You would think this would strike a blow to Birtherism. . . but not so fast! Look closely at the time date stamp. Notice how the ink on the “1” in 1961 is a bit darker than the rest? Everyone knows that on that particular font, which was produced by the Schwaab Rubber Art Company in 1960, the “1” is thicker on the bottom. That number has clearly been doctored.
The reason is that Obama was really born in Hawaii on August 8, 1958—13 days before the territory was admitted as a state. At the time, Hawaii was still a province of Kenya.
Ergo, our time-traveling, birth certificate-doctoring President is ineligible to hold office. All of this will be explained in detail in Jerome Corsi’s new book, No, Seriously, Where’s the Real Birth Certificate?
April 27th, 2011 | 11:16 am
At the top it says, “Certificate of Live Birth,” which the birthers will say is not the same thing as a “birth certificate.” And even though the certificate clearly says that Obama was born at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital on August 4, 1961, the birthers will quickly dismiss it as a forgery of some kind. They will not be appeased. EVER.
April 27th, 2011 | 11:18 am
Said best here: http://xkcd.com/258/
(Seriously, y’all will like it.)
April 27th, 2011 | 11:31 am
Thank Donald Trump, ironically. Birtherism when held by the fringe right? Ignore it. Birtherism when held by someone starting to become a republican presidential frontrunner if only because the regular candidates are horrid? When he says he has interesting information about it? Bam, it’s out.
April 27th, 2011 | 11:35 am
As soon as I read that the birth certificate had been released, I thought of that other discussion on FT—the one regarding miracles, and how some people just would not believe them if they saw them. Some “birthers” seem so invested in their mistaken belief that I doubt this certificate will change their minds.
April 27th, 2011 | 11:57 am
when a conspiracy theory is wrong, they release the evidence to prove that the conspiracy theorists are wrong. But when the conspiracy theorists are right, they pretend not to listen to those theorists at all…
Obama is a good man anyways, he seems to be the only president with least number of skeletons in the closet.
Eagle
http://eseaf.com/blog/author/aureagle
April 27th, 2011 | 11:57 am
Why did Obama wait until now? I suppose he was happy to simply bait the opposition into expending energy on a blind alley, and laugh at them. Until a poll shows that less than 40% of Americans think he’s a native-born citizen and thus Constitutionally eligible to be president.
Don’t agree? Then why exactly has he now released the document?
By the way, did you hear his remarks on the release of the document? Vintage Obama–pretending history happened differently, feigning seriousness about our “many problems.”
April 27th, 2011 | 12:11 pm
I’m going to be laughing all day at the line about Hawaii being a province of Kenya, especially as in 1958 Kenya was still a colony of the UK, which means that technically Obama is a British subject.
I think it will take about fifteen minutes for some nut to come up an explanation of how the birth certificate is a phoney and 30 seconds to find other nuts who will believe it.
April 27th, 2011 | 12:26 pm
@Ray Ingles: Maybe the time travelers used C-x M-x M-butterfly to generate the certficate?
April 27th, 2011 | 12:38 pm
Okay, back up. I thought I understood the birther argument, but now I’m confused.
His mother was a native of Kansas. How was his citizenship ever in doubt, even if he had been born in a taxicab in Nairobi in front of 57 witnesses? I think I actually heard the line on that one time, but I’ve lost track.
April 27th, 2011 | 12:50 pm
Obama was born at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital on August 4, 1961
My favorite idea that I think would be cool for birthers to try now, demand to see the birth certificate for the Kapiolani Hospital! How do we know that it wasn’t built on a platform in international waters only to be moved to Hawaii sometime after August 5th 1961!
Why did Obama wait until now? I suppose he was happy to simply bait the opposition into expending energy on a blind alley, and laugh at them.
It’s not often we get such a perfect litmas test for dingbats.
Until a poll shows that less than 40% of Americans think he’s a native-born citizen and thus Constitutionally eligible to be president.
No such poll was ever released. Perhaps you mean various polls showing 40%+ of Republicans brought into the birther silliness (see previous point about litmas test for dingbats). Guess what, Republican != American. You were mislead by your thought leader, Ms. Palin, when she claimed that areas that don’t vote Republican were ‘less American’.
April 27th, 2011 | 1:01 pm
pentamom
His mother was a native of Kansas. How was his citizenship ever in doubt, even if he had been born in a taxicab in Nairobi in front of 57 witnesses? I think I actually heard the line on that one time, but I’ve lost track.
During the election I tried to discuss the issue on a blog by someone who called herself ‘TexasDarlin’ who claimed to be a disgruntled female Hillary supporter (I read elsewhere, though, that email addresses used by the person were linked to a gay male who had claimed he once had an affair with Obama but had no evidence to back him up). The blog wasn’t run very honestly, though, with critical comments often disappearing for no reason or explanation….
