Main Menu

The three questions

Birthers say that President Obama won’t release his hospital birth certificate because there either isn’t one or that there is something embarrassing on it. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that President Obama has a long form birth certificate and it matches exactly the public story Obama and others have put forward. Now, I have three questions:

  1. If Obama were to release the long form birth certificate today, how do you think the number of voters, Democratic, Republican and independent, who doubt where Obama was born would change?
  2. If Obama were to release the  long form birth certificate today, do you think it would insure Obama’s re-election?
  3. Do you think a long form birth certificate released in October of 2012 (an “October surprise”) would be more or less effective in persuading folks to vote for Obama in November than a certificate released today?

I present these question to help folks think about the question of why Barack Obama has not yet released his long form birth certificate.

40 Responses to The three questions

  1. avatar
    richCares April 25, 2011 at 7:39 pm #

    None of those questions mean anything to a birther, a birther is a victem of a scammer, they look for OMG momnents to nail Obama, as each OMG moment fails the scammers produce another one. (WND is expert at it) They appear to have Altzheimers, as each OMG momment fails they latch on to anorher one as if nothing happened, “just you wait” that suggests Altzheimers, but there is a good side to that for birthers, they can watch the same movie 20 or 30 times.

    they cheered the Arizona bill as the downfall of Obama, but what I found is really funny is that Arizona stopped issueing long forms in 1989.
    link: .http://www.vitalchek.com/agency_info.aspx?p=20245&s=loc
    click on “record types explained”

  2. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 25, 2011 at 7:56 pm #

    1. No change
    2. No. And if he didn’t release it, it wouldn’t make his chances any worse.
    3. No. But it would further expose the barfers for the liars they are.

    Already they are saying that the AP photo of the birth index is a fake, and as we all know, they will say the long form is a fake too if he could release it.

    The AP article says that they looked at the Hawaii birth index for the years 1960 to 1964. Some barfers have complained that there is no exact date on it. However, it’s not constitutionally required that a candidate give his exact birth date, just that he must have attained the age of 35; as a result, their complaints about the exact date are moot since that’s not required per the Constitution. Even if he was born on the last day covered by that index, it still proves that he was over the age of 35 and was born in the USA; that means the Constitutional requirements have been met.

    Some have already moved the goalposts to saying that the birth index is another conspiracy by the state of Hawaii to pass the president off as being born there; it’s the only way they can get around the evidence that was presented by the AP. If he releases a “long form” they will just resort to the old unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that they resort to whenever they encounter undeniable evidence.

  3. avatar
    Majority Will April 25, 2011 at 8:05 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP:
    1. No change
    2. No. And if he didn’t release it, it wouldn’t make his chances any worse.
    3. No. But it would further expose the barfers for the liars they are.

    Already they are saying that the AP photo of the birth index is a fake, and as we all know, they will say the long form is a fake too if he could release it.

    The AP article says that they looked at the Hawaii birth index for the years 1960 to 1964. Some barfers have complained that there is no exact date on it. However, it’s not constitutionally required that a candidate give his exact birth date, just that he must have attained the age of 35; as a result, their complaints about the exact date are moot since that’s not required per the Constitution. Even if he was born on the last day covered by that index, it still proves that he was over the age of 35 and was born in the USA; that means the Constitutional requirements have been met.

    Some have already moved the goalposts to saying that the birth index is another conspiracy by the state of Hawaii to pass the president off as being born there; it’s the only way they can get around the evidence that was presented by the AP. If he releases a “long form” they will just resort to the old unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that they resort to whenever they encounter undeniable evidence.

    I agree. Re: “Barfers”. Yep. With petty and pathetic puke piles.

  4. avatar
    JohnC April 25, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    Dr. C, you neglected to add that we also need to assume that President Obama is able to access his “long-form” in such a way that he can make quality copies of it to provide to the press or to the public. The existing evidence suggests he is not able to do so.

    Now I have some additional questions:

    4. If Obama were to release the “long-form” birth certificate today, do you think this would persuade voters that Obama does not have anything to hide in his unreleased personal and academic records?

    5. If Obama were to release the “long-form” birth certificate today, do you think this would persuade voters that Obama is personally pro-American because he was born in Hawaii?

    6. If Obama were to release the “long-form” birth certificate today, do you think this would persuade state legislatures that no new “natural born citizen” candidate filing requirements are necessary?

    7. If no third party plays a role in procuring and overseeing the release of the “long-form,” do you think this would resolve any lingering questions as to whether Obama has released his authentic, original “long-form” birth certificate?

