National Review, long credited with draining fever swamps on the Right, does a marvelous service in thoroughly debunking that which never really needed debunking in the first place: President Barack Obama's naturalized citizenship. "Much foolishness has become attached to the question of President Obama's place of birth, and a few misguided souls among the Right have indulged it," the magazine's editors note. "The myth that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president represents the hunt for a magic bullet that will make all the unpleasant complications of his election and presidency disappear. We are used to seeing conspiracy theories from the Left, for instance among the one in three Democrats who believe that 9/11 was an inside job conducted with the foreknowledge of the Bush administration. We've seen everything under the sun blamed on Dick Cheney and Halliburton, and Rosie O'Donnell has given us much mirth with her metallurgical expertise, while Andrew Sullivan has beclowned himself and tarnished the good name of The Atlantic with his investigation into the 'real' parentage of Trig Palin." It would have been nice if, during the George W. Bush presidency, some leading organ of leftist thought had taken its lunatics to task for promoting conspiracy theories surrounding the Carlyle Group, Diebold voting machines, or myriad other fantastical suppositions. It's commendable for National Review to douse water instead of gasoline on these fires of political dementia.

I have to say I disagree with you and the NRO on this subject.
While I don't doubt Obama is a U.S. citizen I find it very curious that he won't have his actual, hard copy,original birth certificate released. Why put up with the headache of people questioning it? It's a perfect chance for him and the rest of the dem to pull it out and rub it in people's faces.
As for the whole subject making consevatives look like wack jobs, no matter what we say or do they're going to paint us in a bad light any way.

I question this part of the article:

"The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested."

If there is no other document, then what was Obama fighting the release of in the Berg lawsuit?

Thought this was interesting.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/the_political_alchemy_of_birth.html

We have been directed to accept the copy of a certification of live birth as proof. We are told there is an actual birth certificate that has been seen and verified by some medical director hack in Hawaii. Ok. So far so good.

Then why doesn't Barack Hussein Obama just produce the original, have it verified by a neutral party and put this thing to bed? That is a big 'WHY'. I think considering that we have a guy running things that has lied about just about everything and has been oddly secretive, this is still a valid issue.

The differences between this "conspiracy" and the others that Dan mentions in this post are as follows: 1.)There was really no way for the accused to prove their accusers wrong. In this case Obama should be able to easily prove the birthers wrong. Simply produce the orignial ong form. 2.)With the other conspiracies especially those regarding Bush and Cheney the main stream media did every thing in their power to fan the flames. In this case, they are doing every thing in their power to suppress this.

I don't think this becomes a real problem for Mr. Obama if the economy improves. If it does not, pressure on him to release the long form or at least do a better job at debunking the birthers will grow. If he can't or won't this may even lead to impeachment. Again, if the economy improves this whole thing will all be irrelevant.

And just to qualify this: if this guy had been 'my guy' and was a stellar competent conservative candidate and was doing a bang up job as President but was pulling the same crap with regard to his secrecy of this most important document with the ultimate proof being that he did not conform to the birthing qualification to be President - I would want him thrown out on his ear. Or, better yet - not elected in the first place.

Like more than a handful of Americans give a rat's ass whether the President is qualified under the Constitution to hold his office? They don't care that 90% of what the federal government does is blatantly unconstitutional anyway. They could care less that most of our wars are unconstitutional. All you birthers are doing are begging for an explicit rejection of the Constitution on the qualification issue, as that would be the inevitable result IF you were correct about Obama being a foreign national. And you aren't.

His American birth has been more than substantiated and corroborated. Obama -- even as I object to 99% of his agenda -- owes no one more than what has been provided. If it is good enough for Hawaii than it should be good enough for the rest of us. Only idiots more concerned with debate over nonsense than dealing on the ground with real life keep this thing going.

I continue to be amazed how often people will insist on things that are simply and clearly not so, on connections that are tenuous at best while being incredibly simplistic in their reasoning. And that such baloney continues to be bandied about by self-styled conservatives grieves me.

Anyway, kudos to NR and Dan Flynn for slapping some sense in birther and other such idiocy. It certainly isn't their fault if their targets are incapable of apprehending such sense.

