised seal, of my 1949 birth certificate for employment reasons (US government security). A copy of the one that I have was not acceptable. I had no problem obtaining that from New York City. Obama could simply do the same thing and make any questions go away. As far as I know, his campaign simply posted a picture of his certificate on the web.
I would have thought that with all the resources available to him, Obama could easily get a very authentic fake birth certificate, if he really needs one. That's what I'd do if I were a fraud. Then he can walk across the country and show it to every single American citizen, one at a time. That should fix things.
The birther phenon is terrifying if you take it to its logical end: Obama is disqualified from the presidency, and we should seize it by force, or Obama seized the presidency unlawfully and, well, you know.
But it's actually good for the Democratic Party that the far right is distracted by such obviously erroneous claims- I'm sure Rahm would rather have Rep. Castle distracted by birther outbursts than anti-health care and climate bill entreaties.
Could you imagine the energy the birthers would bring to the health care fight if they weren't distracted by such a crazy sideshow? All Dems should be thrilled that this is what they've chosen to spend their time on.
It's the now-classic case of a party being ripped apart by the fringe- I would bet a million dollars that the third party candidates of 2012 will get more votes than they did in 2008.
Slag, that very funny.............I love it
Disturbing.
Glad I'm no longer part of the GOP.
If the Clinton campaign did not uncover the fact that Obama was not a natural born citizen, these birthers have nothing. It's a losing strategy. Keep it up wingnuts- Good Luck with this one.
I thought everyone knew that Obama's real birth certificate had been found already? It's right here: http://slicedbreadtwo.com/images/uploads/COLMKBTWL.gif
That's a cute joke graphic from pandagon.net, home of Amanda Marcotte of Patriarchical Oppressors Hegemony fame. It looks like someone's spent a lot of energy spreading it around the web; perhaps that time could have been better spent learning how to make valid arguments.
Yes, and the point of the joke is that the birth certificate 'controversy" is driven by racism and anti-muslim hatred, not rationality.
"Obama could simply do the same thing and make any questions go away. As far as I know, his campaign simply posted a picture of his certificate on the web."
ed's comment is fairly typical of the Birther trolls I've seen on various message boards. (even nymag, lol) They expect Obama to somehow personally show each of them his birth certificate. Overlooking the fact that he's been given the highest security clearance in the country by the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD, etc.
In a lot of ways you could blame this on McCain campaign going for broke and embracing the crazy side of the GOP in a last-ditch attempt to win. Now the GOP will have willfully alienate a vocal portion of what is left of their base before they can ever hope to regain the trust of Independents, and thereby have a chance of winning a national election.
I haven't looked into it, but could you give us some credible cites relating to what clearances BHO has?
http://ObamaConspiracy.com ... the absolute best Web site for debunking birther claims.
Wrong TLD... link is: http://ObamaConspiracy.org
1. They confuse the COLB itself with the only thing we've seen: a picture on a web page.
2. Their birth loc category promotes the letter Kapi showed on their site (before they hid it from view) without mentioning that the sources linked in my first comment above have all named a different hospital.
3. The second entry in that category makes a misleading claim about how birth announcements were obtained. The linked MSM report is based on the recollections of someone who wasn't even there at the time. More on that here.
So, yeah, if you want sloppy thinking and misleading statements, that's definitely the place.
It's weird. In going around to the various sites I regularly visit I can't help but to feel almost stalked by 24ahead.com. He's everywhere a birfer topic is posted. Does he really think that by trolling sensible blogs incessantly he's going to persuade anybody? You'd think by now he'd accept the futility of his quest.
For the record, I've never clicked over to his place... ain't gonna do it. Ever.
"NotJenna": I've never heard of you before, and you're the one replying to me. If anyone's stalking someone, it would be you.
I guess the "racist!" label was wearing thin, so now BHO supporters are trying out a new smear; beats trying to come up with a real argument.
Birthers are freaks, no doubt about it.
But I'm not going to take any sanctimonious preaching about it, not from a Democratic party which is home to the original demented freaks: 9/11 Troofers.