Anyway, the theories presented were as follows:
1. Natural born meant being born only on US soil or to two US citizens, not one.
2. Obama qualified for citizenship in Kenya or the UK on account of his father (I believe Kenya was under the UK at that time) and ‘duel citizenship’ meant that he wasn’t a full US citizen unless he formally renounced his citizenship. This one is pretty creative since it seems to impose a duty on every US citizen to find out if they are considered citizens in other countries (Israel considers Jews anywhere automatic citizens if they ever want to come to Israel, Ireland I believe has special status for people with Irish blood) and make some type ‘announcement’ saying they ‘renounce’ the duel citizenship. Where that is in the Constitution is all left pretty hazzy……which is interesting considering that all of our early Presidents were probably technically duel citizens sharing citizenships with England. This has the appeal as a fallbackposition for birthers to preserve their challenge even if they have to admit Obama was born on US soil. For them, though, it’s all pretty speculative legal reasoning without any real cases to support them.
3. Obama was born in international waters, say on a boat sailing somewhere by Hawaii. This would explain how his birth announcement got in the local paper (radioed in from the boat). It would also explain why the state issued a birth certificate. Doesn’t quite explain why his mother would, right before she was due, decide to go sailing in international waters. Via #1 maybe combined with #2, his ‘natural born citizenship’ status would thereby be disputed.
April 27th, 2011 | 1:03 pm
I’m going to be laughing all day at the line about Hawaii being a province of Kenya, especially as in 1958 Kenya was still a colony of the UK, which means that technically Obama is a British subject.
That’s really good. That’s almost as funny as Trump this morning proclaiming himself proud and honored and getting testy with the reporters.
April 27th, 2011 | 1:05 pm
Also #1 was necessary to clarrify as being born to two US parents or US soil as John McCain, irony of ironies, wasn’t born inside the US. He was born on a military base in Panama so birthers had to save themselves from arguing that no one who ran in 2008 was qualified by noting having two US citizens as your parents allows you to be born on foreign soil. (Also the law seems to get a bit expansive…US soil is basically the US plus land owned, leased or borrowed by the US so being born in embassies, army bases etc. is just like being born in the US……I’d be curious to know if being born on a plane or ship flagged in the US would also qualify as US soil).
April 27th, 2011 | 1:24 pm
Pentamom/Boonton
Yeah, the key wording is “natural born Citizen,” as the Constitution puts it. By that token, though, John McCain was also in question, since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. But it was in a U.S. Navy hospital, so ….
The permutations are endless, I suppose. We should amend the Constitution so that a naturalized citizen is also eligible after, say, 20 years. That way Schwarzenegger would be eligible.
On second thought …
April 27th, 2011 | 1:26 pm
Boonton
Our comments must have overlapped.
As to your last, I don’t know if planes are “flagged,” but a U.S.-flagged ship is definitely U.S. “soil” under international law. An attack on a U.S.-flagged ship is an act of war, hence sending U.S. Navy SEALS to deal with some erstwhile pirates who seized the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama.
April 27th, 2011 | 1:42 pm
Pentamom, you are correct: there should be no doubt (!) that Pres. Obama is a US citizen by virtue of his mother being a US citizen. Even if he were born outside the US, he’d be a US citizen by “right of blood”.
As I understand it, the constitution says that only people who were US citizens at birth can become president—so naturalized citizens like Henry Kissinger are disqualified. However, I once listened to a discussion about the eligibility of US citizens born overseas—-I think the person under consideration was Colin Powell (born in Jamaica?) and the expert panel said that the Constitution is silent on that, but that once such a person tossed his or her hat into the ring, a precedent would be set and it would certainly be approved. They could not imagine such a person NOT being allowed.
I have since read that the precedent has in fact already been set by candidates, although no one got their knickers in a twist before: Lowell Weicker (born in France), George Romney (Mexico), Barry Goldwater (Arizona Territory), John McCain (Panama). My interest was piqued because I was born overseas to US citizens, and was occasionally taunted by ignoramuses for not being eligible for the presidency (as if…)
Anyway, I suppose the “birthers” would cling to the hope that such eligibility was not real. I really think most of them know little about citizenship or the law. They just don’t like this particular president.
April 27th, 2011 | 1:47 pm
Why did Obama wait until now? I suppose he was happy to simply bait the opposition into expending energy on a blind alley, and laugh at them.
Joe DeVet,
What in the world did Obama do to “bait” the opposition? Look black? It is one thing to bait the opposition. It’s another thing to sit back and let them make fools of themselves. Obama’s birth certificate (short form) has been available for viewing since June 2008 and was authenticated by Hawaiian officials.
April 27th, 2011 | 2:18 pm
Okay, this is getting weird. The document released by the White House is a .pdf format, an Adobe program. Most scanners produce .pdf documents.
If you open it in Illustrator, another Adobe program, it is composed in layers. A simple .pdf scan of a paper document would not have layers. You use layers when you want to add and delete material.
Hmm …
April 27th, 2011 | 2:21 pm
“By the way, did you hear his remarks on the release of the document? Vintage Obama–pretending history happened differently, feigning seriousness about our “many problems.”
I think President Obama struck exactly the right note. This has been time-wasting nonsense.
