Main Menu

August must be world “Birther” month.

Here’s just a sample of media coverage in just the past week (taken from the Obama Conspiracy Theories Media page):

Birthers release forged Kenyan birth certificate for Obama, August 3, 2009, Salon.com. The document is just another in an increasingly long line of fakes intended to prove Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.

Forged Kenyan Document Splinters ‘Birther’ Movement, August 3, 2009, The Washington Independent. The new focus on a bogus document from an anonymous source has riven the small community of activists who are trying to prove that Barack Obama cannot be president of the United States.

When Did Americans Turn into a Bunch of Raving Lunatics?, August 4, 2009, Esquire. “Everyone who voted for him ought to leave the country,”

DNC Goes All In: Takes On Birthers, Conservative “Mob” In New Web Ad, August 4, 2009, Huffington Post. The Democratic National Committee released a notably aggressive web ad on Tuesday evening, accusing the Republican Party of being taken over by an angry mob of “birther” conspiracy theorists and disgruntled partisans.

Kenya ‘birth certificate’ said to be fake, August 4, 2009, UPI. In a post on the Politjab.com Web site, Steve Eddy of California said he discovered through an online search that the document released by “birther” Orly Taitz was a doctored version of the birth certificate for David Jeffrey Bomford, born in South Australia in April 1959, Salon.com reported Tuesday.

Freemasons to ‘Birthers’: rise of D.C. conspiracy theories, August 4, 2009, The Christian Science Monitor. “The Internet perpetuates these things because of the ease with which you can look up all of this so-called ‘evidence’ on the web – no matter how far flung the idea is – and build whatever worldview you want while ignoring other evidence,” says James LaPlant, who teaches a class on political conspiracy theories at Valdosta State University in Valdosta, Ga.

The Berserk ‘Birthers’, August 4, 2009, The Washington Post. If there’s been a more clinically insane political phenomenon in my lifetime than the “birthers,” I’ve missed it. Is this what our national discourse has come to? Sheer paranoid fantasy?

Forget Obama’s Birth Certificate–Now You Too Can Be Born in Kenya, August 5, 2009, US News and World Report. While I go ask my mother some tough questions about my real history, you can generate your own Kenyan birth certificate at the Kenyan Birth Certificate Generator site. (But remember that the information listed is the stuff of password security checks and the like — when you make your Kenyan birth certificate you might not want to use real names and dates.)

Salon’s handy-dandy guide to refuting the Birthers, August 5, 2009, Salon.com. In the spirit of public service, Salon has compiled this list of the most popular Birther myths, along with all the debunking you could ever ask for.

Is the “Birther” Movement a Liberal Conspiracy?, August 6, 2009, The Atlantic. It is not Obama’s right-wing opponents, however, who are devoting the most attention to this obscure, Internet-driven “movement,” if one can even use that label to describe such a paranoid groupuscule. Rather, it’s liberals, bent on portraying their conservative opponents as extremists….

Punking the Birthers, August 7, 2009, The Week. It looks like Orly Taitz and her fellow Obama “birthers” have been “punk’d” by an Obama supporter.

The conspiracy theory about President Obama that refuses to die, August 7, 2009, The Sydney Morning Herald. Even though the Obama campaign team published an official certificate from the state of Hawaii stating that he was born there on 4 August, 1961, and two Hawaiian newspapers confirmed they had published birth notices at the time, a significant portion of the US population – 11 per cent, according to one poll – still dispute Mr Obama’s birth details.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

55 Responses to August must be world “Birther” month.

  1. avatar
    strikefighter August 8, 2009 at 10:52 pm #

    “Is the “Birther” Movement a Liberal Conspiracy?’

    No. Because a conspiracy about a conspiracy would create a paradox, ripping apart space and time and bringing the universe to an end.

  2. avatar
    Bob Weber August 8, 2009 at 11:18 pm #

    With apologies to F.A. Hayek, the birfer movement is a “spontaneous disorder” of die-hard political partisans, nativists, racists, and just plain kooks.