And any writer from the Atlantic should tread lightly too, as his magazine houses the freak to end all damaged freakazoids:
Andrew Sullivan, the self-righteous & proud Trig Troofer.
@24AheadDotCom
How is spreading bat shit crazy conspiracy theories of which you have no real evidence of a "legitimate argument". A legitimate argument would be detailed alternative budget plans, health care bills, and environment policies which the gop has not offered. they offer this crap and 4 page "outlines" on the economy and healthcare.
Try proving beyond a doubt that you were absolutely born where you claim to have been born. I would be willing to bet that a birth certificate copy is about the best most of us could do.
Get over your grasping at strings!
If you don't like the president then focus your energy toward electing someone you do like in three years.
There's one thing I wonder about birthers:
I can understand their dislike for Obama, their frustration at their loss in November, and even their ability to believe in international conspiracies that extend over decades, but I simply can't understand why they're all so fervently hoping that Obama will somehow be disqualified from office.
Are they really all that eager to enter the administration of President Joe Biden?
Everyone should pay attention to the "birthers." They are the neo-KKK. Let's call them what they are please -- haters of world-class. And Mr. Keyes personfies this perfectly. He put his own daughter at the curb because she is gay. Now, there's family values at its best!
Those who dispute the legitimacy of Obama's birth in the US wouldn't be satisfied if his own mother came back from the dead and testified in front of God himself. Orly Taitz is making thousands of dollars a month in donations from this whole birther conspiracy, and will continue as long as the suckers keep paying her. As long as they are distracted by this shiny object, and not working to get more Republicans or conservatives elected, it's fine with me.
This birth certificate ruckus merely indicates that Republicans fully support the "native-born" rule -- which is a big change from a few years back, when Orrin Hatch proposed this bill:
http://www.infowars.com/print/nwo/hatch.htm
And according to FOX News, the uber-conservative American Enterprise Institute thought it was a great idea:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98631,00.html
So, birthers, this is what I want to know: What changed? Why did the GOP and their right-wing supporters consider the native-born clause an antiquated remnant of 18th century global politics back in 2003, and in 2008 it becomes the rock on which the entire Republic stands?
24ahead - I am really confused as to what exactly it is that you are looking for. What else can we get but a "picture on a website" of the COLB? Is he supposed to mail a copy (and then it would be "just a copy!!!") to each person? Or... wave it around on camera? But then it would still be on camera! How do we know anything is real if all we can see are pictures, including ones with shadows to indicate the raised seal? By your same logic, unless you've personally seen or met every politician and celebrity, there is a good possibility they don't exist.
What would happen in a law suit? For instance, in a lawsuit, would Chris Matthews waving a printed copy of a document taken from a webpage on air be considered proof that the underlying document exists and is valid?
But in a lawsuit there is a courtroom and a judge, that is the medium through which evidence is admitted and judged. Setting aside the state of Hawaii, which issued the certificate, how else than through the media are we supposed to see the certificate? Where do you suggest the document be admitted as evidence?
Why is it any more suspect than George W. Bush's birth certificate, or anyone else's in public life? In other words, in what way did Bush and every other president present their birth certificate that is more legitimate than Obama's?
I am getting irritated at space fillers like you. There was never any question about where Bush was born; his past was in no way as exotic as BHO's. And, of course, there's things like this.
That's why you have commissions, panels of judges, press conferences featuring credible non-MSM reporters, and so on.
What warrants that in this situation when it hasn't been warranted before? Are/were you also calling for Bush to hold a press conference or convene a "panel of judges" (what kind? under what jurisdiction?)?
And no, that's why you have state-issued birth certificates, of which we've seen one from Obama.
All you've seen is a picture.
Gosh, is this Romper Room or something? Why do BHO cultists think everyone is as dumb as they are?
"All you've seen is a picture.
Gosh, is this Romper Room or something? Why do BHO cultists think everyone is as dumb as they are?"
