Main Menu

Where’s the Birth Certificate? [Laughter]

I like a particularly sharp way of conveying an idea, and Ben Dimiero’s description of Jerome Corsi’s upcoming book, Where’s the Birth Certificate? as a “soon-to-be comedy classic” was a satisfying example. I found it satisfying because of the sharp wit, not because I expect to find Corsi’s book funny.

Today, pretty much everybody knows that Barack Obama’s original birth certificate is in a bound volume on the first floor of the Department of Health Building at 1250 Punchbowl Street, Honolulu, HI, and that a picture of it is on the White House web site. Corsi’s question seems pretty dumb today, and this simple document will trump any innuendo Corsi can throw at Obama.

My sense of humor, though, is wired a little different from some other folks. I can remember as a child being very uncomfortable with some I Love Lucy episodes that involved intensely embarrassing situations. I find videos of Orly Taitz making a fool of herself before a judge painful to watch. Publication of Where’s the Birth Certificate? will be embarrassing, but not funny for me.

31 Responses to Where’s the Birth Certificate? [Laughter]

  1. avatar
    Joey May 10, 2011 at 11:18 pm #

    I’m amazed at how many birthers are still anxiously awaiting the book’s release and they still really believe that it will be a “game changer.”
    There’s a new poll out from Public Policy Polling showing that 48% of Republicans believe that Obama was born in the US while 34% of Republicans polled said that he was not born in the US and 18% still aren’t sure.

  2. avatar
    Sean May 10, 2011 at 11:34 pm #

    It got down to #171 on Amazon today.

  3. avatar
    misha May 11, 2011 at 12:33 am #

    Sean: It got down to #171 on Amazon today.

    On the remainder table next week.

  4. avatar
    Fred May 11, 2011 at 12:36 am #

    No worries, I’ll be laughing enough for the both of us.

  5. avatar
    Fred May 11, 2011 at 12:39 am #

    Joey:
    I’m amazed at how many birthers are still anxiously awaiting the book’s release and they still really believe that it will be a “game changer.”
    There’s a new poll out from Public Policy Polling showing that 48% of Republicans believe that Obama was born in the US while 34% of Republicans polled said that he was not born in the US and 18% still aren’t sure.

    Those polls are all bunk. Meaningless. That same recent poll showed that only 5% more people believed Trump was born in the US. So it’s hardly meaninful in any way. Basically the wording is such that Friggin Ronald Reagan would probably get the same response.

    Meaningless. Why people are so ignorant to these simple facts about these polls just amazes me. People are basically just dumb. Full stop.

  6. avatar
    Benji Franklin May 11, 2011 at 2:00 am #

    WND seems to be preemptively lurching through the book chapter by chapter
    these days with the most misleading sensationalist characterizations of what the elements of the book are! WE may see this one yet:

    “BOMBSHELL! Excavation of Mammoth skeleton on Iowa farm produces no positive proof of Obama’s U.S. Citizenship!”

    or this one

    “ELIGIBILITY GAME CHANGER? Stray dog craps on rural unpaved road in Mississippi!
    What was Obama thinking?”

    Benji Franklin

  7. avatar
    Joey May 11, 2011 at 2:31 am #

    Fred: Those polls are all bunk.Meaningless.That same recent poll showed that only 5% more people believed Trump was born in the US.So it’s hardly meaninful in any way.Basically the wording is such that Friggin Ronald Reagan would probably get the same response.

    Meaningless.Why people are so ignorant to these simple facts about these polls just amazes me.People are basically just dumb.Full stop.

    The question in the Public Policy Polling survey was: “Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States?”
    Yes………………………………………………………… 48%
    No …………………………………………………………. 34%
    Not sure …………………………………………………. 18%

    The poll was taken of a sample of registered Republicans. It seems like a pretty straight forward question to me.
    Every national politician hires their own pollsters. If polling results were totatlly flawed, politicians wouldn’t spend millions of dollars on them.

  8. avatar
    Lupin May 11, 2011 at 2:53 am #

    Joey: Every national politician hires their own pollsters. If polling results were totatlly flawed, politicians wouldn’t spend millions of dollars on them.

    TV networks and advertisers spend millions on Nielsen ratings but everyone in the industry you talk to will tell you how unreliable they are.

    Some of it is willful delusion, peer pressure (if they do it I should do it too), fear (if I don’t do it i’ll get canned) and a con game.

  9. avatar
    Joey May 11, 2011 at 3:20 am #

    Lupin: TV networks and advertisers spend millions on Nielsen ratings but everyone in the industry you talk to will tell you how unreliable they are.

    Some of it is willful delusion, peer pressure (if they do it I should do it too), fear (if I don’t do it i’ll get canned) and a con game.

    The nice thing about political election polling is that we can compare the polling data to the actual outcome of elections. For example, Gallup Poll Accuracy:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx

  10. avatar
    US Citizen May 11, 2011 at 3:58 am #

    Joey: The nice thing about political election polling is that we can compare the polling data to the actual outcome of elections. For example, Gallup Poll Accuracy:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx

    I’ve always wondered if Bush2 actually believed what he said about not believing in polls.
    According to this page above, Gallup hasn’t had a spot-on prediction since 1948, but they’ve been very close most of the time.

  11. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 11, 2011 at 4:51 am #

    Joey: The nice thing about political election polling is that we can compare the polling data to the actual outcome of elections.

    Yes, but note that those are the final polls before an election — it says nothing of polls leading up to the election — and certainly not anything of polls a year out.

  12. avatar
    Lupin May 11, 2011 at 5:05 am #

    Expelliarmus: Yes, but note that those are the final polls before an election — it says nothing of polls leading up to the election — and certainly not anything of polls a year out.

    I was going to make that same point. Also exit polls are usually very reliable.

  13. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2011 at 6:40 am #

    Joey: The nice thing about political election polling is that we can compare the polling data to the actual outcome of elections. For example, Gallup Poll Accuracy:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx

    Candidate polling is quite accurate because “Do you plan to vote for A or B?” is an unambiguous question. Issue polling depends much more on how you ask the question and the complexities of the issues. A great example is on the budget. Large majorities say they favor cutting spending. But, when you ask what specific spending should be cut, the only thing that gets a majority is foreign aid which is <1% of the budget.

  14. avatar
    Majority Will May 11, 2011 at 7:23 am #

    Benji Franklin:
    WND seems to be preemptively lurching through the book chapter by chapter
    these days with the most misleading sensationalist characterizations of what the elements of the book are!WE may see this one yet:

    “BOMBSHELL! Excavation of Mammoth skeleton on Iowa farm produces no positive proof of Obama’s U.S. Citizenship!”

    or this one

    “ELIGIBILITY GAME CHANGER? Stray dog craps on rural unpaved road in Mississippi!
    What was Obama thinking?”

    Benji Franklin

    lmao 😀

  15. avatar
    Black Lion May 11, 2011 at 7:54 am #

    From ConWebWatch…Good article…

    Natural Born Misleaders

    WorldNetDaily has studiously avoided reporting evidence that contradicts its preferred definition of “natural born citizen,” which just so happens to exclude Barack Obama.

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2011/wndnaturalborn.html

  16. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 11, 2011 at 11:08 am #

    Scientist: Candidate polling is quite accurate because “Do you plan to vote for A or B?” is an unambiguous question.Issue polling depends much more on how you ask the question and the complexities of the issues.A great example is on the budget.Large majorities say they favor cutting spending.But, when you ask what specific spending should be cut, the only thing that gets a majority is foreign aid which is <1% of the budget.

    This is a key observation (and explains why Nate Silver, for instance, was able to predict the vote in the 2008 general election to within 0.1%). Everyone should remember that polling data is fact (unless performed in some way fraudulently…) – the problem comes in interpreting the results. In a horse-race poll, this is straightforward (although you still need to apply a likely voter model, etc.), but even attempting that type of question in another area (such as, ‘do you support this legislation?’) is fraught – the people you are asking the question of (assuming they are not legislators) don’t get a vote (which could affect their response in many different ways) and a question like this doesn’t tell you anything about how much the respondent cares about the issue – are they just willing to answer a pollster’s question or are they willing to be thrown in jail for acts of civil disobedience in support of the cause? If issue polls are well constructed, they can and do provide valuable information, but the way the are generally used (especially in the media) seems to mostly range from unwise to lies, damned lies, and statistics…

  17. avatar
    G May 11, 2011 at 11:09 am #

    Expelliarmus: Yes, but note that those are the final polls before an election — it says nothing of polls leading up to the election — and certainly not anything of polls a year out.

    Yes, those earlier ones are terribly innacurate and unreliable.

    In recent years, Rasmussen has probably been the furthest off in their earlier polling from reality than most others. Then again, it also has become clear that Rasmussen has a clear political agenda to intentionally “shape a narrative” to their earlier-timeframe polling efforts. There comes a point when they should be dropped from being considered a reliable polling outfit completely and be recognized as part of a propoganda machine.

  18. avatar
    Joey May 11, 2011 at 3:24 pm #

    US Citizen: I’ve always wondered if Bush2 actually believed what he said about not believing in polls.
    According to this page above, Gallup hasn’t had a spot-on prediction since 1948, but they’ve been very close most of the time.

    Polls should be read with a plus/minus 3% statistical margin of error factored in. George W. Bush had two different polling firms working for him for both of his terms. He just made sure they stayed way in the background in order to contrast his administration with that of Bill Clinton who was accused of governing by the polls.

  19. avatar
    Joey May 11, 2011 at 3:34 pm #

    2008 Pollsters’ Report Card:
    http://electoralmap.net/pollsters/index.php

  20. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 11, 2011 at 6:07 pm #

    G: Yes, those earlier ones are terribly innacurate and unreliable.

    Unless, of course, there is an alternate universe in which Hillary Clinton was elected President after narrowly defeating Mitt Romney.

  21. avatar
    Mr Furious May 12, 2011 at 2:54 pm #

    “I can remember as a child being very uncomfortable with some I Love Lucy episodes that involved intensely embarrassing situations.”

    Holy crud, I thought I was the only one who felt that way.

  22. avatar
    LeadOn May 19, 2011 at 7:41 am #

    Politicians can become president. Only leaders can effectively serve as Commander-in-Chief.

    Teenagers and young adults who proudly don uniforms of our armed forces, fight our wars, and many who return from battle crippled or dead, have far more integrity than Obama.

    See The Military’s Moral Dilemma article at World Net Daily.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117857

    How can Obama stand saluting over the caskets of America’s youth returning home from war in flagged-draped coffins when he cannot lead them by his example?

  23. avatar
    AmericaFirst May 19, 2011 at 7:42 am #

    The only reason Obama released the phony long-form when he did was to try and stop 13 states from approving legislation this spring and summer requiring eligibility vetting before candidates’ names can appear on ballots. For some states, the long-form will suffice…unless the people of the state raise the validity of the document. Other states are demanding more comprehensive requirements for evidence (like legal investigation and ruling on his father not being a U.S. citizen, his use of a foreign passport as an adult, any foreign student status or financial aid as one). He also probably released it to delay and put into brief tailspins some eligibility court cases against him that were gaining significant legal standing.

    Obama surely didn’t want to show any of his cards, let alone lay a high one down on the table. This was a necessary step of desperate temporary survival. A stupid move. Now the issue of his father’s foreign citizenship will be center stage, an issue which cannot conveniently be hidden deep in Hawaii’s halls of darkness. It demands judicial ruling under full public, national scrutiny. That alone could keep him off 2012 ballots in some states.

