Coming upon my car this afternoon in the Short North neighborhood of Columbus, Ohio, I found this magnet affixed to my car. I didn’t put it there.

What an odd activity, and what an odd time to engage in it. I mean, hey, this is a swing state and all, but really, we’re three and a half years out from the next presidential election. I’m still twisting my brain trying to figure out how this came to pass. Did a supply of Barack Obama car magnets being shipped into the state in preparation for the next election cycle fall out of a cargo plane on the way to the airport, wafting down across the city? Was some ex-Obama supporter looking for a place to put her old car magnet but uncomfortable with the idea of a trash can? Am I a sleepwalker nursing some suppressed joy at the Obama policy record? Or is this a freak convergence of billions of infinitesimal quantum probabilities, leading to the spontaneous generation of an Obama magnet out of nothing but the arrested decay of virtual particles?

Or is it you? Did you do it, you rascal, you?

Last year, I made brief and horrible fun of the foil wrappers they put on bottles of bubble solution. I snarkily asked whether there was a terrorist plot to inject bubble bottles with cyanide. In a comment, the ever-thoughtful John Stracke suggested that “it probably improves the shelf life, by keeping air out better than just a lid would.”

Yes, that would make sense. But is it true? To find out, last May I bought two bottles of Imperial Super Miracle Bubbles. I immediately tore off the foil seal of one of the bottles, then replaced the cap. The other bottle I left alone. For a year and a month, the two bottles remained side-by-side on my kitchen shelf, waiting, waiting…

… for yesterday. After I had left the room, my ever-loving wife marked one bottle with an “X,” wrote down on a slip of paper whether the “X” referred to the bottle that had kept its foil or the bottle that had lost its foil a year ago, hid the slip of paper at the bottom of a drawer, then took the other foil off and gave both bottles to me. This is called “blinding” and ensures that any observers’ biases won’t influence the count, since we wouldn’t know which bottle was which until we consulted my wife’s secret key after the experiment. I guess you could say the experiment was “double blinded” because the bottles didn’t have any eyes.

I took the bottles over to our front stoop where my two kids sat, their breath at the ready. And breathe they did, oh yes. We took turns, with one of us blowing bubbles and the other two of us counting the bubbles as they came out of the wand and floated about. When the counters counted different numbers of bubbles, we took the average of the two counts. With three blowers and two bottles, we had six different results to report:

Kid 1:
Average number of bubbles per blow for Bottle “X” (8 blows): 16.4
Average number of bubbles per blow for the Other Bottle (10 blows): 14.3

Kid 2:
Average number of bubbles per blow for Bottle “X” (10 blows): 8.1
Average number of bubbles per blow for the Other Bottle (14 blows): 6.7

Dad:
Average number of bubbles per blow for Bottle “X” (7 blows): 17.1
Average number of bubbles per blow for the Other Bottle (7 blows): 21.3

Without knowing which bottle — Bottle “X” or the Other Bottle — had the foil taken off a year and a month ago, you should already be able to spot a problem: for the two kids, Bottle X gave out more bubbles on average than the Other Bottle, but for Dad (me), Bottle X gave out fewer bubbles per blow than the Other Bottle. That’s an inconsistent result across the three bubble-blowers.

Once we unwrap the slip of paper, the results get more dismal for the foil-as-quality-protectant hypothesis: Bottle X is the bottle that had the foil taken off a year and a month ago, and the Other Bottle is the one that kept its foil until just before we started blowing bubbles. For two out of three bubble-blowers, the bottle that kept its foil produced fewer bubbles, not more bubbles as you’d predict.

In conclusion, our experiment provides no support for the hypothesis that the foil on the top of bottles of bubble solution acts to protect the quality of bubble solution over long shelf periods (at least as long as a year and a month). Since common sense tells us that bubble solution is not for human ingestion, the foil can’t be there to protect against terrorist cyanide injections either.

So why do they put foil on the top of bubble solution bottles? What is the foil there for? We’ve eliminated one possibility, but the mystery remains unsolved! Cue music.

It’s a tricky business trying to understand when the government is keeping something secret, given that secrets are… secret. However, clues to the existence of secrets can be seen in the patterns of efforts to keep things secret.

