Birthers Still Disbelieve

by Daniel Foster

The release of President Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate has not satisfied many so-called birthers who question the conditions of the president’s birth and his eligibility to hold office. Here is a roundup of the new conspiracy theories cropping up in response to the White House release:

It still says ‘Certificate of Live Birth’

Noun-adjective ordering is apparently a problem for Sharon Guthrie, legislative director for a Texas state legislator who has introduced a bill requiring proof of citizenship from presidential candidates. She tells

“What I’ve seen online, what they produced today, still says certificate of live birth across the top. . . . We want to see a ‘birth certificate’. . . . The one that we have that says ‘birth certificate’ is from Mombassa, Kenya, with his footprint on it. He has still not produced an American birth certificate.”

Guthrie is referring to a document included in a lawsuit filed by dogged birther Orly Taitz, a document even broadly sympathetic blogs like WorldNetDaily have reported as a fraud.

Obama is still a dual citizen, and thus ineligible for the presidency

Speaking of WND, the site run by avowed birther Joseph Farah is reacting cautiously to the White House release, arguing that even if the document is genuine, it doesn’t answer questions about whether Obama had dual citizenship through his father, and whether that Constitutionally precludes him from being president:

If the document proves valid, it could answer the questions raised by those who have alleged he was not actually born in Hawaii. But it also could prove his ineligibility because of its references to his father. Some of the cases challenging Obama have explained that he was a dual citizen through his father at his birth, and they contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born citizens.

Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, the only news agency that has waged a relentless investigative campaign on questions swirling around the Obama’s eligibility for nearly three years, was elated at the turn of events.

“We’re gratified that our work has begun to pay off,” he said. “The certificate of live birth is an absolutely vital foundation for determining constitutional eligibility of any president. We look forward to reviewing it like so many other Americans do at this late date. But it is important to remember there are still dozens of other questions concerning this question of eligibility that need to be resolved to assure what has become a very skeptical public concerning Barack Obama’s parentage, his adoption, his citizenship status throughout his life and why he continues to cultivate a culture of secrecy around his life.”

The PDF released by the White House contains multiple “layers”

Multiple Photoshop and image analysis buffs — mostly amateur, and comprising both birthers and non-birthers — have pointed out that the PDF document released by the White House contains multiple image “layers” superimposed atop each other.

The argument here is that the multiple layers are evidence that the document has been purposefully doctored. Our tech guru Nate Goulding writes about why that is almost certainly not the case here.

<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Obama’s father’s race is listed as “African” not “Negro” as it would have been in 1961

So-called “birther queen” Orly Taitz told TPM that while the release is a “step in the right direction” she is still suspicious of what she says is anachronistic language on the birth certificate:

“Look, I applaud this release. I think it’s a step in the right direction,” so-called “birther queen” Orly Taitz told me in one of her many media interviews this morning. “I credit Donald Trump in pushing this issue.”

But she still has her suspicions. Specifically, Taitz thinks that the birth certificate should peg Obama’s race as “Negro” and not “African.”

“In those years … when they wrote race, they were writing ‘Negro’ not ‘African’,” Taitz says. “In those days nobody wrote African as a race, it just wasn’t one of the options. It sounds like it would be written today, in the age of political correctness, and not in 1961 when they wrote white or Asian or ‘Negro’.”

If these early reactions are any indication, birtherism is not going away any time soon.