Birtherism 101

An “unapologetic birther” is now Majority Leader in the Missuori House of Representatives
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/unapologetic_birther_is_new_mo_house_of_representatives_majority_leader.php

State Rep. Timothy W. Jones (R-Eureka) of the Missouri House of Representatives was unanimously elected by the new Republican caucus to be the next Majority Floor Leader. Why is that newsworthy? Because (Jones) was represented by “Birther Queen” Orly Taitz in a federal case alleging that President Barack Obama was secretly an Indonesian named Barry Soetoro and ineligible to be President of the United States

A CNN poll in August of this year found that 41% of Republicans are either outright birthers or have “birther sympathies”. Because this topic is discussed endlessly at Free Republic, I have become quite knowledgeable about birtherism. There are actually two distinct schools to this ideology. One is the “place of birth” faction, which believes Barack Obama was not born in the United States. This theory requires substantial “willing suspension of disbelief,” since one must accept the proposal that a penniless 18-year-old Hawaiian college student somehow made her way to Kenya during her 9th month of pregnancy, gave birth to a child in a mud hut, got his birth immediately registered in a Honolulu newspaper, obtained a fraudulent birth certificate and got herself back home from Africa in time to be seen less than two weeks later, with her baby, at a friend’s home in Seattle. There is also the pesky detail of an eyewitness, Eleanor Nordyke, a demographic scientist who gave birth to her twin daughters in the same maternity ward as Obama’s mother and has described the experience to various journalists. (Place-of-birthers dismiss Nordyke’s testimony as “senile lies”).

Because of obvious difficulties with this scenario there is a back-up theory known as the “natural-born citizen” argument which has become more widely accepted, largely because it doesn’t rely so much on a far-fetched physical narrative as on a creative parsing of the law, which is a game anybody can play. This faction distinguishes between “naturalized” and “natural-born” citizenship and argues (based on nothing substantive according to various courts that have heard the case) that it is impossible for a child to be “natural-born” if both his parents are not either natural-born or naturalized. Barack Obama’s father was not a naturalized American citizen so his son cannot be “natural-born”… a requirement for anybody who wishes to serve as president (Incidentally, this bizarre theory, which is argued passionately in Republican circles, is now creating some collateral damage for rising conservative stars Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, since for both men there are serious questions about the “naturalized” status of their parents when they were born).

What interests me more is the difficulty so many conservatives have in accepting that Barack Obama is in fact a real American and not some exotic “other”… a “not-one-of-us” kind of person. I often wonder what would have happened if President Obama’s entire narrative had been identical except for one detail. Imagine that his father was not a black “Barack Obama” but a white “Barry O’Brien,” the son of Irish-Kenyan coffee-growers who came to the United States to get his college education.

In that scenario, would there still be a birther movement?


About filistro

Filistro is a Canadian writer and prairie dog who maintains burrows on both sides of the 49th parallel. Like all prairie dogs, she is keenly interested in politics and language. (Prairie dogs have been known to build organized towns the size of Maryland, and are the only furry mammal with a documented language.)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

115 Responses to Birtherism 101

  1. Mr. Universe says:

    Someone asked;Still in the denial phase of political grief?Nope. As far as I’m concerned you did the House a favour and cleaned out the Blue Dogs. And we have the Senate Either you learn to deal and make compromises now or I’m afraid things will look pretty bleak in ’12. Your guys are already overplaying their hand.How long you think the public is going to go for that?(sorry Fili for stealing your first comment and being off topic)

  2. filistro says:

    Note… the first sentence should read *MO* House of Representatives… (It was in the original text but somehow got lost in transition.) Not that it matters… there are a lot of wingers demanding that investigation of President Obama’s citizenship be one of the agenda items in the Big House, too.It would be wonderful for Dems if the GOP is truly dumb enough to grab that sticky wicket… and I think they just might be that dumb.

  3. Mr. Universe says:

    Prediction: Senate Republicans will demand to remove the filibuster rule now that they are with in 3 votes of a majority. Any Takers?

  4. GROG says:

    Mr. U,Getting rid of the blue dogs only made the Democrats that much more of a far left fringe party. The common sense moderates gone.

  5. Mr. Universe says:

    Wonder if they’ll drop this Birther Nonesense now that they have the House and a percieved mentality of discrediting everything Obama does?

  6. Mr. Universe says:

    @GROGAt least we have a pretty unified Fringe instead of two. How’s that working for your side?

  7. filistro says:

    GROG… could you name a few “common sense moderates” on the right?

  8. GROG says:

    @fili,I think this birtherism plays into my theory that you on the left NEED to play the victim card. Obama is a victim of the birther movement and the left needs to keep perpetuating it. You NEED to keep it in the news when it’s not newsworthy or even worthy of blogging about. I’m probably as far right as you get and I think birtherism is ridiculous. I honestly don’t know who, other than the left, talks about it. Ok, so you’ve got Freeperville and a some state rep in MO. So what?

  9. filistro says:

    tag still dangling?

  10. GROG says:

    Were there any Republicans that campaigned on “birtherism”?GROG… could you name a few “common sense moderates” on the right?I think they’re all moderates. 🙂

  11. filistro says:

    Okay. MAN UP, here, everybody. (Hey, I learned that from Sharron Angle… 😉 I want some specific answers to my question. The question is this:Is birtherism motivated by racism?