This is the case when it comes to Torture Amendment 1157, an evolving amendment offered by Senator Joseph Lieberman. The basic function of Torture Amendment 1157 is to give the Obama Administration the power to keep photographic and video evidence of torture secret from the American people. In understanding what secret evidence of torture exists, we can look at Torture Amendment 1157, and though we can’t see the evidence itself, we can see when the secret torture took place.

The torture did not take place when the Senator Lieberman and the Obama Administration claims it did.

A new version of Torture Amendment 1157 was passed, unanimously, by the U.S. Senate yesterday. Not one senator offered a single word of protest against it. I should point out that the version passed yesterday is better than the earlier version of the amendment. The first version of the amendment, which was also passed unanimously by the Senate, granted the power to the Secretary of Defense to cover up evidence not just of past acts of torture, but also evidence of future acts of torture.

The version of Torture Amendment 1157 that was passed yesterday is a little bit better, because it does not allow photographs of torture in the future to be kept secret. Yet, there’s still a big problem with the resolution: It allows the Secretary of Defense to conceal photographic evidence of any torture or other abuse of any military prisoner that was “taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009″. January 22, 2009 was the last date that George W. Bush was President.

Here’s why this is a problem: In justifying the passage of Torture Amendment 1157, Joseph Lieberman and other politicians have said that Americans already know about the torture that was photographed, and so there’s no real purpose to allowing the photographic evidence of torture to be released.

However, the American people do NOT know about any acts of torture that were going on right up until George W. Bush gave up the White House. The acts of torture that have already been revealed took place years before that.

If there wasn’t any torture going on, being photographed or videotaped, after the torture that’s already been revealed, then why does Torture Amendment Act 1157 protect torture right up until the end of January this year? The fact that Torture Amendment Act 1157 goes right up until January 22, 2009 suggests that torture was continuing through that date.

That’s torture we don’t know about - and so, evidence of that torture would give the American people knowledge of crimes they haven’t been informed about. That exposes the justification of Torture Amendment Act 1157 a scam. The amendment doesn’t just apply to known acts of torture. It applies as well to acts of torture that still remain secret.

When you’re looking to understand government secrets, look at the places the government says you’re not allowed to look. Torture Amendment Act 1157 says that we’re not allowed to look at any evidence before January 22 this year. Therefore, we’ve got good reason to believe that there are photographs of torture and abuse that run right up until that date.

Of course, there may not be such evidence. But, Senator Lieberman has significantly tipped the hat of the government, suggesting that there is. Given the Bush Administration’s outrageous history of committing multiple acts of torture and then lying about it, shouldn’t the American people have the right to know whether these late acts of torture actually took place?

Have we not been given enough reason to be skeptical of our government to know better than to authorize the coverup of torture?

A curious little bone was dropped in our laps last night by a reader, James B. DiGriz (of DragonsWeb Labs or a science fiction character, the Stainless Steel Rat?). Over at Space.com, Leonard David is reporting that the Obama Administration is cutting off scientists’ access to military satellites. The satellites are said to be designed primarily to watch for evidence of nuclear tests. They had also been used by scientists who were studying the impact of meteorites in the Earth’s atmosphere. The military had provided the scientists with data from the satellites, which the scientists had then used to understand what kind of objects from space are striking the Earth.

Barack Obama had promised to end the Bush Administration practice of overclassification and excessive government secrecy. Obama had also promised to improve government relations with science. This decision to cut off scientists’ access to satellites runs counter to both promises. Why is Obama backtracking in this particular instance?

A scientist involved in the research calls the Obama Administration’s decision “baffling”. Let’s think through the baffle. Four possibilities I can think of:

1. There is something about nuclear weapons tests that the government doesn’t want scientists to find out about.
2. There is something hitting the Earth’s atmosphere from outer space, and the government doesn’t want scientists to find out about that.
3. There’s something else visible to the satellites that the government doesn’t want scientists to find out about.
4. The satellites are being retrained to a new mission, to watch something in a way that makes them useless for asteroid impact research. This is a particularly interesting possibility, given the way that Janet Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security has resisted efforts by Congress to exercise oversight on the National Applications Office, an agency that coordinates data from military spy satellites now used to spy on Americans private affairs.

The older I get, the less I understand alcoholics.