    Team Obama is flapping around like a dying fish on a beach, until early next year when a legal tsunami hits them in several states. Dems will ride everything on one candidate and have all this come down on them…and unfortunately on America. But Obama doesn’t care about America, or Hawaii, or Illinois, or Kenya, or anyone forced or freely covering up for him. He’s selfish and will implode.

  24. avatar
    HawaiiSurfer May 19, 2011 at 7:42 am #

    Brian Schatz signs official campaign document showing missing statement that presidential candidate was Constitutionally qualified.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=207197

    Brian Schatz, Hawaii’s new Lt Governor and former State Democratic Party Chair during the 2008 election, signed a state certification letter authorizing the Obama-Biden ticket to be on Hawaii’s ballot. Brian knew full-well this Aug 27, 08 document he authorized, signed and released was crafted with wording “clearly omitting” the certification the presidential candidate was Constitutionally qualified. In stark contrast, two predecessors from Brian’s own Hawaii Democratic Party, Brikwood Galuteria and Alfred Lardizabul, did the right thing by clearly certifying John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000 as Constitutionally qualified candidates. If we went back further in time, we’d probably find Brian’s actions as Democratic Party Chair are in clear contrast to far more than just documentation of the last few presidential elections. Brian most likely is not to fault in everything related to this. Many hands across our nation appear to have been deep in the cookie jar. The democratic party was fed a bad deal with what is clearly one of the biggest frauds in American history. Good people should have stopped it. Brian Schatz seems like a wonderful person. I’m sure Brian has done many great things for Hawaii’s communities but that does not excuse any elected or appointed leader from actions of this weight and consequence. This is a felony.

    Our country has gone down a road where our children look up and wonder if anyone in leadership has integrity. Few leaders have touched an honest approach to the shadowy skullduggery surrounding the 2008 election…and the world is just suppose to be okay with it.

    Teenagers and young adults are in tune with what is going on and watching to see how we make decisions and lead. We can’t blame them for not being engaged if we can’t make them believe that “right” is worth championing for.

    Our children and neighbors deserve much better.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 19, 2011 at 8:28 am #

    HawaiiSurfer: This is a felony.

    Did you have a particular criminal statute in mind?

    It would seem to me that accusing a respected political reader in such strong terms, when a simple error explains everything, is what is poisoning respect for leaders in the minds of our children.

  26. avatar
    Greg May 19, 2011 at 8:29 am #

    Pretty obvious with the sock-puppets there!

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 19, 2011 at 8:37 am #

    AmericaFirst:
    The only reason Obama released the phony long-form when he did was to try and stop 13 states from approving legislation this spring and summer requiring eligibility vetting before candidates’ names can appear on ballots.

    First off, I do not appreciate your attempt to look like more people than you really are, America First, HawaiiSurfer and LeadOn.

    The fact of the matter is that pretty much all of the legislation you allude to was already dead for the year, before Obama released any form. I agree that these bills that were “not about Obama” have little chance of appearing again in 2012 now that President Obama has proven that the birthers have no clothes, and in fact are those, to use your phrase, who are “flapping around like a dying fish on a beach.”

  28. avatar
    Suranis May 19, 2011 at 8:47 am #

    AmericaFirst:
    The only reason Obama released the phony long-form when he did was to try and stop 13 states from approving legislation this spring and summer requiring eligibility vetting before candidates’ names can appear on ballots.

    12 of those states had already decided not to pass such legislation by the time Obama released the Long form, including freaking ARIZONA whose famously crazy RWNJ governor could see this was unconstitutional and would drag Arizona into 2000 pointless lawsuits.

    Oh, you didn’t know that almost all of the eligibility laws had failed to pass? Sorry to inform the misinformed.

    The only one left is Oklahoma, that just requires one to present a birth cert and sign a form certifying you are eligible. The 2008 COLB will satisfy that one.