  12. filistro says:

    @GROG.. I’m probably as far right as you get and I think birtherism is ridiculousTrust me, sweetie… you’re NOT “as far right as you get.”And I predict your party is going to do some things in the next two years that will embarrass and horrify you.

  13. Mr. Universe says:

    And suddenly, as if on cue:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/07/filibuster-reform-dan-coats_n_780098.htmlAnd now back to the birthers

  14. shiloh says:

    Since racism = fear/lack of knowledge. Birtherism is motivated by uneducated yahoo wingers and educated winger politicians who are forever trying to stoke the fires of fear and prejudice in their not too bright lemmings/sheep!This is how Reps er teabaggers roll ie how they win elections!Back to football …carry on

  15. filistro says:

    @Mr U..Filibuster reform… LOL!! Aren’t they just the cutest little buttons? I TOLD you guys this next two years is going to be richly entertaining.The funniest thing about the clown car is… they don’t know they’re clowns!

  16. filistro says:

    Another question… how is it that no Republican you ever talk to will admit to being a birther … or even KNOWING any birthers… and yet polls show at least half of them embrace the possibility the president is not legally qualified to hold office.Something doesn’t quite mesh here.

  17. Jean says:

    All (but especially for Bart):The Tea Party and Religious Right Movements: Frenemies with BenefitsThe explosive growth, visibility and political impact of the Tea Party political movement in less than two years has inevitably led to tensions, jealousies, and jockeying for political position with the Religious Right movement, whose leaders have until now enjoyed being the self-declared voice of the Republican Party’s most active and engaged base. These institutional rivalries, and the ongoing debate about whether conservative candidates should highlight their positions on social issues important to Religious Right leaders as well as the small-government, low-tax message of the Tea Party movement, can mask the extensive overlapping and symbiotic relationships between the two movements at the leadership and activist levels. Despite some disagreements over priorities and political strategies, the two movements are pursuing shared political goals (defeating Democratic candidates and weakening the Obama administration) and policy objectives (most notably the repeal of health care reform legislation) as well as the long-term cultural goal of promoting an “American exceptionalism” that claims a divine mandate for limited government. Most of the federal candidates being backed by the Tea Party movement and being supported by vast sums of money from corporate coffers and anti-government billionaires are not in fact libertarians, but “complete conservatives” who share the Religious Right’s opposition to legal abortion and legal equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.The 2008 election of President Barack Obama and large Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress sent shockwaves through the entire conservative political establishment. Religious Right leaders, who were largely unenthusiastic backers of GOP nominee John McCain until the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, announced well before Obama’s inauguration that they now viewed themselves, in the words of Concerned Women for America’s Wendy Wright, as part of a “resistance movement.” Some conservative strategists began calling immediately for a grassroots movement that would challenge insufficiently conservative Republicans. At the same time, some conservative commentators challenged the prominent public role played by the Religious Right base of the Republican Party. Shortly after the election, pundit Kathleen Parker declared that “Armband religion is killing the Republican Party.” Parker declared that “The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it,” even as she acknowledged the GOP’s dilemma: “But they need those votes!” http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/the-tea-party-and-religious-right-movements-frenemies-with-benefits

  18. filistro says:

    Another great quote from Kathleen Parker:”But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won. Among Jewish voters, 78 percent went for Obama. Sixty-six percent of under-30 voters did likewise. Forty-five percent of voters ages 18-29 are Democrats compared to just 26 percent Republican; in 2000, party affiliation was split almost evenly. The young will get older, of course. Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won’t get whiter. And the nonreligious won’t get religion through external conversion. It doesn’t work that way. Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base — or the nation may need a new party. “Brilliant analysis. It always mystifies me that everybody can see this so plainly… except Republicans.

  19. Jean says:

    fili,I like Parker’s comment “Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won’t get whiter.”They won’t become whiter, but they do, however, become more inclusive. Of my three children, the oldest is like Barack Obama, mixed caucasian/black, my daughter is mixed Jewish/Caucasian and they both tease their younger brother – my youngest son, who is Norwegian on both sides, that he is their “white boy” brother. Best yet, my daughter in April is marrying a Latino of Aztec heritage. So my Jewish daughter and her Latino fiancee now attend Jewish seders with my daughter’s dad, as well as Mexican festivals with her fiancee’s family. This is America I think it is wonderful. It’s VERY difficult to exclude others when they are family.So far as the MO birther, Missouri IS the “show me” state, apparently as in “show me your birth certificate”.However, as neighboring states to MO comment, “Missouri’s slogan should be “Show Me Again But Slower This Time”

  20. filistro says:

    @Jean.. “Show Me Again But Slower This Time”LOLOLOL!!!!

  21. shrinkers says:

    On the filibuster …If the rule changes, I bet the Republicans will regret haveing pushed for change the next time Obama makes a SCOTUS appointment.Come to think if it, they won’t have to wait that long. They’re still holding up several appointments of undersecretaries that Obama made in the first few months of his presidency.Of course, if they’re going to eliminate the filibuster, they also need to eliminate the Secret Hold.

  22. Bart DePalma says:

    Does anyone realize the constitutional crisis that would be caused if Obama did not turn out to be a US citizen two years into a presidential administration?If he was not qualified to be elected President, Obama would never have legally been President.Because we elect President and Vice President teams, if Obama was not legally elected President, Joe Biden is not Vice President.If Obama was not elected President, the order of succession does not come into play. Rather, McCain and Palin should become President and VP with the most votes of anyone legally qualified.Here is the kicker. Everything that Obama signed as President is null and void. There were no appropriations and the government is technically without money.I have no love lost for Obama, but I would never put the country through that.