For college students, OK, I get it, with their hummingbird metabolisms and raging hormones it must be nice to drink a Bud every once in a while and stop racing and play with feeling sloooooow and slushy. I remember feeling that way myself. But at my time of life, I don’t need a six pack to feel slow and slushy. By this time of the evening, I shuffle over to the fridge, open it, take one look at that neglected Pale Ale in the back and shudder. Life supplies me with all the virtual beer I need. I trip over my feet all on my own, thank you very much, and my kids will do the throwing up for me. I need to move more quickly, not more slowly. I need to think sharply, not more dully. At two pots of coffee a day, I’ve pretty much maxed myself the effect of caffeine, so I think I’ve got to move on to something harder. Maybe meth: now that oughta be the addiction of the middle aged, as long as you’ve got a good mouth guard. Or ecstasy. With a nicotene burst to top it off.

Hey there, Mr. DEA agent man fella, take it easy. I am kidding. Seriously, I’m kidding. I’m kidding seriously. Really, I’m a parent: I don’t have time to find the clothes that would make me look right enough on “the street” to be able to go up to someone and ask for drugs and frankly I stopped buying those sorts of clothes about ten years ago, which was not coincidentally about the time my first kid started throwing up sour milk all over whatever I might be wearing. Do not bust down my door. All you will find in my kitchen is an array of different flavors of children’s ibuprofen. I will offer you the cherry and the grape and the wild berry and the ill-advised key lime ibuprofen that they don’t offer any more and that sits behind the cherry and the grape, glowing a friendly green. You may have your pick, Mr. DEA agent man fella. You may also have my beer. I am moving some time in the next couple of months and I’m pretty sure the beer would get skunked somewhere on Interstate 90.

“I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational.” — President Barack Obama, May 2009

“These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency…. The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.” — Major General Antonio Taguba, May 2009

It doesn’t appear that both of these statements can be true. So who’s the liar?

At intervals of about a year, I’ve made it an inadvertant habit to return to fiction by Charles De Lint, drawn by the idea of what the author is trying to do and repulsed by his execution. His novels Moonheart and Someplace to Be Flying start from the attractive notion that beneath, behind, orthogonal to or six inches in the fifth dimension from modern reality lurks some ancient and powerful parallel reality, one governed by bonds of feeling and connection rather than by strictures of law, resource exploitation and electric technology. What if the first, unrecognized world came slicing through the second world we take for granted with a sharpness that really cuts flesh, casting a darkness in visible shadow and shining a light that gives everything we’ve seen before a new hue?

Ever since I read A Wrinkle in Time as a boy I’ve had a soft spot for novels in which the face of reality is torn aside, only to reveal… well, something interesting and thought-provoking. Something like Philip Pullman’s varied iterations of Earth, or John Twelve Hawks’ pervasive surveillance. Not the shallow characters of Moonheart, who are differentiated by “Nom de Tout” or their “Jesus H. Christ!” and not much else. Not the utterly banal and adolescent revelation in Someplace to Be Flying that each and every ramshackle, countercultural character has a special and magic place of destiny in the universe. Not the foreshadowing with a hammer in both books, with characters “somehow just knowing” “it was as if” it were “quiet… too quiet!”

These features of Charles De Lint’s books are repulsive to me, but I’ve been pulled back to his books nonetheless because beneath that I’ve gotten hints of a richer vein of mythology that might be lying beneath the clumsy characterization. I’m also just plain curious about the fate of people (okay, fictional people) who get caught in the intersection of worlds.

And so I picked up De Lint’s short novel The Wild Wood, and this time I really enjoyed myself. Rather than being flashy and showy, the book is spare, and not just in its mere 200 pages. This book really just has one character, the artist Eithnie, with others only orbiting around her at a distance. De Lint has the courage here to place her in the wilderness, apart from other people physically and emotionally. After failing in her work, Eithnie is trying to reinvigorate her painting and in the process re-examining her own past and place in the world. When it becomes apparent (yep) that her place in the world and her source of artistic inspiration are not what she thought they might be, her main task is not to figure out what the implications are for the mana-goat-sucker-ankh-wearing-Manitou-chakra-love-force and the Fate of the Universe. Really, she has to figure out what this change means for herself. She has to figure out how this reorienting change in the world fits in with her past, with her idea of herself, and with her choices about what to do.

De Lint’s fantasy novel succeeds not because of its magical elements, veering into sappy self-referential “we create the world through our art” conception of Faerie, but in spite of it. The main character in The Wild Wood really isn’t the special savior of the universe, although at times she fancies herself to be. She is alone, in silence, reaching for others, but more than that reaching for a place in the world as a creator. When De Lint allows her to be alone, when Eithnie plucks up the courage to enter a place of silence, The Wild Wood takes on a glow.

