The "birthers" revisited

Responding once again to the claim that President Barack Obama is not a naturally-born citizen (a key requirement for anyone seeking to become president), state officials in Hawaii have inspected and confirmed that Obama was indeed born in their state...for the second time in less than a year.

"I...have seen the original vital records...verifying that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born citizen," said Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukimo. He issued the statement earlier this week hoping to stave off the influx of phone calls his department has been receiving as of late.

"Birthers" -- those who assert that Obama is not a natural-born citizen -- will also be disappointed to hear of a resolution that passed unanimously in the House of Representatives this week commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian statehood. Within the resolution is a significant clause that asserts the following:

Whereas: the 44th president of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

Why is this significant? The bill failed to garner any opposition, any vote against it, meaning that no one in Congress believes the "birthers'" story -- not even a single Republican lawmaker. You'd think that, if any lawmaker truly believed that Obama was born elsewhere, the resolution would receive a vote or two against it, or even some debate to remove the clause. Neither of the two happened.

Hawaiian law prevents any birth certificate from being released to the public; but even with this fact, Obama released his own certificate, long before he became president and was simply a candidate for the office. Two newspaper clippings from the time he was born also acknowledge his birth.

Which brings up an interesting point: how many people do these "birthers" believe are involved in this conspiracy? For this to work, you'd need to control two newspapers, the state of Hawaii, and all the proper officials who are qualified to view his certificate, who have inspected and confirmed the president's birth. Sounds very unlikely to me.

The true motivations behind this "movement" aren't to preserve the rule of law in this country, to right some perceived wrong; rather, they are to remove a president some consider to be "bad" (whether that's due to specific policies or due to some other superficial reasons, we can only assume).

Instead of conjuring up bogus conspiracy theories in order to defeat the president, these "birthers" ought to figure out a way to debate the issues in a productive manner. God knows they have the time to do so.