  23. filistro says:

    @Bart… Does anyone realize the constitutional crisis that would be caused if Obama did not turn out to be a US citizen two years into a presidential administration?Obviously lots of people realize it, but that doesn’t stop them. In fact, that’s the motivation…. mayhem, destruction, and laying waste to government. Scorched earth. At any given time there are at least two or three of these cases making their way through the courts. This one is just the most recent, and fairly high profile.

  24. Mr. Universe says:

    Can you imagine the glee and subsequent writhing on the right if Obama turned out not to be a natural born citizen?Why it would rank right up there with fellatio.

  25. shiloh says:

    Does anyone realize that Bartles is totally (((bat shit crazy!!!))) :-Psole estoy diciendoBartles seriously, go to bed … B)and when you wake up, instead of being obsessed by Obama 24/7, try to cut it down to 23/7.take care, blessings

  26. shrinkers says:

    Ain’t it funny …Wingers bleat so much about this birther nonsense — and when it’s pointed out how absurd they are, we’re playing the “victim card.” LOLIt’s not like wingers didn’t swiftboat Kerry, or dwell on nonsense about Ayres and Rev. Wright and any other irrelevant idiocy they can sink their teeth into. Tell me, how are we supposed to know which items of idiocy should be ignored, and which are going to be believed by the lemming FOXers?Filistro, to answer your question — No, if Obama was white, there wouldn’t be a birther movement. However, they’d find something else equally insane (recall that Bill Clinton was supposed to have murdered his aide), and run with that. The form is racist. But the underlying drive is simple hatred of anything progressive. It adapts to the target. If Obama was Jewish, it would be anti-Semitic. As I understand it, they’ll seize on anything.

  27. Jean says:

    re” Does anyone realize the constitutional crisis that would be caused if Obama did not turn out to be a US citizen two years into a presidential administration?Wow. Bart’s a libertarian birther.

  28. alki says:

    @ filistro…….All this birther crap is evidence of the subliminal racism that continues to exist in this country. Rs deny it left and right and pretend they are way past such sliming but its BS. Just look at American history. All our presidents have been white save one. All our presidents have been Protestant……Presbyterian I believe….save one. Americans love to present to the world how culturally diverse we are and how we are so color blind…but its a bunch of horse puckey. I learned the truth after the Rodney King riots in LA. The white people were incensed that the black people were upset with the verdict and that they had the audacity to riot over the issue.And now its 15 years late and a similar verdict has been handed down in Oakland. It seems nothing has changed in 15 years. And that’s CA…..presumably one of the more open societies in this country.The birther movement exists because its the only way white people can confront Obama’s blackness without getting called a racist. Over 70% of white people voted against Obama’s party. The vast majority of those white people live in the South. How far have we come in the last 100 years? Not as far as we pretend. Tim Wise says it all in his open letter that I posted earlier: http://www.timwise.org/2010/11/an-open-letter-to-the-white-right-on-the-occasion-of-your-recent-successful-temper-tantrum/

  29. alki says:

    @ Bart……I have no love lost for Obama, but I would never put the country through that.*************************************Wow! Your largesse never ceases to underwhelm me. You privately question whether Obama is a real American but you would never make your precious America suffer for his duplicity. Bart, please, stick your faux concern where the sun don’t shine…..and have a miserable week.

  30. robert verdi says:

    for two years we have see the extreme, fringe, racist meme being pushed, while the right was warning about trillion dollar deficits and the perils of QE2. Give it up.

  31. shrinkers says:

    @Robertfor two years we have see the extreme, fringe, racist meme being pushed, while the right was warning about trillion dollar deficits and the perils of QE2. Give it up.What’s wrong with Queen Elizabeth the Second?As for trillion dollar deficits — everyone knows they’re a Bad Thing. Nobody likes them. The current level of deficit was brought on by Republican policies. Obama has reduced the deficit both of the first two fiscal years of his presidency. “Warnings” about “trillion dollar deficits” are unnecessary, because you’re preaching to the choir. So give it up.And as far as the “extreme, fringe, racist meme,” we’ll drop it as soon as you guys stop electing birthers.

  32. GROG says:

    Oh brother. Now the racism meme. Again and again, its always the left who brings up Obama’s race and birtherism. Like Robert said, give it up. It’s been part of the liberal playbook for generations. Manufacture victimhood where it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t fly anymore.

  33. mclever says:

    GROG,It’s not the Left bringing up birtherism when it gets mentioned on Fox News every week. When 40% of self-identified Republicans also express belief in the birtherism conspiracy, then the problem is not on the Left.If you think that pointing out that a problem exists is the same as creating the problem, then you make it impossible for anyone to ever point out problems without being blamed for them.

  34. shortchain says:

    GROG,Just because it isn’t open racism doesn’t mean it isn’t racism. It’s a measure of the progress in this country — progress that the right has resisted every inch of the way — that racism has to pretend that it’s Obama’s “liberalism” (as if he’s somehow more “liberal” than, say, Bill Clinton) that they have a problem with.The only way to avoid seeing this, GROG, is to be willfully blind. It’s been part of the Republican playbook for decades.