Getting irritated, 24? That and the "grasping at straws" remark... Your circular logic has brought us around to the original point again. What else am I supposed to see? I don't personally know the President, he's not going to hand me anything. I've only seen a picture of the Constitution, I don't doubt its validity.
And you still haven't answered my question about George W. Bush. I realize it's frustrating to build a house of cards but simply labeling people who are rationally and politely disagreeing with you "cultists" and desperate doesn't make you look too great, and it doesn't add too much to your argument.
Perhaps it would be a waste of your time to address the Bush issue?
For Round Two, maybe Ambinder would care to try to wrap his mind around the issue I raised above.
Here's what factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html says:
Now, compare that to what the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health actually said. Feel free to verify it using the original PDF; a link is provided to the PDF on hawaii.gov. Here's the full text of the letter FactCheck is referring to:
Do you see anything in there where she verifies where he was born? Do you see anything in there where she says that the picture on BHO's site matches what they have on file? Of course not.
Is FactCheck telling you the truth, or are they lying to you? I say they're lying, and doing it outrageously.
Maybe Ambinder could ask them about this. Please send emails to Marc Ambinder and ask him to discuss this with FactCheck.
Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
"Yes," said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. "That's what Dr. Fukino is saying."
(taken from above)
On two subsequent occasions, Okubo didn't confirm that when I asked her in email and on the phone. And, as detailed above, she isn't credible since she's said conflicting and misleading things. See my comments about her above.
I've seen your comments. The fact that she refused to engage an obvious skeptic and non-credentialed member of the media, instead saying that the Dr's original statement stands on it's own, does not make a contradiction. That is merely your inability elicit a new statement from a public official.
Her email did say, however, "Hawaii State law protects the birth records of all individuals born in our state under all circumstances." I would take that to mean Obama is among those who were "born in our state" and whose records are being protected from those, such as you, who would twist every possible statement to mean something it plainly does not.
1. It would have been just as easy for her to state for me what she supposedly stated for someone else. It would have taken her even less typing. And, no one ever asked for my credentials. It did, however, take several emails and phone calls to get that out of them. They aren't exactly rushing to put this to rest by issuing one, unambiguous statement.
2. If a source won't confirm a previous statement, that does contradict that previous statement.
3. You can grasp the tiniest straw in the world like the one in your second paragraph, but HI also holds certificates for those born outside their state and they don't leave those out in the rain. She just didn't review her statement with lawyerly care, something we've come to expect.
1. The fact that "it would have been just as easy", again, does not indicate a contradiction. It's a pretty difficult argument to make that simply because you, a private citizen with no clear and "tangible" interest in the issue, failed to get a state official to restate her statement, that she or anyone who quotes that original statement is "lying". That is ludicrous, and it would clearly lead to anyone in the world "disproving" any on-the-record comment simply by emailing the spokesperson and failing to get a restated response.
2. She did confirm the statement! She said the comment "stands on it's own", meaning there is no need to restate it.
3. But she didn't say "those who hold birth certificates issued by Hawaii", she said "all individuals born in our state." Hawaii, as discussed above, would not issue a certificate stating someone was born in Honolulu if they were not, in fact, born there. I believe it is you who is grasping at straws!
1. If someone says, "he's the guy who stole my cheese sandwich!" one day, and then the next day says that's not the guy, then something's going on. Either the cheese industry got to the witness, or the witness changed their mind, or the witness isn't exactly credible. That's Matlock 101.
2. Stop wasting my time. I realize you might be paid to waste others' time, but please stop it. Refusing to clarify an ambiguous statement does not reinforce one of the interpretations over the others. It just degrades the credibility of the person who won't clarify it.
3. Can you imagine someone saying, "Hawaii State law protects the birth records of all individuals born in our state under all circumstances, but when it comes to the birth records we hold of those who were born outside Hawaii, we've got them on the table. Come and take a look!" The only way your quibble would make any sense is if they'd say something like that, and they wouldn't.
Stop wasting others' time.
I realize you need to have the last word. You're free not to respond, but I'm enjoying trying to decipher your circular logic.
