The birther movement: racist? total crap?

[Al68]

A legal question on what the definition of natural born is requires researching and discussing what the definition of the words are. There are people who say that even if Obama was born in Kenya, he's a natural born citizen by being born to an American citizen. It seems to me that the McCain question is much harder to settle than the Obama one in principle

Researching the McCain legal question should take but a few minutes. It's pretty easy to determine that "natural born citizen" means citizen by virtue of birth instead of by the naturalization process. What else could it mean?

 

[Al68]

Anyone with a functioning brain knows Obama was born in Hawaii.

Anyone with a functioning brain with an IQ over 65 knows that they don't know for sure where Obama was born.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Anyone with a functioning brain with an IQ over 65 knows that they don't know for sure where Obama was born.

Sure, in exactly the same way you can't be sure that the US landed on the moon, or al qaeda was responsible for 9-11... in the same way you can't be sure the holocaust happened. Its the same pathological thinking.

 

[turbo]

Yeah, the fact that "birthers" are mostly the same people who have always opposed Democrats of all races is a total coincidence. Must be because he's black.

As far as his original long form birth certificate, I always thought he probably had one, but the recent shenanigans of Hawaii officials, including the Governor, changing their stories and left wing pundits trying to say "there is no issue" does have me wondering. Especially the claim that it exists but the President isn't allowed to have a copy for himself, even though I've seen no link to any Hawaii law that says that, instead ofhttp://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/1/19/338/I/338-18".

I'm not claiming there isn't such a law specific to original birth records, just that I haven't seen it quoted or linked anywhere. Perhaps someone could provide a link?

My guess is that the President has it in his possession, but it's in his best political interest not to release it now. Just a wild guess.

So you're willing to feed into this nastiness? Why?

Let me remind you that there were birth notices in two (not one, but TWO) Honolulu newspapers. These were not the type of self-congratulatory notices that family could insert in papers for a fee, but the type of notices that the social editors of newspapers of that era would generate by reporting births, deaths, etc, recorded by local hospitals and other agencies.

If you think that Obama has in his possession his original "long-form" birth certificate (a phrase so loved by the birthers) and refuses to release it, perhaps you ought to come up with your proof. Conspiracy theories are very easy to manufacture, and I'm pretty sure that they are forbidden under the guidelines of this forum. You might want to check.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There wasn't much effort to settle it because it didn't need much effort. Being born on U.S. territory is "natural born", even if not in one of the states

Actually, this is not settled. Barry Goldwater was born in the territory of Arizona, and was challenged. The lawsuit was, of course, moot after the election of 1964.

As pointed out, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which, like Arizona, was a territory.

Much legal opinion has been written about the phrase "natural born", and I think the predominant (but not universal) opinion is that it is likely to be interpreted as "citizen at birth". Under this theory President Obama is natural born whether he was born in Hawaii or on Mars.

By the way, this kind of challenge is nothing new. There were "birthers" under the administration of Chester A. Arthur.

 

[Andre]

Has anybody of the discussers here any idea what a [strike]fight[/strike] discussion like this does to the image of the USA?

 

[CAC1001]

There are Trig Palin birthers too. Regarding Obama's birthplace, the thing about conspiracies, real conspiracies, is that they tend to be almost impossible to keep under wraps. Usually some skilled journalist (s) will figure things out. If President Obama truly had not been born in Hawaii, I think someone would have figured it out by now.

 

[Al68]

So you're willing to feed into this nastiness?

Yep, got to love feeding into nastiness!

Seriously, it is "feeding into this nastiness" by many on the left, by acting like there is something to hide, that I've been objecting to.

Let me remind you that there were birth notices in two (not one, but TWO) Honolulu newspapers.

Why would you remind me of that? Have you misread one of my posts?

If you think that Obama has in his possession his original "long-form" birth certificate (a phrase so loved by the birthers) and refuses to release it, perhaps you ought to come up with your proof.

So I need proof for something I labeled as a "wild guess". Have you forgotten all the assertions you make as if they were settled fact, yet consistently refuse to provide any substantiation whatsoever. I guess substantiation is only required for wild guesses, not assertions passed off as undisputed fact.

Conspiracy theories are very easy to manufacture, and I'm pretty sure that they are forbidden under the guidelines of this forum. You might want to check.

Nope. Wild guess <> conspiracy theory.

 

[Al68]

Actually, this is not settled. Barry Goldwater was born in the territory of Arizona, and was challenged.

I was referring to the issue being settled by the Senate hearing for McCain, not settled back then in that lawsuit. But regardless, people will differ on whether they think any issue is settled.

Much legal opinion has been written about the phrase "natural born", and I think the predominant (but not universal) opinion is that it is likely to be interpreted as "citizen at birth". Under this theory President Obama is natural born whether he was born in Hawaii or on Mars.

I was under the impression that someone born outside the U.S. had to be naturalized. You mean all those kids I fathered overseas in my Navy days are natural born citizens of hhe U.S.?

 

[Al68]

Sure, in exactly the same way you can't be sure that the US landed on the moon, or al qaeda was responsible for 9-11... in the same way you can't be sure the holocaust happened. Its the same pathological thinking.

LOL, seriously? That Godwin was one smart dude, apparently.

As far as your point, those conspiracy theories are not analogous to this issue in any relevant, significant way. They're far more analogous to those of the left claiming that Republicans are on the side of the rich against poor people, want to throw old people out on the streets, etc. Except those you mention are far less delusional and hateful.

 

[KingNothing]

It was never my intention to discuss the truth value of the conspiracy. I don't think moving on is really "nastiness". There are always going to be doubters and haters, you can't dedicate too much time to arguing with them. Frankly there are much more pressing issues and I would appreciate a president who tends to them.

This thread was never intended to be about right vs. left. Al68, if you want to turn it into that, I would respectfully ask that you start your own thread.

 

[Al68]

This thread was never intended to be about right vs. left. Al68, if you want to turn it into that, I would respectfully ask that you start your own thread.

LOL. Request denied. I just love to "turn things into" right vs left, you know, since that's never how they are when I find them.

I do try to refrain from assuming racism for no apparent reason, and offering no logical explanation. Then claiming "we all know" it's true.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I was referring to the issue being settled by the Senate hearing for McCain, not settled back then in that lawsuit.

You seem to be claiming the Senate has lent a lot of authority and thought to this issue, when the most I can find is a single non-binding resolution. Can you please source these Senate hearings so we can see exactly what happened?

 

[russ_watters]

I do try to refrain from assuming racism for no apparent reason, and offering no logical explanation. Then claiming "we all know" it's true.

That's part and parcel of being an Obamafan: the fact that Obama is black is enough evidence to believe that any criticism of Obama must be due to racism, regardless of if there is actually any evidence for the racism.

Maybe people don't remember, but we had this discussion several times during the campaign. It was always the same: Obama is obviously (obviously!) the far superior candidate, so any criticism of him must always be due to racism. Riiiiiiight. That's just as much a conspiracy theory as the birther movement itself.

See, all this discussion of why the birther movement is larger than the McCain eligibility issue ignores the point: regardless of size, both exist but one is assumed to be due to racism while the other is assumed not to be. At the same time, though, bringing into it that up to 40% of Republicans may believe the birther movement - in the context of this thread - means people in this thread think 40% of republicans are racists?

Here's how it really works: marketing. With good enough marketing, you can get a disturbingly large fraction of the population to believe something that isn't true. We've discussed the problem numerous times here as it pertains to evolution: Are Americans who don't accept evolution all racists or are have they just succumbed to a highly successful marketing campaign?

 

[lisab]

That is just so not true. As I said before, I'm not going to start linking crackpots, but you really should have a look. There are tons of websites out there still displaying that story. Google it. Please.

Yay! You hit it on the head, they're crackpots! Whereas *actual, serious candidates* on the right believe this stuff.

Big, big difference!

 

[Vanadium 50]

I was referring to the issue being settled by the Senate hearing for McCain, not settled back then in that lawsuit.

This was a "Sense of the Senate" vote. To be a law, the House must pass and the President must sign.

You mean all those kids I fathered overseas in my Navy days are natural born citizens of hhe U.S.?

They are citizens, provided you were a US citizen when serving with the US Navy, that you spent 5 years in the US before the birth of the child and at least 2 of those years were when you were over 14.

 

[Newai]

It didn't have the same level of hostility, IMO.

Besides, it's widely accepted that being born on an overseas military base is the same as being born in the US. The thousands of US citizens born on foreign bases have *exactly* the same rights as everyone else - no one would ever think to deny them their rights.

I think the issue around McCain's birth was largely a media-manufactured "story du jour" - they come and go all through election season. This one didn't stick - it was a non-issue from the get-go.

Yeah. I don't know if there's any way to qualify/quantify/prove any scale of racism in the birthers, but I'd gamble that the racist mix appreciate the conspiracy more than what McCain had to put up with.

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ases-obama-birth-certificate/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

They must have been sitting on this for 3 years just to turn it into political capital at the right time

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Has anybody of the discussers here any idea what a [strike]fight[/strike] discussion like this does to the image of the USA?

We don’t know if we should laugh or cry, and when you see a PF Mentor backing up this kind of conspiracy crap – I think it’s the later...

Anyhow, all crackpots should be ashamed and stop rambling – today http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/apr/27/barack-obama-birth-certificate-statement#":

This is all utterly stupid. Now we are waiting for the "< IQ65" to declare this a "Photoshop fraud"...

I guess this is a "New World Order Conspiracy", including passports and everything...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvqgyV_2pHg


EDIT - More info:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate

 

[russ_watters]

Yay! You hit it on the head, they're crackpots! Whereas *actual, serious candidates* on the right believe this stuff.

Big, big difference!

If someone is a crackpot for believing something that isn't true then they are a crackpot for believing something that isn't true. Saying that some are and some aren't is a contradiction.

You're talking about politicians here lisa - just because one has a lot of support that doesn't mean they aren't still a crackpot. You're falling into the fallacy that crackpot is crackpot because it isn't the mainstream view. That's not what the word means. Crackpottery is about the truth and the way it is investigated. The truth is not a popularity contest. Heck by suggesting that you're falling into exactly the fallacy that's causing the problem in the first place! Popularity =/ legitimacy

 

[thorium1010]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ases-obama-birth-certificate/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

They must have been sitting on this for 3 years just to turn it into political capital at the right time

The nuts will be silenced (hopefully) once and for all.

 

[BobG]

Yay! You hit it on the head, they're crackpots! Whereas *actual, serious candidates* on the right believe this stuff.

Big, big difference!

Calling Sarah Palin and Donald Trump serious candidates might be a little bit of an exaggeration. However, at least a few members of Congress from more conservative districts have no problem exploiting this myth:

Roy Blunt, R-MO (however, he later backtracked, saying his comments were taken out of context)
Jean Schmidt, R-OH (however, she later backtracked, saying her comments were taken out of context)
David Vitter, R-LA (he wound up having enough problems of his own that his birther comments faded into the noise)

While I didn't support tea party candidate Ken Buck for US Senate in CO, I did like one of the comments he made that was inadvertantly recorded, and later released just to embarrass him:

... tell those dumbasses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera.

Ironically, the birther movement was started by Clinton supporters during the primaries, which is why it lasted much longer than any McCain controversy (in fact, I think it was questions about Obama's citizenship that got people wondering about McCain's citizenship status).

If it does have racial overtones, they pale compared to the conspiracy theories tossed around about McCain during the 2000 South Carolina primaries.

And its political effect certainly pales compared to the http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aASYBT9Pwt4E&refer=us in the 2004 election. Those ads had such a huge impact that the term 'swiftboating' replaced the term 'borking' in the dictionary of political lingo. Half of Republicans believed Kerry lied about his war record during that campaign - even more than believe the "birther conspiracies".

In my opinion, the "birther conspiracy" is part of the usual BS that always lays out at the edges of political campaigning. Racial issues may play a part in how many people believe it, but it would be hard to nail down the racial issues as being the reason more people believe this particular conspiracy. Marketing (and the Swift Boat ads were marketed very effectively) plays a bigger part than the race issues.

 

[russ_watters]

I've attacked the idea that this is about racism, but I haven't really explained the alternative. So here's how these things happen:

1. A handful of crackpots invent and spread a crackpot idea.
2. The media, not wanting to miss out on a juicy story, picks it up regardless of if it is legitimate or not - they cover it while not necessarily promoting the crackpot idea. The existence of Fox and MSNBC tends to serve as a bridge because they are more likely to pick up these crackpot bits and if they pick it up, other media outlets are forced to also so they don't lose any more viewers to the sensationalists than they already have.
3. The public sees the story in the mainstream media and regardless of the characterization it is given, judges that popularity = legitimacy. Having a "legitimate" politician pushing it adds to the perception of legitimacy.
4. Now believing there is a legitimate controversy because of #3, the public is forced to pick a side. So people pick sides based on their political persuasion/bias.

Remember, most people in the public haven't even looked at a photo of Obama's birth certificate and probably barely even skimmed the articles, so they decide based on their biases, not based on a thorough understanding of the issue. But the bias here isn't (predominantly) racism, it's politics.

A year or so ago, a lot of effort was put into proving that conservatives are more likely to believe false things than liberals and we discussed a heavily biased study in here that "proved" that. The study "proved" it by primarily asking about falshoods that conservatives might buy while not asking about ones that liberals might buy, so it was badly flawed in that sense, but it did show that a very significant fraction of the population is ignorant/lazy/gullible/extreme enough in their pursuit of truth that they'll buy anything that fits with their beliefs. And that's all the birther "movement" is about.

This phenomena is far too widespread and common for it to be reasonable to focus it on Obama and a racism motivation.

And a semi-related other side of the coin: Remember, Obama is not black by birth, he's black by choice. By birth, he's half black, half white, but he chose to label himself and promote himself as being black. So who'se really playing the race card here?

 

[Evo]

We don’t know if we should laugh or cry, and when you see a PF Mentor backing up this kind of conspiracy crap – I think it’s the later...

Anyhow, all crackpots should be ashamed and stop rambling – today http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/apr/27/barack-obama-birth-certificate-statement#":

Where's the embossed stamp? That's got to be the next critique.

Anyway, the mentors have decided to put the *birther* topic on the banned topics list.