  35. filistro says:

    Why do Republicans keep claiming birthersm is “far out, fringe, and extreme?”In two major polls this summer, Republican support for birtherism ranged from 41% to 58%. You can hardly find a Republican lawmaker who will state outright that the President is an American citizen. People as high profile as Mitch McConnell, asked whether the president is a Muslim, says “He claims he’s a Christian. I take him at his word.”Openly birther politicians are elected to state and national offices. And you ask why we keep bringing it up? We bring it up because at least half of you BELIEVE it. And it’s just incredibly ugly politics. As Alki stated so succinctly “Rs deny it left and right and pretend they are way past such sliming but its BS.”I would like to start a pool on when the president’s qualification for office will first be mentioned on the floor of the House in the new legislative session. I’m picking February.

  36. GROG says:

    Mclever,What “problems” are the handful of birthers causing? They’re irrevelant. We’re not out there electing birthers, as shrinkers seems to think. You found one state rep in MO and you’re using that to create a fake image that all Republicans are running around screaming birtherism. It’s just not the case. I assume you’re refering to the CNN poll from last summer in which they polled 285 Republicans. (The same poll found 15% of Democrats are birthers.)So what if 95% of Republicans are birthers? Somebody asked them and they answered. 40% aren’t out there actively trying to get him to resign his presidency.

  37. filistro says:

    So what if 95% of Republicans are birthers? Somebody asked them and they answered. 40% aren’t out there actively trying to get him to resign his presidency.Is is okay for, say, 50% of men to go around openly saying ugly, sexist, suggestive and violent things about women… as long as they’re not “actively” raping anybody?Or for 50% of the population to suggest pedophilia is probably an okay and perfectly understandable urge, as long as they’re not “actively” abusing kids? It’s what a group tolerates that determines how that group will eventually behave.

  38. Todd Dugdale says:

    Even if “birtherism” is racist, I don’t see much advantage in pointing that out. “Racist” now has about as much impact as calling someone an “a**hole”. You can’t prove what is in someone’s mind or what motivates them, and as long as they can deny racism with a straight face, the charge is essentially pointless.Racist or not, the birthers are irrational. They want to see the “long form” certificate. Do you know why the “long form” isn’t accepted as serious documentation to get something like a passport? Because it’s too easily forged! So the birthers are asking for an easily-forged document. And, if it were provided to them, they would immediately claim that it’s forged. And we are back to Square One, aren’t we? Because it’s not about the birth certificate. It’s about the birthers refusing to believe that the President has any legitimacy at all. You can’t reason with that. It’s like quoting the Bible to an atheist to prove Jesus existed. Calling the atheist an “anti-Nazarene” isn’t going to get you anywhere, is it?

  39. GROG says:

    Is it OK that 15% of Democrats are birthers? If not, why didn’t you mention that in your article? Is it because it doesn’t fit into your Democrats are victims are Republicans meme.

  40. filistro says:

    @GROG…

    This logic simply escapes me.

    “So what if half of us do it? A handful of your guys do it too, so there!”

    Grog, Grog…

  41. GROG says:

    How does this possibly escape you, fili?Is it acceptable to you that 15% of Democrats are birthers?

  42. filistro says:

    The thing about birtherism is that it is a meme in search of a justification.. and numerous possible justifications are brought forward, which is always an indicator of speciousness. Instead of saying, “we’ve discovered serious evidence the president might not be legitimate and we need to look into it,” the R’s are saying “there’s no way this guy is legitimate. Let’s find some grounds to disqualify him.”I’ve outlined two of the commonest “birther” grounds… there is yet another one, the “Indonesian citizen” argument. This argues that Obama’s mother “switched his citizenship to Indonesian” while they lived in that country, in order to enroll him in school. This persists among birthers even though American law specifically states that one person cannot revoke the citizenship of another… that must be done voluntarily by an individual on his own behalf after reaching the age of majority.Birtherism is simply an ugly smear on a fishing expedition. The issue is not the fact of birtherism per se but the WHY.. why is it happening, and why is it widely tolerated by a major political party.

  43. filistro says:

    Is it acceptable to you that 15% of Democrats are birthers?No. It’s also completely unacceptable to me that 17% of Democrats wear black socks with sandals.But since it’s a free country, the only recourse I can see is not electing these people to political office.

  44. mclever says:

    GROG,Your denial of the problem doesn’t make it go away. It’s not a “handful”, it’s nearly half of the Republican party, as shown in multiple polls, and not just the flawed CNN poll. The number who believe Obama increased over the summer.Michelle Bachman is a Birther, and she’s in office. Mitch McConnell, Alan Keyes, Richard Shelby, Roy Blunt, Sarah Palin, David Vitter, Jean Schmidt, and on and on. These are people who have been elected to office and who advocate birtherism. It gets airplay from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, G. Gordon Liddy, Lars Larson, Bob Grant, Jim Quinn, Rose Tennent, Barbara Simpson, and Mark Davis. Even CNN’s Lou Dobbs has advocated birtherism on his show! Birtherism actively supported by WorldNetDaily, the Constitution Party, the We The People Foundation, and others. Even conservative commentators such as Michelle Malkin will deny birtherism while simultaneously saying, “there may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here”, thus having it both ways with the conspiracy theorists.So, what’s the problem?The continued questioning of Obama’s legitimacy undermines our nation’s cohesion. Even Bart admits it would be logistically problematic should the birthers be right. The birther conspiracy further incites white supremacist groups by lending legitimacy to the view that a black man shouldn’t be President. This has resulted in increased death threats against Obama and other security issues for him and for our country. The movement has spawned over a dozen civil and criminal cases which waste taxpayer dollars in reviewing that (yet again) Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is in fact legitimate. He was born on USA soil to a USA citizen mother, and is a “natural born” USA citizen. But this has to be proven again and again as the birthers keep pushing their arguments through the courts. If I recall, a new case just opened in Tennessee last month, so this isn’t an issue that’s going away.Furthermore, the constant need to address the birther issue makes it difficult for moderate conservatives to function, because congressmen are continually bombarded with calls and letters about Obama’s birth certificate, and one Congressman was even booed at his own “town hall” meeting for stating that Obama was a citizen. (Mike Castle, 2009) I could go on and on with the fallout issues, but I think you get the point.When elected Republicans and right-wing talk show hosts stop giving tacit lip-service to the conspiracy, and when Republicans stop bringing up lawsuits that question Obama’s natural-born legitimacy, THEN the liberals will stop pointing out that it’s all a bunch of horse hockey!That’s what’s so what if 95% of Republicans were birthers.