April 27th, 2011 | 3:23 pm
A more serious question: What exactly is the belief system of the birthers?
Do/did the birthers really believe they were onto something? Did they care about the truth but just got misguided? Or did they not care about the truth to begin with and just figured anything tossed against someone they didn’t like (i.e. Obama) was good, true or not?
I don’t think there’s any real question about Trump. Trump is clearly the type of man who views the truth in the way a pimp views a woman (and he certainly strikes an excellent ‘pimp pose’…if you’re going to play the part play it all the way man!). But he was late to the birther game. What about the other birthers?
I suspect myself that there are almost no honest birthers out there. One give away, IMO, is that none of them really seem to be willing to put their own names at stake defending their theories (except for a few but they are mostly nobodies who might just be seeking the fame of being on TV and radio).
April 27th, 2011 | 3:34 pm
Boonton
I suspect you’ll need to ask that question for any number of conspiracies. 9/11 Truthers are just as immune to facts and argumentation. So many people were willing to believe the fake Dan Rather documents that purported to show Bush skipped out on a legal obligation to the Reserve becaues it fit their preexisting prejudices.
All sorts of lies about Jews and blacks have been peddled and believed for the same reason.
April 27th, 2011 | 3:54 pm
Buzz,
Don’t forget the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an example of conspiracy theory nonsense that just won’t go away (it’s still a best seller in the Arab world).
April 27th, 2011 | 3:58 pm
While we’re adding to the list of wacky conspiracy theories, include the idea that Planned Parenthood is a genocidal plot against blacks.
April 27th, 2011 | 4:05 pm
Buzz,
One difference I think is that 9/11 truthers are for the most part honest in the sense that they believe they are really onto something. While their theory sometimes intercepts with some ideological points (Iraq War – suspect), I don’t get the sense that 9/11 Truthers manufactured their theory because they wanted to find a way to criticize George Bush or the War(s) in the ME.
Birthers, for the most part, IMO, seem to be manufactured. They hate Obama and Birtherism seems useful in that regard but very few seem, IMO, to honestly believe it…..
April 27th, 2011 | 4:06 pm
Michael
Well, you’ll first have to account for the fact that Margaret Sanger, founder of PP, wished to use eugenics, birth control, and abortion to control the population of “undesirable races.”
As they say, you can look it up.
April 27th, 2011 | 4:10 pm
“Do/did the birthers really believe they were onto something? ”
Speaking for someone I know and think well of, yes. She really believed that this was a legitimate issue that proved that Obama could not/should not be president on a legal basis. She believes in the constitution and the rule of law, as I daresay most of us do (though it’s surprising how many different things people mean by that ;-)) and simply thought this was an instance of legal abuse. I’ve tried to gently remonstrate with her and point out that regardless of the truth of the issue (as she obviously couldn’t be budged on that point) it’s fairly moot — even if somehow the issue were real and totally invalidated the Obama presidency, the last two years simply weren’t going to be undone even if they “should” be by some lights.
Anyway, I’m sure that doesn’t account for everyone — I’m sure there were plenty of pure opportunists among the birthers. But I know a very sincere, truthful person who definitely believed in this as an issue. I haven’t spoken to her today; it will be interesting to see what happens when it comes up in conversation (as it no doubt will.)
April 27th, 2011 | 4:21 pm
Boonton
I can’t speak for everyone, but the few birthers I know very adamantly believe it. It’s not a game for them, nor a political tactic.
In fact, one pointed out the supposed software “layers” problem to me (I regret passing on the rumor, by the way) when it can be pretty easily explained, as numerous people are already doing.
Most Birthers, like Truthers, have an X-Files mindset.
April 27th, 2011 | 4:32 pm
Well, you’ll first have to account for the fact that Margaret Sanger, founder of PP, wished to use eugenics, birth control, and abortion to control the population of “undesirable races.”
So did HG Wells. HG Wells founded science fiction. Ergo the sci-fi channel is also a plot to destroy the black race!
Buzz
I can’t speak for everyone, but the few birthers I know very adamantly believe it. It’s not a game for them, nor a political tactic.
I think the test is to what degree to they defend birtherism now that there’s a serious challenge to it versus trying to change the subject by tossing up other issues (i.e. Obama’s school records). For example, a big issue for 9/11 truthers is that there is no actual video tape or footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon. If tomorrow an security cam of the plane was discovered it would drive a lot of analysis by the 9/11 truthers. That doesn’t mean they would suddenly stop being truthers, but they would take the tape seriously and either use it to modify their theories or at least attempt to debunk it as fake.
I agree with you there’s a core of birtherites that are serious about their belief, but I’m thinking more in line of the 40% of the Republicans who seem likewise as delusioned.
April 27th, 2011 | 4:36 pm
Speaking of X-Files, some ‘Truther’ type beliefs do seem to have a shelf life only as long as their political usefulness. The ‘Black Helicopter’ myth, for example, seemed to vanish the moment Clinton left office and Bush came in (which was ironic since the whole myth was centered on the phrase ‘new world order’ which came not from Clinton or Democrats but the elder Bush….what better fodder to keep the myth going than the election of the younger Bush). Ditto for the ‘Clinton Death List’ and even the Vince Foster/Ron Brown myths.
