I'm an economist who specializes in the financial markets.

In addition, I'm very interested in immigration and trade issues.

Recently I've become somewhat obcessed with debunking birthers. Not sure why, but I find it somewhat adictive.

Let me give you a brief summary of why I believe B. Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii:

1) He produced a certification of live birth, photographs of which were posted on the internet. If authentic, that document resolves the question, as it clearly indicates he was born in Hawaii. The photographs show clearly that the certification has all the requirements to be accepted as proof of birthplace by the State Department: a raised seal, registrar's signature, and the date filed is less than a year after the date of birth (the two are only 4 days appart). If authentic, this document proves conclusively he was born in Hawaii. But one might object that the photographs could have been photoshopped. Only a hard copy can be authenticated, and no document examinar has, to date, examined the physical hard copy. Fair enough. I'll grant that if this were the only piece of evidence, there would be some reasonable doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. But it's not the only piece of evidence.

2) The head of the Hawaii Department of Health officially and explicitly affirmed that "Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii." That is a direct quote. So it's pretty clear that Hawaii's vital records show a birth in Hawaii. But this isn't disposative either. It's possible Obama's vital records show a Birth in Hawaii, but are based on a birth certificate that was filed more than a year after birth. The state department doesn't accept birth certificates that were filed one year or more after birth, so why should we? So there is still some room for reasonable doubt. The last piece of evidence, however, lays that to rest.

3)Birth announcements in the papers. Contrary to birther myths, the papers in Hawaii based their announcements on information receieved directly from the Department of Health. This is clear if you look at the top of the page where the announcements appear. It's also been confirmed by one of the newspaper's spokesman. Since the birth announcements were within one week of Bambi's brith, his birth must have been registered within a few days.

Combining items 1-3 above, we can conclude with certainty that Obama's vital record shows birth in Hawaii, and it is based on a birth certificate that was filed within a few days of his birth. That's good enough to prove birth in the US before any court, and before any Federal agency.

Now some birthers will concede that the above evidence definitively establishes that Obama has a real birth certificate, filed within a year of his birth, that says he was born in Hawaii.

However, they make one last desperate attempt to argue against his Hawaiian birth. They claim that it is possible that Obama's birth was fraudulantly registered. They say that in Hawaii at the time, one could register a birth and obtain a birth certificate by simply providing a sworn affidavit from someone claiming to have whitnessed the birth in the state. The birthers say it is possible that Obama's mother or grandma fraudulantly registered the birth by providing a false affidavit. The only way to disprove this theory, they say, is to look at the original birth certificate in Hawaii's vault that would have the name of the hosptial and attending physician who delivered him. If his birth was fraudulantly registered, then it would be registered as a home birth and would not have any attending physician's signature.

Now I haven't been able to verify whether it was really that easy to fraudulantly register a home birth in Hawaii in 1961, but let's for sake of argument assume it was. What possible motive would mama Obama (or grandma) have to commit such a fraud if Obama really were born overseas? Birthers say she would do it to ensure he was a US citizen. They correctly point out that under the immigration laws at the time, Obama would not be a citizen at birth if he were in fact born in Kenya or elsewhere overseas. So, they reason, his mother or grandma fraudulantly registered his birth in Hawaii in order to secure his citzenship.

This argument, however, holds no water. If Obama were born overseas, he would not automatically acquire US citizenship, but his mother could very easily and legally 1)bring him back into the US and 2)obtain naturalized citizenship for him.

You see, under Title I, section 101 and Title II section 205 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, in effect at the time, as the minor child of a US citizen, Obama was entitled to an immigrant visa to enter the US.

Once back in the states with her son, under Title III, section 322 of the same law, she could then immediately apply for her son to become a naturalized US citizen. All she would have to do is fill out another form and show the same documents, and her son would be a US citizen as soon as the paperwork was processed.

Now let me ask you: why would mama (or grandma) Obama risk a felony purjury conviction in order to fraudulently register her son as born in Hawaii, when she could very easily obtain US citizenship for him by legal means?

Bottom line: there is simply no way any sane person can believe that Barack Hussein Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii. This birther stuff is a dead end and a waste of time and energy.

My fellow conservatives, let's focus our energy on attacking him for legitimate reasons, like his attempted government takeover of health care, his borderline treasonous decision to try KSM in a civilian court, and his attempt to destroy our economy via cap and trade. These are real issues we can win on. The birther nonsense makes us look like nuts.