  45. GROG says:

    Interesting that you didn’t mention that in your article.

  46. shiloh says:

    grog Oh brother. Now the racism meme.If I had a nickle for every time at 538 grog disingenuously exasperated ad nauseam re: a racism discussion or more to the point grog (((initiated said racism discussion))) …I’d have a lot of nickles! :-Pbtw grog, re: 15% of Democrats are birthers, 14% of White Democrats voted for McCaingrog again, you ask a lot of really stupid questions …take care, blessings

  47. filistro says:

    Interesting that you didn’t mention that in your article.Why is that “interesting?”

  48. shrinkers says:

    @GROGIs it acceptable to you that 15% of Democrats are birthers?(BTW: have you a poll to link to on this?)At least 15% of anything is crap. And that’s a conservative estimate — Theodore Sturgeon claimed the actual ratio to be 90%. So speaking personally, no it doesn’t bother me. I*’m happy to belong to a party that’s only 15% insane.What bothers me is 1) the lunacy of birtherism in general, and 2) the coy wink-and-a-nudge that it gets from elected Republicans, and 3) its wide acceptance among the nutbat Teapers. To have a few crazies within any given group is unavoidable. The negative consequences of that are manageable, if the idiocy is soundly and unmistakably condemned, as the Democratic establishment does.To have a major political party implicitly accept that insanity for purposes of gaining partisan advantage, heedless of its effect on the nation, is deplorable. To have a loud political movement openly espousing such racist garbage is dangerous.

  49. shrinkers says:

    See, I think there’s a reason a lot of right wingers want us to stop bringing up how insane birtherism is. Without anyone contradicting it, the absurd can be made to sound reasonable. John Kerry found out in 2004 that to not reply to insanity lets that unchallenged insanity stand as being (literally) the last word on the topic.Regardless of GROG’s distaste for having the truth point out, birtherism is not only crazy, but common among Republicans. It is a meme being pushed for the purpose of inciting hatred and legitimizing the idea that the President is somehow not really the President. It’s a way to kept the fear and hatred alive, to keep the nutbat base fired up for the next election. So GROG plays the “you’re playing the victim card” card. Too bad. We’re confronting a real and present problem. That it ticks you off may be an indication of how important it is to do it.

  50. mclever says:

    Because it came up, I’ll add that I’m not happy that 15% of Democrats buy into the birther conspiracy. But, 15% of Democrats also voted for McCain, which is pretty typical for Democratic cohesion, or lack thereof. However, I’ll note that 15%<50% (and in some surveys as high as 58% of Republicans support the "birther" conspiracy). Given that the vast majority of believers are conservative and that the theory and its support originated with right-wing groups, it seems fair to me to consider this a Republican/Conservative pushed meme.Furthermore, the 15% of Democrats who might believe a dingbat theory are marginalized when the Democratic leadership plainly condemns it as nonsense. In contrast, I’ve already provided ample evidence of Republican leaders and spokesmen who openly endorse the nutball theory. (I was equally annoyed at any Democrat who publicly endorsed the “9/11 Truth” mythology, too. Don’t get me started on that, because my tone of genial reasonableness might come unhinged!)As an aside, I’ll also add that I realize that Democrats aren’t perfect or pure with regard to race issues, and I believe that the percentage of true “racists” is very small in both parties. Obviously, there are exceptions on both sides. But in the case of “birtherism”, the vast majority of avid believers are undeniably on the Right side of the fence.

  51. mclever says:

    Just for GROG:Examples of *elected* Republicans endorsing the birtherism conspiracy:Free Republic: TN Republicans join lawsuit to demand Obama’s birth certificate.Knox News: TN Republicans join Republican Caucus Chairman in lawsuit to force Obama to show his birth certificate.Those are just a couple of quick links regarding one of the dozens of lawsuits enjoined by Republicans and/or Conservative agitators with regard to the issue of Obama’s legitimacy as a USA citizen. There’s also 15 members of the Republican House of Representatives, and the Arizona House actually passed a birther-based resolution. There was Florida Rep Bill Posey’s bill in the House, which had 12 other Republican Congressmen sign on, plus endorsement from Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn…Still think no elected Republicans are pushing this issue? Still think it isn’t impacting the business of our nation?