1. She did not say "that's not the guy". She said the statement stands on its own. That's reiterating her original point, not contradicting it.
2. I'm not paid, although thanks for the glimpse into your thinking, it's quite revealing. Everyone must be "in" on the conspiracy, right?
3. All I'm going on is what she said, which was that the law protects those born in Hawaii, while referring to Barack Obama. If you want to make some other, irrelevant, hypothetical statements, that's fine. But in this case, in this situation, she referred to those born in Hawaii while talking about Obama. If that doesn't reinforce how wrong you are, I don't know what does.
1. The statement doesn't stand on its own; it's being willfully misinterpreted by BHO cultists. In such a case, she should clarify what it means and doesn't mean. She refused to do that.
2. Back when Hillary was in the running, several self-identified 50-something white women all suddenly showed up on one Ambinder thread to pledge allegiance to BHO. Now, just because Axelrod owns an astroturf company and just because an Axelrod PR company was busted for trying to launch a viral smear of Palin doesn't mean that "all" those BHO fans were being paid. But, let's just say I've seen plenty more interesting comments at this and similar sites.
3. You are clutching at the world's tiniest straw. If you disagree, pick up the phone right now and see if they'll confirm your assumptions.
Edit: "Axelrod-linked PR company".
1. She did clarify it, to the Chicago Tribune. You'll excuse me if I find even their MSM credentials more credible than your.. well, what are your credentials? Think of it this way... if she HAD answered you by reiterating her previous statement, would you have been satisfied? Or would you have gone back and forth with her all day long, like you've been with me. And once other proud birthers got wind of the fact that the spokeswoman for the state of Hawaii is personally answering any and all inquiries from random people on the internet, wouldn't they just inundate her with more and more requests, only to say that she was "lying" or contradicting herself by not answering each one in a personalized, hand-written letter?
2. Sorry, you're heading into kind of rambling territory here. Is your point that my argument is uninteresting to you? Then by all means discontinue it.
3. I don't operate under the assumption that state officials owe me a personal phone call every time I question something that happens. That's why we have the media, state, local and federal representatives. At times these systems break down and our concerns are inadequately addressed. But the mere fact that you can't get personal, direct confirmation means nothing. I still maintain that this straw is not thin - she specifically said to you that her job is to protect the information of those "born in our state" - Hawaii.
"Republicans have to be extra careful. If they give credence to the birthers, they're (not only advancing ignorance but also) betraying the narrowness of their base. If they dismiss this growing movement, they might drive birthers to find more extreme candidates, which will fragment a Republican political coalition."
Amazing, isn't it, how one of the two major American political parties of the last 150 years has devolved into little more than a haven for conspiracist whackjobs? Were it not for the blue dog Democrats, there would be no serious opposition party.
The democrats are going to get lazy if these wackos completely savage the republican party like the neoCons have.
The democrats will find re-election so easy they won't work as hard for votes.
Dredd
Wow, those liberals are CLEVER!!! They knew in 1961 to post a fake birth annoncement in the Honolul Advertiser, even though Barack was being born in Kenya or Mars or The Fake Moon Landing Scene or whatever it is Limbaugh believes, to prepare for the One World Government Takeover of 2009.
How does one post a fake birth announcement decades before anyone knows it will be important? This just proves that it is a deeper conspiracy that anyone imagined.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Obama_1961_birth_announcement_from_Honolulu_Advertiser
Now, can we turn our attention to the fake moon landings for a few days to celebrate Apollo 11?
As I posted above: Announcements in papers aren't proof because they didn't list where or in what hospital he was born and because no one has offered proof that they could have only come from a birth hospital.
Also, his grandparents could have planted those announcements in preparation for a custody battle.
P.S. Please don't just post the first talking point that comes into your head. Try reading the other side's arguments first.
JJ - How can you be so flip? Wiki says that the announcement is only available in Honolulu on a strip of microfilm. Have you actually seen it?
Doesn't it strike you suspicious that the announcement wasn't saved electronically as a PDF? Everyone knows that the Hawaiians had PCs by 1961, as they had by then mastered time travel.