I'll see and raise you j-dude...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/the_alchemy_of_democrat_coveru.html

from the Born in the U.S.A. editorial:

"count us among those who’d love to know whether Dr. Bailout ever took an advanced economics class and how he performed in it."

It's important for the voting public to remember and conservatives to obfuscate and ignore the fact that the fathers and stewards of the corporate bailouts, and the most ardent defenders of corporate domination, are conservatives. I suppose politically it's convenient to blame President Obama for these bailouts, but let's keep in mind that the Bush (Harvard M.B.A. grad) and Paulson (former CEO of Goldman-Sachs, for god's sake) regime started this. If anything, oleaginous conservatives could blame Rubin/Summers within the Clinton administration (with the collusion of Phil "workers are whiners" Gramm), as they are wont to do, but the obsequious corporate servants are sated by fellating the corporatocracy and content with their Obama-hating hypocrisies.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

-Matthew 7:3, KJV

PMA – I would not disagree that Bush in conjunction with Paulson were the perpetrators of the initial bailout. For this and for other such crimes of a non-Conservative irresponsible nature, Bush should be taken to the woodshed and admonished for his fiscal and less than principled inconsistencies.

But consider that the TARP Bill initially allocated $700 billion for bailouts and the Democratic Congress (most notably including the Big O) saw that it was good. And that they decided to tack onto it another $150 billion in pork to green light its passage. Furthermore, Bush spent only half of the original amount with the proviso that the other $350 billion not be spent unless absolutely necessary which the newly minted President Obama promptly spent without batting an eye. Now consider that the new President immediately created (or had created for him) and had passed a Democratic welfare and payback bill in the guise of ‘stimulus’ worth another $800 billion.

Bush erred by getting this ball rolling. But that didn’t mean the Democrats needed to keep rolling with it. But, ultimately, that’s what they do. And they're doing it in spades.

Also, please don’t show you naiveté by indicating that it is only the Republicans that are in the pockets of Corporate American.

PMA – I would not disagree that Bush in conjunction with Paulson were the perpetrators of the initial bailout. For this and for other such crimes of a non-Conservative irresponsible nature, Bush should be taken to the woodshed and admonished for his fiscal and less than principled inconsistencies.

But consider that the TARP Bill initially allocated $700 billion for bailouts and the Democratic Congress (most notably including the Big O) saw that it was good. And that they decided to tack onto it another $150 billion in pork to green light its passage. Furthermore, Bush spent only half of the original amount with the proviso that the other $350 billion not be spent unless absolutely necessary which the newly minted President Obama promptly spent without batting an eye. Now consider that the new President immediately created (or had created for him) and had passed a Democratic welfare and payback bill in the guise of ‘stimulus’ worth another $800 billion.

Bush erred by getting this ball rolling. But that didn’t mean the Democrats needed to keep rolling with it. But, ultimately, that’s what they do. And they're doing it in spades.

Also, please don’t show you naiveté by indicating that it is only the Republicans that are in the pockets of Corporate America.

I agree completely that democrats are in the pockets of corporate America. No doubt about that, which is why the policy decisions after the Obama inauguration mirror the previous. More troops in Afghanistan, the same draw-down in Iraq, a continuation of extraordinary rendition, more bailouts, an administration filled with former Wall Street executives and lobbyists, etc. Obama and the dems have done five things the republicans and Bush wouldn't have, and feel free to let me know if you can think on anything else: overseas funding for abortions, cap and trade, a proposed modest tax increase on those making more than whatever six-figure sum, a slight increase in federal funding for stem cell research, and the Sotomayor nomination. And when it comes to cap and trade, that will end up being a windfall for Goldman and other elite firms peddling the carbon credits.

Behold! 70% of Americans want health care reform, and nothing is being done. Who wants to maintain the status quo? A handful of paranoid conservatives and the Establishment. But everyone, including the democratic leadership in the Senate, are doing whatever it takes to make sure the dreams of the medical-industrial complex are made a reality.

Good piece was written by Taibbi which summarizes the sorry state of affairs by comparing the health care reform debate with the Federer-Roddick Wimbledon final:

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/07/28/the-health-care-bill-dies/

I suppose when you get your facts from one place (likely the Daily KOS), you believe that 70% of Americans want rationed government run health care. Think you facts are slightly off.