  29. avatar
    The Magic M May 19, 2011 at 9:18 am #

    > crafted with wording “clearly omitting” the certification the presidential candidate was Constitutionally qualified

    So? Obama was born in Hawaii (proven in the sane world) and is a natural born citizen (undisputable in the sane world). That makes any observations as to certification wordings moot.

    > the shadowy skullduggery surrounding the 2008 election

    Huh? You birfers have yet to prove that your made-up crap is actually backed up by facts. You’re like people saying “he didn’t greet me yesterday, he must be evil”. Similarly, you’re saying “because some paper doesn’t say the magic words, he must be ineligible although all evidence shows he is not”.

    > where our children look up and wonder if anyone in leadership has integrity

    The children of birthers usually look up and wonder if mommy/daddy will ever come back from down the rabbit hole.

  30. avatar
    The Magic M May 19, 2011 at 9:27 am #

    > For some states, the long-form will suffice…unless the people of the state raise the validity of the document.

    And even then they would have to bring substantial evidence to the contrary. Just saying “I don’t think it’s legit” won’t cut it in court (believing this is one of the results why birfer lawyers fail so utterly).

    > Other states are demanding more comprehensive requirements for evidence (like legal investigation

    Which states are demanding “legal investigation”? They all require documentation (of different levels), not more. Did you not pay attention again or are you just making stuff up because it’s as natural as breathing for you?

    > and ruling on his father not being a U.S. citizen, his use of a foreign passport as an adult,

    Still flogging the dead “Pakistan travel ban” horse, are we?

    > He also probably released it to delay and put into brief tailspins some eligibility court cases against him that were gaining significant legal standing.

    Keep deluding yourself. Which birfer case was “gaining significant (or any) legal standing”? None.

    > Now the issue of his father’s foreign citizenship will be center stage, an issue which cannot conveniently be hidden deep in Hawaii’s halls of darkness.

    An issue anyone could have raised for years, given that Obama WROTE TWO BOOKS ABOUT IT.

    Now you birfers are spinning and claim only the release of the LFBC suddenly made this issue tangible? The LFBC you claim is a forgery anyway? Pathetic.

    > It demands judicial ruling under full public, national scrutiny. That alone could keep him off 2012 ballots in some states.

    Keep dreaming. The Ankeny court declared him an NBC. (A decision so conveniently NOT appealed by the birfers.) SCOTUS would not rule otherwise.

    > Team Obama is flapping around like a dying fish on a beach, until early next year when a legal tsunami hits them in several states.

    Sure, dude, he’ll be gone any day now… any day now.. any… day… now… …. ….

  31. avatar
    misha May 19, 2011 at 10:41 am #

    LeadOn: Teenagers and young adults who proudly don uniforms of our armed forces, fight our wars, and many who return from battle crippled or dead, have far more integrity than Obama.

    Like Shrub and Dan Quayle? Or Spiro Agnew?

    LeadOn: See The Military’s Moral Dilemma article at World Net Daily.

    WND is run by a Phalangist, who has the blood of Sabra and Shatila on his hands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

    AmericaFirst: But Obama doesn’t care about America, or Hawaii, or Illinois, or Kenya, or anyone forced or freely covering up for him. He’s selfish and will implode.

    I’m sorry, but this blog is not about Spiro Agnew. You’re confusing the two.

    LeadOn: How can Obama stand saluting over the caskets of America’s youth returning home from war in flagged-draped coffins when he cannot lead them by his example?

    Like Shrub? Like invading another country with data made from whole cloth, so Cheney’s cronies could get their paws on oil?

    AmericaFirst: Now the issue of his father’s foreign citizenship will be center stage

    A crank theory, dreamed up by an erstwhile lawyer, between poker games.

    HawaiiSurfer: I’m sure Brian has done many great things for Hawaii’s communities but that does not excuse any elected or appointed leader from actions of this weight and consequence. This is a felony.

    Name the statute. Also, name the officials you contacted to have them prosecute.