1. Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can the Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is ‘African-American’ when the term wasn’t even used at that time?

2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in ” Kenya , East Africa “. This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the ” British East Africa Protectorate”.

3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital “. This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & GynecologicalHospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?

So let’s consider this, and take it one piece at a time.

1. Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can the Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is ‘African-American’ when the term wasn’t even used at that time?

Well, Obama’s “long form” birth certificate (released in April of 2011) does not state that Obama is an African-American.  It states that the father’s race is “African.”  The term “African” was used for native-born Africans, such as Obama’s father.  I really don’t think there is any reason to dig further here, given how obviously bad the next two claims apparently are.

2. Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the ” British East Africa Protectorate”.

Wow.  This required a trip to Wikipedia.

The British Empire established the East Africa Protectorate in 1895, known from 1920 as the Kenya Colony. The independent Republic of Kenya was founded in December 1963.

The East African Republic of Kenya has been called Kenya for a long time, apparently named after Mount Kenya.  (Aside: Have you watched The Ghost and the Darkness? Tasvo is in Kenya.)  While it didn’t get full independence from Britain until 1963, it was called Kenya, Kenya Colony, and The Colony of Kenya, and that is how Obama’s father would have identified it to the doctors, etc., especially since they were seeking independence at this time, to be achieved in 1963.  “Where are you from?”  “Kenya.”

Of course there is no reason to believe Wikipedia, but the conspiracy must be massive, because the name “Kenya” is everywhere prior to 1963.  A quick search on Google books turns up this book (The Akamba in British East Africa, by Gerhard Lindblom) from 1920 that talks about Kenya as if it were… well… Kenya.

Finally, here’s a map from 1950.  Have a look.  You know where Kenya is, right?  About halfway down the eastern side of the continent.

3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital “. This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged.

I visit Wikipedia again, and find this.

In 1931, its name was changed to the Kapi?olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.

Of course there is no reason to believe Wikipedia.  But then it didn’t take long to call the hospital and ask about the name.  I have Sprint’s “everything” plan, so it’s also (relatively) cheap to call.  Apparently they do get asked, because I got the answer pretty quickly.  1931.  Others have been over this, too.  I won’t beat on this issue when others have covered it so extensively.

Skepticism

So far I’ve managed to strongly disagree with folks on the following topics.

• Obama was born in Kenya.
• The 9/11 disaster was staged by the United States government.
• Cell phones cause cancer.

I assert that we do not have enough evidence to accept any of the above statements.  I don’t claim they are false, just that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that they are true… or even likely.

The above are all possible. People are born in Kenya. The United States government has staged events. Cancer has myriad causes, and we discover new ones often. The trick is that we don’t have sufficient evidence that has withstood scrutiny to believe any of the above, and do have evidence to reject them. I wonder if adherents want them to be true? I can’t imagine why they would, except maybe for the Obama born in Kenya one.

Of course the folks who hold these views believe they have evidence. In the Obama case it’s inconsistent and (in some cases) manufactured. In the 9/11 case it’s considerably better, and includes some apparent physical evidence. In the cell phone case it’s even better, with thermal and non-thermal mechanisms proposed. In the 9/11 case the evidence does not withstand scrutiny. In the cell phone case any effects appear to be just outside the consistently measurable range.

I’m reminded of polywater and N-rays. It is necessary to subject your own beliefs to skepticism. You also need to know that the failure to disprove your beliefs does not make them true. You can be right when everyone else is wrong… but you can be wrong, too.

So, I remain skeptical about the above, in the same way I’m skeptical about many other claims. If you believe something is truly significant, and you plan to commit a considerable part of your life to it, you should, I think, subject it to rather strong skepticism before taking the plunge… and after, as well. It’s the latter that is most difficult, of course. One of my favorite quotations is a supposed Turkish proverb: No matter how far you have gone down the wrong road, turn back.

The Argument:
As far as the “birthers” go, common sense says if there wasn’t anything to hide, then nobody would be hiding anything, right?

My Answer:
There is a fundamental principle of inquiry – that is assuming one cares about the truth – that assertions should be based on evidence. The absence of evidence does not constitute evidence. So far as the courts and I can tell, nobody is hiding anything. To accept assertions on insufficient evidence risks making oneself a tool for evil hands.

By the way: The argument presented is a common fallacy.  The argument in the general form goes something like: If you haven’t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide. I assume everyone reading this can understand why this argument is not valid.  It always bugs me when I hear people say it, especially in this country where we have an enshrined right to privacy arising from the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Counterpunch:
But isn’t it a duty to show the evidence if a person is running for President?

My Answer:
Yes, it is. And this was done to the satisfaction of the U.S. courts more than once.

The Non-Sequitur:
And that is enough to satify a you?  Big difference between this and McCain, and you know it.

My Answer:
Yes, there is a big difference.

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, a tenuous and temporary extension of the US and not a state of the union. If elected, McCain would have been the first US President to have been born outside the states. This was a serious legal matter that ultimately ended in a (nonbinding) Senate resolution and required real legal investigation by a bipartisan legal review. This is because “natural born” is not defined in the Constitution. While McCain would be very, very likely to prevail in a legal challenge, it is not assured. In short, the courts have not ruled on this matter.

Obama was born in Hawaii, our 50th state, and a state of the union. He has provided documentation of his birth adequate for all legal purposes. In addition, his original birth certificate has been examined by the director of the Hawaii State Department of Health who attested to its authenticity under oath. The Republican governor of the state, Linda Lingle, has also attested to Obama’s status. The US courts have ruled on this matter.

So, yes, there is a big difference. Obama’s status as a naturalized citizen is well established. McCain’s is not.

Barack Obama

What about Obama’s KENYAN birth certificate produced by Orly Taitz?
http://gnn.tv/threads/36212/Shocking_New_Birth_Certificate_Proof_Obama_Born_In_Kenya

I was asked about this recently. It took me less than one minute to find the following, and follow just a few of the references.

From Wikipedia (they determine our reality):

On August 2, 2009, Orly Taitz released and attached to court documents what she alleged to be an authentic Kenyan birth certificate. Legal documents submitted describe the document as an “unauthenticated color photocopy of certified copy of registration of birth”.[47][48] The document was almost immediately revealed to be a forgery. It purports to have been issued by the “Republic of Kenya”, when in fact, such a state did not yet exist at the time of Obama’s birth as indicated on the document (Kenya was a Dominion of the British Crown until 1963).[49][50] Additionally, Mombasa, the city indicated on the certificate as Obama’s birthplace, was not located in Kenya, but in Zanzibar.[50][51] Subsequently, evidence was unearthed that the alleged Kenyan birth certificate is probably a modified version of a 1959 Australian birth certificate found on an online genealogy website.[52][53] The Washington Independent cited an anonymous blogger [54] as having taken credit for the forgery and posting four photos substantiating the claim.[55] Examples of actual 1961 Kenyan birth certificates have also been revealed, which look substantially different from the document Taitz submitted to the court. [56]

I don’t think that anything will satisfy the birthers because I do not think they care what the truth is or even what the United States Constitution says. As far as I know the birthers still have no evidence. All the newspaper evidence and official documents support Obama’s birth in Hawaii; none support anything else.

If I’m missing something, let me know.