Obama Citizenship - Unquestionable

In this week's (August 23, 2010) Time magazine section "Tuned In" by James Poniewozik, titled "The Myth of  Fact.  Despite all the evidence, many still believe Obama wasn't born in the U.S. Maybe the truth isn't what it used to be."

(Laying aside the almost irresistible urge to play with the ironies contained in the title)(parentheses mine) Poniewozik gives ample evidence that "...Maybe the truth isn't what it used to be."

While reading his article, I found the following "facts": "...If you live in another version(of the U.S.A.)(parentheses mine), on Aug. 4, Barack Obama, the claimant to the Presidency, celebrated an unknown anniversary of his birth on foreign soil, maybe in Kenya, which makes him ineligible to hold his office." (That is the scenario put forth, and I have seldom heard it phrased so simply and succinctly, with the exception of the "Myth of the Unknown" expressed in the context used above.)

The date evidence must be known, by at least a few who are still living, and it must be shown and made available and undergo successful authentication, unequivocally. (Or the above statement must be accepted as fact of absence of legal confirmation.) Did I miss some stunning presentation of substantive and unimpeachable evidence along the way?

How is it that an average citizen cannot present anything except a Certified Copy of their birth certificate or other Certified method of determining that legally acceptable evidence has been presented, or they absolutely will be barred from continuing any action for which this document is required. Is the President excused from meeting the requirements of the Law? I have never known of any U.S. citizen being excused from this requirement. Have I missed the promised demonstration of "transparency" and "straight shooting" from the Commander-in-Chief showing concrete evidence that he is anxious to comply with the letter of the law in the one fundamental legal requirement out of all of the questions which have been raised? I understand that the photocopy which has been been offered (in an untouchable manner) is not a legally admissible document (due principally to the use of modern tools on modern media to produce it) for the legal requirement binding on the President. Otherwise this situation would have been settled long ago, n'est ce pas?

"And they believe it(41% of Republicans believe it, 15% of Democrats)despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that the rumor has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked by the press (and dismissed by Hawaii's Republican governor); Studies at the University of Michigan and Yale found that partisans, when confronted with facts that disproved their preheld beliefs (e.g., that WMD were found in Iraq or that Chief Justice John Roberts was associated with a violent antiabortion group), actually held on to their misbeliefs more strongly...."

When a journalist thinks that he is presenting a logical argument just by mentioning the word "facts" and unquestioned authorities ("the press, Hawaii's Republican governor, University of Michigan and  Yale"e;), shouldn't he be challenged to mention, or at least reference, the actual evidence and facts to which he is referring?  What are the facts?  We would love to know, on what unassailable evidence do those who live in "one version of the U.S.A." base their belief? Has a document been uncovered or brought forth which is incontrovertibly the original document of his birth, and not a facsimile using modern tools on modern media?  How else can you prove beyond any doubt that someone was born on a certain day at a certain place?  I know that I'm waiting anxiously to see such unquestionable evidence. How about you?

Since Mr. Poniewozik chooses to call the conclusions drawn by the residents of "another version"(of the U.S.A), based on undefined "facts/myths", can we be so bold as to identify the author's "facts" as:  "The Mist of Truth"? Is it any wonder that well-meaning people are confused about the issues and are not sure of even what the facts are; it does not seem that the truth is well served by such imprecise and , in some ways, demeaning, reporting. How does he get so many words out of so little information?

(Emphasis mine.)