Honoring the natural born truth

As this post by Tom Maguire (which Glenn Reynolds linked yesterday) reminded me, there are many gradations of Birthers, many types of Truthers, and many types of "believers." Including Birthers, True Believers, True Believing Birthers and "honorary" truthers like Tom Maguire and (quite shockingly) even Andrew Sullivan.

What is the Truth anyway? There are only so many things that can be known, and only so many absolute truths that can be known absolutely.

I'm a skeptic about most things, and I believe in that old expression "Trust but verify." But trust what? Verify how?

I have a great deal of impatience with self delusion, and I don't like having to humor people who are engaged in it. Thus, I have harshly criticized the Birth Certificate Truthers, especially the WorldNetDaily variety. However, in addition to the "honorary" birthers (who only want to see the long form certificate even though they don't think it will alter the election results), there is one form of Trutherism I can respect. That's what I would call "non-believing Trutherism." This is the type of person who really doesn't care what the truth is (and may even secretly believe Barack Obama was in fact born in Hawaii), but sees the birth certificate issue simply as a political tactic. I think it's a bad tactic and likely to help Obama, but at least such people are not engaged in self delusion. Their position reminds me of my "Global Warming defiance," to which I would adhere even if I became a secret believer in Global Warming theory.

What I continue to see as the biggest problem for all Truthers, Birthers and sympathizers is this: the State of Hawaii has officially certified that Barack Obama was born there.

I am sorry, but if you don't believe that Hawaii has in fact certified that he was born there, then I must respectfully consider you to be a loon. What I mean by "respectfully" is that I will not call you a loon to your face, but I will think it, and I will tend not to take what you say seriously.

Like it or not, that official state certification settles the eligibility inquiry for electoral purposes, because states have the right to certify who was born in them. Just as they have the right to certify who dies.

Such certification is no ironclad guarantee that fraud does not occur, of course, so the fact that Hawaii certified Barack Obama's Honolulu birth does not guarantee that he was born there as a matter of scientific truth. As many people have pointed out, this could all be a plot, and the Obama family, the doctors, the Hawaiian newspaper, and that Department of Health woman with the name which would probably be rejected as a personalized license plate in California* -- all of these could be conspiring to perpetrate a lie. That is what many Truthers believe, and they are demanding that Obama produce a "long form" style, old fashioned birth certificate -- the kind Hawaii no longer issues.

Could Obama do that if he wanted to, and would that "clear everything up" as the Truthers say? I think he probably could, but I don't know. It might depend on whether his family saved the old long form certificate and if he has it. Considering the amount of traveling they did, I would not be surprised if it has been lost over the years, and replaced with the newer version. The State of Hawaii says they have a copy of the old form in their files, but are prohibited by law from releasing it -- possibly even to Barack Obama himself. I rather doubt they'd refuse a direct request, but you never know.... Personally, I'd like to see the form, because I'm curious about anything I'm not allowed to see, especially when the government is hiding it.

As to whether releasing the long form would clear all of this up, of course it would not. It would be attacked as a forgery of some sort, and even if it appeared to demonstrate conclusively that Hawaii is telling the truth, the hard core Truthers would simply switch gears to the Donofrio-Taitz argument, that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, the fact that his father was a Kenyan makes him less than a "natural born citizen," and thus automatically ineligible to be president. (I think the argument is frivolous, but my opinion will not make it go away.)

Were I advising Obama and he came to me and asked whether he should produce the long form if he has it, or demand that Hawaii produce it if he doesn't, I'd tell him to wait until the election is closer. Let his opponents gnash their teeth and spin their wheels, and at the last possible optimum time, give them what they want (better yet if Obama has to sue the State of Hawaii to get it) and make it appear as if they are wasting valuable time. This would then cause them to make the even more unreasonable claim that the long form is also a forgery (or was obtained through fraud), as well as advance the argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

So, onward and upward for the Truth, whatever it may be!

Whether that makes me an natural born Truther, who knows?

* While it might seem unfair that a bureaucrat like Dr. Fukino would have the power to decide such a momentous national issue, that happens to be the way all state bureaucracies like Hawaii's Department of Health operate. Some official we have never heard of has similar power in every state.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Here's my prediction. Whatever the truth may turn out to be, it will change nothing. Naturally, I'd be delighted to be wrong.

MORE: Via M. Simon, WorldNetDaily reports that Orly Taitz has come up with an original Kenyan birth certificate showing Obama's birth in Mombasa, Kenya. There is a picture in the article, which means that people can now argue ad infinitum over the document's legitimacy.

The normal rule is that because governments keep these records, they get to be the judges of the authenticity of their own purported records. (Which means the Kenyan government will most likely have the last word.)

Will anyone ask Kenya about this document, or is that a silly question?

posted by Eric on 08.02.09 at 06:01 PM










Comments

It's surely starting to look as if he's hiding something. I wonder what.

I figure it's something embarassing.

Maybe he isn't really black?

Veeshir   ·  August 2, 2009 7:50 PM

Actually, I know someone like that! His mother lied about who is father was, even to the hospital, and it went right onto the birth certificate.

I know another family that put the woman's husband's (not the real father's) name on their baby's birth certificate.

This sort of thing goes on all the time. Of course, if the baby was born here, it does not affect citizenship.

Eric Scheie   ·  August 2, 2009 8:53 PM

From experience in researching my family's history, I can say that every state is different and where and how you ask for documentation can result in different documents.

However, I've never requested anything from the state of Hawaii.

Donna B.   ·  August 2, 2009 11:15 PM

QUESTION:

What happens to Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation as Supreme Court Justice if the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” Presidential eligibility requirement is subsequently determined applicable to Barack Obama on the basis of Article 2’s exclusion of dual citizenship birth (doesn’t matter whether Obama born in Hawaii since his dad was Kenyan/British citizen at the time)? It would seem prudent, if not dereliction of Constitutional duty in not so doing, for the United States Senate to defer voting on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation at the very least until there is determination, now imminent, on standing in Kerchner v. Congress (USDC NJ) on that precise issue (Congressional failure to take up the raised and known constitutional ineligibility question prior to declaring a Presidential winner in the vote of the electoral college). For the full Senate now to proceed to vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor (an otherwise lifetime appointment) before then, would be a knowing and very substantial exacerbation of any inherent Constitutional crisis — compounding the previous Congressional dereliction. That is, the Executive Branch, as well as conceivably all actions of a Congress under a President determined ineligible, would leave the Supreme Court as an essential unfettered remaining Branch of the Federal Government, that is unfettered so long as Mr. Obama’s nominee to the Court is not yet confirmed by the Senate.

Will not one Senator, let alone Republican Senator, raise this issue on the Senate floor? The nation is watching.

Leave a Reply

Jack   ·  August 3, 2009 12:06 AM

We all know that the President is a planned product. Groomed, petted, telepromted and funded; his way is made plain by a hazy group of leftists in and out of the US. So it's silly to focus on him. If he becomes too unpopular or if something happens to his corporal self--Hillary or simialr will step right in. In fact that's a feature not a bug. Hillary wasn't popular enough to get elected on her own, she's now being hyped as the pragmatist, it would snuff conservative media.

Bob   ·  August 3, 2009 12:24 PM
Personally, I'd like to see the form, because I'm curious about anything I'm not allowed to see, especially when the government is hiding it.

That's where I am on the issue, and for that reasons I have some sympathy for the True Believers (I think that's the category you defined). I think Obama's birth is irrelevant (as I believe he was born in Hawaii and that the Hawaiian government wouldn't go out on a limb to lie about it if he wasn't). But what I want to know is what is on the long form (or the "original") that Obama wants to keep hidden.

Ditto for his school records.

I would go so far as to make the disclosure of those items a condition to voting for the guy, but I wouldn't have voted for him based on his voting record and previous employment (and his association with fascists/racists), but that's just me. Obviously, those weren't important to the people who voted for him.

Disclosure of those items now isn't going to change the outcome of the election, so why not release them? The fact that Obama hasn't released them makes me suspicious that there is something on the records he doesn't want known.

It will eventually come out. The facts may not be released in Obama's lifetime, but aren't Democrats always concerned about their Legacies (intentionally with a capital "L")? At some point his 1) Deceit, 2) Dolt Status, will become known, and the history books will be revised to include it (whatever "it" is).

Do you know if there is a specific time frame in which an original birth certificate (if it exists in public records) must be released? Is it part of the "Freedom of Information Act"? I would think that it might be X number of years after someone dies. Oh, I wish I was younger, only to be alive to find out what was on the long form that he didn't want disclosed.

Mrs. du Toit   ·  August 3, 2009 1:04 PM

Feel free to explain this away

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

,if you can.

Trust but Verify....do you trust Hawaiian Officials with no way of verifying???

I think Not.

Do you trust Obama with no way of Verifying????

I think not.

kzgoblu   ·  August 3, 2009 1:40 PM

kz gets it right. Anything from official sources, Hawaii or otherwise, is now as likely to be a fabrication as not.

I can't know one way or the other. If I were forced to place a bet before God I would bet he was born in Hawaii.

The Democrats have essentially owned Hawaii politically for fifty years although, oddly enough, they have a Republican Governor at the moment. Who thinks they would now have any records that would damage him?

The not-Hawaii faction is trying to prove a negative. They cannot unless they prove an exclusionary postitive.

i.e. you cannot prove he was not born in Hawaii without showing he was born elsewhere. So, do you want to believe documents from Kenya or Indonesia?

The guy is President because the Electoral College chose him. Only Congress can remove him under the Constitution. And until early 2011 the Democrats run Congress. They won't remove him for anything.

After 2011 the GOP could marginally control Congress. It is unlikely they could remove him w/o a large majority.

O has the high ground. Birthers carry the burden of proof and must show evidence.

IMO the best place to look is in travel records. Any that might show his mother ENTERED Hawaii with a baby at the right time. Or departed from somewhere else with a baby at the right time.

Some airline might have applicable passenger lists, even ticket stubs, decaying in storage. I doubt it.

But immigration and customs records either don't exist or are the control of governments. So it is back to trust.

K   ·  August 3, 2009 3:13 PM
harleycowboy   ·  August 5, 2009 12:21 PM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits