Barack Obama

Obama's Birth Certificate Revealed! But Why Doesn't It Say George W. Bush, II?

|

One of the most bizarre and generally uninteresting episodes in American political history has ended with the White House releasing the "long form" birth certificate of Barack Obama (see above).

As the father of two children, I must confess to never having seen either of their "long-form birth certificates," which makes me question whether they in fact exist and whether I am on the hook for their college educations.

From CBS News:

The White House today said it took the effort to release Mr. Obama's long-form birth certificate so that the nation can move on from this "fake issue."

"At a time of great consequence for this country—when we should be debating how we win the future, reduce our deficit, deal with high gas prices, and bring stability to the Middle East, Washington, DC, was once again distracted by a fake issue," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer wrote on the White House blog. "The President's hope is that with this step, we can move on to debating the bigger issues that matter to the American people and the future of the country."

As the White House continued to receive requests for the president's birth certificate, Mr. Obama finally directed his legal counsel to ask the Hawaii State Department of Health to break their protocol and release his long-form birth certificate. According to the White House, the state granted the exception in part because of the tremendous volume of requests they had been getting.

So long Birthers. It wasn't nice knowing you.

And yes, White House, let's get on with the discussion of how the America-born Barack Obama is effectively enacting a third Bush term, pursuing virtually of that bum's bad policies (war, massive government spending, expansion of already-unsustainable entitlements, disinterest in civil liberties, you name it) under the banner of hope and change. As that conversation gets all the focus, you may wish that you never closed out this inane topic.

NEXT: Reasoner on Tube: Nick Gillespie on Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, Ann Coulter

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does it look fake to anyone else? 😉

    1. Yes! It looks fake to me, too!

      Oh wait…you’re mocking me, aren’t you?

      1. Why is it signed by Donald Trump?

        1. I hate to admit it, rather, but I LOLed at that!

          1. My mother is a Birther. I’m so ashamed.

            1. I’m going to have to see what my mother and her friends say about this…

    2. Its a FAAAAAAAAKE!

      *Star Trek Reference*

      1. Best DS9 episode ever.

    3. It’s a trap!!!

    4. CNN had the new one hours ago. Why does Reason tout the old one? Are they prepping us for the big forgery rumor?

    5. It looks like mine… which was rejected by INS for re-entry from Canada because it didn’t have the state seal on it.

      I had to get a certified copy sent up from Florida to go home.

  2. This looks photo shopped. I can tell from some of teh pixels, and seeing many shops in my day.

    1. The shadows are all wrong!

      1. The fringes on the flag are flapping.

        1. GRASSY KNOLLLL!!!!!!11!!

          1. The whole thing was filmed in a big soundstage. It’s all a movie set.

  3. Trump said he was proud that he was able to get this issue solved so we can move on and talk about important things. He thinks he’s a fucking hero. You’re the one bringing up this issue, moran!

    1. Bottom line, this was a win for Trump. He tagged the president on the chin and made him come out of his corner. Trump has a way of selling to average Americans. Most salesmen will give you a great reason to buy his product, Trump gives you no choice but to buy his product. If you don’t show the birth certificate, you lose. If you do show the birth certificate, I win. It’s brilliant and why we are not in his league, nor do we have gold buildings and gold hair that match perfectly. Trump has the hair of an angel.

      1. I don’t think Trump had anything to do with it. The recent poll that said 38% thought he was natural born probably did it. Politicains respond to pols, regardless of how much they deny it.

      2. Move over, Birthers. The Trumpers are in ascendancy. Lord help us.

        1. STEVE SMITH RAPE TRUMPET ONCE. SPIT VALVE VERY SEXY!

          1. STEVE SMITH KNOW. STEVE SMITH NOT EVEN TRY ANYMORE.

            HEY! MAYBE STEVE SMITH GET NEW SPORTS CAR. GET HOT GIRLFREIND. THEN STEVE SMITH HAPPY AGAIN!

      3. I don’t have gold buildings because I’m not a eminent-domain-loving welfare queen like Trump.

        1. That’s exactly right and a great analogy. A.C. New Jersey land owner, this is Donald, sell me your home and I win, don’t sell me your home and you lose. Great analogy to what DT did to Obama.

    2. Didn’t Trump say his investigators discovered that it didn’t exist? My guess is his investigators were enjoying a free all expenses paid trip to Hawaii and were milking the Oompa Loompa for all they could.

      1. i agree with you. fool him and take his money.

    3. I hate to admit it, but Trump has been very smart on this. As Glenn Reynolds pointed out, he took credit and immediately began hammering Obama on gas prices. That’s political hardball.

      1. I doubt I’d ever vote for Trump, but I’m sure glad he’s thrown his hat into the ring. Whatever else, at least he’s going to be making life miserable for Obama for the foreseeable future.

      2. It’s pretty obvious that Trump’s going to run with this “whack-a-mole” attack as long as he’s getting attention for it. He’ll only stop if the inevitable backlash is severe enough to hit him in the wallet.

        Not a total win for Trump because he’s been mocking the O-man about his college grades, too; would have been interesting to see the dude’s GPA.

  4. Wow that’s over. I am convinced that Obama is a U.S. citizen. I am also convinced that he is not a natural born citizen. His father was not a U.S. citizen.

    1. I am also convinced that he is not a natural born citizen. His father was not a U.S. citizen.

      This is, indeed, where the goal posts will be moved.

      So the question becomes, can children born through IVF become president?

      1. Depends on where the lab is located, right?

        1. “”Depends on where the lab is located, right?””

          Or where you bought the Turkey baster

        2. That’s right. And if you mom got pregnant on a trip to Italy, you’re outta luck. Natural Born means you were conceived in the US too, right?

          1. Actually, in 18th century language, “natural child” was a euphemism for “bastard”.

            This explains, of course, why all US presidents have been bastards.

      2. His father was not a U.S. citizen.

        That doesn’t matter. It is complicated, but to be natural born only your mother needs to be natural born

        According to halakha, to determine a person’s Natural Born status (Amerkan) one needs to consider the status of both parents. If both parents are Amerkan then their child will also be considered Natural Born Amerkan, and the child takes the status of the father (e.g., as a Natural Born Amerkan). If either parent is subject to a genealogical disability (e.g., is a Furuhner) then the child is also subject to that disability. If one of the parents is not Amerkan, the rule is that the child takes the status of the mother. The ruling is derived from various sources including Deuteronomy 7:1-5, Leviticus 24:10, Ezra 10:2-3. Accordingly, if the mother is Amerkan, so is her child, and if she is not Amerkan, neither is her child considered Amerkan. The child can be considered Amerkan only by a process of conversion to Amerkanism, and the child is also freed from any disabilities and special status to which the father may have been subject (e.g., being a furuhner) under Amerkan law.

        1. Uh, what’s up with the retarded misspellings in that paragraph, Neu? Is there some joke I’m missing (granted I’m not the quickest-witted dude around)?

          1. Nooge,

            A poorly executed stylistic nod to Twain’s tradition of rendering dialacts in print?

        2. That doesn’t matter. It is complicated, but to be natural born only your mother needs to be natural born

          What the fuck?!?!

          In order to be natural born you need to be born on American soil (American territorial waters probably works as well).

          What is this bullshit about moms being citizens? This is the US not Greece.

          1. Check your sarcasm meter Joshua.

            1. Check your sarcasm meter Joshua.

              Damn you new mex…damn you to hell!!!

              Wait is IceTrey below being sarcastic?!?!

              WTF?!?!

          2. This. All that matters is that it’s on U.S. soil.

            For that matter, the Panama Canal Zone was considered U.S. soil when McCain was born.

            1. “All that matters is that it’s on U.S. soil.”

              Wrong on both counts. Need two citizen parents and the PCZ was never sovereign US territory. Neither are military bases, embassies or consulates.

