I posted this downstairs, but it bears another mention. The core of the nirther argument is based on an Argument from Ignorance, or a demand for negative proof. It is a logical fallacy that can never be answered, and because of this it is a favorite among conspiracy theorists of all stripes, who employ it constantly while ignoring the fact that it is a worthless, unanswerable argument.

Note that the examples given in the article can be converted into nirtherisms - including this latest example - with nothing more than minor word substitutions.

Arguments from ignorance are strictly disallowed in courts of law just for this reason. In court, one is required to provide positive proof of a claim - not speculation or innuendo. It is up to the nirthers to do the same if they want their claims to be taken seriously. Produce a birth certificate from a foreign country showing 0bama was born there; or produce some official document or first-hand testimony supporting the argument that religion, or race, or some other specific fact exists whose revelation would be politically or personally embarrassing.

Or, when all of this fails, as it certainly will: shut the fuck up and go bother the the Rainbow Sprinkler Lady.