Arthur Goldwag on the queen of the "birther" movement

Discuss

92 Responses to “Arthur Goldwag on the queen of the "birther" movement”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Wonderful payoff in the last paragraph. I, too, am fascinated by conspiracy theorists and the astonishing lengths they go to in the preservation of their beliefs.

  2. Xopher says:

    A conspiracy theory is necessarily correct, until disproven, is it not?

    Um, no. Emphatically not. Where the hell did you get that hare-brained notion? Is it some kind of distorted version of “innocent until proven guilty” or some crap like that?

    That’s really beyond stupid.

    I was just going to post “Birther == stupid + racist + nativist” and leave it at that, but oy, what a maroon.

  3. jtiii says:

    @semiotix:
    Though I HATE the term “LOL”, I have to tell you that I laughed quite loudly when, absorbed in your comment, I came across this –
    “This kid–let’s just call him “me” for convenience-”

    good stuff.

  4. 2k says:

    C’mon. They don’t believe it.
    They belong to a gang. And when you belong to a gang you pretend to believe what the gang wants you to pretend to believe. So that way you all stay on message and things get done around here. (Republican envy anyone?)
    So we talk around the water cooler. And we send each other smiling George Bush “miss me yet?” emails. And we all agree to agree that we are all definitely NOT pretending to pretend. Because you can all see that we really…
    REALLY
    believe what we’re pretending to believe.

  5. Chris Tucker says:

    “My Friends, Future events such as these will affect us all… IN THE FUTURE!”

    bioqubit’s grandfather, Criswell.

    Looks like the grandkid inherited granddaddy’s gift for making shit up, and poorly, too.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Re: “Why do you think that the COLB is correct?”

    Because it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii and because there has been no proof that Obama was born anywhere else. IN addition, the two officials of the state of Hawaii confirmed the facts on the birth certificate (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html).

    The Wall Street Journal commented: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”

    Re: “Why do you think that the latest Birth Certificate is false?”

    This article debunks it completely. In addition, the guy who has alleged that he bought it in Kenya is a convicted felon. (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108005)

    This is what the National Review says about the Kenya story:

    “The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.”

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=&w=MA

  7. Anonymous says:

    Social security numbers are not guaranteed to be unique.

    The same number can get assigned to multiple living people.

    The same number can get reassigned after someone dies.

    In the past, this happened quite often. In current times, it’s more rare but still does occur.

  8. Xopher says:

    Jack O, you might want to change your first name to Boz. It would fit you better.

  9. Djhopscotch says:

    “Not true. Upon application for US citizenship, all prior citizenships must be renounced. Here’s the oath of allegiance that new US citizens must swear:”

    Nope.

    “The U.S. government allows dual citizenship. United States law recognizes U.S. Dual Citizenship, but the U.S. government does not encourage it is as a matter of policy due to the problems that may arise from it. It is important to understand that a foreign citizen does NOT lose his or her citizenship when becoming a U.S. citizen. An individual that becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization may keep his or her original citizenship. However, as some countries do not recognize dual citizenship, it is important to consider it carefully before applying for U.S. citizenship.”

    http://tinyurl.com/5hf3rk

    • weez says:

      The quotation of the citizenship oath is correct. Did you go to the USCIS website? One absolutely DOES renounce prior citizenships when acquiring US citizenship. It’s right there in the oath- and the authoritative source is the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), a US government agency, not the private immigration advice service website you have cited.

      However, the country of birth can choose either to not recognise the renunciation or may re-grant citizenship if it did recognise the renunciation. Both Australia and NZ will re-grant citizenship to its nationals who have acquired US citizenship.

      You’re a bit confused about the ‘US permitting dual nationality.’ That citation applies to the case of persons who first held US citizenship and who have later acquired citizenship in another country. In example, I was born in the US and acquired Australian citizenship in 2003. Australia does not require applicants for citizenship to renounce prior citizenships. I am thus a dual US-Australian citizen.

      • Anonymous says:

        Sorry, I believe you are wrong. “renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity” does nothing to take away citizenship in another country. It merely promises that the new citizen will put the USA first from that point forward.

        Only the country of original citizenship can remove it, no act of the US government can do so. And nothing in the oath can cause expatriation of former citizenship. That can only be done by a citizen informing his/her own government of a desire to no longer be a citizen of that country.

        My wife has had dual citizenship for over 30 years, and her country of birth knows and does not care that she is also an American citizen. And the US government knows and does not care that she is has citizenship in her country of birth.

        • weez says:

          You can believe I’m wrong if you like, but I’m not. You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.

          What part of “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen” and “I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God” are you not getting?

          This is a statement made voluntarily by the applicant for US citizenship- the US government is not taking anything away from the applicant. The applicant is voluntarily renouncing “…allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.”

          The oath absolutely contains language which causes the applicant to renounce their previous citizenship and any associated allegiances.

  10. apoxia says:

    Djhopscoth is right

    My Aunt has lived in the US over 30 years and has dual US and NZ citizenship.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I’ve been following Orly way more than I should, but her motions and court opinions are very entertaining. She’ll be lucky if being disbarred by the CA Bar is the worst that happens to her (posting threats to federal judges on a blog is not a smart move). When you look at some of the addressed associated with the SS# you find stuff like “123 main street, anytown.” My guess is that as least some of the “fraud” are just test entries.

  12. Cosmo P Topper says:

    Why do the Birthers continue to insist to do it the hard way? Part of the problem is that many of them would fall into the category of “dyed-in-the-wool-manifest-destinationists”, and so look at the problem from only one angle. The most logical way to approach the problem of Obama’s citizenship is simply to acknowledge or declare the US’s annexation of Hawaii illegal and therefore not a part of the USA. If Hawaii is not a part of the USA then Obama can’t be a citizen! The advantage of this plan is that it does away with all of the crazy conspiracy stuff. They’d also get support from various nations around the world – say Iran, North Korea and Taliban controlled Afghanistan. There’s even a chance to get China onside.