On the other hand, the myth that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor or even purposefully staged it has lasted decades, so has the Rosewell UFO crash.
April 27th, 2011 | 5:42 pm
“Well, you’ll first have to account for the fact that Margaret Sanger, founder of PP, wished to use eugenics, birth control, and abortion to control the population of “undesirable races.”
Conspiracy theories always start with little factoids like that and then go crazy with them. That she was a eugenicist, there is no doubt, but eugenics weren’t her first concern, and her eugenics were all about eliminating the mentally, physically, and criminally disabled. She was not interested in destroying races. And how one gets from the views of a founder to a modern organization that has its own warped priorities is another question altogether.
April 27th, 2011 | 6:19 pm
I wouldn’t be too hard on the birthers. For conspiracy theorists, they care a lot about the rule of law and procedure, and that mitigates a lot. I am not as sanguine about them being locked in delusion as you all seem to think. Considering how many posters here have their own pet theories that are immune to evidence.
I’m just thankful that in America we have people who demand to see a birth certificate rather than demand to overthrow the government by force.
April 27th, 2011 | 7:14 pm
Liberals, please note: For some, the preferred term is “Documenters”, not “Birthers.”
“Birthers” is used derogatorily and dismissively. Hence, the preferred label is “Documenters.”
It will be interesting to see where the trail goes from here. Or does anyone thinks that it’s all stopped by today’s announcement by Obama and what he’s produced?
April 27th, 2011 | 8:23 pm
pentamon wrote:
I know a very sincere, truthful person who definitely believed in this as an issue.
I’m sure that a lot of birthers had sincere doubts. The obvious question is why they doubted, and the only satisfactory answer is that they wanted to doubt. And then the obvious question is what allowed them to persist when their doubts were so clearly ludicrous. And that’s where the answer gets ugly.
April 27th, 2011 | 9:18 pm
Liberals, please note: For some, the preferred term is “Documenters”, not “Birthers.”
Noted and rejected. One only has to follow how the meme developed:
1. The story is spread that Obama wasn’t born in the US.
2. Obama’s birth certificate is produced. Birther’s alege that it’s faked. The state refutes this by confirming the copy is authentic.
3. Now the spreads that the certificate did indeed come from the state but isn’t the ‘true’ certificate…..maybe someone in vital records is producing a doctored one etc. The ‘true’ certificate lists the actual place of birth and that will reveal he wasn’t really born in the state!
All the increasing demands of documentation are to reinforce a single story that Obama wasn’t born in the US. This isn’t a general ‘cross the board plea for a documentation policy on all candidates. Not like, for example, Andrew Sullivan’s call for all Presidential candidates to release extensive medical records. Nope this is all about special treatment for one particular person. So yea I’ll use birthers as the preferred term until further notice.
April 27th, 2011 | 10:15 pm
‘It will be interesting to see where the trail goes from here.’ – Truth Unites
The ‘trail’? Are you expecting there to be evidence that will soon surface that will show that President Obama had actually been born in Kenya? Even if such evidence were to surface (but it won’t), would it really matter anyway? Don’t you think that the requirement that a U.S. president, in order to hold office, must have been born in the United States, even if he is a citizen and has lived in the country for most of his/her life, rather archaic and silly? Other nations don’t have such a requirement, because they have moved on from the 18th century; they are not stuck in the past.
‘Birthers’, ‘Documenters’… what’s the difference? They all claim to have evidence that, in their minds at least, will somehow prove that this particular president is not fit for the job, but which they have thus far failed to present. The fact that none of them have been able to tells me that they are just full of hot air and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
April 27th, 2011 | 11:18 pm
“Don’t you think that the requirement that a U.S. president, in order to hold office, must have been born in the United States, even if he is a citizen and has lived in the country for most of his/her life, rather archaic and silly? ”
I must protest at this point — what you or I or anyone else thinks about this is irrelevant. It is law, and has been since before Barack Obama took the oath of office. If there were a credible case to be made that he is not qualified according to this standard (and there isn’t a credible case) it would not matter whether the standard was “archaic and silly.” That is a matter for possible future action on changing the law, it is not legitimately a factor in any current situation.
April 27th, 2011 | 11:45 pm
“Why did Obama wait until now? I suppose he was happy to simply bait the opposition into expending energy on a blind alley, and laugh at them.”
Not just the president. A lot of us have been laughing at 40% of Republicans since 2008 when the b.c. was first released. Now they can bring their laser-beam focus to bear on FOCA. I hear the president signed that into law on the first day of his presidency.
April 27th, 2011 | 11:54 pm
I haven’t been following this issue, and this is the first I heard that his birth certificate was released. Remember those rubber stamps? You twist the dial to change the digits. Say one rubber track is screwed up, doesn’t take the ink, so you take your black pen and make a 1. (Maybe the birthers should look up other certificates of people born that day and see if they are similar. And if they are not similar. . . why there’s my book, why am I writing here? I could be making millions. I cold be Trump’s staffer!) Obama was born before JFK was shot so Obama could have been on the grassy knoll.