              1. How is it that people in this godforsaken country can’t grasp nationality law. Even the stupidest person in my law classes picked it up after a couple days.
                to be a US citizen there are two paths: jus solis and jus sanguinis. If you are born in the US you are automatically a US citizen. the exception are children of foreign diplomats, I believe.
                If you are not born in the US, all that is necessary is for one parent to be a citizen. There used to be a caveat about legitimation by the father, but since obama’s mother was a citizen it doesn’t matter. I don’t know where people are getting this idea that two parents are needed to be a citizen.
                Now the next issue is what “natural born” means. Natural born simply means that one was conferred US citizenship upon birth and that they never had to apply for it. By this criteria, Obama was natural born; at least as much as McCain anyway. Icetrey is correct. PCZ was not US soil, neither are embassies or bases.
                I hope that this stupid debate can end and we can move on.

                1. If natural born is the same as born a citizen under any circumstances why did the Framers even use the word natural? Article 2 could have just said “born a citizen”. Using “natural” in that instance is like saying the President must be a “born born citizen”. A natural born citizen of any country are those born in the country to two citizen parents.

                  1. Oh ya, Obama’s mother didn’t qualify to pass on her citizenship. If Obama was born outside the US he wouldn’t have been a citizen at all.

      3. Obama was born through IVF?

        1. As far as you know he was!

    2. Idiocy. His mother was a US Citizen, therefore he is a natural born citizen. Should paternity tests be mandatory before people can run for President? Regardless of what the law may have said fifty years ago, any sensible method to determine something like this would have to follow the mother.

      1. Perhaps someone with expertise on citizenship law can clarify something for me.

        I thought “natural born citizen” means you were a citizen at the moment you entered the world? If you have a parent who is an American citizen, then aren’t you a citizen at birth no matter if you are born in Kenya, Indonesia or Mars?

        In contrast, someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger was not an American citizen at birth, but became a citizen later in life and, therefore, is not a “natural born citizen”.

        1. This is how I’ve always thought about it as well. The first time somebody tried explaining this to me I asked them if they were saying that Obama’s mother was not really his mother. When they said that that was not in dispute I wasn’t really clear what the argument was.

        2. I’ve read (though I can’t provide the link right now) that U.S. citizenship law in 1961 would have provided that a child born outside the U.S. would be a U.S. citizen if the mother was a U.S. citizen who had lived in the U.S. “X” years since turning 14, and that the four years between the time Ann Dunham turned 14 and she gave birth to BHO was less than “X” years.

          1. That law was passed in 1961 and does not carry equivelant weight to the words contained in the Constitution.

            1. The only words contained in the Constitution are “natural born Citizen.” I’m presuming that this means “citizen at birth” and not “citizen who was not from his mother’s womb untimely ripped.” Thus, if Obama was born in the U.S., then there’s no problem, because the 14th Amendment makes it clear that he’s a citizen at birth. If he was born abroad, however, the 14th Amendment doesn’t help us, and we have to look to statute law to determine whether he was a citizen at birth.

      2. where do you dream up this certainty about natural born citizen vs just plain old citizen? please enlighten us on the origins and certainty of your constitutional definition.

        1. +1. We don’t operate under halakah; we operate under the constitution. And all you have to do under that is be born on American soil. The status of your parents doesn’t matter. Any “anchor baby” could be president.

          1. Where does it say in the Constitution that there must be one path to being “natural” born? One path is being born within U.S. territory. The other path is being born to a U.S. citzen parent.

            1. check the Flore-Villiers case. 16 year old American boy gets Mexican girl pregnant, kid born in Mexico. Brings the kid to the US when he;s one year old. 30 years later guy gets busted for pot and is under deportation order for not being any kind of US citizen. So no, being born to a US citizen does not automatically make you a citizen much less a natural born one.

        2. If someone is born to American parents while they are visiting London, is that child not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. And if they are not a “natural born citizen” of the United States, are they a “natural born citizen” of the UK? Or are they in some wierd limbo where they are not a “natural born citizen” of any nation on this planet?

          1. They are naturalized at bith to be US citizens under the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

        3. The constituation does not define the term.

          1. Agree.

            From the pure text of the Constitution I cannot definitely say that “natural” has anything to do with location. Now, if the Constitution said “To be President one must be born in United States Territory” or something to that effect there would be little room for debate.

            1. natural born does have something to do with place. To be NBC you have to be a citizen by soil and by blood. Both of your parents must be citizens of the country of your birth.

              1. Then Chester Alan Arthur, whose father was Canadian, was ineligible to be president.

                1. Yes, and Arthur went to great lengths to obscure that fact. But his father was Irish. There was a question at the time whether Chester was born in America or Canada. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Arthur was a usurper.

              2. Where is that written in the Constitution?

                1. Article 2. It’s the definition of “natural born citizen”. Look at it this way. If NBC equals born a citizen under any circumstances then there would have been no reason to use the word natural. They could have just said “born a citizen”.

                  1. I never said the term means a citizen under any circumstances. I said that citizens of the U.S. who became citizens after birth like Arnold Schwarzenegger would not qualify as natural born citizens. Therefore, the word does have meaning in distinguishing natural born citizens from naturalized citizens.

                    However, someone born to American citizens while they are in the Panama canal zone would be a natural born citizen because he became a citizen at the moment of his birth and never went through a naturalization process to become a citizen like Arnold did.

                    1. And I didn’t say citizen under any circumstances. I said BORN a citizen under any circumstances then there would be no reason for the Framers to have qualified the subset of citizens eligible to be POTUS by using the word natural. Children who are given citizenship at birth through some other means thatn being born in the US to two citizen parents are “Naturalized at birth”. It’s done automatically and requires no paperwork or process.

      3. Idiocy. His mother was a US Citizen, therefore he is a natural born citizen.

        Actually, only because his mother was a U.S. citizen and he was born on U.S. territory makes him a natural born citizen, in his case.

        Had his mother lived outside the U.S. and for more than a year, he would not have been.

        Anyone born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true at the time of birth:

        1. parents married
        2. one parent was a U.S. citizen
        3. the citizen parent lived at least 10 years in the U.S. before the child’s birth
        4. a minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the U.S. were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday

        For out-of-wedlock babies born during the above dates, if at the time of birth:
        1. mother was a U.S. citizen
        2. mother was physically present in the U.S. or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior

        Someone born on or after November 14, 1986 is a U.S. citizen if at time of birth:
        1. parents were married
        2. one of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen
        3. the citizen parent lived at least five years in the United States before the child’s birth
        4. a minimum of two of these five years in the U.S. were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday

        A child is a citizen automatically if at the time of birth:
        1. both parents were U.S. citizens
        2. parents are married

        On or after February 27, 2001, any extant child under 18 not already a U.S. citizen automatically acquires U.S. citizenship, if:

        1. child has at least one U.S. citizen parent by birth or naturalization
        2. child is under 18 years of age
        3. child resides permanently in the U.S. and in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent
        4. child has been admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident or has been adjusted to this status

        If the child is adopted, the immediate above applies and:

        1. at least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child’s birth

        1. Anyone born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true at the time of birth:

          1. parents married
          2. one parent was a U.S. citizen
          3. the citizen parent lived at least 10 years in the U.S. before the child’s birth
          4. a minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the U.S. were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday

          This means that if BHO *had* been born in Kenya, he wouldn’t have been a U.S. citizen at birth, because his mother hadn’t lived in the U.S. for at least five years since her 14th birthday.

        2. Anyone born between 1952 and 1986? What the heck does that have to do with the phrase “natural born citizen” that was placed in the Constituion long before 1952 and 1986? It would seem to me that if we want to determine what the phrase means, we need to look to what this phrase meant to people at the time the Constitution was written.

          Also, I’m not sure how one can definitively conclude that the word “natural” = “location”. For example, if you say that something you cooked used “natural” ingredients or that someone is breathing “naturally”, you don’t assume they are talking about location or geography.

          1. If a child is not a US citizen at birth, then he can only become a naturalized US citizen. Everyone agrees that that naturalized US citizens are ineligible to be US presidents. That’s why that law matters.

          2. If we look at what it “meant” to people back in the 1700s, Obama would not be a legitimate President because he was half-black. Thus the failure of originalism…

            1. There were black citizens in the late 18th Century.

              1. But they wouldn’t have been allowed to run for President anyway. I don’t get why the mindset of people at the time the Constitution was written is that important. The original Constitution was a product of its time. That doesn’t mean the basic structure of government it explicitly defined should not be followed, but to assume the mentality of the writers should be perpetual in a changing society is silly. Some things were left vague for a reason (like the definition of “natural born”, which can be defined by statute). Some vague elements have been abused (the welfare clause, the commerce clause) to throw out more explicit language.

                1. The Framers were worried about foreign influence. so they wanted only someone who was purely, solely and only a US citizen.

                2. What do you mean they wouldn’t have been allowed to run for President anyway? Where in the constitution does it say that half-black people aren’t allowed to run? Or do you buy Chief Justice Taney’s view that, under the constitution, blacks simply couldn’t be U.S. citizens? ‘Cuz he didn’t find that in the constitution, either?

        3. Ok, great. Now, despite what the law may have said, had she turned up at the US border with her child in tow, and nobody disputed that it was her child, what would they do with that child if they determined that the technical aspects of the law were not met? In short, would this law have passed a proper court challenge?

          I have to believe that the framers intended for the children of American citizens to be considered American citizens. And while you can take that for whatever it’s worth, I think it means that the birthers should shut the fuck up and focus on real problems.

          1. Agree, I think that the framers intended to allow anyone who became a U.S. citizen at the moment of birth, rather than through some naturalization process after birth, to become president.

            Therefore, (1) if someone born to a U.S. citizen is automatically a U.S. citizen, then they are a “natural born citizen.”

            2) If someone born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen, then they are a “natural born citizen.”

            In the language of the Constitution, I see no evidence of just one path to “natural born citizen” status, and I see no indication within the words of the Constitution that natural = location/soil/territory/geography/etc.

            As was pointed out, the Constitution never defined the meaning of the term so we can argue this all day.

            1. Check Vattel’s the “Law of Nations’ for the definition of NBC.

              1. So if a person is born to American parents while vacationing in Canada, you are saying that person is a natural born Canadian citizen and not a natural born American citizen and so disqualified from seeking the office of the presidency.

                BTW, I’m not sure how Vattel’s “Law of Nations” is a greater authority than the words in the Constitution.

                1. 30 Rock explained all this, I thought.

                2. No, that person wouldn’t be any kind of natural born citizen at all. They’d just be a citizen. Vattel just defines the term as it was understood at the time.

            2. But someone born to a U.S. citizen is *not* automatically a U.S. citizen. If he/she is born in the U.S., then yes (but not because his/her parents are citizens; under the 14th amendment, it’s simply by virtue of being born here). If he/she is born outside the U.S., then it gets a lot more complicated, as Al Wayswright explained above at 11:25 AM.

              1. But that’s just the point. Just because they passed a law that said something doesn’t mean that law makes sense or is even enforceable. Look for loopholes all you want, but my guess is the framers would recognize any person born to a woman who is an American citizen, regardless of the location of birth, as a being a natural born citizen. Being fully aware that Congress may have passed laws that said otherwise, I think that this is enough to make the issue irrelevant.

                1. I am inclined to agree with you Thom.

                2. If during the time Of the Framers that women had given birth in England that child would have been irrevocably a British subject. Do you really think the guys who just fought a war with England would want that child to be the POTUS?

    3. Re: ola,

      I am also convinced that he is not a natural born citizen. His father was not a U.S. citizen.

      Indeed, his father was a robot, so the POTUS is actually an artificial-born citizen.

  5. That’s fucking Radley Balko’s finger and thumb in that picture!

    1. Those are some nasty looking finger nails, Balko. Don’t they have a Generic Korean Nail Salon in your neighborhood?

      1. It must have been hid up someone’s ass-that’s shit in his nails

        1. You always talk about homosexual activities. It’s like the first thing that pops into your mind no matter what the subject. Not that there’s anything wrong with homosexuality, as long as you don’t practice or talk about it in a public forum.

          1. “” as long as you don’t practice or talk about it in a public forum.”‘

            Which is why you remain silent about it?

            1. No, I’m not a homosexual, nor do I practice sexual activities that would possibly confuse me with a homosexual, but it’s OK now days to be homosexual, it really is, just don’t go overboard.

              1. Yeah, you say one thing, but the mirror, what does it say?

            2. Sorry Hope, you so need an anal massage. Sorry, I’m just into straight guys

              1. Lol, I love the new health care mandate!

                1. Now fellas hold on just a minute, let me say again that I’m not a homosexual, nor do I practice anything that could be objectively called homosexuality. When I played sports we would slap asses on good plays only and coach said it was OK. Now, that doesn’t mean I would practice any discrimination against the homosexual, however a warning tattoo on the forehead would help avoid awkward situations.

                  1. Quit masturbating Sorry Hope, I’m female but feel free to continue with TrickyVic

                    1. I just said I wasn’t a homosexual, if you’re a woman, and you’re attractive, and you have large breasts, or not, you should consider having sex with me. I’m a Republican and that means I have a large sexual appetite and can afford the latest in penis enlargement technology, but I happen not to need it, I’m just saying in case I did, or knew of somebody that did.

                  2. u know who else liked to put tats on people?

                    1. Your tattoo artist?

                    2. u know who else liked to put tats on people?

                      Your plastic surgeon?

                      Oh, sorry, thought you said something else.

                    3. Wow. Orrin actually goes the Reason inside joke route (albeit with typically shoddy composition skills). Color me surprised.

  6. They are getting better. At least they didn’t fake this document using word. They appear to have used a typewriter. 😉

    1. It’s a ploy to keep the typewriter industry alive!

      1. Buy Remington Rand now!

      2. I wondered why we spent so much time on that?

      3. Not a ploy, just good economic stimulus.

  7. I just heard Obama’s speech about his birth certificate. He sounded very annoyed with commoners, who were nosing around in his personal life.

    This is one area I can empathize with him. I too get annoyed when people nose around in my personal life, especially when it’s the government. Obama is feeling the same frustration the rest of us feel, when the feds want to tell us what types of health insurance we can have, what food to eat, what to put in our bodies, and how much we can pay our employees.

    Scrutiny is a bitch.

    1. I remember about 7 of George W. Bush’s 8 years being very good. Low unemployment, low gas prices, lots of new defense spending, Club Gitmo, Sadaam getting lynched, Cubs almost went to the World Series, KKK rallies on the White House lawn, drowning kitties, men dressing like men.

      1. “”men dressing like men.””

        In public. You know Bush wore a skirt and high heels in the oval office.

        1. In Bushes first term, men still dressed like men, then something weird happened about 2006. Not picking on homosexuals, they have the luxury of not caring. I’m talking straight guys that have sequins on their T shirts and shit like that.

          1. Were you born after the glam rock movement?

          2. I kid the homosexuals a lot, cause they homosexuals…

            1. I’m not falling the banana in the tailpipe.

              1. That hotel has a great breakfast

                1. You tell Mr. Maitland that it’s Herpes Simplex Ten, and he may want to get himself checked at the clinic….

                  1. I was gonna call the article “Michael Jackson Is Sitting On Top of the World,” but now I think I might as well just call it “Michael Jackson Can Sit On Top of the World Just As Long As He Doesn’t Sit in the Beverly Palm Hotel ‘Cause There’s No Niggers Allowed in There!”

                    1. Good thing then that MJ’s not black

                    2. I believe he was -then

          3. Roy Rogers would like a word with you.

    2. The whole “birther” thing was always stupid, but I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

      The sitting president is different from every other U.S. citizen. This is the one man who has control over the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the entire rest of the might of the U.S. Armed Forces at his disposal for four to eight years. He isn’t entitled to have a private personal life while he’s in office.

      This job wasn’t forced on him, he asked the country for it, and the country gave it to him. It’s bad enough that he was the first president to ever be elected without getting vetted by the national press. If he doesn’t like the scrutiny, he can resign.

    3. Prove to me you’re not a racist.

  8. You know, birthers are retarded, but the president is the one who let it get it get this far. It was a bad strategy. Perhaps, however, it only fits with his legacy of being a bad strategy

    1. a bad strategy

      Then spank it. BTW, are you sure you’re a librarian?

      1. Re: Rather,

        Then spank it.

        Racist!

        1. I’ll kiss it better 😉

      2. I’m absolutely sure. I’m reminded every day that I come in to work.

        I don’t understand your added emphasis. Are you suggesting that this use is incorrect, or did you just want to type spank it? I can understand the second, I guess, but not the first.

    2. It was a great strategy! The whole reason they held back the long form was to drive the birthers crazy, so they could call right-wingers nuts.

      It worked like a charm. The problem was that Trump was legitimizing the whole thing. He’s definitely a personality, but he’s not a loon.

  9. What a bad day for American Politics.

    1. Are you nuts….? Guy promoted way above his level of competency has to answer persistent and dogged questions put forth by people with way too much time on their hands…….serial destroyer of businesses, marriages and reduction of level of decorum and taste in this country takes credit for entire affair……..what’s not to like?

      1. Joe: Why’d you get divorced?
        Moe: Barack Obama.
        Joe: Your wife had an affair with the President?
        Moe: No.
        Joe: You had an affair with the President?!
        Moe: No.
        Joe: The President told you to get a divorce?
        Moe: No.
        Joe: The President, by some action or inaction, led to your divorce.
        Moe: Yes.
        Joe: Glad we cleared that up.

  10. Why’d he wait so long? This isn’t exactly a new topic. The lawsuits started almost 2.5 years ago.

    1. Makes no damned sense to me–why drag something like this out?

    2. you know how much time it takes to find a 1961 typewriter on ebay?

      1. About ten seconds.

      2. That’s the easy part. Bribing the government of the State of Hawaii took a lot longer.

    3. Why respond to every crazy allegation that people throw out there?

      JohnG, when did you stop beating your wife? I demand for you to provide evidence.

      1. Umm… bad analogy, since this isn’t a case of proving a negative, it’s a case of providing government documentation of a positive. It definitely makes him look weak, but if he had done it a long time ago it wouldn’t have been an issue.

        1. Why can’t people make good analogies? I think I know, but I’m taking the high road.

        2. If he had just demanded that the State of Hawaii stop treating him like a normal person and treating him like the King of Everything 3 years ago, this all would’ve been solved.

    4. I think he wanted to keep the conversation focused on his birth certificate and not his policies. He wanted the press to keep interviewing Trump rather than any of the more serious (and legitimately limited government) GOP candidates for President. If releasing this certificate has the effect of marginalizing Trump (OK probably won’t have that effect), or at least bringing the focus on the fact that Trump is not a limited government candidate, then this may be the single best thing Obama has done while president.

        1. You from E-Ville, or do you just live there at this point?

          1. I’m from a small town in IL. I work in IN like a lot of people from my corner of the state.

            1. Just wondering. I grew up in Henderson.

              1. Small world. Second person on here that grew up an hour from my podunk town.

                1. There’s another E-Ville native running around, but I haven’t seen him post in a while.

                  1. It’s good to know there are other free thinking people from our neck of the woods. Where do you live now?

                    1. Lexington, the San Francisco of Kentucky.

                    2. hahaha UK fan?

                    3. I have to be. Or they will burn me in the streets.

                    4. True. I’m a lifelong Kentucky fan myself.

            2. I’m from Harrisburg originally! Yay, we’re probably related!

              1. Uncle Jim?

          2. I attended college there for a couple years…wannh wannh.

            1. UofE or USI (or whatever they are calling it this week)?

              1. UE–that’s what the students call it, fool.

      1. Nobody takes Trump seriously. I think this is another one of those badly handled situations that makes this administration the charming group of people it is.

        I’ve got to say, the timing of this does just fan the flames of the doubters. If he’d done it right away, few would’ve questioned it. Now, plenty of people wonder what the foot-dragging was all about, and some will wonder whether this is a forgery.

        Personally, I think it’s all nonsense, but it’s been mishandled–like everything else this administration does (not to let other inept administrations off the hook).

        1. I thought the foot dragging was deliberate – it was a deliberate strategy to make “the Republicans” look like nativists, which would mean “racists” to his base, as well as a fair number of independents.

          I have no idea why it was released – it’s not like anyone who was screaming that he was born in Nairobi is going to vote for him – now or later.

          1. I thought about that, but I don’t think it’s a good strategy. People who’ve walked down that road aren’t going to trust him anymore.

          2. I thought the foot dragging was deliberate – it was a deliberate strategy to make “the Republicans” look like nativists, which would mean “racists” to his base

            Wow, if that’s true, Obama’s playin’ chess while the GOP is playin’ checkers. Color me impressed.

    5. Are you kidding? This was absolutely genius of Obama. It was the most competent thing he’s done in my opinion.

      Sitting on it for two and a half years allowed the nuts to dig themselves into a hole and divide/delegitimize the GOP. $2.5 million in court fights to expose the xenophobic/Anglocentric underbelly of the GOP’s policies is momentum, and a birther tops the GOP presidential polling while another tops the NY Bestsellers list, he buries them with the truth, publicly derailing their campaign at its peak and making them look like the fools most of us knew they were. Political genius. I can’t believe how anyone paying attention couldn’t see exactly why he let them drag this out.

      Trump’s in damage control, trying his best to spin all of his predictions being wrong as a victory. Jerome Corsi and WorldNetDaily’s credibility is shattered. The GOP still looks bad, even though the establishment did its best to distance itself.

      1. $2.5 million in court fights to expose the xenophobic/Anglocentric underbelly of the GOP’s policies is worth it. As the movement gathered momentum, and a birther tops the GOP presidential polling while another tops the NY Bestsellers list, he buries them with the truth, publicly derailing their campaign at its peak and making them look like the fools most of us knew they were.

        1. I don’t agree. I don’t think this wins one person over, and it gains him nothing with his base.

          Crap doesn’t matter anyway–worst president of my lifetime, regardless of where he was born.

          1. His base already thinks the GOP are Anglocentric xenophobes. Where this helps him is with independents and moderates, who, (especially colored by the media) will see the birthers as a group of nuts that happened to grow into a very large group of nuts, who were wrong about everything. Obama allowed it to continue as long as it did because it made large swaths of his critics focus on something else besides his bad policies and delegitimized them as serious people at the same time. Now the Democrats can scratch themselves on the back at how serious/logical they are and how silly/racist the Republicans are.

            1. And the media will wrap up the whole Tea Party movement up with the birthers too.

            2. Exactly. This isn’t about winning over anyone that voted for McCain in the last election, but this has everything to do with getting the first time voters from the last election to come out and vote for him again rather than stay home.

              1. I disagree. I think it is in fact about winning a lot of McCain voters, the centrists who trusted McCain but wouldn’t vote for populists like Donald Trump or Michelle Bachmann.

                1. Hey, you may be right. We will have to see. We’re all just playing monday morning quarterback here.

                  I’m sticking with my theory that being the first racial/ethnic minority candidate for president, and facing constant attacks from mostly middle age or older white people questioning his legitimacy as an American, plays very well with his base. One theory for why the Republicans did so well in the mid-term elections was that many who voted for Obama did not come out to vote. Seeing him under attack taps into the emotions of his base and will bring them to the polls.

            3. Exactly. This isn’t about winning over anyone that voted for McCain in the last election, but this has everything to do with getting the first time voters from the last election to come out and vote for him again rather than stay home.

  11. OK Obama, now let’s see your college transcripts, your medical records, and everything else you’re hiding that every other president before you has voluntarily released.

    1. No president that I can remember has released their college transcripts. Bush’s were leaked by an outside source and no one has Clinton’s or HW’s. Presidents never release their whole medical records, usually just a summary.

      Jeebus, if birthers could move furniture as easily as they moved goal posts Mayflower and United Van Lines would go out of business.

      1. Who is HW?

        1. I’m guessing Bush original. HW – Herbert Walker

        2. Herbert Walker. There are two other parts of the name too, can you guess what they are?

          1. Bohemian Grove?

          2. Scotch Whiskey?

          3. Texas Ranger?

            1. Easy Rider. Though Texas Ranger is unbeatable.

    2. “”OK Obama, now let’s see your college transcripts, “”

      I’d like to see those too. Obama has given me no reason to beleive he wasn’t a US citizen. However, he’s given me plenty of reasons to think he didn’t study ConLaw.

      1. Do you really think that ConLaw courses teach things like “Congress shall pass no law” means Congress really actually ferreal can’t pass ANY such forbidden law?

    3. And his library card. This nation deserves to know what books he’s checked out, and whether he owes late fees.

      1. The NSA discovered that via a National Security Letter years ago, but no one is allowed to acknowledge it, or comment on it.

        Hang on, I hear something on my porch.

        1. put your dog away-take the bullet like a man!

          1. What is this hyphenated word: away-take? Oh, you meant …away–take…

            If you really want folks to comprehend what you’re saying, proper punctuation will surely help getting your point across.

  12. Since it doesn’t say George W. Bush II, I think it’s a fake.

  13. Obama releases just happens to release his birth certificate, on the same day The Ben Bernak has scheduled the first press conference in Fed history.

    Coincidence?

    1. ignore “releases”.

  14. Well, now no one will be paying attention to Bernanke’s press conference today where he’s going to be lying about the economy and trying to talk down precious metals.

    1. Please be calm, everybody! The Titanic is unsinkable and you are all perfectly safe! Please stay away from the lifeboats while we work this out!

  15. So is the nutroots declaring this a win or a loss for their Obamessiah?

    1. IT’S ALWAYS A WIN FOR OBAMA!

  16. Race of father: African.

    That seems a little too politically correct for 1961.

    Wouldn’t it have said ‘Negro’?

    1. His mother’s name is Stanley? No wonder Obama has issues.

      1. now i understand why the gays love him so. his parents were dudes!!!!one!!11!eleventY!11

      2. The whole Dunham family was a bunch of whackjobs.

  17. Well someone got their wish.

    “”Pat D King|4.26.11 @ 8:31PM|#
    Hey when is Reason going to do a story on the Obama birth certificate, and the controversy surronding it?

    reply to this “”

    1. Obama must have seen Pat’s post.
      He also has an issue with Radley Balko.

  18. The best part of Obama’s comments was when he said “[He has] more important things to do.” He is going to be on Oprah today. Very important.

    1. That’s a majority of his job: getting reelected. You can’t do that by ignoring vagina-Americans.

      1. You may want to give that gem of advice to libertarians!

        1. You can’t get re-elected without having been elected first, so that advice would be useless to libertarians.

  19. HOLY SHIT! Obama’s father’s race was AFRICAN?

  20. OMG! Do you all see what his middle name is?

  21. This is why it may not matter, or ever have mattered.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/2826…..nstitution

  22. Now, I’m not a birther, but my understanding in the whole birther thing is that they’ve always had the short form certificate of live birth, and a certificate of live birth is not the same as a birth certificate.

    1. And wasn’t the party line always that the CLB was all that existed? That the Long Form had been discarded to save space?

      1. Say, that’s right. WTF?

      2. But I thought the central issue was the certificate of live birth itself. Not even whether it was short form or long form, I thought the deal was that a CLB =/= Birth Certificate (something about easier to obtain a false document or something like that, I don’t know, I usually just tune out once the birther folk start ramblin).

      3. No, the party line was that the long form was stored in a box somewhere.

        1. Ah, some googling reveals that the “doesn’t exist/discarded” storyline was being used by defenders of the President and not an official White House stance.

  23. That looks a lot better than that 8-bit garbage they had on TPM.

  24. Goodbtye Birthers, my ass. You right-wing gurus really don’t know your base, do you, Nick? The dimwits who send you donations wouldn’t know a fact if it bit their balls off.

    1. Max, Honey, it’s time for your delousing. Please meet me out back with the kerosene.

      1. Aww Mom…you said I could delouse him next time!

        1. No, son, I said you could give him his next enema. We’ll do that right after the delousing.

  25. Why is it “II” as opposed to “Junior”?

    1. Hey, now, lots of people — myself included — are “II” instead of “junior.” It’s a matter of preference (although there used to be a technical distinction).

      1. Fred V 1.1 as opposed to Fred V 1.2.

    2. Does “Star Trek Jr” sound better than “Star Trek II”?

      1. Why yes, yes it does.

        1. I agree.

      2. I always thought the title of that movie was

        KHAAAAAAN!

        repeated several times over, at decreasing volumes, with a little bit of Doppler effect thrown in.

  26. It will be interesting to see if any cognitive dissonance sets in.

    1. It probably will not.

  27. I’m also curious to see what happens with the birth cert laws some states have proposed. Was it just about Obama, or do they really want every President to disclose?

    1. If they can’t come up with George Washington’s birth certificate this nation is finished.

      1. He would have been exempt from the Natural Born clause anyway.

        1. Damn it!!

    2. It’s about non-whites.

      1. “Less Than Whites” – let’s use the correct terminology, xaM

      2. Hey Max: fuck you.

        This might be a big-time newsie shocker to you, but it is quite possible to not be thrilled about a president for reasons other than his skin color.

        It really does seem to be the lefties that are preoccupied to the point of obsession about race. I have never heard any right-wing pundit or talking head criticize Obama on the basis that he is (half) black. The criticism I have heard centers on his policy positions and political beliefs – which are independent of his skin color.

        I’m just so fucking sick and tired of the old “if you criticize Obama, it’s because you’re racist” meme. So, once again, I must repeat: fuck you. Stuff it, asshole.

        1. I hate Max, but I don’t think that’s what he’s saying.

          He’s saying that the specific reason there has been such huffing and puffing about his citizenship is because his father was a black African.

          If his father had been a Danish prince or something, this whole citizenship thing would have been discarded long ago.

          1. If his father had been a Danish prince or something, this whole citizenship thing would have been discarded long ago.

            Seriously, I doubt that.

            Not a racial/racist thing, remember?

          2. Or, if he had been born in the canal zone with a father in the military, this would also be a non-issue. I’m not sure it’s the skin color so much as the perception of foreign-ness that comes through in his parentage and upbringing.

            1. The birthers were on about McCain to.

              1. To this degree? I don’t think so.

            2. McCain made a point of showing his original worm-eaten birth certificate to everybody he could. He even got the Senate to pass a resolution that he was a natural born citizen.

          3. True, and in all likelihood, the vast majority of us would have no idea who “Obama” is.

            1. Unlike the present actuality.

        2. It really does seem to be the lefties that are preoccupied to the point of obsession about race.

          Progressives, particularly SWPLs, are more obsessed with race than a Klan rally.

  28. lol, they can print those things all day long at the Government printing office. Pretty funny isnt it? This is clearly the biggest coverup of ALL time.

    http://www.complete-privacy.edu.tc

  29. The only reason I was glad to see this is that it seems like Obama is finally living up to his lip service to transparency, if only in meaningless ways.

    1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      Oh, sorry – I thought that was the Friday Funny

  30. Now that we’ve finally ended our long national birther nightmare, can we execute him for crimes against humanity now?

    1. We’ll have to round up all the living presidents and make a real show of it.

  31. @JoshMalina:

    Glad Obama finally released his birth certificate, but doing it through iTunes was tacky.

  32. Stop it. Just stop it.

  33. Here’s hoping that after his presidency is over, this turns out to be a forgery. The clusterfuck would be delicious.

    1. I would rather that be revealed before his presidency is over. That would truly be fun. Oh the hilarity that would ensue!

      1. Dibs on breaking the story!

  34. This will not end the birther crap. Conspiracy theorists cannot be persuaded by evidence.

    What I would like to know is, assuming that they could prove that Obama did not meet the legal prerequisites for POTUS, WTF do the birthers hope to gain? President Joe Biden?

    At its heart, birtherism is nonsense, in that it adopts the primitive notion that there is some mystical bond between an individual and his place of birth. The notion was unfortunately prevalent throughout the world in 1787 and got incorporated into the US constitution. It is time to get rid of it.

    1. You’re thinking what I’m thinking, aren’t you? President/Prime Minister Shatner! Yee-ha!

      1. *shudders*

        On reflection, I won’t deny there is some benefit to be gained from the existing text.

        (Or would you prefer ‘President Conan’?)

        1. That’s all we need.

          A president who thinks that he should crush his enemies, see them driven before him, and hear the lamentation of their women.

          Oh, wait! We got that already!

        2. Every odd day, he’s prime minister. Every even day, he’s president. To keep everyone from being confused, he’ll be Prime Minister Shatner and President Kirk.

          1. That is the first genuinely funny thing I’ve read on here in years.

    2. In the specific case of the Constitution, I think there was real fear that an English politician could jump on a ship to the US and come over and muck around in our politics.

      So they wrote the requirements in a way that would allow the revolutionary generation to hold the office, but then shut the door after that.

      1. Also, they wrote the requirement because they didn’t like Alexander Hamilton, who was born in Nevis.

      2. I know you want me

  35. So long Birthers.

    Old Birthers don’t give up, they just fade away.

  36. “At a time of great consequence for this country – when we should be debating how we win the future, reduce our deficit, deal with high gas prices, and bring stability to the Middle East, Washington, DC, was once again distracted by a fake issue,”

    *guffaws, slaps knee, rolls on floor*

  37. Conspiracy theorists cannot be persuaded by evidence.

    Who paid you to come here and say that?

    Out with it!

    I’ll bet it was SOROS.

    *spits*

  38. What gets me is the proposition that so called “birthers” are irrational. Usually, well, almost always, such assertions are bereft of concrete support. That is irrational.

    First, no one here knows where Obama was born. The foregoing statement is irrefutable. No one here can establish that they were in the delivery room on August 4, 1961.

    Second, if one is a libertarian, one does not regard state created documents as prima facie evidence of whether a given proposition is a fact. It is irrational to accord some kind of “magic truth” to a government document.

    Third, have we heard from the doctor who delivered Obama? Any of the nurses or other hospital employees who may have been in the delivery room?

    1. Hi, there!

      1. Hi Everybody!

    2. As I previously noted:

      Aresen|4.27.11 @ 11:19AM|#

      This will not end the birther crap. Conspiracy theorists cannot be persuaded by evidence.

      1. No Aresen, it’s just that Obama has fallen into LibertyMike’s trap!

        1. That’s because no one expects the Uteran Inquisition!

    3. “”have we heard from the doctor who delivered Obama?”

      Also = how can we be sure the world is not an illusion being created by machines through a plug in the back of our brains so that they can harvest our bodies for energy in the meantime? YOU CANT PROVE ITS NOT TRUE!!

      1. Again, it is irrational for one to argue that so-called birthers are irrational if the basis upon which one so argues is, “they don’t accept the evidence allegedly generated by the state.”

        Example, Arsen. He cites a prior post as responsive to my post. I do not advance some conspiracy theory regarding the bolzhevik’s birth.

        Gilmore is doing the same thing-his post is absolutely frivolous.

    4. I never personally interviewed the doctor who delivered Reagan.

      That means, by your reasoning, that it would not be irrational for me to wonder aloud if the former President was actually a space alien.

      “You weren’t THERE! You don’t KNOW!”

      1. Poor argumentation and non-responsive.

        I argue that much of the bashing of the so-called birthers is irrational. The basis of the bashing is weak, at best.

        Do you think, as a libertarian, that it is a logical proposition that a record, allegedly created by the state, is prima facie evidence that the propostion in question is a fact.

        If you respond in the affirmative, then you are endorsing the notion that “if the gubmint says its so, it must be so and those who doubt that are idiots.”

        1. Again, the only “evidence” to which birther bashers can point to is the state created document. Is there any other evidence which establishes that Obamba was delivered in Honolulu?

          Perhaps one could point to the birth announcements which appeared in the local paper. Such announcements, of course, in and of themselves, do not prove anything. Sure, one could argue that the newspaper announcements coupled with the birth certificate tends to support the notion that Obama was born in Honolulu.

          However, a newpaper announcement 9 days after Obama’s birth and the certificate of live birth, in and of themselves, do not lend support to the proposition that one questioning the true birthplace of Obama is irrational. To so argue, one must accept that the certificate of live birth and the newspaper announcement 9 days later are unimpeachable.

          1. I should’ve known not to trust Michael J. Fox with a time machine! *shakes fist*

          2. I argue that much of the bashing of the so-called birthers is irrational. The basis of the bashing is weak, at best.

            The basic birther argument relies on the validity of government documents as its starting point. The irrationality of their argument can be found in their position on the validity of the long versus the short form. The state of Hawaii considers the computer generated shorter form the “official” document. While it is certainly true that any government document can be forged, or in error, the basic birther argument was that the short form was not “official” enough to prove anything because it was generated too far after the fact (or something). Their premise that this document was somehow less likely to have been faked is based on an irrational need for “proof beyond a doubt.” But since the issue is one of law, requiring more than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is irrational. It is irrational to believe that the standard of authentication for president would need to rely on eye-witness accounts of the birth. Irrational.

          3. “”Again, the only “evidence” to which birther bashers can point to is the state created document. Is there any other evidence which establishes that Obamba was delivered in Honolulu?

            Perhaps one could point to the birth announcements which appeared in the local paper. Such announcements, of course, in and of themselves, do not prove anything.””

            People lie, the government lies, everyone lies. If we hang our hat on the presumption that nothing is proof, then nothing can be proven.

            1. But I am not arguing that “we hang our hat on the presumption that nothing is proof”. Thus, how do you get to that point?

              We should presume that just because the state says somehting is so, does not mean it is so.

              1. “”We should presume that just because the state says somehting is so, does not mean it is so.””

                Not necessarily. But if the birthcert is the standard of proof we use in this country, then we are not wrong to assume it is proof without other information indicating otherwise.

              2. If you do not believe it is proof, then what would be proof to you?

                1. From Libertymike:
                  Third, have we heard from the doctor who delivered Obama? Any of the nurses or other hospital employees who may have been in the delivery room?

                  We have heard from family friends, teachers, people who knew the infant Obama. Is the testimony of a woman in the hospital the same day who claims to have seen Obama with her own eyes better evidence than the BC? Cuz we have that.

                  1. Have we? I do not ask with sarcasm, but out of genuine ignorance.

                    If they have said that they were in Obama’s company in August of 1961, then that is, imo, a greater, more reliable, specie of evidence than a state generated document.

                    1. Have we? I do not ask with sarcasm, but out of genuine ignorance.

                      Yes, we have.

          4. If a government document is not “prima facie evidence that the proposition in question is a fact”, then Fluffy’s argument about Reagan is just as non-irrational (rational?) as birthers’ skepticism of BHO’s place of birth. This is the main argument of anti-birthers: That “birther” logic can be applied to place-of-birth skepticism of any past/present politician, but it is only applied to the democratic President whom they do not care for.

        2. No, dummy.

          The reason they are irrational is because they are applying a standard of proof to one question (Obama’s citizenship) that they do not apply to any other question (every other President’s citizenship).

          You can say “BUHUWHAH? You are accepting a STATE DOCUMENT?” to every other Presidential candidate and every other President you didn’t personally squeeze out of your vagina. But you don’t.

          Selective Humean skepticism is the mark of an irrational and Krugmanesque mind.

          1. oops, I just posted a similar comment right above you.

            1. I did that one better and double-posted 28 minutes apart.

              I think that must be a record.

              That was a true double-post, too, folks. I hit “submit” and then went to run an errand. I came back and hit “refresh” on a hung page. Voila.

        3. No, dummy.

          The reason they are irrational is because they are applying a standard of proof to one question (Obama’s citizenship) that they do not apply to any other question (every other President’s citizenship).

          You can say “BUHUWHAH? You are accepting a STATE DOCUMENT?” to every other Presidential candidate and every other President you didn’t personally squeeze out of your vagina. But you don’t.

          Selective Humean skepticism is the mark of an irrational and Krugmanesque mind.

  39. Firstly, a personal note: R C Dean — I bow in your general direction, sir. Did you have a law predicting this or something? Because it still doesn’t make much sense to me, strategically speaking.

    And with that aside…

    It’s the PROOFS THAT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS A FAKE thread!1!!!11!

      1. It is printed on a sort of paper which did not exist at the time.
      2. It makes use of fonts which did not exist at the time.
      3. It contains data which contradicts other data already known and confirmed.

    Now help out — do your part — there must be at least a thousand other proofs!

    1. For a real treat, Google-map the address given as the mother’s residence.

      1. Zillow has it as a 5-bedroom, 2-bath home.

    2. It this were a fake, the smart thing to do–especially after the CBS snafu about Bush’s National Guard service–would be to take a real one and copy its look down to the stains.

      1. Same goes for blue dresses.

  40. And separately…

    It’s the REASONS WHY THE FULLY AUTHENTIC BIRTH CERTIFICATE PROVES OBAMA CAN NO LONGER BE THE PRESIDENT thread!1!!!11!

      1. Ineligibility: his father was not a US citizen.
      2. Grounds for impeachment: previous failure to produce constitutes obstruction of justice.

    These ones are tougher to predict, but let’s get going!

  41. To marginalize Trump in the debates, if he gets that far, Johnson, Paul, and any other candidate, should all begin the debate by placing a copy of their birth certificate on Trump’s podium.

  42. I think the upside of all this is that it will be difficult if not impossible for the public discourse to go much dumber. I mean, never underestimate the public… but I think this experience might have at least exorcised the stupid out of *some*… for at least a little while.

    Or, maybe i’m wrong, and shit is just going to get dumber right quick. To the max.

    1. Dumber as in your 12:07 pm post?

    2. Ever seen Idiocracy?

  43. One of the most bizarre and generally uninteresting episodes in American political history has ended with the White House releasing the “long form” birth certificate of Barack Obama (see above).

    If this is uninteresting then why did Weigel post here on it twice a week during the 2008 election?

  44. If people were actually concerned about getting to the truth, then the first BC should have been enough. They should have said, phew, constitutional crisis averted, let’s talk about policy now. Wouldn’t it have sucked if our legitimately elected president were not constitutionally eligible, according to a pointless and outdated constitutional provision?

    But no, of course. It’s not about that. It’s about the negro Demo-rat and the feeble coup attempts that conservatives make whenever they lose control of the presidency.

    1. But no, of course. It’s not about that. It’s about the negro Demo-rat and the feeble coup attempts that conservatives make whenever they lose control of the presidency.

      No it was about a presidential candidate in 2008 who was not vetted by the media in any way. In that vacuum conspiracy theories took hold.

      Here is absolute proof of that fact:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

    2. Yes, and let’s not forget that Bush guy who seriously stole that election in 2000…and who hid the truth about his involvement in 9/11 as a big conspiracy to take revenge on Saddam.

  45. This is definitely a win for Trump, in the weirdly vacant PR universe that seems to be all that matters these days.

    You gotta love the way Trump has taken credit, and started punching away again on his college transcripts and gas prices.

    The real mistake the Obama camp made, I think, in not releasing the long form immediately is that it gave a lot of people (recent polling makes it look like a whole lot of people) the chance to get into the habit of thinking “What’s he hiding?” That’s a hard habit to break, even after you show you weren’t hiding anything. That time.

    1. As a matter of logic, how can one argue that the so-called birthers are irrational?

      As a libertarian, one knows that state created records should not be accorded some kind of unimpeachable status. Why? The propensity for error, intended or not.

      1. Mike, they’re the ones who asked for the long form. Now that they have it, a lot of us guess that they’ll immediately begin resorting to other conspiracy theories about how it’s a forgery. Of course it could be a forgery. But if you’ve been stomping your feet and demanding this exact document for three years, what was the point of all of it just to not accept it when it gets released?

        Of course, they could surprise us all, and accept the very thing they’ve been demanding and quietly go away. But somehow I doubt it. I personally think the “forgery” crowd will be fringe; instead they’ll move the goalposts to trying to define him out of “natural” through his father. That’s my prediction on where this will head. Or they’ll all shift their focus to his high school transcripts.

        I also predict they will all demand that he send blood samples to every household so that we can all independently verify that he is not The Thing.

        1. “But if you’ve been stomping your feet and demanding this exact document for three years, what was the point of all of it just to not accept it when it gets released?”

          But they were asking for the non-forged document, so they never actually got what they wanted.

          1. AHA…touche’, Cynical. I never saw that coming, but hats off to you; you are indeed correct.

            1. If you want to see some other things that you never saw coming, just go visit freerepublic for a minute. As an experiment, I posted upthread before doing so, and never before has my skill for predicting outlandish rationalization been so quickly shown to have been so utterly feeble.

              As they say: you can’t make this stuff up fast enough.

              1. You asshole. Like a car wreck, I just HAD to go look. (exasperated Bill Murray voice) “Now I have to kill all of you!”

                1. At least we can say with certitude that the spark of creativity is alive and well amongst the people.

                  (that’s some industrial-strength positivity, right there)

      2. A state document to validate a state requirement for a state position. Render unto Caesar and all that.

      3. Oh sorry, I also meant to add; the birthers didn’t go after McCain nearly as hard, though he was named in a few lawsuits. Much as I loathe the man and wouldn’t shed a tear to see him burst into flames, it really does look like this whole debacle was largely nativist / racial in origin.

        1. I’m sure President Actually-Born-In-Panama would have had some leftie birthers though.

  46. As a matter of logic, how can one argue that the so-called birthers are irrational?

    Because they provided irrational arguments about an irrational fear? Just because an appeal to authority is a fallacy in logic, does not mean that questioning the authority is always going to be a rational argument. There has to be additional rational evidence presented to show that there is a reason to doubt the authority. Committing argumentum ad logicam is just as irrational as accepting blindly an appeal to authority.

    1. More simply said: The person making the assertion has to provide the proof.

      Otherwise we’re just sitting around trying to prove negatives.

      1. Yeah, and if you are asserting that it is illogical to question the place of Obama’s birth, then the burden would be upon you to demonstrate the same.

        If the entirety of your argument consists of the state generated form, you have not carried the day.

        1. If the entirety of your argument consists of the state generated form, you have not carried the day.

          If you think the only counter evidence presented to the birthers has been the state generated forms then you are not paying attention.

          1. If you recognized that the birthers wouldn’t change their little minds if the Heavens opened and the Lord Jehovah himself appeared to confirm that Obama was born in the US, you would realize that you are wasting your breath.

            1. Yes.
              I do realize that…but I have a lot of breath to waste (evidence, I comment on H&R occasionally).

              1. Above you referred to family and friends who have spoken on the issue.

                I was not aware of such, but, if they say that they were in Obama’s presence in August of 1961, then that specie of evidence, imo, is superior to a state generated form.

  47. You fucking poeple suck!!

    If you are born in the US you are natural born regardless of whether your mom is a us citizen or not.

    Do you people understand???

    1. oh ya.

      Minor vs Happersett

      “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of PARENTS who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

  48. It’s too bad the “twin” box wasn’t checked. Because then this could morph into a The Man in the Iron Mask scenario. That would be fun.

    1. Oh man, that even beats my “The Thing” scenerio. The real Obama is locked in a Kenyan prison somewhere, being waterboarded daily. Who will save him!?

      Lenny: “NOT knowing is the worst torture of all.”

      Carl: “Well, that and the rat-helmet.”

      1. And his jailer? Osama bin Laden!

        1. Who will save him!?

          Looks like it’s up to Pro D’Artagnan!

          1. “The man of Meung!” replied d’Artagnan, and disappeared.