    Now I’m not saying Hawaii can’t be a part of the US. Just that the Hawaiians should have a say in it. Hold a referendum on whether Hawaii wants to be part of the US. But restrict voting to those residents of Hawaii who had ancestors resident on the islands for the 5 years prior to the annexation.

    If they vote to stay in the union, no problem and Obama stays president. If they opt out, well I guess you have to hold new elections. And if you’re worried about redesigning the flag or having to rearrange furniture in the senate and the house, don’t bother. Just make Peurto Rico a state. Only don’t forget to ask this time.

    ;-)

  13. Anonymous says:

    The one thing to love about this is that her name is ORLY :-)

  14. JackO says:

    You ever, all of you, realize that you are all bigots?

    “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”

    You are either Obama fans, or Orly fans, or anti-birthers, or birthers, and you really don’t want to believe that the other side might be correct in their opinion!

    How about this!

    Answer a question, instead of spouting the present line running through the thread.

    For instance.

    Why do you think that the COLB is correct?
    Why do you think that the latest Birth Certificate is false?
    Why do you think Obama’s failure to disclose his bio is correct?
    Why do you think Obama has the right to keep his bio secret?

    Can you justify your position with facts, and not opinions?

    Where did you learn your facts, or arrive at your opinions?

    And what I think is the most important question:

    Do you think any politican can tell the truth about any of it?

    Why must you call people who do not believe as you do that they are scum of the earth?

    Hell, they might be right and you might be wrong, or vice versa!

    Are any of you able to participate in a calm discussion of the facts of politica?

    JackO

  15. bioqubit says:

    You folks and who ever you call upon for your version of expertise on Obama’s birth certificate issue are what might be called “fact-challenged.” The question is simple: Is a person whose father was NOT an American Citizen, but whose mother was an American Citizen, qualified to be President of the United States? The answer is NO. The Constitution clearly states that the President and Vice President need to be a natural-born citizens, as distinguished from a citizen, as stated for members of the Senate. The astonishing insight you folks continue to fail to grasp because you are so deep in denial is that there is a DIFFERENCE between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen”. They are NOT the same. But many of you try to muddy the waters by suggesting they are the same.

    When you study the papers of the Founding Fathers on this subject, plus law that was passed in the 1790s, it is very clear what they “intended.” From DeVattel’s “Law of Nations” to the present time, a “natural born citizen” is defined as a child born of two parents who are both citizens. But you folks in denial like to say “natural born citizen” was never defined. That is a narrow argument that fails to consider the numerous other facts of law right up to the present time. You would be surprised to learn the number of times legislation has been introduced by wacked out liberals seeking to redefine “natural born citizen” to a lower standard. This includes bills introduced even a couple years ago which were shot down.

    The secondary issue of the birth certificate both obfuscates this issue and can, potentially, help answer the question.

    While you are busy picking on her, you fail to address the simple secondary question: Why won’t his lawyers release the birth certificate. Obama’s is the only birth certificate which has not been seen.

    The image posted by FactCheck.org and others is a fraud on so many levels, it defies explanation. People who are prejudiced in their views are not willing to face simple facts. The simplest fact that invalidates the image posted on the internet and the other phony versions passed around such as what Chris Matthews used on Gordon Liddy is this: Traceability. The validity of a document is supposed to be based on traceability. Traceability is also a word for “connect-ability”, a boingboing word if there ever was one. Moreover, the image was posted with the intention of avoiding making any connections whatsoever. Originally, they blacked out the serial number on the fear that would lead to the original birth certificate. Later they released it when they had those bases covered and keep the truth in the dark. The image, in order to qualify as traceable needs such info as the hospital where the birth took place, and the name of the doctor who attended the birth.

    Without getting into all the other controversial points, it should obvious to you, at the very least there is an issue that needs to be resolved, and it has nothing to do with the personalities of the people seeking these answers.

    But I will end with one more. Judge Carter, in his 30 PAGE ruling, was silent on one issue: Electoral Fraud. This was of the main allegations by Alan Keyes, et. al., but the judge said nothing about it.

    When the history on this is finally written you will learn that the Presidential Election of 2008 was an complete and utter fraud.

    • dculberson says:

      Welcome to crazy town!

    • Brainspore says:

      The astonishing insight you folks continue to fail to grasp because you are so deep in denial is that there is a DIFFERENCE between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen”.

      1. If there is indeed a distinction it is one that has yet to be defined by law. As of 2009 the Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in on what that part of the Constitution actually means.

      2. Most legal scholars who have weighed in on the matter believe that “natural born citizen” means “citizen by birth.” I’ve never heard anyone with a background in law claim that a child must be born to two American citizens to qualify.

    • chip says:

      In before bioqubit gets disemvoweled for being a ranting, pants-on-head nutbag.

      Birthers, like holocaust-deniers, moon-landing-hoaxers, and hollow-earth-theorists are just another group of paranoid dingbats who are helplessly immersed in a fantasy world of their own creation. No amount of proof will ever convince them that the imaginary conspiracies they’ve invented are not real. You can never win an argument with a crazy person. It’s a waste of time to even try.

    • Anonymous says:

      You don’t understand the concept of “natural born citizen” do you bioqubit? It’s not whatever you want it to mean.

      Originally it was based in English common law, and upheld by US courts to mean “every child born in [the nation] of alien parents was a natural-born subject”

      It’s evolved a little since then, but nothing like your odd twisted version. In fact court cases since then uphold that view (Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) )

      So… you are wrong, and do not have law, facts, or any other sane logical tool to argue with.

    • cymk says:

      @bioqubit

      “Judge Carter, in his 30 PAGE ruling, was silent on one issue: Electoral Fraud. This was of the main allegations by Alan Keyes, et. al., but the judge said nothing about it.”

      But you offer no proof of your wild accusations. Do you prefer to obfuscate issues rather than provide evidence of your claims? If the election was a fraud, I’m more than certain Republicans will be scouring the facts for even the tiniest shred of proof to tout out in the public eye. Just because someone yells the loudest does not make them right, it just makes them more annoying.

    • weez says:

      “Is a person whose father was NOT an American Citizen, but whose mother was an American Citizen, qualified to be President of the United States?”

      In a word- yes. If one parent is a US citizen, the child is a US citizen, no matter where on earth the child was born.

      All immaterial though, given Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has two major newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin. BOTH newspapers include birth announcements, and BOTH newspapers record Barack Obama’s August 4th, 1961 birth. Unless someone has a time machine and went back to August 1961 to place those birth announcements, there’s more than enough evidence to prove Barack Obama was born in the USA.

    • demidan says:

      ,,,and now for something completely predictable.
      Thank you Bioqubit for reminding us of Abe Lincoln’s “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt”

    • ill lich says:

      @bioqubit #7

      People who are prejudiced in their views are not willing to face simple facts.

      Yup. That cuts both ways though. When you start believing in conspiracy theories then anything is possible. Evidence that perfectly disproves your theory is suddenly “TOO perfect” and must have been planted.

  16. jramboz says:

    “and appeared to have been previously assigned to someone who was born in 1890 (who was deceased)”

    That’s a rather incredible find, considering that Social Security numbers weren’t created until 1936. Clearly, the U.S. Government was tagging and numbering people long before they admitted it! /sarcasm

  17. mommybrain says:

    I’m too caught up in the train wreck that is Orly Taitz.

    Now, I’ve heard from many people that conservatives are masters of projection. With Orly’s personal background – born in Moldavia, educated in Israel – I’m not sure why no one has questioned her motives here. Is she saying he’s a Manchurian Candidate because SHE is? She could be an Israeli agent – I hear they hate Obama’s Israel policies. She could be a freakin’ communist, herself.

    Is she really a US citizen? I demand to see her citizenship papers. No not those, those are obvious fakes, come on, anyone can forge citizenship papers.

  18. EH says:

    bioqubit: more or less of a fraud than the election of 2000? just curious. also, you forgot to mention that obama is a negro.

  19. Anonymous says:

    “… and that how I know Obama was not born in the U.S… Any questions?”

    Orly?

    (Insert continuation of “Who’s on First” routine)

  20. Ian70 says:

    Sadly, what’s been happening (and continues to happen) is a polarization of belief regarding reality, and the labeling of those beliefs as being facts. What results is two camps of people with different ‘facts’, each accusing the other of “ignoring the facts”.

    When you people can’t agree on what is and is not a fact, you’re in a heap-o-trouble.

  21. dculberson says:

    bioqubit is a freeper; step away slowly and don’t take your eyes off him.

  22. Wardish says:

    I’m always amused by these claims.

    First rule of argument/reasoning is “Never argue with someone who can’t start by honestly saying it’s possible they are wrong.”, mostly because they are not basing their points with fact but with belief. Belief may be a wonderful thing for many people but it’s NEVER the basis for proof.

    Ward

  23. JackO says:

    A conspiracy theory is necessarily correct, until disproven, is it not?

    After proven true it is no longer a theory but is a theorem , is it not?

    But a conspiracy belief, or disbelief, is neither, but instead is a matter of faith!

    JackO

  24. Anonymous says:

    Well let’s start first with accessing Social Security number of the deceased, as a Genealogist I can tell you that anyone with a computer has access to the Social Security Death Index through a variety of sites (do a Google search).

  25. semiotix says:

    I am respectfully agnostic on most religious issues, lean leftwards politically, and am resolutely skeptical when it comes to the paranormal or the outlandish. I hope I am not dogmatic or snide or gratuitously ad hominem, but please don’t hesitate to call me out if I am.

    It’s a little depressing how welcome and refreshing that sentiment was. It shouldn’t get you any more credit than “I will try not to molest your toddlers or set fire to your houses,” but as things stand I want to give you a hug and subscribe to your newsletter.

  26. mommybrain says:

    Hey bioqubit, why don’t you post your birth certificate with the whole serial number thingy and all. That way it will be so much easier for Obama to steal your identity, too.

    BTW, I was born in Honolulu, too, before it was a state, My BC looks just like his. OMG! Does this mean I’m not really a citizen?!? This is going to screw everything up.

  27. PatGund says:

    I see “bioqubit” is quoting one of the sacred myths in birtherstan, the claim that a “Natural-Born” US citizen as defined in the Constitution means “A US citizen born to two US citizen parents”.

    To back up this claim, they use an English translation of de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” that was published ten years AFTER the Constitution was written. (in the original versions, the phrase “Natural-Born Citizen” doesn’t even appear. And de Vattel makes clear in “Law of Nations” how English Common Law handles citizenship, where someone born in England is a subject no matter what citizenship the parents hold.)

    The simple fact of the matter is for over 200+ years, US legal codes (which evolved from the English Common Law we inherited), US case law, US court rulings, etc., have all defined a a Natural-Born or Native-Born citizen as one either born in the United States, or one born overseas to a US citizen parent.

    Basically in the eyes of US law, US citizenship is binary. If one is a US citizen, then they are either:

    1) A citizen at birth, also called a Natural-Born or Native-Born citizen, due to:
    a) Being born in the United States or a US territory.
    b) Being born overseas to a US citizen parent OR parents.

    OR

    2) A naturalized US citizen, being someone who renounced their previous citizenship as an adult and took on US citizenship.

    For the purposes of the presidency, the first category can become president, the second cannot.

    “bioqubit” then proceeds to cite one of the other sacred myths in birtherstan, that the COLB that FactCheck confirmed is a fraud or forgery. This is based on the claims made by two faceless, nameless internet “experts”, namely “Polarik” (also “Dr. Ron Polarik”), and “TechDude”. Neither have provided any evidence to back up their claims, or for that matter haven’t provided any evidence to back up their training, background, the experience they claimed, or even identity.

    Simply put, there is more credible evidence to support the validity of Obama’s Hawaiian COLB than there is to support the existence of “Polarik” or “TechDude”.

    In addition, they cite two completely different “Kenyan Birth Certificates”, both of which Dr. Orly Taitz tried to enter into the court record. The first was shown to be a hoax (based off an Australian birth certificate) by the person who made it. The second was provided to Dr. Orly Taitz by a known forger with a conviction history, Lucas Smith. (Who later in a letter to the court claimed Dr. Orly Taitz tried to bribe him to lie under oath and that she was having an affair with her “law clerk”, a felon who has been disbarred in three states.)

    There’s a few other “Sacred Myths” among the Mullahs in Birtherstan, (Indonesian citizenship, a “Canadian Birth Certificate” signed by Dudley DoRight, etc.), but none of these have ever been backed by anything even remotely like credible evidence.

    • Brainspore says:

      Basically in the eyes of US law, US citizenship is binary.

      That’s actually up for debate- there is a school of thought that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment did away with the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement entirely. We won’t know for sure unless the SCOTUS rules on the subject one way or another.

  28. mkultra says:

    In my opinion, is seems like the whole birther thing long ago reached the same point as the 9/11 truthers: Started out a little amusing, and quickly grew tiresome.

    If you treat their arguments seriously, you just lend credibility to a group of people whose real, base complaint is that a black man is sitting in a position of power. It can’t possibly be valid and true, because, for them, the world just doesn’t work that way. It’s kind of astonishing how quickly it happened, isn’t it?

    As far as all of their standard arguments, they have been shot down so many times that additional discussion is utterly pointless.

    Far more interesting–to me, anyway–is the way their thinking works. Unfortunately, we saw an awful lot of this sort of thing back in the primaries… a small minority of the Hillary people were just astonishingly crass. hillaryis44.com and the like, with some amazingly bizarre conspiracy theories worthy of The Lone Gunmen.

    • Anonymous says:

      It is no coincidence that the first lawyer to sue Obama about this issue was the same lawyer who represented the 9/11 Truthers.

      For those obsessed with birthers, as I am, please check out http://www.politijab.com. We have lots of fun!

  29. wylkyn says:

    What amazes me about people like bioqubit and the other Birthers is that they think they know something that Obama’s political opponents did not.

    bioqubit, here is an argument that completely invalidates any you could possibly come up with: if there was any, ANY, validity to your claims, do you honestly think that the Republican party would not have brought it up during the election, or even now? The Republican election machine is aggressive and has no qualms about using even the slightest hint of wrong-doing to torpedo an opponent. Why is it that only the fringe is daring to uncover and expose this damning “evidence”? The reason is far more basic than you might imagine. It’s…not…true.

    You and Orly and all the rest are not smarter than the ruthless political geniuses who got George W. Bush elected twice. You don’t have some ability to see things which others lack, and you have no information which is not freely available to anyone else. It’s not as if you uncovered some dusty scrolls buried in a tomb deep in a jungle. The worthless opinions you use to bolster your feeble arguments have been tried and discarded by sharper and more savvy minds than yours.

    But keep at it. You just keep making the Republican party look like a bunch of crazy, backwards morons who have nothing to add to the conversation besides a steaming pile of wharrgarbl. You are making more moderate Republicans like myself think that might actually be true.

  30. Antinous / Moderator says:

    I guess I’ll just leave the piñata up since you’re all having a good time.

  31. Moriarty says:

    What a weird phenomenon. Obviously nothing is going to convince them, just like nothing is going to convince moon landing hoax people, etc. This is probably even more entrenched, actually, just as the subtext is uglier than just “of COURSE we can’t go to the fucking MOON, people.”

    I’d ask what they hope to accomplish, but I think it’s pretty clear it’s nothing but purposeless Obama-hate. MAYBE some are just using it as part of a shotgun approach to undermine his agenda in any way possible. Whatever. What I’m wondering is, what do they think the real situation is? Is Joe Biden the real President? Nancy Pelosi? George Bush?

  32. lenpict says:

    In a foolhardy use of my time when I have too much to do (so I guess, in this instance, the birthers won this battle):

    Not counting the presidents grandfathered in as citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution:

    Chester A. Arthur’s father: British-Irish citizen at the time of Chester’s birth. (Naturalized later.)
    Woodrow Wilson’s mother: Born in Carlisle, England. Immigrated as a child. Unknown when/if she became a naturalized citizen.
    Herbert Hoover’s mother: Born in Ontario, Canada.

  33. Bob Rossney says:

    On a completely different subject: I’m reasonably certain that the inhabitants of the nation of Moldova are called “Moldovans,” not “Moldavians.”

  34. mortis says:

    dude looks like a lady…

    ^m^

  35. Osprey101 says:

    The butthurt is particularly strong this year.

  36. hep cat says:

    Where were all these birthers when that natural born Panamanian was running ?

  37. jaytkay says:

    If I voted twice for GWB and can’t accept the fact that GOP “rule” had disastrous consequences, wiping out the US economy and world standing…

    If I were a bigot who can’t accept a black man in the White House…

    If I believed everything I see on FOX “News” and AM radio…

    …then I would have to concoct some fantastic, psychotic delusional world-view to hold on to my beliefs.

  38. JackO says:

    OK. I will explain it to you!
    Birth Certificate, completed by physican and signed by physican, is filed whether the baby is alive or dead!

    Certificate of Live Birth, latest version, a statement that a document is on file about the baby’s birth!

    But it can not be issued for a dead baby, even though the birth certificate is on file!

    So, do you see a difference between a “birth certificate” and a “Certificate of Live Birth”?

    You do notice the word “Live” in the COLB, don’t you?

    So you still don’t see any difference between a birth certificate and a COLB?

    Amazing

    JackO

    • Brainspore says:

      @JackO:

      A “Certificate of Live Birth” is the type of birth certificate issued when a live baby is born. It’s not a different document than a birth certificate, it’s one of the two KINDS of birth certificate. Unless Obama is some kind of zombie it’s the kind he should have been issued.

      So what does it say at the top of YOUR birth certificate?

  39. Anonymous says:

    Re: “a Chinese leader received a COLB even though he was born in China!”

    That was in 1904. Did you know that New York’s Manhattan Island once cost only $26?

  40. semiotix says:

    By the by, I’ll come out as a non-Birther: I genuinely believe Obama’s eligible, a citizen, a natural-born citizen, a super-duper-natural citizen, whatever. That said–

    In my 7th grade civics class, they taught us that “assault,” under common law, basically means touching someone without their permission. (Yes, I know, it’s a little more complicated IRL.) Guess what happened in gym class the next day? Some kid pushed some other kid in some sort of disrespectful fashion, but instead of employing the usual bully-judo of laughing it off or slinking away, the kid who got pushed stood up straight and demanded that the gym teacher call the police right away to report this assault which is a felony and a crime and the police and the district attorney needed to be called right now.

    Of course, the result was a thousand times more humiliating for the poor kid than the push had been. The teacher spent the whole period in his office, explaining to the ever-more-hysterical kid that in spite of what the theory behind the law might be, the state was not going to prosecute anyone over a gym-class taunt that did no physical damage and should have been immediately forgotten. Naturally, this made NO impression whatsoever on the kid, who by now knew deep in his soul that a grievous wound HAD been suffered, and that if justice wasn’t done according to the letter of the rules, society would collapse and there would be anarchy.

    Where the gym teacher erred, I think, was in not highlighting the difference between a legal solution and a political solution. This kid–let’s just call him “me” for convenience–I thought, at age 12, that the Law was an absolutely prescriptive guide for everything, everywhere, and that every Wrong in the world could be transmuted by the Law into a Right. I literally could not grasp the idea that not only was it more effective to work within the political system to address these kinds of “crimes,” but it was also by design that police and prosecutors have discretion, that the FBI isn’t monitoring gym classes, etc.

    Assume the Birthers are right about everything. For that matter, assume there are actually Birthers at all, as opposed to people pretending to believe there’s anything to the question of where Obama was born. Why on earth would they fight this in the courts? What would Congress, never mind the White House, do with some imaginary Writ of You’re Not Really the President? Nothing at all, which is why no court would ever issue one, any more than Congress would issue direct military orders, or a President would try to preside over a criminal trial. The very, very, very minimal involvement of the judiciary in the election was over the moment Obama was sworn in, and so was the rather more considerable role of Congress (which certifies the Electors and so forth).

    There are only two ways to get rid of an impostor president: violent overthrow (and, of course, there are people calling for just that), and impeachment. Congress could impeach Obama tomorrow for wearing white after Labor Day if it wanted to, and no court in the world could stop them. Voters could turn out every sitting member of the House in 2010 for failing to impeach Obama, if they wanted to, and no Act of Congress or court could stop them. Which brings me to my original question–why are the Birthers litigating this, instead of conducting a political campaign? Because they’re about as emotionally mature as I was in 7th grade.

    At least, that would be the answer if any of the litigants actually thought for an instant that there was anything to their claims. I suspect they know better and are just doing it for the lulz. (Seriously. Lulz are powerful weapons in the political arena!)

    • cymk says:

      “Voters could turn out every sitting member of the House in 2010…if they wanted to, and no Act of Congress or court could stop them.”

      If only the public would, ‘punish’ the people they elect for doing or not doing something they do or don’t like.

      “Hey you failed to pass health care reform, you dont deserve to be in office anymore,” or “Hey, you passed health care reform, now i have to pay a ton in taxes. you dont deserve to be in office.”

      It would be nice, if birthers, non-birthers; everyone used the voting booth to express their dissatisfaction for their government and the things it does. Instead we get the same people elected over and over again regardless of how they preform in office.
      [/rant]

      • semiotix says:

        CYMK: I’d say it’s a little too cynical to say that there’s never any accountability at the ballot box. (Unless you’re of the mindset that there are two parties–the Green Party* and the Rep/Dem party, in which case it’s a whole different argument). Power has indeed shifted at times, and for essentially knowable reasons.

        And yes, I think it’s very unlikely that even a single member of Congress will be voted out for not taking the Birthers seriously–because I think it’s very unlikely that there’s a district where actual, honest-to-God Birthers are even a measurable fraction. Ignore those polls that say 30% (or whatever) think Obama’s a noncitizen–that’s just transparent code for “I didn’t vote for him and I know my answer to this poll is meaningless, so why not throw some gasoline on the fire.”

        If there were even 20% of the country that genuinely, truly believed there was an illegitimate president, there’d be rioting in the streets**. Coups d’etat are managed with less support than that. The absence of that tells me what I need to know about Birther traction.

        * Or the Constitution Party, or Natural Law, or Communist, etc.
        ** The case of Bush in 2000 probably would have gotten there, if not for Gore’s concession. Once the SC decision came down in a process Gore had endorsed all along, Gore was never going to be president, but at the same time he had a sharp knife at the throat of the Bush presidency.

    • davidasposted says:

      I would add to your analysis that when it comes to politics, illegal acts are illegal only if the perpetrator is held accountable. Otherwise, they’re precedent. See: wiretapping, torture, etc.

  41. jennybean42 says:

    “After Cheney came that exciting new group of Obama critics known as ‘the Birthers.’ Or as they used to be called, ‘the Klan.” – Bill Maher

  42. JackO says:

    The COLB was known as the Certification of Live Birth when first shown on the web.
    It has now been changed to Certificate of Live Birth!

    To , apparently, eliminate the enquiries about a Birth Certificate, instead of a Certification !

    If you believe, and I will say I do not know if the information on the COLB is correct or incorrect, that a COLB is absolute verification of a birth in Hawai’i, then I ask you to consider that a Chinese leader received a COLB even though he was born in China!

    Further a COLB was not sufficient to establish the eligibility for a Hawaiian heritage, but only a full birth certificate could be used for that. But they think that a COLB is sufficient for President of the USA, but not sufficient to establish hirth of a Hawaiian heritage.

    Amazing , isn’t it?

    I don’t believe any of them, and I don’t believe political statements either.

    And, I really don’t believe people posting things that I don’t know are accurate! Sometimes I will give them the benefit of the doubt though! LOL

    Oh, by the way, I was born in the Phillipines in 1922 at Cavite Naval Hospital, and a notation of my birth was shown in a newspaper in my mothers home newspaper in the USA.

    LOL

    JackO

  43. benher says:

    Djhopscoth is right – my mother has dual citizenship between France and the US.

    When the search for truth leads to a discovery – that’s one thing. But the romantic idea of conspiracies, and the uncovering of said conspiracies seems to be the driving force propelling most of these ‘theorists.’

    It reminds me of listening to Young Earth Creationists who in their speech, bend over backwards with science to fit square pegs into round holes ad nauseum, ignoring the pain from all the Occam’s Razors underfoot.

  44. chgoliz says:

    Two quick points:

    -People born in the 1890′s did get social security numbers by the time of their retirement.

    -Becoming a naturalized US citizen does not require you to relinquish your original citizenship.

    • Anonymous says:

      Not true. Upon application for US citizenship, all prior citizenships must be renounced. Here’s the oath of allegiance that new US citizens must swear:

      (from USCIS – http://tinyurl.com/6j7d96)

      *****

      “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

      ****

      • chgoliz says:

        That’s due the concern about which side do you fight on if there’s a war. You do not have to give up your foreign passport to the US State Department or prove that you relinquished it to your own country’s equivalent. You can have dual citizenship. You just have to swear allegiance to the US in case there’s a conflict in future between your two countries.

    • newsblaze says:

      – Becoming a naturalized US citizen does not require you to relinquish your original citizenship.

      Unless you are an Australian Citizen, in which case you lose your Australian citizenship – unless your name is Rupert Mudoch and they write a law to allow you to keep it.

      • weez says:

        It is true that Murdoch lost his Australian citizenship when he acquired US citizenship in 1985 (which he did so that he could legally own broadcast stations in the US per FCC regulations limiting ownership only to US citizens). This was due both to US requirements to renounce all prior citizenships when acquiring US citizenship but also due to Australian law at the time which stripped Australian nationals of their citizenship when they acquired citizenship in another country.

        It’s also true that Australia amended their nationality laws in 2002 such that Australian nationals no longer automatically lost Australian citizenship when acquiring another citizenship.

        However, there’s no evidence that Murdoch ever reapplied to resume Australian citizenship. At this time, Murdoch has only US citizenship.

  45. JackO says:

    Ah, how strange, #79, references National Review to point out certificate is real, but NR says:
    “To summarize: What Obama has made available is a Hawaiian “certification of live birth” (emphasis added), not a birth certificate (or what the state calls a “certificate of live birth”). The certification form provides a short, very general attestation of a few facts about the person’s birth: name and sex of the newborn; date and time of birth; city or town of birth, along with the name of the Hawaiian island and the county; the mother’s maiden name and race; the father’s name and race; and the date the certification was filed. This certification is not the same thing as the certificate, which is what I believe we were referring to in the editorial as “the state records that are used to generate birth certificates [sic] when they are requested.””

    And then you say:

    “This article debunks it completely. In addition, the guy who has alleged that he bought it in Kenya is a convicted felon.

    that site says:

    “Administrators at Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, the hospital named as President Obama’s supposed birth hospital in the document, refused to authenticate the record when contacted by WND sources in Kenya!”

    A refusal to authenticate complies how with a statement that it is indeed false?

    Heck, you can not get anyone to authentic the law degree of Obama, or most other students, as it is all privacy
    protected.

    I do not know whether any off this is true, as there is no way to prove it that is available to any of us!

    Did the person who submitted that document to the court under penalty of perjury get charged that it was false and not as he stated in the affadavit?

    Very interesting, if he wasn’t, isn’t it?

    JackO

    • Brainspore says:

      I do not know whether any off this is true, as there is no way to prove it that is available to any of us!

      That statement sums it all up pretty well. You might as well have said “there is no way to convince me of something I choose not to believe, so I will continue to raise doubts about Obama’s legitimacy whether or not there is good reason to do so.”

  46. gparker32 says:

    “After Cheney came that exciting new group of Obama critics known as ‘the Birthers.’ Or as they used to be called, ‘the Klan.” – Bill Maher

    This sums up Bill Maher perfectly. Because wondering if our president is constitutionally eligible to be president is the same as wearing white robes and lynching blacks. Yep. I can see the similarity. Maher once did an HBO special called “Be More Cynical”. He needs to be more cynical about Obama.

    • weez says:

      gparker, Maher also thinks vaccination and ‘western medicine’ are bad ideas. However, he’s correct about birfers.

      Birfers know they won’t get any ink if they say ‘Obama can’t be president because he’s black,’ so instead, they just make stuff up about his eligibility.

      Sorry, birfers, Barack Obama is President of the United States of America- and will be for the next 7 years.

  47. Anonymous says:

    I think semiotix is onto something. Ever since Lee Atwater, the dominant mode of communication between the conservative mindset and the rest of the world has been based on lulz. It seems too obvious to say these guys are political trolls, but it just makes so much sense. The conservatives I know get a certain glee from Glenn Beck and his ilk making ridiculous claims and getting under the skin of “the liberals.” Anything that makes “the liberals” mad makes them laugh, which is exactly what trolls do. It’s so simple. Lulz.

  48. Arthur Goldwag says:

    Wow, is all I can say. So many responses and all of them so interesting.

    Taitz, I believe, was born in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, which has been known as Moldova since 1990. Whether that makes her a Moldovan or a Moldavian, I’m not sure. The issue of birthright is very much to the point, however.

    The tribe that my forefathers belonged to (Taitz’s too, come to think of it) considered itself to be chosen by God. But only one parent, the mother, needed to be a Natural born member to guarantee her offsprings’ automatic admission. Our greatest ruler, King David, had a great-grandmother, Ruth, who was a convert and foreign born. Who knew that the United States, the vaunted land of immigrants, was even more exclusive and restrictive than the Jews?

    I did a little reading on “the Natural Born Citizen” concept, and learned that it was propounded by Emerich de Vattel in 1758, in THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW. Remember when Republicans were so up in arms about the idea of American judges applying foreign precedents? Well, when it comes to birtherism, none of those scruples apply–though de Vattel was a Swiss citizen, his work is relevant to the Founder’s “original intent.” And most of our Founders surely would have wished to prevent a black man from assuming the presidency!

    Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson, who had one and two immigrant parents respectively, were exempt from the Natural Born birth requirement of course, since they were born before the Revolution. But James Buchanan and Chester Arthur, whose fathers were Irish, Woodrow Wilson, whose mother was English, and Herbert Hoover, whose mother was Canadian, need to be retroactively impeached. I eagerly await the court filings. This should be exciting news for the Tea Baggers, because both the Federal Reserve and the Federal Income Tax came into being during Wilson’s illegitimate presidency–not to mention the hated Council on Foreign Relations. I assume they can all be annulled and/or disbanded.

    Someone said something about unfalsifiable and falsifiable conspiracy theories. As it happens, Karl Popper, who popularized the concept of falsifiability, wrote about “the conspiracy theory of society” in his book THE OPEN SOCIETY AND ITS ENEMIES (1952). Popper attributed the rise of conspiracism in the post war years to “the secularization of….religious superstition.”

    “The gods are abandoned,” he wrote. “But their place is filled by powerful men or groups–sinister pressure groups whose wickedness is responsible for all the evils we suffer from–such as the Learned Elders of Zion or the monopolists, or the capitalists, or the imperialists.” Or nowadays, ACORN, Move-on, and the minions of George Soros and Al Sharpton.

    I regard conspiracy theory as a misbegotten, debased form of theology–one that begins with a set of first principles and then reverse engineers a fantastical version of reality that comports with them. If my first principles don’t include the possibility of a black man being president, for example, then I might conjure up a set of circumstances in which he isn’t, even if he won a national election and lives in the White House.

    In my next post, I’m going to address the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement, which may well provoke a much angrier set of comments. We shall see.

    • Brainspore says:

      In my next post, I’m going to address the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement, which may well provoke a much angrier set of comments. We shall see.

      It’s been my experience it’s a truism that conspiracy theorists (like Mojave @#38) hate to be associated with proponents of other conspiracy theories. I hope to hear your thoughts on this subject in your upcoming posts.

      • dculberson says:

        My experience has actually been that adherents to one conspiracy theory are prone to adhere to other conspiracy theories as well. Something about credulity and willingness to go the extra mile to believe something other people are too “dumb” to see.

  49. Jasperdude says:

    I will be ready

  50. Anonymous says:

    Re: “Did the person who submitted that document to the court under penalty of perjury get charged that it was false and not as he stated in the affadavit?”

    No, but he signed another affadavit alleging that Orly had asked him to perjure himself. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD). He could, of course, be lying about what Orly requested. Or, he could be lying about the birth certificate. Or he could be lying about both. But it is unlikely that he was lying about neither of them.

    As for him not being charged, why should he be? The case was thrown out. Only if the forged document and the affidavit were relied upon to prove something in a case would there have been a charge of forgery.

    But, the fact that he has not been charged does not mean that it is a real document, and to rely on a questionable document from a known felon is a sign of the desperation of the birthers.

    Re: “A refusal to authenticate complies how with a statement that it is indeed false?”

    This was only part of the reporting in that article. It also cites such things as the incorrect use of the name of the hospital for the 1961 year, the fact that Mombasa was in Zanzibar and not part of Kenya at the time, and the fact that Dr. James O.W. Ang’awa never worked at any hospital in Mombasa.

    Yet, you chose to believe a convicted felon.

    Re: the certification of live birth not being the same as the original birth certificate, and the author of that column wanting to see the original. Sure, he can want to, but he does not say that he does because he believes that Obama was born in Kenya.

    This is what the National Review EDITORIAL said:

    “The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

    If one applies for a United States passport, the passport office will demand a birth certificate. It defines this as an official document bearing “your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced—the document is formally known as a “certificate of live birth”—bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate—which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the “real” birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy.”

    Getting back to the Kenya myth. Neither the columnist, Andrew C. McCarthy, nor the editorial of the National Review believe that Obama was born in Kenya. McCarthy says: “The point has little to do with whether Obama was born in Hawaii. I’m quite confident that he was.’

    He then goes on to ask to see the original birth certificate for other reasons. That’s fine, but Obama cannot be the one to show it because Obama does not have it. Hawaii sends out only the certification of live birth (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html). So, to see the original, the method must be to get Hawaii to change its rules, not to ask Obama to show something that he does not have (especially when the official birth certificate is legally sufficient).

    Going back to the main topics of discussion: (1) The born in Kenya myth is crazy; (2) the COLB proves birth in Hawaii.

  51. mkultra says:

    @ #38: Would you rather be associated with Apollo moon landing deniers? That’s your other option. :)

  52. grimc says:

    There are still people who think that the Kenyan birth certificate is real? Or,uh, “not false”?

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/21/orly-taitz/alleged-obama-birth-certificate-kenya-hoax/

    “…We e-mailed the purported Kenyan birth certificate to Salim Lone, spokesman for Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, to see what he thought.

    Here was his three-sentence reply: “It’s a forgery. Kenya only became a Republic in December, 1964. Other arguments could also be marshaled, but they are not needed.””

    A dissection of the forgery can be found here, with bonus update of images from both of Hawaii’s major newspapers from 1961 that carried Obama’s birth announcement.

    Which to some, I guess, would only suggest that Democrats have a time machine! Perfidy!

  53. Anonymous says:

    Re: “not sufficient to establish hirth of a Hawaiian heritage.”

    Did you know that proving Hawaiian heritage means to prove that some of your ancestors were racial Hawaiians.

    Obama does not have to prove that his ancestors were racial Hawaiians, and they weren’t.

    He only had to prove that he was born in Hawaii. The COLB, which is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html) is accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii by ALL the departments of Hawaii (yes, including DHHL, I checked), and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the US miliary.

    Re: A Chinese leader got a COLB. That was in 1904. Did you know that at one time New York’s Manhattan island sold for $26.

  54. Bucket says:

    It’s like I always say: You can’t use logic to argue a person out of a position they used batshit-fucking-crazy to reach.

  55. johnny_action says:

    Funny thing is.. Between the two Presidential candidates McCain wasn’t born in the United States.

    If there were *ANY* truth to the rumor that Obama isn’t a US citizen the Republicans would have blocked him already.

    So if you still hold to the belief that Obama isn’t a US citizen you are certifiable nutjob.

  56. pixleshifter says:

    last i heard he was a clone of Akhenaten

  57. JackO says:

    A Certificate of Live Birth, Hawaiian style, is a Computer print out of the public information that is on the birth certificate.
    ” Birth Certificate” is the heading of my birth certificate!

    Perhaps you do not realize that with the “privacy” requirements of the last 20-30 years the Departments of Health in the states must limit the information that they may supply to the public about an individual and that prevents the full disclosure of the information that is REQUIRED to be put on the “birth certificate”

    If you are over 50 years old , look at your birth certificate and see how much information is on it.

    Mine has the time of birth, my birth weight, the fact that they put stuff in my eyes, the name of the doctor, the name of the hospital, etc.,

    Is that on a new COLB from Hawaii?

    California requires this:

    102425. (a) The certificate of live birth for any live birth
    occurring on or after January 1, 1980, shall contain those items
    necessary to establish the fact of the birth and shall contain only
    the following information:
    (1) Full name and sex of the child.
    (2) Date of birth, including month, day, hour, and year.
    (3) Place of birth.
    (4) Full name of the father, birthplace, and date of birth of the
    father including month, day, and year. If the parents are not married
    to each other, the father’s name shall not be listed on the birth
    certificate unless the father and the mother sign a voluntary
    declaration of paternity at the hospital before the birth certificate
    is prepared. The birth certificate may be amended to add the father’
    s name at a later date only if paternity for the child has been
    established by a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction or by
    the filing of a voluntary declaration of paternity.
    (5) Full birth name of the mother, birthplace, and date of birth
    of the mother including month, day, and year.
    (6) Multiple births and birth order of multiple births.
    (7) Signature, and relationship to the child, of a parent or other
    informant, and date signed.
    (8) Name, title, and mailing address of the attending physician
    and surgeon or principal attendant, signature, and certification of
    live birth by the attending physician and surgeon or principal
    attendant or certifier, date signed, and name and title of the
    certifier if other than the attending physician and surgeon or
    principal attendant.
    (9) Date accepted for registration and signature of local
    registrar.
    (10) A state birth certificate number and local registration
    district and number.
    (11) A blank space for entry of the date of death with a caption
    reading “Date of Death.”

    But , you have my permission to ignore that , should you so desire1

    JackO

    • Brainspore says:

      I’m from California and my birth certificate says “Certificate of Live Birth” at the top. I guess that means they did a sucky job verifying my immigration status when they issued my passport and driver’s license based on that document.

  58. V says:

    Damnit!1 I knew it! Obama’s about to be outed as a Hawaiian Monarchist Sympathizer and intends to cede our country to the decendents of Queen Liliuokalani!

  59. Anonymous says:

    Poor little crazy Birthers, Judge Land and now judge Carter, smack down the crazies (case dismissed),

    Not even “Fake News” Bill O’Reilly believes the crazies, how funny.

    http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/29/bill-oreilly-slams-orly-taitz/

    To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it.

    In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

    I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).

  60. Keith says:

    My favorite bit about the Birther conspiracy is the implication that Obama (or his crypto-socialist handlers) is such a good forger that his fake birth certificate managed to fool: the Illinois state Bar Association, The Illinois State Legislature, the Illinois State Police (who do background checks on all candidates for state and local elections), the FBI, Secret Service (whose primary task is investigating forgeries) and the US State Department. Obama is probably the most vetted and verified black man in US history. But no, says Orly Taits and the Birthers. The sheer awesomeness of his communist forgery superpowers can bend time, space and light, hoodwinking legions of trained law enforcement professionals.

  61. Anonymous says:

    O RLY

  62. Brainspore says:

    Mojave: If you don’t want to be lumped with people who espouse unfalsifiable conspiracy theories then make sure your conspiracy theory is falsifiable.

Leave a Reply