But let’s stay focused on the oddity that on August 7th, 1961, Obama was a non-person according to Roe v Wade. Just a turn of the dial on the stamper. . .
April 28th, 2011 | 5:53 am
Mr. Obama did very well i hope now Donald Trump will calm up i think this matter will ends with this action (Release of Obama’s birth certificate).
April 28th, 2011 | 7:55 am
Let’s not forgot that the whole idea of Obama’s birth was first raised by Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2008, not by Republicans. Just as the infamous Willie Horton meme against Michael Dukakis in 1988 was first launched by Al Gore in the primaries, not George H.W. Bush.
April 28th, 2011 | 9:12 am
As far as I’ve been concerned, since the presidential race this has been a non-issue, for reasons pentamom illuminated succinctly.
But it does point to a far more serious trend with Obama’s administration–the disconnect between his words and actions, especially in regard to his many campaign promises to usher in an era of government transparency.
Trump makes a good point when he shifts the focus from the birth certificate to Obama’s academic records. If it is so difficult for Mr. Obama to quickly disclose things that are so insignificant or harmless, can he be trusted to disclose something of far greater importance and consequence?
Unlikely.
And that should be profoundly worrisome to people of both parties. It should be worrisome to Democrats who (in some cases rightly) criticized the Bush administration for it’s lack of transparency with regard to treatment of terror suspects, etc.
When we can look back and find grievous government scandals and cover-ups perpetrated by or during every one of the presidents (both parties) of the last fifty years–many of which literally cost innocent lives–the need for transparency and TIMELY disclosure is no “small” or “inconsequential” matter.
April 28th, 2011 | 9:58 am
“Obama was born before JFK was shot so Obama could have been on the grassy knoll.”
The idea of a two year old Obama on the grassy knoll is an amusing image indeed — but not beyond the scope of some people to imagine into a conspiracy, I’m sure!
April 28th, 2011 | 10:00 am
“And that’s where the answer gets ugly.”
The answer may be no uglier than an exaggerated, but not wholly unfounded, distrust of government, politicians, and people in high places in general.
April 28th, 2011 | 1:53 pm
pentamon wrote:
The answer may be no uglier than an exaggerated, but not wholly unfounded, distrust of government, politicians, and people in high places in general.
Power corrupts, so maybe Obama doctored his birth certificate, is that how she reasons? Really now. Does this person also suspect all kinds of wild, unlikely things of Mike Huckabee, Michelle Bachman and Newt Gingrich? If you folks are going to throw stones at leftists, you ought to speak up about sin on your side as well.
Artaban wrote:
If it is so difficult for Mr. Obama to quickly disclose things that are so insignificant or harmless, can he be trusted to disclose something of far greater importance and consequence?
Obama had no responsibility, and till recently no need, if he even had it yesterday, to prove the obvious.
April 28th, 2011 | 2:35 pm
Yo Libbers,
Do you remember all the libs hounding President George W. Bush about his documents for his service in the Air National Guard?
Look it up, Libbers, on google. Look up Dan Rather while you’re at it.
April 28th, 2011 | 2:37 pm
When President George W. Bush released his documents for his Air National Guard service, was it a bad day for libbers?
April 28th, 2011 | 4:53 pm
Trump makes a good point when he shifts the focus from the birth certificate to Obama’s academic records. If it is so difficult for Mr. Obama to quickly disclose things that are so insignificant or harmless, can he be trusted to disclose something of far greater importance and consequence?
The ‘point’ to me seems to be to make an ugly accusation, then as your opponant spends time refuting it you move onto another accusation so you never really have to admit you were wrong. Obama released his birth certificate during the campaign, it’s the exact same birth certificate you would go get if you were told you needed a certified birth certificate to get a passport or drivers license. No one else released their actual original birth certificate and more importantly no one else was asked.
Where, for example, may I see Donald Trump’s birth certificate or Sarah Palin’s or New Gingrich’s? Where might I see their entire academic transcript? If we want to establish as a principle that all these things will be expected of all serious Presidential candidates, I’m with you. I don’t think, though, that it’s right to insist that only one guy has to run around disclosing all random details about his life based on the rantings of crackpots who are never, ever called to account for their mistakes and errors.
April 28th, 2011 | 8:47 pm
Ken, you’ve established that my friend, like many humans, is rather prejudicial toward her own beliefs and inconsistent about applying her intuitions equally to those she agrees with and those she disagrees with. You are probably right at least as far as her political opinions.
That’s not laudable, but I don’t find the kind of sinister import in that which would make me agree with a word like “ugly.” That’s all I’m saying.
April 28th, 2011 | 9:58 pm
pentamom, I understand the impulse to think well of people on one’s own side and to believe the worst of one’s opponents, and I’m sure I’m guilty of that myself sometimes.
But what makes someone think a highly improbable scenario is quite possibly true? What makes someone latch onto a far out question and find it an interesting question worth pursuing? In your own natural desire to think well of your friend, have you considered that she may be moved by racism? Oh, I’m sure she has black friends, etc, etc. But what else explains that sort of irrationality but a deep-seated bias, a deep-seated personal discomfort?
I write this as someone who wishes there were a word to distinguish this sort of discomfort from the full blown the Racism of the Klan and the like. We’re probably all prejudiced towards some sorts of people in the small r sense of the word. But we all need to be confronted when that prejudice manifests itself. And confronting people on our own side isn’t just a service to them, it’s a witness for Christ.
April 29th, 2011 | 1:50 pm
“Where, for example, may I see Donald Trump’s birth certificate or Sarah Palin’s or New Gingrich’s? Where might I see their entire academic transcript? If we want to establish as a principle that all these things will be expected of all serious Presidential candidates, I’m with you.”
Guess we’re in agreement then. As long as I’ve been a voter, Democrats have tried using IQ tests and college transcripts as fodder for presidential election comparisons. GW Bush’s transcripts were brought into the elections, as was Quayle’s IQ (though when the actual number came out many liberals had to eat crow). Such measures are certainly valid to bring into those deliberations. The same is true with Obama’s school records.
Why should we be surprised that people on both sides of the political spectrum play dirty pool? Let’s not go and act like both parties don’t stink, though…
April 29th, 2011 | 2:18 pm
I was never one to think W. was dumb, but he only earned gentleman’s C’s, he was inarticulate, he didn’t work long hours and, unlike Obama with his deliberative approach to the issues, he was known for making gut decisions and then sticking to them when they had disastrous consequences, such as in Iraq. These were all reasons to question whether he had the brains the job.
The other thing here is that Trump’s questions imply that Obama benefited from affirmative action, which has nothing to do with constitutionality, which is what birthers were supposedly concerned about, but is a dog whistle to racists. It will be interesting to see how many of them expose themselves by jumping from one phony issue to another.
April 29th, 2011 | 2:38 pm
Libbers are the ones who originated the “Birther” issue!!
“That June, the Obama campaign released his certificate of live birth on its Web site as part of its “fight the smears” effort. Factcheck.org and other organizations examined the document in person and declared it genuine: “Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.” But posters at the PUMA sites were unimpressed: “Nobody believes it’s for real, except the Kool-Aid drinkers themselves.”
A Clinton supporter from Texas known as Linda Starr was particularly fired up by what she later told me was “the daily misogynistic hate speech against Hillary” during the primaries. As a Democratic precinct captain in Medina County, Starr had volunteered for the Clinton campaign during the hotly contested June Lone Star State primary and served as a Clinton delegate at the state convention. But Starr’s real talent was as an amateur opposition researcher—she’d dug up dirt against Republican congressional leaders like Dan Burton and Bob Livingston during the Clinton impeachment hearings in the late 1990s. She was also cited as a key source for CBS’ discredited election year investigation into George W. Bush’s National Guard records that led to Dan Rather’s replacement after 24 years as the evening news anchor.
After Clinton’s concession, Starr turned her attention to Obama. “I determined that I was going to start digging up every bit of dirt that I could find on him,” she told me after I hunted her down in late 2009, “and that hopefully that I would find something against him that would convince the Democratic Party to dump him and make Hillary the nominee.”
In the first week of August 2008, as the Democrats were getting ready for their convention in Denver, Starr called Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg and offered a challenge. Berg recalled the conversation for me: “She called me up and said, ‘Have you heard about Obama not being national born?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ She said, ‘Well, now it’s for real, and you’re the only attorney in the country with brass balls enough to sue Obama.’”
Berg also had been a Clinton supporter, but he was best-known as a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and a serial unsuccessful Democratic campaigner for statewide office. He also had a reputation as an enthusiastic litigant: In 2004, he filed a 9/11 Truther lawsuit against Bush, alleging that the government allowed the terrorist attacks to happen and that the World Trade Center was destroyed from within. Now he had a new conspiracy to push.
On August 21, 2008, Berg filed the first Birther lawsuit, requesting an injunction to stop the Democratic Convention from going forward and alleging that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. He faxed notices to the DNC and Obama campaign headquarters, and the next day, he launched the Web site Obamacrimes.com with Starr’s assistance. The lawsuit went nowhere. Berg still fumes when recounting his frustration: “[DNC chair] Howard Dean at that point should have called Obama and said ‘What’s the story, are you natural born or not?’…Obviously there was collusion there and I think when it’s all said and done they should all be tried and put in jail.” Journalists ignored his efforts, as well. “I wish I could sue them,” said Berg, of the media. “If the American public knew what was going on here Obama would be out of office or we never would have had him in office.”"
April 29th, 2011 | 2:59 pm
Hello Libbers!!
Here’s an article for you to comprehend: CONSPIRACY — but not theory — phony ‘president’ releases phony ‘proof’
It is lengthy so it may take you awhile. Take your time to understand it.
Good luck!
April 29th, 2011 | 3:13 pm
Just to clarify my own comments, I didn’t mean to suggest that everyone who opposes affirmative action is a racist. Not by a long shot. I’m just saying that in this context Trump’s bringing up the issue is going to appeal to racists.
April 29th, 2011 | 3:48 pm
Many people say that all this could have been avoided had Obama released his certificate sooner but I think people like Donald Trump would have found something else in order to entertain the whole nation and gain support from those who are interested in such trivial issues as Obama’s birth certificate.
April 29th, 2011 | 3:54 pm
“In your own natural desire to think well of your friend, have you considered that she may be moved by racism? ”
Yes, and have discounted it. It’s hard not to consider racism in a world where people are quick to run to it as an answer for all manner of things.
But as to your question, “But what makes someone think a highly improbable scenario is quite possibly true? What makes someone latch onto a far out question and find it an interesting question worth pursuing? ”
I would answer “all manner of the vagaries of human psychology, sin, and frailty.” While racism is certainly one of the options in particular cases, given the manifold strange ways in which people can think it does not seem at all reasonable to run to racism as the first, most natural, or most common option when someone’s behavior is bewildering, unless there are other indications of racism in the person’s speech or behavior.
April 29th, 2011 | 3:57 pm
The problem I have with “racism” as a solution for this is that the kind of conspiracy-minded behavior we’re discussing has had all sorts of people as its targets, including in this person’s case. So it seems silly to just chalk up these reactions to racism just because the object in this case is of another race, when Area 51, Masonic, and a vast array of other conspiracies have existed among people who had no racial animus against (or even racial difference from) the people they held in contempt. There needs to be a reason to point to racism in this case other than “the object is black” — are 9/11 Truthers all self-hating Americans? Or do they all just believe this for various strange reasons of their own, which probably include racism in some cases, but by no means all?
April 29th, 2011 | 5:28 pm
pentamom, the nuttier the belief, the stronger the animosity behind it – wouldn’t you agree? There has to be something probably subconscious, or at least not fully realized and plumbed consciously, behind a ridiculous belief like that. So what else is that likely to be here?
He’s not Barrack Obama to these people, he’s Barrack Hussein Obama. And it’s important to them that his father was a Kenyan, and that he spent much of his childhood out of the country. Look at Trump saying that he has a great relationship with “the blacks,” and now going on to question his intelligence and fault him for playing that most African-American of sports. The common thread here is the implication that Obama is not one of us. He’s foreign. He’s different. He’s black.
April 29th, 2011 | 9:22 pm
Ken, I don’t understand why, when conservatives can list about fifteen reasons (right or wrong, fair or not) why we don’t like Obama, it always has to go back to, “Yeah, but it’s *really* because he’s BLACK.” Is there some kind of “if the subject is black” clause in Occam’s Razor that I haven’t heard of?
And being suspicious of someone because he doesn’t seem sufficiently American in spirit to you to be a good American president is decidedly distinct from racism, as is a concern over a Muslim identity. Neither of those things are big issues to me, but they’re really not about racism, they’re about other, genuine issues.
April 29th, 2011 | 9:26 pm
When I say other, genuine issues, I am not asserting that the concerns are valid in Obama’s case, just that it’s valid to wonder if any given person really has America’s best interests at heart if his heart seems to be elsewhere, or to be concerned that someone you believe may have Muslim connections might *potentially* have a conflict when it comes to dealing with Muslim enemies. It is a genuine issue that someone might be less than committed to America’s bests interests because of national or religious ties, regardless of whether such concerns are properly applied to Obama himself.
April 30th, 2011 | 10:14 am
pentamom, why is it that only conservatives think Obama doesn’t have America’s best interests in mind? How likely is it that an American president wouldn’t have those interests in mind? (Did liberals ever argue that Bush hated America because he started a dumb war?) Who made your side alone the judge of what’s American in spirit? What religious ties/Muslim connections does Obama have? Why would a Muslim attend a Christian Church (I’m not defending Wright, but he didn’t preach the Koran)? Is there even the tiniest piece of evidence that Obama’s a Muslim? Aren’t many segregationists, or people raised by segregationists, still alive? Are these people used to seeing a black man in the presidency?
Occam’s Razor hardly even applies here. The reason liberals think that a lot of opposition to Obama stems in part – in part – from the fact that he’s black is that nothing else explains the vehemence, stupidity and irrationality of so much of conservative response to him.
April 30th, 2011 | 6:01 pm
Ken: “The reason liberals think that a lot of opposition to Obama stems in part – in part – from the fact that he’s black is that nothing else explains the vehemence, stupidity and irrationality of so much of conservative response to him.”
This response is why conservatives think libbers are so stupid.
April 30th, 2011 | 9:10 pm
I think another indication of the ignorance of SOME of the president’s opponents is their focus on his middle name “Hussein” (gee, sounds so…Moslem..). Have they not wondered about the meaning of “Barack”? It means “blessing” in Arabic, doesn’t it? What’s so special or offensive about the name “Hussein”? I used to live in the Middle East and would wish Moslems “eid mubarack!” (“blessed Eid!”) during their festivities.
April 30th, 2011 | 9:53 pm
AB, what’s offensive about “Hussein” is that it indicates Obama is secretly a Muslim. Why else would he have given himself that name? ;)
May 2nd, 2011 | 11:58 am
Guess we’re in agreement then. As long as I’ve been a voter, Democrats have tried using IQ tests and college transcripts as fodder for presidential election comparisons. GW Bush’s transcripts were brought into the elections, as was Quayle’s IQ (though when the actual number came out many liberals had to eat crow). Such measures are certainly valid to bring into those deliberations. The same is true with Obama’s school records.
And school time essays and letters and such were also brought out about Clinton and used to criticize him. I don’t have a problem with a school time essay that Obama wrote ‘coming out’ should someone find one gathering dust in a box somewhere….but I don’t think Obama has any obligation to release his grades or release special copies of his birth certificate that other’s aren’t required to release and those that call for him to do so often do not practice what they preach. Sarah Palin, for one, has never released Trig’s birth certificate or her detailed medical records! I make an exception to my objection if the speaker is someone like Andrew Sullivan who has gone on record asserting that we should have super-detailed backgrounds on all who aspire to Presidential office including detailed medical records and such. That’s fine in my book if you want it applied to everyone.
Truth
Libbers are the ones who originated the “Birther” issue!!
True but irrelevant, Republicans made it their own. To her credit, Hillary never lowered herself to the least common denominator. Many Republicans, though, have raced to it.
Heather
Many people say that all this could have been avoided had Obama released his certificate sooner..
Just to be clear Obama did release his birth certificate two years ago during the election. He released the birth certificate that you would ‘release’ if you went to DMV to get a license or applied for a passport. For you to release for yourself what Obama just did, you’d have to get a lawyer and file a Freedom of Information Request.
All this could have been avoided if dishonest peole had choosen to be honest. Aside from a small core of deluded people who honestly believed this nonsense, most who exploited the birther issue are dishonest people.
Pentamom
Yes, and have discounted it. It’s hard not to consider racism in a world where people are quick to run to it as an answer for all manner of things.
Actually “I don’t want to be PC” has become a type of PC all in itself. While ‘civilians’ may be honest birthers who really think something is afoot, I think it’s pretty hard to deny that the movement itself and the pandering too it smacks clearly of a motive to exploit racism against Obama but keeping ‘plausible deniability’. Consider Huckabee’s ‘mau-mau’ comment, for example. By ‘civilians’, though, I mean there are people who are not well educated (or even if they are they can be delusional about some subjects) who watched one or two videos or read an article or two and are super sincere believers. I’ve spoke with people who swear the moon landings were faked or that big companies ‘certainly’ have the cure for cancer but are hiding it to make profits…these people embrace a wacky belief or two but in other areas of their lives they are perfectly rational and functional. Maybe some peolple just need to have a few off the wall beliefs.
America’s best interests at heart if his heart seems to be elsewhere, or to be concerned that someone you believe may have Muslim connections might *potentially* have a conflict when it comes to dealing with Muslim enemies.
Here’s my rule with this, if something is really important to you then you’ll take the time to learn the details. If, for example, you’re really concerned about conflicts with Muslim enemies, then you’ll learn a lot about Islam, a lot about different Islamic enemies, and a lot about the person you are concerned with. If this is the case, then I’d say the person is honest, if possibly mistaken. If, however, they say this is a very important issue for them but their words reveal themselves to be horribly ignorant of even the most basic facts…well if they don’t respect their brains enough to not use them why should I?
May 2nd, 2011 | 2:25 pm
“Occam’s Razor hardly even applies here. The reason liberals think that a lot of opposition to Obama stems in part – in part – from the fact that he’s black is that nothing else explains the vehemence, stupidity and irrationality of so much of conservative response to him.”
@ Ken: Really?! “Nothing else?”! You obviously haven’t been paying attention to all the people–including those on these boards–whose primary problem with Obama, as it was with Bush, is the irresponsible and destructive spending. You must have not watched any news right after the Congressional elections, when even “liberal’ networks were calling the results a referendum against ridiculous Congressional spending.
What was the Taxed Enough Already party’s formation all about, anyway?
“Nothing else” indeed.
What baffles me is how people can seemingly completely ignore what the other side is saying, and then act offended when that side is frustrated.
Bush, Obama, and their Congressional company have perpetrated one of the biggest financial frauds of all time, and may yet succeed in economically crippling us for the foreseeable future, and we don’t have reason to vehemently oppose them?!
It’s blindness like this that makes me think America’s time as #1 has come and gone…
May 2nd, 2011 | 2:38 pm
Artaban,
OK, so let’s say that is a person’s #1 problem with Obama. How does demanding a long form birth certificate address that again?
May 2nd, 2011 | 3:39 pm
Artaban, I completely understand anger at Obama over federal spending. I don’t think that anger alone would make people believe something as wild and irrational as what birthers believe. The urge to believe that Obama is not one of us strikes me as racist.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact