The Manchurian Hawaiian Candidate?
I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist. My own personal theory regarding the Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy is that there was a guy in a book depository window with an old bolt-action rifle. And his name was Oswald. And he acted alone.
Not much of a conspiracy, I grant you.
So now it comes to my attention that Obama’s birth certificate might have been forged. No, really.
Why? Dunno — I’m not much for conspiracies, and it’s hard to see one here. Maybe he was born on the wrong cusp or something. Mars rising, when his folks wanted Venus. (Does Mars rise?)
Anyway, it all looks very convincing, but I’m not sure what, if anything, it all means.
UPDATE: In the comments, Joe nails it with, “Well, they don’t give out birth certicates when you are born in a manger.”
The better to prove he’s the Messiah, grasshopper; in the order or Melchizedek, without mother or father… etc.
Totally fits the narrative.
I’ve described this theory at various times as “totally retarded”, and I stand by that description.
I don’t trust this anonymous commenter, and his credentials would be more impressive if he was willing to actually put his name and reputation behind what he is saying.
I particularly do not trust him after reading this:
This is trivially debunked by his own damn post. You can see the borders of the 2007 and 2008 certificates, they have a different border from the Dacosta certificate. But if you look at the bottom certificate overlay, same revision number, different border pattern.
I’ve covered earlier arguments here, they aren’t getting any less stupid.
I want to note that I have no further intention of arguing this. These yahoos have offered up one stupid argument after another, I have no intention of debunking every stupid argument that’s put up. Inspector Clouseau type investigations don’t happen in real life, they aren’t going to accidentally stumble onto a legitimate argument.
Ok, one more thing. Techdude posted several animated gifs that show minor difference in the type. Yet for some reason he thinks that supports his case. Remember Rathergate? It was the lack of minor differences like that that was a major piece of evidence that the documents were false. (It’s not an exact comparison, the point is the slight differences tell us nothing. You would expect small differences on different scans of different printed documents.)
A.J. Strata, not a liberal by any means, has been following this story for weeks now and concluded long ago, quite convincingly, that the people claiming that the birth certificate is a forgery are all wet.
Here’s his latest response to the article you linked to:
http://tinyurl.com/5l3sju
And then there’s this news story which demonstrates quite clearly just how absurd the idea that this is all a lie to hide the fact that Obama is not a citizen of the US actually is:
http://tinyurl.com/6cz8eg
Translation — Occam’s Razor is still sharp.
This is why I don’t go in for conspiracy theories — Occam’s Razor almost always slices them to shreds.
Yup, it’s ridiculous to cling to the idea that there’s a vast conspiracy to cover up the “fact” that Obama wasn’t born in the United States. The evidence that he was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii is overwhelming.
But there’s still a problem. In response to the “born in Kenya” rumor, the Obama campaign website has put up the image of a “Certification of Live Birth” from the Hawaiian state government that was laser-printed sometime after the year 2000 (the form has a November 2001 revision date). As dorkafork indicates, this certainly seems to be a real, valid document. But this is not an official birth certificate — you know, the one with the baby’s footprint, issued by the hospital immediately after the actual birth. And Obama has not released one.
A “Certification of Live Birth” is a weak identification document; names are often altered in these “certifications” by the government in response to adoptions, marriages, and other legal name changes of the subject person. Gary Hart, for example, could get a similar “certification” with his current name on it, but his birth certificate would show “Gary Hartpence.” My own mother, in fact, had such a document; as a teenager she changed her given name from the one recorded on her original birth certificate.
Rumors *not* put to rest by the “certification” document are that the original birth certificate might show that (1) Stanley Ann Dunham was not married to Barack Obama Sr. when he was born (Obama himself is vague as to when they did get married), or (2) Obama’s original given name was really “Barry” (he used “Barry” until college, and his Indonesian school records list him as “Barry Soetoro”), or (3) his last name was recorded as “Dunham,” perhaps because his mother did not identify the father.
A “Certification of Live Birth” printed within the past few years would not refute any of these possibilities.