A little while back, I wrote about the multiple falsehoods in an e-mail making the rounds, an e-mail claiming that Barack Obama had registered for college as a foreigner named Barry Soetoro. Unable to substantiate the fibs in that e-mail, conspiracy theorists tried to shift focus by making a different argument. Person after person wrote that Barack Obama had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, or nearly a million dollars, or millions of dollars, all for lawyers to suppress his “real” birth certificate.

Of course, Barack Obama’s “real” birth certificate, a certified copy sufficient to get a driver’s license or a passport and thereby just about anything else (accompanied by verification of the existence of the original and of Obama’s birth in Hawaii by the Republican Director of the Hawaii Department of Health) has already been produced. But facts don’t stop the conspiracy theorists. Facts aren’t necessary, either. All they need is the appearance of factuality to keep their bizarre fictional rage stoked.

On that point, let’s return to the claims that somehow the Obama campaign paid lawyers hundreds of thousands of dollars, or nearly a million dollars, or millions of dollars, you know, some really big sum for lawyers to keep Barack Obama’s “real” birth certificate hidden. Here are just a few examples out of many I’ve had slung my way:

Cherie writes:

FACT: Barry Boy has paid millions in many states and two countries to CONCEAL all his records. His WHITE mother and WHITE grandparents are conveniently now all DEAD.

==============

Ken writes:

If it is a lie and a right wing conspiracy, why is Obama allowing millions to be spent to hide the truth. The best way to stop a lie is with truth so why does Obama allows Soros and others to spend copius amounts of money to hide the truch.

==============

whipporwil writes:

IF IF IF OBAMA IS LEGITIMATE REGARDING HIS U.S BIRTH, THEY WHY WILL HE NOT RELEASE PROOF AND WHY HAS HE SPEND ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS ON ATTORNEYS TO KEEP THIS QUIET???

==============

Mike L writes:

It amuses me that Obama loves to release “documents” because he believes in full transparency (campaign lie #107), yet he spends $100,000’s to keep his real birth cert under lock and key

==============

to discern writes:

It appears that spending nearly $1 mil in legal fees to seal records of links to his real citizenship does raise the suspicions

These are very stark factual claims being made, but not one of these people, you’ll notice, links to any kind of documentation of the claim. So a bit more than a week ago, I issued a challenge: show me the documentation for this claim. Not another rant about Obama’s “socialism.” Not a screed about “media bias.” Not an attack on my motivations… and NOT a link to how much Barack Obama has paid his lawyers overall. Campaigns have a lot of legal expenses. People who say that Barack Obama has spent some amount of money to have lawyers hide his “real” birth certificate should be able to link to some document showing specific expenditures for those reasons… or they shouldn’t be making their claims.

How many people do you think, in a dozen or so comments, provided links to any such documents? I’ll give you a hint: the number is less than one and rhymes with “Nero.”

The closest anybody came was to link to the FEC and make reference to $688,000 being spent by the Obama campaign on legal expenses after the election of 2008. Well, that much is true: here’s the link to a mainstream news analysis of FEC disclosures revealing that the Obama campaign made $688,000 in payments of legal fees after the 2008 election was over.

But of course that doesn’t show that the Obama campaign spent “hundreds of thousands,” or “nearly a million,” or “millions of dollars” on getting lawyers to hide Barack Obama’s “real” birth certificate. Presidential election campaigns, especially successful ones, have all kinds of lawyerly activities associated with them, from securing ballot access to ensuring campaign regulation compliance to working through the legal machinery to accomplish a smooth transition of power. But the conspiracy theorists simply imagine that all the legal fees paid out after a campaign is done must be in the service of… hiding a birth certificate! One that’s already been released!

It’s deluded. It’s insane. We’ll get comments to this post swearing up and down that it all makes sense, even though no, it doesn’t. I’ll ask them for the evidence, and they’ll provide a link to some WorldNet Daily editorial about tea parties and Tony Rezko. And on it goes…

… but let’s punch through to the other side of this deluded conspiracy theory and hypothetically accept for the moment that the fact of Barack Obama paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees somehow means that he is of foreign birth and therefore constitutionally unfit for the presidency.

Well, hey then, kids! Let’s check out legal fees paid out by the Bush-Cheney campaign of 2004, also after the finish of the campaign! Just for kicks and giggles, we’ll limit our search to legal fees paid out by a subset of the Republicans’ 2004 campaign: the Bush-Cheney compliance committee. I’ll even document the searches: Report #1, Report #2.

The total dollar amount of legal fees paid out after the election by the Bush campaign, according to these reports, is $337,172! And that’s just in 2005 dollars. In 2009 dollars that would be nearly $400,000!

Hey, it’s on the same order of magnitude as the Obama expenditure, buckos, and there wasn’t even a presidential transition after the 2004 election. That can only mean one thing: George W. Bush was really born in Bhutan! I mean, what else besides the desperate attempt by the Bush campaign to hide Dubya’s “real” birth certificate could explain these legal fees?

Go on, spread this new truth far and wide. Bush, the Illegitimate Bhutano-Fascist Pretender to the Presidency! Now It Can Be Told!

Help me understand this, O Barack-Obama-is-the-Belgian-love-child-of-Malcolm-X conspiracy nuts:

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, issued an official statement declaring that she had personally verified the existence of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

Fukino has never made any campaign contributions to the Democratic Party.

Fukino made a campaign contribution to the Hawaii Republican Party in 2006:

Why would a financial supporter of the Republican Party lie about the existence of a birth certificate for Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate?

What new bizarre explanation are you going to come up with now?

Was she bought off by Jimmy Hoffa?

Is this a bizarre double-feint plot by the Illuminati and the Knights Templar?

Or is it the space aliens? Did the space aliens abduct Dr. Fukino and replace her with an exact replica, a clone compliant to the will of the Space Alien Overlord Barack “Jupiter” Obama?

Answer this question about Chiyome Fukino. Don’t go on about anything else. Just answer this question.

[Everyone else, get ready to watch the conspiracy nuts dance a double-tempo Macarena.]

Today’s headline: Astronauts inspect Atlantis while chasing Hubble

I knew it! I just knew it! What secret powers does the Lost Continent possess to reanimate long-dead scientists? What ancient wisdom awaits if only we will explore?

And yet, even with these staggering findings, the Obama administration has indicated its intention to cut the NASA budget for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate through 2013… just when the division makes its most astonishing discovery yet! What doesn’t Barack Obama want us to find? What information does President Obama insist, behind the scenes, must remain hidden? His original Atlantean birth certificate?

Now, I don’t know about the Obama-Atlantis connection for sure… but the timing of all this and the connection to Atlantis is rather suspicious, you have to admit. Obama could quell these suspicions if he would only release the transcripts of discussions with his Atlantean overlords. Until then, you can’t prove me wrong!

After I documented the multiple fabrications in the “Obama registered with an Indonesian Passport” stories, opponents of Barack Obama (most prominently directed here by a website fixated on racist jokes from out of a bad Deliverance knockoff) came out of the woodwork to claim that, by gum, Barack Obama must be hiding the truth about his foreign birth because he has, they say, spent a huge number of dollars in legal fees to keep his “real” birth certificate from being released. A few examples:

Cherie writes:

FACT: Barry Boy has paid millions in many states and two countries to CONCEAL all his records. His WHITE mother and WHITE grandparents are conveniently now all DEAD.

==============

Ken writes:

If it is a lie and a right wing conspiracy, why is Obama allowing millions to be spent to hide the truth. The best way to stop a lie is with truth so why does Obama allows Soros and others to spend copius amounts of money to hide the truch.

==============

whipporwil writes:

IF IF IF OBAMA IS LEGITIMATE REGARDING HIS U.S BIRTH, THEY WHY WILL HE NOT RELEASE PROOF AND WHY HAS HE SPEND ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS ON ATTORNEYS TO KEEP THIS QUIET???

==============

Mike L writes:

It amuses me that Obama loves to release “documents” because he believes in full transparency (campaign lie #107), yet he spends $100,000’s to keep his real birth cert under lock and key

==============

to discern writes:

It appears that spending nearly $1 mil in legal fees to seal records of links to his real citizenship does raise the suspicions

And so on and so forth. You can find these sorts of claims all over the internet going on and on about Barack Obama spending so much money on legal fees to hide a birth certificate! But the funny thing is, I can’t find a single verifiable piece of documentation to show me any monetary amount spent by Barack Obama or his presidential campaign on legal fees for the purpose of suppressing the release of any birth certificate of his.

I happen to suspect that these claims are a load of bull without any verifiable source; my suspicion is fueled by the pretty solid case laid out by Factcheck that golly, Barack Obama’s birth certificate has been released. But hey, maybe I’m just a horrible sleuth and all, and maybe the folks surfing over here from the Niggermania website to leave their comments really do know what they’re talking about. Maybe there is a real source to show the amount of money that Barack Obama or his presidental campaign have spent on legal fees to suppress this “real” birth certificate. If that’s true, then it should be a very simple matter for someone to meet my challenge:

CHALLENGE: Show me the verifiable documents that reveal the dollar amount spent by Barack Obama or his campaign on legal expenses to prevent the release of Obama’s “real” birth certificate.

I don’t want you to give me a figure about how much the Obama campaign paid its lawyers in general. The claims are specific about legal expenses for birth certificate suppression; unless they’re fabricated claims, you should be able to find documentation for the particular legal expenses regarding birth certificate suppression.
I don’t want you to post a comment whining about how Barack Obama has hidden this figure from you, that nasty, nasty man. People are throwing around dollar amounts as if they really knew; if they DO really know what they’re talking about then you should be able to produce documentation.
I don’t want you to post a comment telling me about how nasty the “libs” are and about Obama’s “socialism.”
I don’t want you to post a comment calling me a hypocrite for not questioning Obama.
I don’t want you to post a comment going on about media bias.
I don’t want you to reiterate your claims without documentation.

All I want — ALL I want — is for you to show me the verifiable documents that reveal the dollar amount spent by Barack Obama or his campaign on legal expenses to prevent the release of Obama’s “real” birth certificate.

These claims are all over the comments here, and all over the Internet. Either someone should be able to produce the verifiable documentation for the claims…

… or those claims are full of crap.

What you’ll see in the comments section here will bear out one of these possibilities.

A few days ago, I said that the Americans for Freedom of Information — a supposed group claiming to have obtained a college transcript proving Barack Obama’s Indonesian citizenship as one “Barry Soetoro” — had no presence whatsoever on the world wide web. Now I stand corrected.

A couple of days ago, we wrote an article assessing claims that Barack Obama registered at Occidental College as a foreigner under the name Barry Soetoro. The single largest source of internet traffic to that article?

A website devoted to “nigger” jokes.

Oh, yeah, this “investigation” is all about the cause of freeeedom! And I’m the Pillsbury Dough Boy.

Update: As you can see, the racists are flooding this page with their glee. It’s just another indication that the Barack Obama birth certificate issue is driven by people who can’t stand to see a black man in the White House.

Actual excerpt from a lawsuit filed by “Obama is a foreigner” conspiracy theorist Philip J. Berg:

Obama continues to verbally deny he was born in Kenya and states he was born in Hawaii. Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. The Rainbow Edition News Letter, November 2004 Edition, published by the Education Laboratory School, attached as EXHIBIT “3”, did a several page article of an interview with Obama and his half-sister, Maya. The Rainbow Edition News Letter reports Obama was born August 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. More interesting in February 2008, Obama’s half-sister, Maya, was again interviewed in the Star Bulletin, attached as EXHIBIT “4”, and this time, Maya states Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children.

The “several pages” of the Rainbow Edition News Letter are two pages, and the claim that Obama was born at Queens is not part of any interview. The Education Laboratory School is a… high school. That makes the Rainbow Edition News Letter a… high school newspaper.

Is this a high school kid’s typo, or… is this a vast international conspiracy to cover up Barack Obama’s foreign birth?

WE! REPORT! YOU! DECIDE!

Following in the evidentiary footsteps of this amazing sleuthery, here’s some late-breaking news:

Throughout his adult life, Abraham Lincoln continued to state he was born in Hardin County, Kentucky. Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Obama in Hardin County, Kentucky, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring in two (2) locations. A letter written by Lincoln before his inauguration, attached as EXHIBIT “3,” declares “I was born Feb. 12, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky. My parents were both born in Virginia, of undistinguished families–second families, perhaps I should say.” More interesting is that the website of the Larue County Fiscal Court, attached as EXHIBIT “4,” declares Larue County, Kentucky to be the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln.

Clearly, this means that Abraham Lincoln was born in Bavaria.

NOW! IT! CAN! BE! TOLD!