  5. avatar
    Viking (Phil Cave) April 25, 2011 at 8:08 pm #

    You will have seen that LTC Lakin will be released from confinement on 14 May and will fly into a reception committee at BWI.

  6. avatar
    Tarrant April 25, 2011 at 8:15 pm #

    Indeed even if birtherism was 100% debunked such that even the birthers could no longer push it, they would simply latch onto the “sealed kindergarten records”, and the other things that would have no bearing on whether anybody would vote for the man, that they claim they NEED.

    The goalposts will always move. Even if they moved away from eligibility, they’d still say he was hiding something.

    The odd thing is as has been pointed out repeatedly to Bob Clark, if someone wants to oppose Obama, they can do it on policy. The irrational need for some people to oppose (or support) him for reasons OTHER than policy are baffling to me.

    I get the feeling that they fear that opposing him on policy is a losing issue in the election, so they want to get people to hate him for other reasons, or get him off the ballot entirely. They have no faith that people will vote their way based on issues, so they just want to eliminate an opposing candidate, like the Electoral Board does in Iran (and did in Egypt, and still does in Iraq, etc.).

  7. avatar
    Scientist April 25, 2011 at 8:26 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Some have already moved the goalposts to saying that the birth index is another conspiracy by the state of Hawaii to pass the president off as being born there

    I’ve always thought that “the entire government of Hawaii is conspiring to cover for Obama” is among the more ridiculous of ridiculous birther lies. What does Hawaii gain from the fact that the President was born there? A bit of pride, perhaps, but that’s hardly worth the risks involved in carrying out a conspiracy. Did they get a disproportiionate share of stimulus money? Not so far as I have seen. Are huge hordes of tourists going to Honolulu to gaze on the apartment where he lived? Let’s get serious. Millions of tourists have been going to Hawaii every year since well before anyone ever heard of Obama. I like the guy and I could come up with 50 things I’d rather do in Hawaii than gawk at places Obama went as a kid. I doubt he’ll put his presidential library in Hawaii (likely Chicago) and even if he did, so what? In fact, with all the hassles that the birthers have brought to the state, I’d say if they could go back in time, the state of Hawaii would beg his mother to please go back to Seattle to have him. The conspiracy idea is absurd.

  8. avatar
    JohnC April 25, 2011 at 8:38 pm #

    Tarrant: The irrational need for some people to oppose (or support) him for reasons OTHER than policy are baffling to me.

    One of the reasons why people suspect Obama’s critics are motivated by racial antagonism is that they hold him to vastly different standards than other presidents and then condemn him for failing to meet them.

    1. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must unconditionally and voluntarily release all of their private documents and vital records.

    2. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must always issue Easter proclamations.

    3. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must never enact deficit spending during recessions.

    4. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must never bail out private industry.

    5. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must publicly proclaim America is “exceptional.”

    6. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must be openly religious and attend church every week.

    7. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must never enact legislation opposed by the other major political party.

    8. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must always to agree to enact legislation proposed by the other major political party.

    9. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must appoint commissions to inspect and validate key vital documents to avoid suspicion of fraud.

    Anyone else have a presidential “requirement” which has been imposed solely on President Obama?

  9. avatar
    john April 25, 2011 at 8:43 pm #

    If Obama released his long-form BC and it showed her was born in Hawaii and there was nothing of consquence on it, I do believe the issue would be settled. There would still be a group that would maintain the NBC argument but for all intensive purposes the issue would be settled and the “birthers” would indeed be a fringe group.

    [Exception to the ban. Doc.]

  10. avatar
    JohnC April 25, 2011 at 8:45 pm #

    For fun, some more…

    10. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must be able to recite the national motto verbatim.

    11. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents can never make speeches opposing the policies of the other major political party.

    12. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents can never enact legislation requiring Americans to do anything under the law.

    13. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents cannot have advisors known as “czars.”

  11. avatar
    GeorgetownJD April 25, 2011 at 9:49 pm #

    Viking (Phil Cave):
    You will have seen that LTC Lakin will be released from confinement on 14 May and will fly into a reception committee at BWI.

    Are there plans to sacrifice a water buffalo?

  12. avatar
    Obsolete April 25, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Question for the banned John:
    Why do you believe birthers won’t claim his “long-form” is forged? They make the claim for every document he has released to date.

    Actually, this was just a rhetorical question…

  13. avatar
    misha April 25, 2011 at 9:59 pm #

    JohnC: Anyone else have a presidential “requirement” which has been imposed solely on President Obama?

    No white man ever had to show his birth certificate.

  14. avatar
    misha April 25, 2011 at 10:02 pm #

    “The three questions”

    Fourth question: Why is this night different from all other nights?

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  15. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 10:09 pm #

    1. The overall decrease in doubters will be less than 50% (skewing heavily along partisan lines) and it will not effect anyone’s votes significantly.

    2. No.

    3. For maximum impact, I like this variation on Scientist’s suggestion – stage a campaign event (preferably in a state which passed a birther law) where a state official verified Mr. Springsteen’s BC, then President Obama’s as authentic followed by Bruce playing a little song… in a nice open-air venue on a crisp evening in late October…

  16. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 25, 2011 at 11:33 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    1.The overall decrease in doubters will be less than 50% (skewing heavily along partisan lines) and it will not effect anyone’s votes significantly.

    2.No.

    3.For maximum impact, I like this variation on Scientist’s suggestion – stage a campaign event (preferably in a state which passed a birther law) where a state official verified Mr. Springsteen’s BC, then President Obama’s as authentic followed by Bruce playing a little song… in a nice open-air venue on a crisp evening in late October…

    Do you suppose the birthers have some sort of half-life what do you suppose the span of the half-life is?

  17. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 25, 2011 at 11:42 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Do you suppose the birthers have some sort of half-life what do you suppose the span of the half-life is?

    As I said on another thread, I think a better analogy for birtherism is a disease. Anderson Cooper just inoculated a bunch of people tonight… My opinion is that we are (or will be soon) approaching the point where herd immunity kicks in and makes it completely impossible for a birther ‘epidemic’ to occur. My guess is that birther numbers will rise (a bit) for a while and then slowly decline for the rest of Obama’s presidency.

  18. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 12:33 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: 1. No change
    2. No. And if he didn’t release it, it wouldn’t make his chances any worse.
    3. No. But it would further expose the barfers for the liars they are.

    Just made it over to this thread. I’ll echo FUT’s answers to the main 3.

  19. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 12:34 am #

    JohnC: Dr. C, you neglected to add that we also need to assume that President Obama is able to access his “long-form” in such a way that he can make quality copies of it to provide to the press or to the public. The existing evidence suggests he is not able to do so.Now I have some additional questions:4. If Obama were to release the “long-form” birth certificate today, do you think this would persuade voters that Obama does not have anything to hide in his unreleased personal and academic records?5. If Obama were to release the “long-form” birth certificate today, do you think this would persuade voters that Obama is personally pro-American because he was born in Hawaii?6. If Obama were to release the “long-form” birth certificate today, do you think this would persuade state legislatures that no new “natural born citizen” candidate filing requirements are necessary?7. If no third party plays a role in procuring and overseeing the release of the “long-form,” do you think this would resolve any lingering questions as to whether Obama has released his authentic, original “long-form” birth certificate?

    Good post John C!

    I’ll answer your additional questions and say that “no” is the proper response to #4-7.

  20. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 12:35 am #

    Tarrant: Indeed even if birtherism was 100% debunked such that even the birthers could no longer push it, they would simply latch onto the “sealed kindergarten records”, and the other things that would have no bearing on whether anybody would vote for the man, that they claim they NEED. The goalposts will always move. Even if they moved away from eligibility, they’d still say he was hiding something.The odd thing is as has been pointed out repeatedly to Bob Clark, if someone wants to oppose Obama, they can do it on policy. The irrational need for some people to oppose (or support) him for reasons OTHER than policy are baffling to me.I get the feeling that they fear that opposing him on policy is a losing issue in the election, so they want to get people to hate him for other reasons, or get him off the ballot entirely. They have no faith that people will vote their way based on issues, so they just want to eliminate an opposing candidate, like the Electoral Board does in Iran (and did in Egypt, and still does in Iraq, etc.).

    Well said, Tarrant!

    I agree 100%

  21. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 12:41 am #

    JohnC: One of the reasons why people suspect Obama’s critics are motivated by racial antagonism is that they hold him to vastly different standards than other presidents and then condemn him for failing to meet them.1. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must unconditionally and voluntarily release all of their private documents and vital records.2. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must always issue Easter proclamations.3. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must never enact deficit spending during recessions.4. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must never bail out private industry.5. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must publicly proclaim America is “exceptional.”6. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must be openly religious and attend church every week.7. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must never enact legislation opposed by the other major political party.8. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must always to agree to enact legislation proposed by the other major political party.9. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must appoint commissions to inspect and validate key vital documents to avoid suspicion of fraud.Anyone else have a presidential “requirement” which has been imposed solely on President Obama?