    The internet is a wonderful research tool. I remember my college days of researching through dusty archives. Ecch. Much easier now with the internet.

    Unfortunately, the internet also allows faster dispersal of misinformation and disinformation.

    It has also lowered the “transaction costs” of organizing marginal groups. This is sometimes good and sometimes bad. The birfers are an example of the latter.

  3. avatar
    Bob Weber August 8, 2009 at 11:33 pm #

    I forgot to mention that while “Official” Conservatives feel embarrassed by the birfers, they have been encouraging these people for a long time, considering them to be “useful idiots”. Now they’re like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, frantically trying to stop the brooms. (Anyone have a bassoon?) An example of what Chalmers Johnson calls “blowback” in a slightly different context.

  4. avatar
    misha August 9, 2009 at 2:55 am #

    “ripping apart space and time and bringing the universe to an end.”

    Strikefighter is absolutely correct. I studied physics as part of becoming an optician, and basically this would entail matter and anti-matter colliding.

    I would hate for liberalism to be responsible for something so traumatic. We’re already responsible for slavery and Obama.

  5. avatar
    Lupin August 9, 2009 at 5:59 am #

    Yeah, why doesn’t Obama just resign? That would shut the Birthers up.

    (s) a Birher.

    To quote one of Andre Sullivan’s readers:

    “These are the folks who drove Teddy Roosevelt out of the Republican Party and called his cousin Franklin a communist, shut their town’s borders to the Okies and played the protectionist card right up til Pearl Harbor, when they suddenly had a new foreign enemy to hate. They are with us, the John Birchers, the anti-fluoride and black helicopter nuts, the squirrely commie-hating hysterics who always loved the loyalty oath, the forced confession, the auto-da-fe. Those who await with baited breath the race war, the nuclear holocaust, the cultural jihad, the second coming, they make up much more of America then you would care to think.”

  6. avatar
    kimba August 9, 2009 at 9:23 am #

    These folks are same people who blockaded the Crescent City Connector bridge to keep people from walking across the Miss River out of New Orleans after Katrina. (And famously caused Shepard Smith of Fox to lose his sh!t. Remember he was taken off the air for a number of days, probably while they tried to re-program his neocon chip. But I think to this day he remains a damaged man.)

  7. avatar
    Nullifidian August 9, 2009 at 12:08 pm #

    I would hate for liberalism to be responsible for something so traumatic. We’re already responsible for slavery and Obama.

    And fascism. Don’t forget fascism.

  8. avatar
    Nullifidian August 9, 2009 at 12:16 pm #

    (And famously caused Shepard Smith of Fox to lose his sh!t. Remember he was taken off the air for a number of days, probably while they tried to re-program his neocon chip. But I think to this day he remains a damaged man.)

    It happened again after the Holocaust Museum shooting. He pointed out how prescient the DHS report on violent radicalization in the far-right was and talked about the increasingly lunatic tone of e-mails sent to Fox News by its viewers.

    The response from the far-right was predictable: they called for him to be purged.

  9. avatar
    Koyaan August 9, 2009 at 1:05 pm #

    Sorry for the threadjack, but just wanted to compliment Nullifidian for their comments over on the Repubx post about the hoax images.

    I wanted to comment myself, but that page seems to be broken. After about the 60th comment, I get nothing but black and there’s no means of replying, even if I click on the reply link to a specific comment.

    And when I check out that thread on another machine using IE instead of Firefox, there are no comments to be seen at all.

    It appears that DefendUSx has disabled commenting. This sort of cowardice (if it’s not just another example of DefendUSx’s technical incompetence) is a common theme among the Birthers.