Any of these possibilities, IF TRUE, could puncture the myth by indicating a disturbing degree of self-invention by Obama (or “Barry Dunham”). But nobody seems to have a copy of the original birth certificate, so we’ll just have to wonder …
Unless … Could someone on Oahu check the local libraries for microfilm copies of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser? Did the newspapers’ birth announcements columns during the week or two after August 4, 1961 record the birth of “Barack Hussein Obama II” … or someone else?
His mom at least is an American. Ergo, he’s an American no matter where he was born (see also, McCain, John, born in the Panama Canal Zone.) This is a totally stupid argument, as is “His middle name is Hussein” and “He studied in a Madrassa in Indonesia for a couple of years as a kid”.
Non stupid arguments:
He’s a f’ing socialist who wants greater government control over the economy (e.g. more Federal control over healthcare), wants to weaken our military (cutting out missile defense, cutting back on new weapons programs), wants higher taxes and doesn’t care about runaway government spending. Oh, and he has basically no experience to be president.
Well, they don’t give out birth certicates when you are born in a manger.
RBJ- You just described our current pres. to a tee. Except for the defense thing. And oh yea, the health difference thing. hum.
As I say every time I come across this argument–since he would be absolutely barred from being president if he were not a natural born American citizen, you can bet both the Democratic and Republican party apparati have thoroughly researched Obama’s origins.
The best evidence that there is no “there” there is that neither the Clinton nor the McCain campaigns have made it an issue.
RBJ- You’re wrong about the mother was an American thing.
The law at the time said specifically that the mother would have to be 22 or 23 (5 years as an American adult or something) for that to work. She was 18 or 19, and did not meet the 5 year requirement. Since then the law has changed, but its not retroactive.
Let’s see here; an expert compares a first-generation scan to a possibly second, third, or fourth generation scan, and finds inconsistencies.
Didn’t one blogger “prove” that the KOS image was a ripoff of someone who put up a bogus COLB featuring Buckwheat’s image? …Yep, if you follow dorkafork’s link to Protein Wisdom, that contains a link to Ace, which describes the silliness.
In fact, Ace’s post includes a scan of a COLB
Stupid bloody system. Be careful which key you press.
Anyway: In fact, Ace’s post includes a scan of a Hawaiian COLB which includes a state seal which can be seen clearly through the paper, contrary to the expert’s pronouncements.
Something I didn’t have a chance to ask above: what generation is the KOS scan? What scanner was used? What software, on what platform? Was it, in fact, an edited copy? Well, yes, the certificate number was removed. What EXIF data does the KOS image contain?
Bottom line: one scanned image doesn’t match another scanned image. That’s not much to go on.
It’s been said before: if this were a valid issue, wouldn’t either Hillary or McCain have mentioned it by now? Do you think either one would be truly dumb enough to wait until October to bring it up? Also, why not plunk down a few dollars, file suit somewhere, and require the Obama campaign to release an authenticable copy?
Not having the resources of CNN or FOX News at my disposal, as soon as I learned that this controversial birth certificate came through Kos, I applied a little logic and thought, “Consider the source.” IMHO, this question should be left alone until something more substantial materializes.
Main issue: Definitely not proved.
Side issue (rjb): The whole issue of derivation of citizenship drives me up the wall. It seems obvious to me that any child whose parentage includes one American citizen is him/herself an American citizen — and is, wherever geographically born, *native* born. Conversely, it also seems obvious to me that any child whose parentage does not include at least one American citizen is *not* an American citizen, even if born in the shadow of the Liberty Bell. (Which is not to say that such children cannot, or should not, become citizens through naturalization…) Alas, some people fail to appreciate my maturely wise view. The fools. In my interpretation, Obama and McCain are both indisputably native born. However, McCain has the advantage, though born outside the 48 (or should that be 55, or even 56?), of birth on actual U.S. territory (the Canal Zone — at the time, every bit as much part of the U.S. as, say, D.C.). And in the (unlikely, I have to say) event that Obama *was* born outside the U.S., it will be entertaining to watch the Dems scramble to prove they’ve “always” thought the derivation of citizenship to be chiefly parental rather than geographical…
Sorry, rbj — seems I’m having a spot of lysdexia…
Poropolitan:
Yeah love it!
The law is what I say the law is.
Officer, I wasn’t speeding really I wasn’t