    Well said again, John C!

    Yeah, the hypocricy of expectations thrust for the first time onto this president and no others in the past is astounding.

    I’d personally amend your NEW RULE #5 to more correctly read:

    5. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must publicly proclaim America is “exceptional IN EVERY STATEMENT THEY MAKE.

    The fact is that Obama has often referred to America and our place in the world as very special on many occasions. He often uses other terms besides just exceptional to say that, but he has called it exceptional on a number of occasions too. Of course, his petty opposition turns a blind eye to all of this and only focuses on sentences where he doesn’t proclaim that…

  22. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 12:43 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Do you suppose the birthers have some sort of half-life what do you suppose the span of the half-life is?

    2017

  23. avatar
    Greg April 26, 2011 at 12:47 am #

    The release of the birth certificate would have no effect, today, tomorrow or the day before the election.

    The people who believe in Obama’s ineligibility may not be the same exact people who believed Clinton murdered Vince Foster, but they are of the same ilk – utterly convinced of the truthiness of their position without the benefit of facts. They are simply not members of the “reality-based” community.

    Obama doesn’t release this stuff for the same reason Clinton didn’t release the autopsy of Ron Brown (or any other member of the “Clinton Death List.” The same reason Sarah Palin doesn’t release her prenatal medical records? The same reason W. didn’t release the medical records that would show he wasn’t using cocaine.

    Just because you can come up with a conspiracy theory and frame a concern-troll question (Hillary could put all this Vince Foster-lover stuff to rest if she just released X) doesn’t mean the world needs to cater to your delusions!

  24. avatar
    misha April 26, 2011 at 3:11 am #

    JohnC: Anyone else have a presidential “requirement” which has been imposed solely on President Obama?

    14. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents cannot use a teleprompter.

  25. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 26, 2011 at 3:19 am #

    JohnC: Anyone else have a presidential “requirement” which has been imposed solely on President Obama?

    15. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: You must be perceived as wearing an American flag lapel pin at all times. (Do you know who wore lapel pins during the 2008 presidential and vice-presidential debates?)

  26. avatar
    The Magic M April 26, 2011 at 5:35 am #

    16. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must not have a strange foreign sounding name (but a good American name like “Taitz”, “Ristvedt” or “Schwarzenegger”).

    17. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must not smoke.

    18. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents can be “fired” any time by any number of citizens, no matter how low. (Also applies to Congress and every government employee.)

    19. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Presidents must not have spent a single day outside the US, especially during their childhood, especially not in any country that is not a perfect white Christian democracy.

    20. NEW RULE FOR OBAMA: Must not spend a single day of holidays while in office.

  27. avatar
    Majority Will April 26, 2011 at 7:12 am #

    john: but for all intensive purposes

    lmao

    Birthers are such “spatial people”.

    Of course that’s just “antidotal evidence”.

    The “fast majority” knows better.

  28. avatar
    Mik Taerg April 26, 2011 at 7:19 am #

    No acquiescing to birther demands !

    Obama has produced PERFECT prima facie evidence of birth in the USA and that is MORE than enough for proving eligibility for the highest office.

    This has become a question of disavowing Statutory Laws and Statutory Evidence. The same process that has lead to the Civil War when the seccessionists disavowed the Statutory Laws of the Union.

    Brewer is right, the birther issue is leading the nation “down a path of destruction”. One of the first steps down this “path” is disavowance of statutory evidence as is the birther belief that official documents – statutory evidence – issued by a State of the USA are less trustworthy than rabbinical circumcision certificates.

  29. avatar
    Suranis April 26, 2011 at 8:08 am #

    1. It might silence a few people, but not any statisticly significant number. The Birthers have had 3 years to build upa multi layered belief system so that the compleatly farcical is obvious to them. Knocing out one leg would not really affect them

    2. No

    3. It really depends on how much an issue Birtherism is in the election. I really think Donald Trump has peaked Birtherism too early. The News media are getting their debunking hats on really fast and they will be well armed to shoot down birther claims if the GOP tries to bring it up again. So all birtherism can do at this stage is damage the GOP. And to win the primaries the candidates have to appeal to the birthers and expose themselves to media fire..

  30. avatar
    misha April 26, 2011 at 8:54 am #

    Mik Taerg: the birther belief that official documents – statutory evidence – issued by a State of the USA are less trustworthy than rabbinical circumcision certificates.

    I’ve never seen a rabbinical circumcision certificate. There are guest books, but I never saw anything else at a bris.

    Mohels get good tips.
    I have a wallet made of foreskins. When I rub it, it turns into a suitcase.

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  31. avatar
    thefarleftView April 26, 2011 at 9:27 am #

    …because he doesn’t have one …… DOH !!

    can’t release something you don’t have, can you ?????

    Deathers can’t handle the truth !!

  32. avatar
    misha April 26, 2011 at 9:29 am #

    thefarleftView: Deathers can’t handle the truth !!

    Birthers can’t handle the truth that their leader was a streetwalker in Moldova.

  33. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 10:11 am #

    thefarleftView: …because he doesn’t have one …… DOH !!can’t release something you don’t have, can you ?????Deathers can’t handle the truth !!

    Deathers? What do the gullible Tea Party folks who foolishly belived Palin’s lie about Death Panels in Health Care Reform have anything to do with this?

    You are delusional AND in denial. Obvioulsy, he has a BC and that has been repeatedly confirmed by HI officials, all the records they’ve shown, their own index record, their official COLB, the birth announcements and ALL investigative reports on the matter.

    You live in some Bizarro fantasy world detatched from reality. You lost this argument a long time ago.

  34. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 10:11 am #

    Suranis: 1. It might silence a few people, but not any statisticly significant number. The Birthers have had 3 years to build upa multi layered belief system so that the compleatly farcical is obvious to them. Knocing out one leg would not really affect them2. No3. It really depends on how much an issue Birtherism is in the election. I really think Donald Trump has peaked Birtherism too early. The News media are getting their debunking hats on really fast and they will be well armed to shoot down birther claims if the GOP tries to bring it up again. So all birtherism can do at this stage is damage the GOP. And to win the primaries the candidates have to appeal to the birthers and expose themselves to media fire..

    Well said! I agree on all of your points.

  35. avatar
    The Magic M April 26, 2011 at 1:00 pm #

    > is the birther belief that official documents – statutory evidence – issued by a State of the USA are less trustworthy than rabbinical circumcision certificates

    Well, this thought can be extended even further.

    Imagine, arguendo, that the state of Kenya publishes an “authentic Obama BC” stating local birth.
    Now the question would become “do you rather mistrust your own government or a foreign government”. (Of course that, finally, depends on what foreign government we’re talking about.)

    Imagine that in 1998, North Korea would have released a North Korean birth certificate for Bill Clinton. Would anyone with a sane mind have believed it was authentic? Of course not.

    In 2011, we don’t even have an official Kenyan government-approved BC for Obama, we only have an unofficial piece of paper that is likely a forgery, one that no-one from the Kenyan government would ever authenticate.

    Yet some people rather mistrust their own government and take statements from foreign newspapers as authentic, even though these are anecdotic at best. (I could imagine more suspicion if there really was a “government line” of statements.)

    I always like to compare this situation to the right-wing extremists in my country who stop at nothing when it comes to retroactively justifying Hitler’s attack on Poland or the Holocaust.
    Some of them take the (anecdotic) newspaper headline “Judea declares war on Germany” and claim since this was “an official declaration of war”, the Holocaust was nothing but self-defense.

    Again, believing in anecdotic incidents over the overwhelming evidence to the contrary is specific only to the mind of the conspiracy wingnut.
    It’s like saying “because 1 particle in a billion moves to the left, no particle is moving to the right”.

  36. avatar
    misha April 26, 2011 at 1:11 pm #

    The Magic M: “Judea declares war on Germany”

    Are you talking about the Judean People’s Front, or the People’s Front of Judea?

  37. avatar
    Gregory April 27, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    White House has released Obama’s “long form” certificate of live birth. Is the Birther “movement” over now?

  38. avatar
    Gregory April 27, 2011 at 2:42 pm #

    misha: I’ve never seen a rabbinical circumcision certificate. There are guest books, but I never saw anything else at a bris.

    I have a wallet made of foreskins. When I rub it, it turns into a suitcase.

    Did you hear about the man who circumcises elephants for a living? Apparently the pay is unremarkable, but the tips are enormous!

  39. avatar
    Daniel April 27, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

    thefarleftView:
    …because he doesn’t have one …… DOH !!

    can’t release something you don’t have, can you ?????

    Deathers can’t handle the truth !!

    Boy do you look dumb now… er dumber rather