  49. No it was about a presidential candidate in 2008 who was not vetted by the media in any way.

    This new meme is funny. I think people actually believe it too. Between Fox news, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, BBC, AL Jazeera, etc… Obama managed to get elected without anyone looking in to him or his previous associations, accomplishments, etc…

    It is not true on its face. I knew more details about Obama’s background than I have about any previous president…and I wasn’t much focused on the election.

    1. It’s not that he wasn’t vetted. He just didn’t have enough public experience for us to adequately judge him on. Given the power of the presidency, I object to that.

      1. Bullshit.

        He had years in the senate. He had a voting record and he even sponsored bills…none of which was analyzed during the election.

        I knew more about Palin’s mentally handicapped new born then I knew about Obama’s public record in November of 2008, and it is a safe bet that the same could be said about the general voting public.

        1. Okay, let me rephrase: My biggest problem is that we elected him without having an adequate record to judge him by. My second biggest problem is that the media didn’t point this out.

          Of course, what I really mean to say is that those were my second and third biggest problems, because my biggest problem was that the guy was pretty obviously a statist with socialist leanings.

          1. There is a little bit of a record, but Obama the Senator, doesn’t match Obama the President. If you had a bigger record to judge him by, it probably would still not match.

            Remember, Obama the candidate said if we can solve the health care problem by mandating insurance, then we can solve the homeless problem by mandating housing.

            My how putting on the suit changes things.

    2. This new meme is funny.

      It is not new in the least.

      I was bitching about it in the comments of Weigel articles in 2008.

      The coverage of Obama here at Reason and elsewhere was terrible.

      I do have to applaud Matt though for doing pretty good work on covering McCain. Of course he did write a book on him…but of course Matt was not Reason’s election corespondent…Weigel was.

      I knew more details about Obama’s background than I have about any previous president

      Good for you, but the fact remains in 2008 he was the empty suit that only spoke “hope and change”, and even you admit you did not learn about his past until after the election.

      1. even you admit you did not learn about his past until after the election.

        When did I admit that? Really, the “not vetted” thing is just silly. It is like people who were surprised to find out after we invaded Iraq how weak Bush’s evidence of WMD was when the issue had been covered extensively prior to the invasion.

        There was plenty of information about Obama’s public record, associations, previous policy stances, and positions in the mainstream coverage of him prior to the election. Far too much to say that he “wasn’t vetted.”

        1. When did I admit that?

          You admitted that here:

          and I wasn’t much focused on the election.

          1. Joshua,

            Read the whole sentence.

            I knew more details about Obama’s background than I have about any previous president…and I wasn’t much focused on the election.

            I didn’t feel like I needed the “By election day” at the beginning of that sentence,” but I guess I was wrong.

            1. Yeah I think I read that differently then how you meant it.

        2. Really, the “not vetted” thing is just silly.

          This video and the corresponding study proves different:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

          1. This video and the corresponding study proves different:

            Proves? I am not going to watch the video. Do you have a link to the study?

            1. Proves? I am not going to watch the video. Do you have a link to the study?

              FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuu…..

              yeah i think there is a link in the video.

              But fine I will look for it you lazy ass American.

            2. http://www.howobamagotelected……search.asp

              In the margins is a link to Zogby and Wilson poll results.

              I can’t believe you don’t remember this thing. Zogby was run through the ringers by left wingers over it.

              Perhaps after looking at the links and doing a google search or two will jog your memory.

              Hell i would not be surprised if you commented on the reason articles on the subject.

              1. I can’t believe you don’t remember this thing. Zogby was run through the ringers by left wingers over it.

                Don’t remember this thing. It looks pretty forgettable. And I would hope right-wingers ran Zogby through the ringers too. Nothing worse than an idiot yabbering nonsense on your behalf to muck things up.

            3. Never mind. Followed the link from the video. Yowza, that is some unconvincing use of polling data.

              1. Yowza, that is some unconvincing use of polling data.

                Bla bla bla it was a Zogby poll and zogby defended it.

                Feel free to google it.

                1. The first result found for Zogby’s defense of the poll uses the words

                  “Not our finest hour.”

                  1. I can’t find that on Zogby’s website where the poll is defended.

                    http://www.zogby.com/news/2008…..gler-poll/

                    “We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn’t. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election. Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other, while message and knowledge testing is quite another effort of public opinion research that is legitimate inquiry and has value in the public square. In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election. The client is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society. But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that’s exactly what we did. We don’t have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion.” – John Zogby

                    1. http://www.politico.com/news/s…..15829.html

                      “I am happy to do a poll of both Obama voters and McCain voters, with questions that I formulated and sponsored either by an objective third party or by someone on the left, in tandem with a John Ziegler on the right ? but poll questions that have my signature,” Zogby said.

                      “I believe there was value in the poll we did,” Zogby added. “I also believe it was not our finest hour. This slipped through the cracks. It came out critical only of Obama voters.”

                    2. This slipped through the cracks. It came out critical only of Obama voters.”

                      I think he is only talking about how the poll was used to be only critical of Obama voters. I agree that the results were manipulated and targeted by howobamagotelected.com to show how dumb Obama voters were. In fact i would contend that everyone was dumb in regards to Obama. Supporters, opponents and independents.

                      It seems pretty obvious that Zogby stands by the fact that the poll did showed general ignorance about Obama.

                    3. It seems pretty obvious that Zogby stands by the fact that the poll did showed general ignorance about Obama.

                      I think if that were true, he wouldn’t have said “with questions that I formulated.”

  50. For the first time in my life, I am proud to have been born in the United States of America!

  51. I’m sorry but that thing looks weird to be an official document. Is it supposed to be a photocopy? if so why is the writing floating on top of the security paper?

  52. Birthers demand to see placenta!

    http://www.theonion.com/articl…..enta,6866/

  53. Honestly, I couldn’t give a shit where this worthless asshole was born, except in the context of calibrating a giant circus cannon to shoot him back there.

  54. So now what happens to the army guy thar refused to be deployed because Obama wasn’t supposed to be commander in chief?

  55. Please, Mr. Trump, if you love your country, ask him for his LSAT score and 1L grades. I’m beggin’ ya.

  56. Would anyone here believe proof that socialism worked?

  57. Now you know where I got this name!

  58. Never expected this at Reason. I mean, I know birthers tend to be out there on the looney fringe, but I expected that here, unlike on so many right-wing sites that are currently trying to decide whether they should swoon over Trump, someone would have pointed out by now that this is the same Certificate of Live Birth they’ve been peddling since this whole thing started.

    This isn’t anything new, and it certainly isn’t a ‘long form’ birth certificate(not sure how ‘long form came into vogue–the birth certificate is recognizable largely because it SAYS ‘birth certificate’–it’s not really much ‘longer’ than this).

    Frankly, I’ve never thought Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii–I just want to know why he’s avoiding showing a birth certificate. The CoLB is the more generic form, it’s what you get BEFORE you’re issued the full-on birth cretificate(most people use them for the announcement in the paper) or what a hospital will send you through the mail(they make you come and get originals or copies of the birth certificate).

    I was really hoping that someone at Reason would do a WTF? story and point out that this is the same document–something full of snark, something wondering why, after the big announcement, we’re left with the document everyone’s been complaining about, not for.

    1. someone would have pointed out by now that this is the same Certificate of Live Birth they’ve been peddling since this whole thing started.

      No, it isn’t.

  59. This is what they’ve been showing since it started: http://images.dailykos.com/ima…..ficate.jpg

    It’s presumably derived from the Certificate of Live Birth, but is not the same.

  60. If the boy had listened to me he would have been President of Kenya,
    and I would be living high on the hippopotomus in Switzerland instead of this fucking section 8 in Roxbury.

  61. I didn’t feel like I needed the “By election day” at the beginning of that sentence,” but I guess I was wrong.
    http://techcomnews.blogspot.com

  62. Obama’s Birth Certificate can’t say George W. Bush, II because there is already a George W. Bush, II. George H.W. Bush is the first, George W. Bush is the second. You people fail at being being funny.

    1. Maybe Nick Gillespie’s Birth Certificate says idiot on it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.