    Thanks.

    k

  10. avatar
    Bob August 9, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    Another article:

    Salon’s handy-dandy guide to refuting the Birthers

  11. avatar
    Sarina August 9, 2009 at 3:09 pm #

    Again, birthers are bringing this up:

    “If Obama’s father wasn’t leaving in Hawaii he would be charged with statutory rape”

    They are not satisfied fabricating lies about Obama they are also pointing his father, and don’t ask me what are they saying about Obama’s mother!

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 9, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    The social organization from Lord of the Flies comes to mind.

  13. avatar
    Bob August 9, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    Sixteen is the age of consent in a majority of states.

  14. avatar
    kimba August 9, 2009 at 3:34 pm #

    And there you have the crux of what has set off the white, racist southerners who comprise the majority of birtherdom: In 1960, a black African man had relations with a white girl from Kansas and the child of that union is now the President of the United States.

    What they say about his mother breaks my heart. Such filth about the mother of the President. Despicable. Barack owes them nothing.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 9, 2009 at 3:34 pm #

    Thanks. I’ve added it.

  16. avatar
    Sarina August 9, 2009 at 3:59 pm #

    Good answer kimba! Did you or anybody know about statutory rape law in Hawaii in the 60’s? A friend of mine married a guy, she was 16 the guy 26, they’ve been happily married for 12 yrs now(Florida)
    A birther told me: “If Obama had been born in Hawaii his father would have been accused of rape, that is why he was born in Kenya?
    How can I answer to that?!!

  17. avatar
    Bob Weber August 9, 2009 at 4:14 pm #

    “They are not satisfied fabricating lies about Obama they are also pointing his father, and don’t ask me what are they saying about Obama’s mother!”

    **************

    Venture past the outer regions of the fever swamp and you will find at its core a pestilential, fog-enshrouded region where sunlight never penetrates.

    The inhabitants will tell you all about Stanley Ann, the card-carrying Commie cutting cane in Cuba, who was impregnated by a Cuban Negro Communist named Paco de la Pingadura-Larga. A segment of the birfers believes she posed for pornographic photos taken by Frank Marshall Davis. I won’t provide any link.

    Then there are the allegations that Grampa Dunham was a Nazi saboteur who smoothly shifted to working for the Commies.

    Charming people.

  18. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 9, 2009 at 4:59 pm #

    According to the 2003 report of Hawaii’s Age of Consent Task Force :

    “Between 1925 and 1973 the Territory, and later the State, of Hawaii prohibited males from having sexual contact with a girl under 12 or sexual intercourse with a girl under 16.”

    http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/publications/reports/legislative_reports/regular_sess_03/rpt_age_of_consent_tf.pdf.

    Note Wikipedia is a bit out of date on Hawaii Age of Consent.

  19. avatar
    jtx August 9, 2009 at 8:55 pm #

    Bob Weber:

    You miss the point that Obama himself has told everyone who can read – and apparently that leaves out most of the Flying Monkeys on this site – that he was born a Brit.

    That actually means he cannot be a “natuiral born citizen” – and no BC is necessary; just the man’s own words.

  20. avatar
    ImaForener August 9, 2009 at 9:13 pm #

    You know Your Honour, for a Judge with 50 years experience you are really starting to wear that whole Wizard of Oz imagery out. Can’t you use some sparkling rhetoric from one of your many well thought out judicial reasonings?

    Put on that robe and work your magic! Oh my god – you are really Harry Potter aren’t you!?!?!?!

  21. avatar
    Shrieking wombat August 9, 2009 at 9:34 pm #

    Obama is about to occupy the Sudetenland!!

  22. avatar
    jtx August 9, 2009 at 10:47 pm #

    Bob Weber:

    “… the internet also allows faster dispersal of misinformation and disinformation …”

    Indeed it does and the Flying Monkeys on this blog are pergect illustrations of that principle.

    None of you seem to wish to grasp the fact that the man has already shot himself in the foot with his admissions of being born a Brit … and it is not the burden of proof on those who doubt his eligibility claims to hold the office he now occupies – but the burden of the claimant himself under requirements of the Constitution.

    He was the one wishing to be President after all and made sworn statements he was eligible under the Constitution. Now he gets to prove it. (or perhaps you looney lefties think his “trust me” is sufficient???)

  23. avatar
    Nullifidian August 9, 2009 at 10:56 pm #

    and it is not the burden of proof on those who doubt his eligibility claims to hold the office he now occupies – but the burden of the claimant himself under requirements of the Constitution.

    What requirements of the Constitution force Obama to allay the suspicions of crackpots on a mission?

  24. avatar
    Nullifidian August 9, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    Thank you.

    I’m not sure why the site isn’t working for you in IE. I can still comment on that thread, but only if I use IE. If I use Firefox, I get the same solid wall of black that you get.

    I wouldn’t attribute cowardice to them. I think it’s just an example of a poorly coded blog.

  25. avatar
    Greg August 9, 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    He’s sworn that he was eligible. He’s also provided a COLB which is, per Hawaii law and the Federal Rules of Evidence, proof that he was born in Hawaii.

    Now, you bring a lawsuit claiming that he isn’t eligible.

    Here’s the sticking point. You can’t just say, “I don’t believe it.” You’ve got to have something at least plausible to suggest he isn’t eligible. Iqbal. Twombly. If you don’t know those words, look them up.

    By the way, you can surely point to where Cheney proved he was a resident of Wyoming and not Texas, right? And where Gore proved that people born in DC are natural-born citizens, right?

    How about this? I’ll donate $1,000 to the birther charity of your choice for every eligibility lawsuit that gets to the merits stage. I am that sure that you and the rest of the birthers are 100% off-base legally. Are you willing to say the same? Will you pay $100 for every lawsuit that is dismissed long before the merits are heard?

  26. avatar
    misha August 9, 2009 at 11:40 pm #

    Is that anything like Teflondia And Souvlakia At War?

  27. avatar
    misha August 9, 2009 at 11:46 pm #

    jtx and the rest of the birthers are NOT crackpots. They are psychoceramics from Threenesia.

  28. avatar
    misha August 10, 2009 at 12:05 am #

    These people have always been with us. Don’t forget Gerald L. K. Smith.

  29. avatar
    richCares August 10, 2009 at 12:14 am #

    you mean just the man’s own words said he is not a natural born American citizen, wow, what a revelation, we would have never known, thanks for your great insight, keep on babbling you may get a believer or two. Actually you are a rather tiresome troll.

  30. avatar
    sarina August 10, 2009 at 7:23 am #

    jtx
    Don’t forget that 8 presidents were British subjects:
    Andrew Jackson=born to Scotts-Irish immigrants. Chester Arthur’s father was Irish. US grants citizenship to anybody born in US soil (jus soli) Obama’s mother also a citizen. (jus sanguini) his father’s citizenship does not affect him at all.
    Barack Obama is American as apple pie!

  31. avatar
    Bob August 10, 2009 at 11:28 am #

    WND “reporting” that the “Globe” (the supermarket tabloid) is reporting that Obama’s birth certificate is fake.

    The irony, it burns.

  32. avatar
    jtx August 10, 2009 at 12:43 pm #

    Nullifidian:

    You seem to miss the point that Obama himself has told all who can read (which apparently excludes you) that he was born a Brit. Perhaps you’d like to explain how that makes him a “natural born citizen” under the Constitutional clause that mandates that??

  33. avatar
    jtx August 10, 2009 at 12:53 pm #

    Greg:

    He’s sworn under oath he meets the Constitutional requirements (as has his political party and many of its operatives – no doubt including many of you Flying Monkeys).

    He has also said repeatedly to millions of people (those who can read) that he was born a Brit). In addition, Obama – being such a hotshot “Constitutional lawyer” that he taught classes in same – knew that he was not eligible yet went ahead with the fraud thinking he could fool all the dumb bastards into voting him into office … and he succeeded bit time with you Flying Monkeys who STILL don’t (or who are unwilling to) admit that he is not – or might not be – elibible to hold the office he now occupies.

    It will all come out in court at some point. The “plausibility” you seek is the man’s own written words – and he’s also said just the opposite. Would he lie? … obviously one of those sets of statement IS a bald-faced lie. I’ve no doubt the court will eventually straighten it out since they have the legal power to both obtain factual evidence (which BTW does not include the nonsense on this blog) and to interpret those facts in light of the law. You and I don’t get to do that, so blather away!!

  34. avatar
    jtx August 10, 2009 at 1:02 pm #

    ImaForener:

    It’s unfortunate you don’t realize that you are indeed one of the Flying Monkey Squadron members, but I think I’ll keep using the comparison since it is so apt!

    Since this is not a court but rather a kangaroo court I’d certainly not make any bits of judicial reasoning available since they should properly be saved for court.

    You also seem to miss the point that the guy has told millions that he was a Brit at birth on the one hand and then also claimed that he met the Constitutional requirements. You don’t seem to realize that those are most likely contradictory statements – in fact one is an outright lie. Obama gets to prove which is which since he’s not yet shown that he actually is eligible – nor have any of you.

  35. avatar
    Bob August 10, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

    If it is so clear that Obama was never eligible, then why did no other candidate, no other “hotshot ‘Constitutional lawyer'” ever say anything?

  36. avatar
    jtx August 10, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

    richCares:

    Takes one to know one!

    And since you can’t read apparently, the man has also sworn under oath just the opposite. I’ve no doubt the court will sort it all out.

  37. avatar
    richCares August 10, 2009 at 1:05 pm #

    the man has also sworn under oath just the opposite.

    link please or did you pull this out of your rear>

  38. avatar
    Adrianinflorida August 10, 2009 at 1:08 pm #

    Grandpa Dunham a Nazi, how quickly they forget the history of the Prescott side of the Bush family tree. Irony is a mother……

  39. avatar
    Greg August 10, 2009 at 1:45 pm #

    I suggest you look up the elements of false swearing. You can’t rely on an objective standard, it’s a subjective intent crime.

    Even if you could, any judge in the land would look at the fact that every ConLaw professor in the country in the past 212 years who has looked at this says that parental citizenship is irrelevant and decide that Obama, being a reasonable ConLaw professor, could have concluded that he was a natural born citizen.

    Here’s a clue, if you first have to convince the judge that every decision on point in the last 212 years except 2 were incorrect, including one that has been cited 297 times, you’re going to have a difficult time convincing the judge that a reasonable person could not conclude otherwise!

  40. avatar
    kimba August 10, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    jtx is a Troll. There is no point feeding it. It cannot learn. It is stuck.

  41. avatar
    Rickey August 10, 2009 at 2:47 pm #

    Bob,

    Ha, the same Globe which claimed to have solved the JFK assassination and reported that George W. and Laura Bush were getting divorced. And that George W. is suicidal and in therapy. What a reliable source!

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 10, 2009 at 4:20 pm #

    WND wrote:

    The Globe, known for sensationalism and entertainment scandals, cites reports by unnamed document analysts as claiming the Hawaiian certification of live birth the Obama campaign distributed to select news agencies and websites is fraudulent. The blogosphere has been rife with such allegations for 10 months.

    Polarik, TechDude?

  43. avatar
    jtx August 10, 2009 at 4:58 pm #

    Greg:

    Firstly – I’m not the one who would be arguing the issue in court (nor are you).

    Over and above that, however, parental background is indeed important and in fact
    your claim that “every ConLaw professor in the country for the past 212 years” (wonder what happened to the other 21 years?) has said that parental citizenship is irrelevant.

    You seem unaware of the many cites that say quite the opposite – and no, I’m not going to present them to you; go find them yourself or read the trial proceedings when they are published.

    It rather sounds as though you’re a big Wong Kim Ark fancier and if you hang your hat on THAT particular slender reed it will most likely fall on the floor.

  44. avatar
    jtx August 10, 2009 at 5:01 pm #

    Koyaan:

    Sounds just like more of your Looney Leftie conspiracy theories.

  45. avatar
    Nullifidian August 10, 2009 at 5:23 pm #

    You seem to miss the point that Obama himself has told all who can read (which apparently excludes you) that he was born a Brit.

    No he hasn’t. You’ve already been corrected on this enough times that I must conclude that you’re knowingly lying.

    Perhaps you’d like to explain how that makes him a “natural born citizen” under the Constitutional clause that mandates that??

    Easy. U.S. law, and not Britain’s 1948 Nationality Act, is controlling on the subject of the citizenship status of people born within the U.S. and its territories. To argue otherwise is to assert that British law trumps U.S. law even in the U.S., after which you might just as well agree to become a formal British colony again.

  46. avatar
    Greg August 10, 2009 at 5:44 pm #

    You’re right, jtx, you won’t be the one arguing this case in court. Neither will I. Neither will anyone else. No case will ever get to the merits. Sorry to disappoint you, but that’s the way our courts work.

    Actually, my point about conlaw professors is entirely relevant if you are trying to make out a claim of false swearing. You clearly haven’t a clue about the elements of that crime.

    And, while I like Wong Kim Ark, I also like the other 25 cases I can cite in relatively quick succession that stand for the same point. But, even if I were relying solely on WKA, I’d much prefer to be relying on a Supreme Court case almost squarely on the issue than on an obscure Swiss philosopher and half-baked dicta in some of the most discredited, racist, decisions in our Supreme Court’s history.

  47. avatar
    Bob August 11, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    Question: Why are birfers obsessed with Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals? For example, the Steady Drip has posted an article about it here, as WND did here.

    At the very least, it is a propter hoc argument. But why are these ‘Merican Patriots more familiar this communist handbook than the average obot?

    It reminds me of those who are virulently anti-homosexual, yet are well-versed (and often explicit) about the very acts they claim to despise.

  48. avatar
    aarrgghh August 11, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    bob says:

    question: why are birfers obsessed with saul alinsky’s rules for radicals? for example, the steady drip has posted an article about it here, as wnd did here.

    everyone knows you can’t have a respectable worldwide conspiracy if you don’t have an evil jewish mastermind pulling the strings.

    now if you’ll excuse me, it’s time for my two minutes’ hate.

  49. avatar
    Heavy August 12, 2009 at 9:29 am #

    It’s starting to unravel…Right in the middle of “Birther” month!

    http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2009/08/snopes-uncovered.html

  50. avatar
    Heavy August 12, 2009 at 9:32 am #

    This is that groundswell I’ve been talking about. Stick a fork in him!

    http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/52990947.html

  51. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 12, 2009 at 9:52 am #

    Old news-

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

  52. avatar
    Bob August 12, 2009 at 11:00 am #

    Yes, but we all know Factcheck is controlled by Obama.

    (Phil at tRSoL, when confronted with the fact that Factcheck staffers have held the paper COLB, has concluded that this is insufficient independent verification, and is thiiiiis close to concluding Factcheck is in on the conspiracy.)

  53. avatar
    kimba August 12, 2009 at 11:39 am #

    It was my understanding that several news agencies were given real copies. Fox News’ chief legal analyst Andrew Napolitano said on air months ago that Fox News received a copy and found it to be authentic. Now, how could they have found it to be authentic if they didn’t get a certified copy? If Fox News actually physically handled a certified copy and found it authentic, will Rsol claim Fox too is “in” on it? Is everyone but birthers in on it?

  54. avatar
    Heavy August 13, 2009 at 11:22 am #

    I think ABBA said it best…Waterloo!

    MAMA MIA!

  55. avatar
    Bob August 13, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    “Doonesbury”‘s birther comics. (Via WND(!).)