I know many take this whole birther controversy seriously, so I feel a bit bad making fun of them, but when I read something absurd, I can't help myself, the imp in me demands I have to point out the absurdity.

And what is this absurdity?

Joseph Farrah, one of the louder proponents of birther silliness, claims that the State Department has stated categorically that they would not issue a passport on the basis of a Certification of Live Birth, only a Certificate of Live Birth.

It sounds like curtains for Obama, at least if you take it at face value. After all, if it isn't good enough for a passport, then it certainly shouldn't prove he can be president. And that would mean Obama will now have to present his (presumably non-existent) Certificate of Live Birth.

The problem here is that that would seem to make it impossible for many Hawaiians to ever leave the nation.

Allow me to explain. My state does not have the same titles as the Hawaiian forms, but we do have multiple versions of the birth certificates. Until recently, there was a hospital issued birth certificate. The certificate was kept on file, and a copy given to the parents. If a person lost their certificate,t hey could obtain a sealed copy of the original.

Along comes the computer revolution and states tire of keeping those tedious old paper, or even microfiche, copies. And so everything goes into the mainframes, the papers and microfiche into the shredder, and we are left with nothing but a lot of electronic data on tape somewhere. And so we now have two different forms. The original hospital issued birth certificate, a simple short form signed by a doctor, and a birth certificate spit out by a computer, issued whenever the holder loses their original.

And Hawaiian appears to have the same system.  I do not have the link handy, but an official was quoted as saying they do not issue a Certificate of Live Births as replacements, only a Certification of Live Birth. And that is what makes Mr. Farrah's claim so silly. If we accept what he says, it means that any Hawaiian unfortunate enough to lose his original can no longer obtain a passport, as he will only be able to obtain the "unacceptable" certification of live birth.

Then again, this is one of those claims that make no sense. It reminds me of the original claim by Polarik that the document on the wb site had improper form numbers. at the time I wondered why, with all the resources he had at his disposal, Obama would flub such a simple point. And, lo and behold, Polarik was proved wrong, and the form number matched every Certification of Live Birth anyone could find.

And this complaint seems similar to me. If Certification of Live Birth is so worthless and a Certificate of Live Birth is the gold standard, why would Obama bother to forge the lesser form? If he is forging things, why not forge the definitive version? It isn't as if it takes any more effort.

No, this sounds to me like yet another in the long line of attempts to keep alive birther claims. I admit, when I first heard Polarik's claims, I was interested, but, after looking into them, I came to believe there was nothing there. And that was it. However, it seems some were just unwilling to let this go. Whether from dislike of Obama, a desire to remove him from office at all costs, or simply an indistinct feeling "something is wrong", they refuse to give up the end result, that Obama is ineligible, even if the arguments in support of it prove false. And so they continue to look for an argument, looking for the one that will finally fit and drive him form office.

I won't say any more about it, as I have written about ti far too many times already. All I will say is that the time has come for serious conservatives to put this behind them. Unless someone produces real evidence of Obama's foreign birth, not allegations, not calculations of how much he spent on legal defense, not theories about the definition of "natural born" contrary to all precedent, but actual evidence, it is time to let this go. The man is the president, nothing short of real evidence is going to cause anyone in a position of power to question that. And persisting in claiming he is ineligible without evidence does nothing but provide fodder to the media with which to paint the right as insane.

The time has come to move along, to go on to substantive arguments, to showing the harm he is doing in office, not squabbling over imaginary evidence. We need to accept the reality that he is president for another three years plus, and begin to deal with the consequences of that reality. Arguing over whether he is eligible or not, at least without a shred of evidence to support our claims, is not just pointless, but actively harmful to our cause.

POSTSCRIPT

Mr. Farrah has apparently taken umbrage with those who have criticized him based upon his affinity for birthers. But, in this case, I am afraid I must agree with his critics. Mr. Farrah has been right on a number of issue,s but he has also shown a disturbing propensity for conspiratorial beliefs. Be it flight 800 or birther claims, he seems to be something of the right wing analog of Michael Moore. I suppose it has stood him in good stead with the nascent Angry Right (our version of the Angry Left), and probably helps him sell advertising, but from a political perspective it does not do our cause nay good. If anything, it convinces mostly conservative independents that they are not "really" conservatives, as they see conservatives as conspiracy theorists, clinic bombers, militia members and other lunatics, and completely ignore the many points of similarity most independents share with the mainstream of conservatism.

POSTSCRIPT II

I wrote on this topic before, most recently in "Our Donatists", "On The Other Hand...", "Picking Your Fight" and "To Clarify - Birther Controversy". You can read my arguments on the topic of Obama's eligibility in the following:

An Interesting Question
A Small Update on the Birth Certificate Controversy
Birth Certificate Controversy Revisited
One More Post on the Birth Certificate Controversy
Really, The Last One on This Topic
Wrong is Wrong
A Few Comments on the Berg Ruling
A New Take on an Old Topic
A Brief Follow Up
Slate Imitates Me, But I Really Don't Mind
Legislative Intent
Not A Smoking Gun

In addition, I discussed the effects of such arguments upon other public perception of the right in "Think of the Impresison You Make".As I mentioned conspiracy theories in general, I suppose I would be remiss if I did not cite the following writing on the topic of conspiratorial thought:

Sinister PNAC? Hardly!
Food For Thought
Bill Clinton Murdered Leon Trotsky!
Idiots or Geniuses?
Dismissing Conspiracy Theories
Our New Paranoia
259 Lies?
Isn't History Enough?
The Appeal of Conspiracy Theories
A Shortcoming of Conspiracy Theories
Amusingly Left Wing
Absurdities on Oil
Your Fellow Man
Revival of an Old Absurdity
A Question for Those Who Believe "Bush Lied"
Tips for Conspiracy Theory Buffs #1
Rewriting History Concerning World War II
Those Darn Jews
Those Darn Jews Part 2
One Last Time
Conspiracy Theorists' False Logic
Conspiracy Theory Enters the Mainstream
Can They Both Lose?
All In How You Say It
Conspiracy Theories
Sorry, But Jews Aren't the Problem
Mumia, the DaVinci Code, Full Body Scans, and Loose Change - How Conspiracy Theories Arise
The Zionist Conspiracy and Israel Lobby
Life is Strange
The Delusional World of Oliver Stone
False Flag Theories and 9/11

Of course the two lists do have a great deal of overlap, as the two topics are intimately related, but I have tried to keep links in one list or the other so as not to repeat myself too often.

POSTSCRIPT III

As I know some of my readers place more credence in this argument than I do, I don't want to seem close minded. I am, as always, ready to confess my error. On the other hand, we need to agree beforehand about what constitutes proof. For example, dicta, minority opinions and comments form floor debate, not to mention centuries old political tracts, are not binding precedents, while majority rulings from the supreme court are. Which means that Wong Kim Ark determines what constitutes a "natural born citizen", Bingham's comments, Rufus King's comments or de Vattel's theories do not. So, to constitute proof, there must be some physical evidence of Obama's ineligibility, not just a belief the courts have ruled wrongly in the past.

But if you have proof that can pass muster under those rules, I am always willing to take a look. So, please, let me know. If you  can convince me, I will be happy to pick up the banner and argue for your cause. But I warn you, despite my many misgivings about the present administration, I am a tough audience when it comes to claims about his ineligibility.