Factcheck.org States The Obvious

The Birth Certificate is REAL.

In one of the silliest stories of this silly season, more than a few wingnuts have been ranting about Senator Barack Obama's "faked" birth certificate. So far local wingnuts Mike Pintek (here and here) and John Steigerwald and of course, Quinn and Rose (note the "hat tip" in that posting and if have you have the stomach for it, listen here) have further spread this story in one form or another.

In fairness, though, Steigerwald has NOT stated that he believes it himself. He was just saying that others have raised the issue. How "Bagdhad Bob" of him.

Pintek, though, made it onto the MediaMatters.org. Good for him! Nice to see him moving up in the world. Now everyone everywhere can know how much of a wingnut he is. Here's a flash: he also thinks that that whole "global warming" thing is a hoax. How surprising.

Anyway, Factcheck.org has the evidence to clearly show that Barack Obama was, in fact, born in the US. In Hawaii. In August of 1961. After Hawaii acheived statehood. That makes Obama a natural born citizen and therefore he meets that constitutionally mandated requirement for the Presidency.

Just like everyone said.

In another hit to his now defunct (as if he ever had any) credibility, smear-meister Jerome Corsi is on the record saying the certificate is "false" to Steve Doocy of Fox "News". Factcheck has a transcript:

Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life?

Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site?
Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.

Doocy: Well, couldn't it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?

Corsi: No, it's a -- there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce.

All of that, of course is bunk. Here's why. Factcheck.org actually got some first hand knowledge:

Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.

They have a list of charges brought against the certificate:

• The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal.
• It isn't signed.
• No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
• In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.
• The certificate number is blacked out.
• The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008.
• The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."

Then they go point-by-point to show how each criticism is, well, complete crap. They even have art. Here's the seal. See? It's raised and everything:


Here's the signature on the date of release:

Heck someone even found the contemporaneous newspaper announcement of the birth:

Of course the wingnuts are still not convinced (and we'd trust these people to drive?). One, and presumably more - as such political deleria is contagious, writes that the newspaper announcement could still be a faked, so proves nothing.

So let's see. IF the birth certificate is a fake, then the vast conspiracy to push this fakery onto an unenlightened public must be huge - and supremely efficient (only to be thwarted utterly by one guy with photoshop, of course). As politicfact has already noted, for this certificate to be faked the conspiracy has to reach deep into:

• The Hawaii Department of Health
• The Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics
• The Illinois Secretary of State’s office
• The Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois

Tin Hat, anyone?

I wonder if Mike Pintek will be issuing a correction.

Melissa Hart on KDKA

Looks like they'll be discussing this bill. It's called the "Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007. Here's the text:

`Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).'.

9:11: The conversation begins (all these are paraphrased - I'm doing this live).

Steigerwald: If Obama wins, do we get the Fairness Doctrine again?
Hart: I think we do.

Hart: Altmire is trying to have it both ways. He supports the bill but won't sign a discharge petition forcing the bill to the floor.

9:14: Steigerwald Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer both say we need the fairness doctrine.

This whole argument seems to be based on this:

Conservative critics have been very concerned that Congress had supported a one-year moratorium on the return of the Fairness Doctrine, but has not supported the Broadcaster Freedom Act (BFA), which would permanently prevent these regulations from returning.

Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced the BFA last June, where it is still awaiting a vote. As of June 25, 200 Members have signed a discharge petition which would force the House to make an up or down vote on the legislation, but an additional 18 signatures are needed.

“And so far, not one single House Democrat has signed our petition for an up-or-down vote on broadcast freedom...and now we know why,” announced Pence in response to Pelosi’s comments. “I say to Speaker Pelosi with respect: Defending freedom is the paramount interest of every Member of the American Congress.”

9:20: Now they're talking about off-shore drilling.

9:23: The drilling is stopped because the Democrats are dependent on radical environmental groups, like Moveon.org.

9:25: Steigerwald: What about Conservatives' criticism of Bush on spending?
Hart: Bush should have vetoed more than he did.

Steigerwald: Was that about Bush "getting along" and going a little too far?
Hart: I think he should have been stronger.

9:27: Steigerwald: McCain has gained 5 points in the recent Quinnipiac poll. From 12 points down to 7 points down in Pennsylvania, so that should be good news to Republicans in the state.

9:29 Steigerwald: Biggest differences between Altmire and Hart?
Hart: I say what I believe in and act on it. He does a lot of flip-flopping. He says he's pro-live but he's voted pro-abortion.

Submitted for your approval.

My Commentary:

I'm always amazed at the "fairness doctrine" argument. It seems that everyone and his uncle on the right is screaming about how liberals are looking to bring the fairness doctrine back. Their panic is palpable. It'll be the end of the republic if those lib'ruls get their way and reinstitute the fairness doctrine, they rant. Then they complain about how the mainstream media is silent about the issue - thus proving the conspiracy to reinstate it.

Hart's and Steigerwald's argument seems to be that Pelosi and Altmire want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine because they're not fighting tooth and nail to bring the "Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007" to the floor. Altmire in particular because while he cosponsers the bill, he won't sign the discharge petition to force a vote.

So that proves he's in favor of reinstatement.

Can someone explain the logic to me?

The thing is, if nothing happens, then the Fairness Doctrine is still inert, right? So explain to me how keeping something inert actually supports reinstating it?

Especially when Senator Obama is NOT in support of reinstatement?

Conservative logic - an oxymoron if ever there was one.

But, of course to the wingnuts, since Bill Clinton cheated on his wife and then lied about it, that invalidates "Democrat Logic."