Another birther? Liz Cheney:
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/07/liz-cheney-comes-out-in-defense-of.html
For the record, I sent an email to Ambinder suggesting that he call FactCheck about my comment above showing they're lying. I urge everyone else to email him (the address is in the upper right corner of the page).
Let's see if Ambinder can buck the Beltway establishment for once in his life.
I believe I saw a clip of the President stating that he was actually born on the planet Krypton. Proof positive!
I believe I saw a clip of the President stating that he was actually born on the planet Krypton. Proof positive!
A note of warning: an endless parade of sockpuppets will drop by and almost none of them will have a valid argument.
This is priceless. 24 is his/her own parade.
Ah, this brings back memories of the 90s when you could be called a Clinton cultist for not believing the President and First Lady were drug-runners and murderers. On balance, Obama should be glad that all he's being accused of is not being born where his birth certificate says he was born.
If we're going to pick apart every little thing that people say, then the birthers have to decide what their story is. I've heard he was born in Kenya or Indonesia. I've heard that he's a British citizen because his father was a British citizen. And then there's the great one about him being a sleeper agent meticulously prepared for this "takeover", which involved the planting of news announcements, creation of false documents with the help of the Hawaiian government (those shifty Hawaiians!), all starting long ago before the religio-political circumstances that would call for a Muslim sleeper agent in the White House had been established. (In which case, if this were true, their talent of foresight should make them pretty good governors.) So, which theory am I to believe? Or is it better that I just doubt the man's legitimacy? Probably the latter, huh?
Just wait until a Hispanic or Asian gets into the highest office. There will be some premium nut-job theorizing on dosplay.
As a Democrat I can't help but want to egg on the birther movement, but as an American I'm scared stiff. That the Republican party is now a welcoming home for the clinically insane and/or just plain dumb is truly frightening. How can we have a functioning two party system, if one of the parties has a base residing in an alternate reality?
I know that the Republicans are horrified of their electoral prospects without their base -- but they should also be worried about their future as a party. Why can't they see that the likelihood of the Democrats overreaching, becoming incompetent and/or corrupt. At which point a sane right of center party can easily win. A crazy one can't.
And stop throwing the "911 Truther" tag at liberals. They're a loud fringe group that never got into the Dem mainstream. The only elected official I've ever seen who was a truther is Jesse Ventura. Not a democrat and not a liberal. Maybe I missed one, but I never saw nine Democratic Congresspeople sign onto a bill that would require all government-run terrorist attacks on our country to file their plans at least 90 days in advance. (And make sure they're notarized!)
OK, here's a new thing for Ambinder to ignore.
Last week, CNN's Kitty Pilgrim said (transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/17/ldt.01.html):
Can anyone find anything at all that backs up that statement?
I'm going to reiterate what I said at the link: Pilgrim is a liar.
Now, instead of posting yet another content-free insult, you can actually do CNN a good turn - and make me look bad - by finding any form of valid documentation - i.e., a clear statement directly from HI's governor - that matches CNN's claim.
Note: I'm not talking about hearsay or a distorted AP report. I mean, find the actual original documentation of HI's gov. "validating" BHO's cert as CNN claimed. That must be an actual original quote from HI's gov in which she said anything like that.
Note: The 10/31 statement from the HI DOH doesn't qualify, since it's not from HI's governor.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
The people at this link are arguing that POTUS is not a citizen- not because he was born outside of the US- but because some law states that if only one parent is a citizen- then that parent had to be a citizen for at least 10 years- 5 of which had to be after the age of 16- or something to that effect. Essentially- the sole parent/citizen would have to be at least 21 years old to meet the '16 years old + 5' qualification. You'll have to read it for yourself- if you're actually the least bit interested.
