December 12, 2008

Debunking the Proofers

I'd love to see Obama ask the state of Hawaii to produce his long-form birth certificate. While there is no procedural mechanism in place as some have noted before, that is merely a matter of process, not a legal hurdle.

Anyway, I took a stab at debunking the common "Proofer" claims in an article at Pajamas Media.

Do you think it sufficiently makes the case to the rational people who have been misled by the half-truths of the proofers? And is there anything that can ever be done to convince those conspiracy theorists that they are wrong?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at December 12, 2008 07:48 AM

"Do you think it sufficiently makes the case to the rational people who have been misled by the half-truths of the proofers?"

These "rational" people of which you speak, would that be the ones that buy into Gorbalwarming?

The ones that buy stuff from spam? That believe a bigger penis is the solution to all of life's problems?

The ones that buy junk cars every two years because their image would be damaged if they don't.

The ones that run up bills that they have no hope or intention of paying?

In a word, no I don't think the case has been made for those people. I don't think it is "makeable".

"And is there anything that can ever be done to convince those conspiracy theorists that they are wrong?"

They elected Obama because Affirmative Action is SUCH a good thing. What else can I say.

Posted by: Larry Sheldon at December 12, 2008 08:57 AM

I am not one of those Bush lied men died, or Obama was born in TimBuckToo people. However I feel all candidates should prove where they were born, and most especially when requested to do so. I could care less if it would or would not convince conspirary theorists.

Posted by: Rick at December 12, 2008 11:40 AM

There are only three consitutional qualifications to be president, all three are satisfied by proof of birth. I do not understand why the states do not ask for evidence prior to allowing a person on the state ballot.

Posted by: davod at December 12, 2008 01:30 PM

Well I'd normally dismiss the conspiracy folks, but there's one very large elephant in this room. It's very easy to shut them up, get Hawaii to release the document, yet he spends money sealing his records. Why?

People are saying "but Hawaii doesn't do this for normal folks" however these aren't normal circumstances, this is the Constitutional requirements for the highest executive office in our nation.

I had to submit to all kinds requirements when I changed jobs, I had to fill out an I-9 proving my citizenship, undergo investigation into my past, etc. and I won't have anything close to the power and access to information that the President has.
Why is Obama exempt?

Also cfbleachers makes a good point:

"The second element here has to do with some of the rather “unique” ways in which the Obama campaign treated what Al Gore has coined as “inconvenient truths”. I haven’t the faintest clue or notion what is contained within the transcripts of the higher education institutions that might cause some discomfort. Nor do I have the faintest clue what would or could be contained within the medical records. I don’t know what we might find in the full and unfettered review of the documents that Stanley Kurtz went looking for and was blocked, impeded, stalled, hindered and delayed.

However, I do know this…if I had a witness on the stand who began to suddenly become evasive, clearly wanted me to move on to another subject…I knew I was on to something that needed further exploration."

Posted by: Scott at December 12, 2008 03:42 PM

You sure are taking some lumps there on PJM, CY. I agree with you in general that The One simply needs to make the request/demand of Hawaii to release the document(s). However, it is possible he is letting this fever run its course until it spikes highest. Then he will release the document(s) and gain even more marginalization of 'the right' in general instead of just the kooks.

The guy won an election that, by all rights, should have gone to Hillary. I wouldn't put it past him to use this approach to try and get Blago-gate off the news.

Posted by: PhyCon (formerly Mark) at December 12, 2008 04:04 PM

Ya just lost me, Bob.

I posted on your last attempt to raise this issue that I thought those that kept raising it on both sides are akin to the 9/11 "truthers." Since you continue to bring it up, I have no alternative but to place you in that category.

It's been a lot of fun, and we've had some good discussions, but I've had enough wacko conspiracy theories.

Fare thee well.

Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at December 12, 2008 06:09 PM

So, Conservative Wanderer, those who attempt to debunk conspiracy theories are also guilty of spreading them? What other ingenious logical conclusions can you provide? That rape victims cause rape? That fire fighters promote arson? That FEMA enables natural disasters?

Bye bye. Door, ass, BOOM!

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at December 12, 2008 08:24 PM

Short answer: Nope you will never convince them.

Long version at my blog

Posted by: DaTechGuy at December 13, 2008 01:20 AM


To answer your question, no, your piece did not make a sufficient case that anyone’s been misled — other than yourself. Let me give you one example: You asserted, “The problem with this theory is that no one has been able to provide any credible evidence that Barack Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii.” However, you failed to substantiate this assertion with empirical evidence. And if you point to the worn-out COLB as your proof, I would appreciate it if you could point me to the Hawaiian statute that authorizes the use of COLBs and I would ask you to explain why Obama sidestepped Hawaii’s statutory provision for verifying Hawaiian births. And when you cannot answer these two points, I would note that contrary to your assertion, no one has provided any credible evidence that Barack Obama was born anywhere. In fact, for all you and I know, pod people spawned him.

Let me make one more observation: your article is a bad rewrite of Malkin, Horowitz, and Moran, who, like you, resorted to abusive ad hominem arguments instead of advancing logical arguments grounded in established facts. And if you think about it, there are very few established facts in this controversy because Obama has not been forthcoming with primary-source documentation (I wonder why). Therefore, if I must believe that there’s a “conspiracy” at work here, then I am sorry to conclude that you belong to a conspiracy of ignoramuses who make the baseless charges of conspiracy-mongering, which among trained logicians is known as framing a strawman.

By the way, you’re dead wrong when you write, “I’d love to see Obama ask the state of Hawaii to produce his long-form birth certificate. While there is no procedural mechanism in place as some have noted before, that is merely a matter of process, not a legal hurdle.” You really should do some research.

Posted by: CTN at December 13, 2008 10:33 AM

"And is there anything that can ever be done to convince those conspiracy theorists that they are wrong?"

No. Any evidence you offer can be dismissed as fake, and any witness as a member of the conspiracy.

For example, suppose I have an INFINITE budget and my goal is to convince a conspiracy theorist that the Apollo missions really did land on the moon. It's already possible for scientists to prove this by shining sufficiently powerful lasers on the landing sites and measuring the coherent light that comes back from laser reflectors placed at the landing sites by the astronauts. But the conspiracy theorists (let's call them CTs for short) can either say the scientists are lying or claim that the reflectors were actually placed on the moon by probes last week as part of the conspiracy.

Well, then, I'll send a fleet of new unmanned probes to the moon to take high-resolution still pictures and video of the Apollo landing sites, showing the footprints and hardware left by the astronauts. Nope. The CTs will dismiss all of the pictures and video as computer-generated fakes.

OK, fine! I'll fly the CTs to the moon in person and SHOW them the landing sites. When they see the hardware and footprints with their own eyes, they'll have to believe, won't they?

Won't work. Some of them will refuse to believe that they are on the moon at all. They'll claim that I've drugged or tricked them, and they're seeing a set or a desert location somewhere in Nevada. Or maybe the whole thing is computer-generated video again. (How can I PROVE to them that what appears to be a window or a spacesuit faceplate is not actually a video screen?)

But even if they accept that they are actually on the moon in the year 2008, they will tell me that the Apollo hardware and footprints I show them are fakes, created for their benefit within the last few weeks, and proving nothing about what may or may not have happened in 1969-1972.

No, you can't convince conspiracy theorists that they're wrong.

Posted by: Pat at December 13, 2008 03:32 PM

As I said when people were running with the "Obama is a secret Muslim" meme, are conservatives so demoralized and frightened they can longer fight the left on the level of issues and ideas and policies? Leftist ideas still suck as much as they ever did. Conservative principles are still as valid as they were in Reagan's time. Our job is to articulate those ideas better and to try and make sure they're heard (a rough battle when you consider the MSM.)

We have our work cut out for us. This crackpot obsession with Obama's birth certificate only makes the right look intellectually bankrupt and petty. And it's depressing to see self-described conservatives acting as irrational and goofy as 9/11 Troofers.

Bill Buckley performed a huge service to the conservative cause when he marginalized the anti-Semitic, racist, "floride is a Commie plot" people back in the '60's. Unfortunately, I don't see another Buckley on the horizon. Christopher Buckley obviously doesn't cut it.

Posted by: Donna V. at December 13, 2008 08:24 PM

Can someone in this thread please show me where CY demonstrably proved that ANYONE has advanced a so-called “conspiracy theory”?

Please, I would appreciate it if anyone in this thread, including the host of this blog, could furnish a source that substantiates this strawman. Surely one of you, including the host, could substantiate this claim. And by “substantiate,” I mean provide a source that has outlined the specifics of this “conspiracy,” which includes the names of the persons who have “conspired.”

Posted by: CTN at December 14, 2008 08:10 AM

Until BO produces his real certificate, it's all speculation. The fact that he has not, and has spent considerable cash and effort to conceal it only fuels the fire. It's dishonest and unacceptable from someone aspiring to be Commander in Chief. Voters deserve verifiable proof that the electorate is complying with the Constitution. Troofer accusations against any theories are premature. It's up to BO to lay this to rest and if he continues to refuse, he should not be sworn in.
The HI COLB does not suffice to prove Natural Born Citizenship so, no, your article did not debunk anything. You succeeded at calling the craziest of the troofer theories as crazy, but the fact remains, we still don't know if BO is a legal presidential candidate.

Posted by: Smokin at December 14, 2008 10:08 AM

After reading several unambiguous replies in previous posts concerning Obama's birth certificate that make it clear enough he's met any reasonable standard of disclosure, I'd have to say nothing will shut some people up.

Posted by: DoorHold at December 14, 2008 12:44 PM

"And is there anything that can ever be done to convince those conspiracy theorists that they are wrong?"

Without regard for the fact that there is nothing conspiratorial in any of this, another short answer: produce the birth certificate (not the COLB).

Posted by: martin at December 14, 2008 07:37 PM

Well, not quite, while the abstract of a Certificate of Birth may be accurate, it, like a bikini, reveals much, but covers the most important part; the details of Obama's birth. If you examine the document, it only summarizes certain facts of Obama's birth. It, however, was not created in 1961, it is a computer generated and printed document. Not many computers in Hawaii in '61. Those of this site's dear readers older than, say 20 years of age, should examine their own original birth certificates, regardless of state. Now, don't examine an abstract, but the original certificate signed by the physician who delivered you. Back then and for some years afterward blank certificates were issued by county governments to physicians and hospitals for their lawful use. These certificates are quite distinctive and they look nothing like the abstract with minimal information that is being reviewed on the internet. There is no signature of the attending physician and, more importantly, no boxes filled in with type written or hand written information. Just check out your own original certificate.

The other issue is the original certifcate. Is it an comteraneously issued certificate or is it what is known as a late birth certificate. What is that? It is in most aspects it is identical to a birth certificate issued to someone born in the jurisdiction of the issuing authority. Late birth certificates though are issued to a person who may or may not have been born in the jurisdiction or even on the date on the certificate. They were orginally created for those allegedly not able to record their births. The usual claim was that they lived so far in the country side that there was no convient way to get to the county seat, or did not have an attending physician or midwife. However, it has now been adopted by illegal immigrants as a way to obtain citizenship, especially for illegal alien minors. Many jurisdictions, especially those in California freely issue late birth certificates based on little valid evidence, usually only asking for notorized statements or easily created "baptismal certificates." Now, I am not claiming the Messiah is an illegal alien, but, if he was born overseas, his family easily could have obtained a late birth certificate and falsely claimed he was born in Hawaii. The necessary clue for a late birth certificate is the date of issue of the certificate, and, of course, the missing details, such as physicians signature.

The Messiah can halt all this speculation if he just releases the original certificate.

However, I think he refuses because he realizes that no matter where he was born, he is alien to America. His religion is a crazed neo-pagan worship of Africa with it's attendant racism; His politics are a fear of Christianity, fealty to homosexuals, hatred of any speech that he opposes; abortion first, last and always; His economics is a hatred of free enterprise and hard work; His ideals are a welfare state for all, with, presumably, the Chinese providing all the goods and services that all these people with free time need.

He probably is not an alien, but he sure is alienated from what America is.

Posted by: Federale at December 14, 2008 11:36 PM