In responding to a comment on my earlier post about the Obama birth certificate controversy, I have to say the way the argument has progressed, even more than any specific element has convinced me the argument is simply lacking substance. I know many well meaning people believe there is something there, but I am afraid it has all the earmarks of a conspiracy theory.

First, there are the wild claims. I have seen one site arguing Obama's certificate is false as his modern computer generated form uses categories not found on the 1961 form. Of course it does. That data was computerized in the 80's or 90's and sues modern categories. Do you expect a modern computer to translate a "2" (or whatever value) in the race field as "Negro" because he was born in 1961? It will use whatever the modern value may be. Granted "African" looks odd, but I have no other Hawaiian certificates to which I can compare. And no one has brought any forward to show me differently.

Second, there were many who argued the form was bogus, the revision number wrong, and so on. Until someone produced a legit certificate that had exactly the same numbers. Suddenly that argument dropped and it focused on the border. Until someone produced a form with yet a different border. Apparently, Hawaii did not bother to keep their borders consistent between batches of forms. The crosshatching has been different on every form I have seen. Yet some still argue this proves Obama's certificate is a fraud because it doesn't match any of the others, ignoring that they don't match one another either.

Even worse has been the shift in theories of why he is hiding the birth certificate.

At first, the theory was he was born in Kenya. This is still a favorite for some, though the discovery of a Hawaiian birth announcement has discouraged the more sensible. A few still cling to this claiming it was a false announcement placed by a mother desperate to establish his birth in Hawaii. (Apparently because she just knew Little Barry was going to be president one day.)

Then the theory evolved that he was adopted by his Indonesian step father. This one made little sense to me, as why would his mother have notified Hawaii of his adoption? Unless he was adopted in Hawaii, in which case there should probably be court records. But in any case, many have pointed out that US law would not cause him to lose his citizenship provided he reestablished his residency in the US before age 25, which he did. There were some arguments about using an Indonesian passport, but the fact is, adoption would not have changed this. And why Hawaii would even know of the adoption has always been a mystery to me.

And now I see the latest argument. This one hinges on his father's citizenship. It is a clever argument, I will grant, but misses one crucial point. According to this theory an agreement in 1961 with the UK allows that a child born to a citizen of the UK inside the US is a citizen of the UK and a naturalized citizen of the US. Which sounds good until you recall that Obama's mother is an American. So his father's citizenship is irrelevant. So long as mom is a citizen, he is a citizen. And being born in the US just makes that even more clear.

I am sure the next argument will involve mom somehow losing her citizenship, but I have to say, this ever shifting argument is precisely why I say this has entered the realm of conspiracy theories. True theories propose something and then stand or fall on that proposition. Conspiracy theories tend to create one hypothesis. When that is proven wrong, they propose another hypothesis promoting the same conclusion.

And that is the problem here. We are not dealing with a set of facts, but a set of conclusions. We do not have one set of facts we are trying to interpret, instead we see people proposing an infinite number of theories all of which only share the conclusion Obama is not a native born US citizen.

The problem is, there is no reason to assume this. True, he did not present his birth certificate to everyone who asked, but neither would I, neither would you. He did post a birth certificate on his web site. A few tried to "prove" it a forgery, but those claims are very, very weak. However, based solely upon those charges and his refusal to hand out certified birth certificates to everyone who asks, people have assumed he is hiding something and are creating theories to fit the conclusions.

That, sad to say, is the way of the conspiracy theory, not the way of reasonable thought.

Yes, it troubles me that the courts are gutting the constitutional requirement by basically saying no one has the right to demand confirmation of his citizenship, but it is not because I doubt he is a native born citizen. In fact, I really wish someone would finally be granted standing, just so he could turn over the paperwork and end this once and for all.

I am hardly an apologist for Obama. Come on, I named him the "Boy Blunder"! But I think this is just the wrong way to take on his administration. By pushing these suits we sound as crazy as those calling for Bush to be tried for war crimes. We make the public dismiss conservatives when we lend our names to these silly suits. No, protecting the constitution is not silly, but pretending that pushing these paranoid lawsuits protects the constitution is absurd. When you are making common cause with truthers like Berg, perhaps it is time to reexamine your premises. Not that lunatics can't be right from time to time, but in this case, the evidence just isn't there. Every theory so far has evaporated when examined, only to be replaced by yet another.

That is a sure sign there really is nothing there. When has anyone ever found the truth by picking a conclusion and selecting evidence time after time until it finally proved them right?

POSTSCRIPT

One final point. People say he did not prove he is eligible. But he has. He posted his Certification of Live Birth on his web site. Some claim it is a forgery, but there is no reason to believe that. So, as far as Obama is concerned, he has proved his legitimacy. Why would he try to "prove" something he already proved once? As far as he is concerned, everyone demanding farther proof is nuts. The evidence is there for all to see.

And for those who argue it is not good enough as Hawaiian law recognizes an original certificate as more valid than a reprint, that is absurd. I no longer have my original birth certificate. many adults have lost theirs. And many states no longer issue photostats of the originals, instead only issuing those reprint versions. Obama probably used the same certificate to take the bar exam, get jobs, get a driver's license, and so on. So of course he thinks it is valid, because it is.

People are really grasping at straws on this one. And, again, I know I have readers who disagree with me on this, but I just can't help but see it is a futile waste of time. And from the point of view of independents and moderates, those demanding he prove something look insane, demanding he prove something he already proved.

Actually, that is the more sensible position. Why not agree he has proved he is a citizen, natural born, until someone conclusively proves the certificate he posted is a forgery? As I have not seen anything even close to proving that, then I have no reason to demand of him any more evidence. He presented a birth certificate, that is enough. No more would be demanded of me to prove my citizenship, so I accept it from him as well.

Why is it that so many consider what I just said insane? It seems perfectly sensible to me.