I'm not sure how you deal with something like this. It's certainly not going to be solved through rational and reasonable communication. Ignoring it is often the best thing to do- but there is a chance the thing gets out of control before the people get bored or distracted. I usually rationalize people's poor behavior by labeling it 'ignorance'- but that doesn't feel right this time. I'm not sure if I've ever tasted 'real' hatred- but I think this might be what I imagined it to taste like. Another option might be to infillitrate some of the blogs- and over time- continuously create crazier and more ridiculous stories to the point that they are so ridiculious that the people with some degree of rationality are turned off. Unfortunately- there will always be someone who believes POTUS is 1/3 Martian-1/3 walrus- 1/3 Muslim- and 1/3 Islam. Now might be a good time to google the word 'meme'.
The United States was "born" on July 4, 1776. George Washington was born in 1732. Occording to Section 1 of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that a President must be a natural born citizen of the U.S., be at least 35 years old and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years. There are those who believe that Barack Obama isn't the President because they believe that he wasn't born in the United States. That said, since George Washington was born before the formation of the United States, it can be concluded that he wasn't the President, indeed the first President since he was not born a United States citizen but that of Great Britain. Things that make you go hmm.
For the record, even if Obama had not been born in the US, he would still be eligible for the presidency. His mother was a US citizen, and that makes Obama a “natural-born citizen,” as required by the Constitution.
The GOP needs to worry about these nuts, as does what remains of the Conservative movement, and they need to stamp them down, hard. 24Ahead is just the tip of the iceberg on how nutty the birther movement is. They refuse to accept valid evidence, or they move the goalposts. They insist that the evidence has been "discredited" when it overwhelmingly shows that they are wrong. I was reading a article by allahpundit on Hot Air, a pretty conservative site, where he calls the birthers to task for their insanity. The vast majority of the numerous responses called the guy a RINO or a shill, and the two or three poor SOB's who tried to talk sense in the comments got shouted down by people like 24 and a gang of others.
They are as obsessive as the truthers, the people who thought Bill & Hillary had Vince Foster killed, and the people who think the moon landing was a hoax. They will not go away until they are utterly ignored. Because no answer will be good enough for them, ever.
No, the GOP just needs to rename itself. John Birch Society or something like that. Then the Blue Dog Democrats break away and rename themselves the Republican Party. Or Whigs. That has a nice historical ring to it.
Problem solved.
Nativity unreliable
Makes presidencies deniable
Say birthers forlorn
Who, sure as you're born,
Are legally certifiable.
News Short n' Sweet by JFD8
http://twitter.com/JFD8
God, I love these guys. The last thing I want is for this issue to go away. The more people like 24aheaddotcom talk, the more college educated folk flee the Republican party out of sheer embarassment. The best part is that they think they are making SUCH clever arguments but they convince only other likeminded simpletons and scare off the independents and moderate Republicans. First the Repubs had W to make them look kinda dumb. Then Palin made even the Bushies look like mammals. Now we have the Birthers :) Thank you all SO much for your efforts. Please, KEEP TALKING!! And GO Palin 2012!! The rebirth of the Know-Nothing party is nigh!
That's the thesis of the First Readers of NBC News, after viewing this astonishing clip from a town hall meeting that Rep. Mike Castle held in Delaware for his constituents. What's most notable, cheap web hosting to me, at least, is not how scared Castle looked or how passionately the woman argued for Barack Obama's foreign birth. It was the reaction of the audience, a good portion of which erupted into cheers and youbetchas.business opportunity
That's the thesis of the First Readers of NBC News, after viewing this astonishing clip from a town hall meeting that Rep. Mike Castle held in Delaware for his constituents. What's most notable, cheap web hosting to me, at least, is not how scared Castle looked or how passionately the woman argued for Barack Obama's foreign birth. It was the reaction of the audience, a good portion of which erupted into cheers and youbetchas.business opportunity
That's the thesis of the First Readers of NBC News, after viewing this astonishing clip from a town hall meeting that Rep. Mike Castle held in Delaware for his constituents. What's most notable, cheap web hosting to me, at least, is not how scared Castle looked or how passionately the woman argued for Barack Obama's foreign birth. It was the reaction of the audience, a good portion of which erupted into cheers and youbetchas.