  52. Granite1 says:

    Your point on Indonesian citizenship is quite true, but there is another way to show that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen. That is simply to call the Indonesian Embassy and ASK. The press officer will tell anyone who calls that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen, never was adopted while in Indonesia, never legally changed his name while in Indonesia and never had an Indonesian passport.

  53. Ellen says:

    Re: “Glenn Beck.’Actually, Glenn Beck, along with Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly, have called birthers crazy.

  54. filistro says:

    Thank you Granite. Excellent point, but of course much too sensible for Republicans who just KNOW there’s a pony somewhere under that pile of horse manure, if they only keep digging… Here’s a new one for the birther collection (posted today at FR, dateline Miami Gardens, FL:)”Last year, when Marco Rubio was asked if he thought President Obama’s birth certificate was fake when speaking in front of a Tea Party crowd, Rubio replied, “I don’t know the answer to that.”Rubio declines to say whether President Obama is a U.S. citizen. In a profile in the Miami Herald, “[Rubio] declines to venture an opinion on President Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship. ‘I don’t know the answer to that,’ Rubio equivocated when asked at the GOP women’s club whether the president’s birth certificate is valid. Rubio’s response signals that he’s moved farther to the right since term limits forced him out of the Florida House last year though he said during the trip, ‘I won’t change who I am to get elected.'” (Miami Herald, “Marco Rubio Warming Up Panhandle Voters”,11/2/09 )”

  55. mclever says:

    filistro,Your example of Rubio provides an excellent instance of a Republican pandering to the conspiracy theorists rather than denouncing their folly. His answer should have been, “Of course his birth certificate is valid. The Republican Governor of Hawaii and Republican Secretary of State have confirmed it. Now, let’s move on to something that actually has relevance to our country, like Jobs.”

  56. shortchain says:

    Italics off.Oh, and, based on the time I’ve spent out in the small towns, ranches, and farms, mclever, I think un-reconstructed racists of the old stripe are still quite plentiful. And, thanks to the way rural America is over-represented in our representative democracy, they have plenty of sway.

  57. filistro says:

    @ mclever.. Your example of Rubio provides an excellent instance of a Republican pandering to the conspiracy theorists rather than denouncing their folly. The GOP dilemma with birtherism reminds me of the old joke about the family who takes their teenage daughter to a psychiatrist because for the past ten years she’s believed she is a chicken.”This long-term delusion has done irreparable damage to her psyche,” the doctor tells them. “Why on earth didn’t you seek treatment earlier?””We knew we should get help for her,” the family replies, “but we needed the eggs.”The GOP leaders know that if they openly and honestly denounce bitherism, they will enrage at least a third of their racist, xenophobic party, and lose their votes. But in the long run, this kind of pandering is a dangerous cancer that will eat at the party’s viability and strength from the inside out.They will pay dearly in future for all those eggs they’re getting from their birthers.

  58. American by Birth says:

    You say “Eleanor Nordyke, a demographic scientist who gave birth to her twin daughters in the same maternity ward as Obama’s mother and has described the experience to various journalists. (Place-of-birthers dismiss Nordyke’s testimony as “senile lies”).”OK, if this is the case, then we should quite easily be able to determine the MD who delivered, etc., etc. But it seems like no one is really sure where he was born. Kapiolani? Queens? On the beach?Simple question. Why can’t “No Drama Obama” give a simple answer with supporting documentation?

  59. mclever says:

    shortchain,I have the benefit of family on both sides of the rural divide. (My father’s side are mostly farmers. The rest work for John Deere, are military, the schoolteacher/housewife of said military/farmers, or they’re missionaries overseas. My cousins live in a town of less than 200… But my spouse’s family are from Buffalo, Queens, and San Diego… I’ve lived in LA, Chicago, Dallas, and Atlanta.)I know more intimately than most urbanites both the overt and covert racism that can and does exist in isolated rural communities. When I was growing up, my mother said all of the correct things about “accepting people no matter how they look” and whatnot, but she never had to put those words into practice, because she lives in a tiny, white, Protestant town. The only “minorities” were the one family that all had red hair instead of blond, and I’m only exaggerating slightly. But, I ventured to the big city for school and roomed with an African American in college, which definitely opened my eyes to how folks from home sometimes say the most ignorantly racist things that they don’t even understand how or why they are racist. I’ve got dozens of funny (and not so funny) anecdotes from my family experience. I’ll share one about my mother visiting me in LA, and we went to the Paseo in Pasadena. While walking through the center of the open-air mall, we passed Koreans, Indians, Mexicans, blacks, and others of various cultural mixes, many of whom weren’t speaking English. When we stopped for coffee, my mother sat wide-eyed watching the people and said essentially, “I can’t believe all of these different people are intermingled here without fighting.” I struggled mightily to avoid spewing my latte all over her lap as I choked back a laugh. She seriously expected that minorities and whites couldn’t co-mingle without violence. Sheesh!Now, you might disagree, but I don’t think people like my mother are really racist in the hateful meaning of the term. She’s an otherwise intelligent woman who simply has no life experience with minorities, except the occasional frustration in dealing with “brown people who won’t speak proper English” to her when she visits the nearby “city” of 40,000. She doesn’t hate minorities or black people, she just has no concept of their perspective.What frustrates me is that she has no inclination to educate herself enough to put her voiced ideals into actual practice, so that she wouldn’t say (or think) things that are only “OK” within the confines of her lily-white friendship circle where everyone knows she didn’t mean it that awful racist way that some people might twist it to mean. Because of ignorance of minorities, and the tendency of humans to fear the unknown, people like my mother are prime candidates for birtherism and similar fringe ideas that play on fear of others. Falling for a racist conspiracy doesn’t necessarily make them racist, though I will readily admit that many birthers are motivated by racism.

  60. filistro says:

    Perhaps this will answer some of your questions.(But I suspect not.)

  61. filistro says:

    above post and link in reply to “American by Birth.” (Gee, what a CUTE little username!)

  62. mclever says:

    @ American By Birth:Obama was born in Honolulu’s Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital, as confirmed in 2008 by the Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health who reviewed his original birth certificate that Hawaii keeps on file. Eleanor Nordyke remembers being in the same hospital giving birth to her twins who attended the same school in Hawaii with Obama.There’s no confusion there.Why can’t “No Drama Obama” give a simple answer with supporting documentation?Because Hawaii state law prohibits showing the original long-form birth certificate. Hawaii Statute 338-18 states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part on any such record … “Seems straightforward enough. The Hawaii officials provided the documentation to meet the federal standards of proof of birth, the same standards as required for a passport. Now, the question becomes, why can’t birthers accept the reasonable and complete proof that has already been provided?

  63. mclever says:

    filistro,Your link to the Honolulu Advertiser is excellent. The next time my aunt forwards me another Birther petition, I’ll reply with that link…:-)

  64. GROG says:

    Mclever said:,i>It’s not the Left bringing up birtherism when it gets mentioned on Fox News every week. When 40% of self-identified Republicans also express belief in the birtherism conspiracy, then the problem is not on the Left.Really? Fox News brings it EVERY week? Proof?When a leftwing pollster asks a question and a person anonymously responds, I don’t think they are outwardly “expressing” or as shrinkers says “espousing”, support for birterism.You guys are really stretching here.

  65. shortchain says:

    mclever,There is no moral law that says that people who are racist are not, otherwise, fine, decent human beings, a credit to their species.Based on my experiences — and it spans more than half a century — what you will find out there in the small communities, on the ranches and farms, is indeed, a huge contingent of very good people. But when the men get together and discuss the events of the day, and the current president comes up, it’s N-word this and N-word that, and racism in its full and ugly flower is displayed.Out there men don’t talk freely when women are around, so you don’t tend to hear this in mixed company.Now, you may very well be right that this is only nascent racism, since there isn’t any real opportunity to practice discrimination (except against the Indians, Bohunks, Finns, Swedes, and/or liberals, or whoever the local pariahs happen to be) — but the GOP, when campaigning out there, makes it very clear that a vote for the Democrat is a vote to exalt the wrong kind of people.And the people vote on this basis to a significant degree. It used to never affect elections, as the local nominees from either party were no different. But, by making the 2010 election a “choice” election, and by the GOP and teapers making it, from there, side, a “referendum” on Obama (not, as Bart claims, on his policies — I doubt more than 10 percent can do anything but mouth a few talking points in the way of coherent explanation of policies), the result, in the rural areas, became subject to the basest of human qualities.Which, I still maintain, is what drives the birthers.

  66. GROG says:

    shrinky said:To have a loud political movement openly espousing such racist garbage is dangerous.You have still failed to explain where the “loud policical movement” is because there isn’t one. Sorry to disappoint you.

  67. Mainer says:

    I guess most rural areas have their birthers and so does mine. We are an interesting area in some ways. One of the whitest countys in the country we do still have a handful of minorities and how they came to be here makes up some pretty good stories. But as I said we do have our birthers and once again the county went Republican across the board. I was in the local store the other day and one teaper,conservoregressive was holding court in the entry loudly putting forth how the new congress would have Obama in jail before June or deported because impeachment was too good for him and that they would start with his fraudulent citizenship…..a wonderful lady on her way out said just loud enough for most to hear that he might want to be careful because if they created a new standard for the president that it would have to be applied to the rest of the population and he and the rest of his family would be back residing in Quebec……execpt for the ones already in jail here. Talk about the air going out of a space. I thought I was going to fall over laughing along with every one but the up to then principal speaker. We so need a Will Rogers again.

  68. filistro says:

    @GROG… Really? Fox News brings it EVERY week? Proof? Here you go…“Prolonged media attention to the “birther” conspiracy and framing of Obama as a Marxist or socialist are also integrally related to construction of Obama as the brown, foreign, religious fanatic other. A Lexis Nexis search of the terms “Obama” and “birth certificate” from January through December 2009 finds nearly three dozen programs on the topic run on Fox News, or an average of nearly three per month. Similarly, a search of “Obama” and “Marxism” finds nearly three dozen Fox stories, while a search of “Obama” and “socialism” finds more than 300 stories.”

  69. filistro says:

    @GROG: Really? Fox News brings it EVERY week? Proof? Here you go… “Prolonged media attention to the “birther” conspiracy and framing of Obama as a Marxist or socialist are also integrally related to construction of Obama as the brown, foreign, religious fanatic other. A Lexis Nexis search of the terms “Obama” and “birth certificate” from January through December 2009 finds nearly three dozen programs on the topic run on Fox News, or an average of nearly three per month. Similarly, a search of “Obama” and “Marxism” finds nearly three dozen Fox stories, while a search of “Obama” and “socialism” finds more than 300 stories.”

  70. shiloh says:

    @mcleverBut, 15% of Democrats also voted for McCain~~~~~Actually no, it was 10%.@grogYou guys are really stretching here.~~~~~The irony as grog has been stretching his winger world view er spin 24/7 since he first appeared at 538. grog, if you have a problem w/said statements, prove them wrong instead of whining.just a suggestion …take care

  71. filistro says:

    @GROG: Really? Fox News brings it EVERY week? Proof? Here you go… “Prolonged media attention to the “birther” conspiracy and framing of Obama as a Marxist or socialist are also integrally related to construction of Obama as the brown, foreign, religious fanatic other. A Lexis Nexis search of the terms “Obama” and “birth certificate” from January through December 2009 finds nearly three dozen programs on the topic run on Fox News, or an average of nearly three per month. Similarly, a search of “Obama” and “Marxism” finds nearly three dozen Fox stories, while a search of “Obama” and “socialism” finds more than 300 stories.”

  72. filistro says:

    test… (moderation) ACK!

  73. filistro says:

    @GROG: Really? Fox News brings it EVERY week? Proof? “Prolonged media attention to the “birther” conspiracy and framing of Obama as a Marxist or socialist are also integrally related to construction of Obama as the brown, foreign, religious fanatic other. A Lexis Nexis search of the terms “Obama” and “birth certificate” from January through December 2009 finds nearly three dozen programs on the topic run on Fox News, or an average of nearly three per month. Similarly, a search of “Obama” and “Marxism” finds nearly three dozen Fox stories, while a search of “Obama” and “socialism” finds more than 300 stories.”

  74. GROG says:

    To recap, our “birther movement” consists of the following:-A MO state rep-A few TN state reps-Free Republic bloggersThat’s amazing.

  75. filistro says:

    ..and a brand new Senator.. dozens of House members…

  76. shiloh says:

    grog, don’t winger trolls believe in polls sayin’ Reps are still obsessed w/Obama’s birth certificate?just wonderin’ok, after Nate has totally destroyed (((Rasmussen’s credibility))) after this past election cycle one can see why you’d be wary of polls loltake care grog as you’re ignorant spin is somewhat amusing …

  77. filistro says:

    Hey Grog.. “Prolonged media attention to the “birther” conspiracy and framing of Obama as a Marxist or socialist are also integrally related to construction of Obama as the brown, foreign, religious fanatic other. A Lexis Nexis search of the terms “Obama” and “birth certificate” from January through December 2009 finds nearly three dozen programs on the topic run on Fox News, or an average of nearly three per month. Similarly, a search of “Obama” and “Marxism” finds nearly three dozen Fox stories, while a search of “Obama” and “socialism” finds more than 300 stories.”

  78. filistro says:

    @GROG: Really? Fox News brings it EVERY week? Proof? Here you go… “Prolonged media attention to the “birther” conspiracy and framing of Obama as a Marxist or socialist are also integrally related to construction of Obama as the brown, foreign, religious fanatic other. A Lexis Nexis search of the terms “Obama” and “birth certificate” from January through December 2009 finds nearly three dozen programs on the topic run on Fox News, or an average of nearly three per month. Similarly, a search of “Obama” and “Marxism” finds nearly three dozen Fox stories, while a search of “Obama” and “socialism” finds more than 300 stories.”

  79. GROG says:

    So fili…were these 36 Fox News stories that truth-out.org found on nexis lexis positive or negative stories on birtherism? Or were they just reporting on birtherism like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS have reported on birtherism?Google “obama birth certificate ABC News” and tell me what you find.

  80. GROG says:

    I’m sure truth-out.org searched how many stories the other news networks ran on birtherism?

  81. filistro says:

    GROG… your question was Fox News brings it EVERY week? Proof?I provided the proof you requested… whereupon you instantly changed the question. If you actually READ the truthout article, you’ll find the author also criticizes the “racist” bias in much of the mainstream (ie, not FOX) media. Just curious.. why are you resisting this so furiously? Do you really think you can convince people there’s no birther movement, or are you ashamed or worried by your own party’s behavior, or what? Your reaction is puzzling to me.

  82. shiloh says:

    ‘m sure truth-out.org searched how many stories the other news networks ran on birtherism?grog, the above is a deflection.Red herrings are normally used when one has lost the debate/discussion!take care

  83. shortchain says:

    ummm, GROG, I suggest that you instead use “obama birth certificate abcnews.go.com” — as otherwise you’ll get all the stories that mention ABC, News, and the rest.And if you do, you’ll find that there’s basically a story — and then a whole bunch of stories that talk about the story. Notably mention on Fox News.So it’s hardly worthwhile to use your technique.Try again. Perhaps you can develop the skills required to actually, you know, support your position.

  84. dr_funguy says:

    Based on the sophomoric nature of his comments, my hypothesis is that Grog is very young – high school or early 20’s at most and is very pleased with the attention lavished on ‘him’ on this site. Why else would ‘he’ spend so much timing trying to engage here without actually providing anything of, you know, substance? Our other resident wingers are either bipolar (mule, BDP) or actually reasonable and interested in informed debate (Jeff)…

  85. filistro says:

    While you’re busy researching, GROG, you might also look up “Bill HR 1503” which is an actual Republican-sponsored bill in the House of Representatives related to this “tiny fringe extremist movement” that doesn’t actually… you know.. exist (except in the fevered liberal imagination 😉

  86. shiloh says:

    C’mon you guys, stop pickin’ on my buddy grog 😛

  87. filistro says:

    DOC… I believe GROG is a solid citizen, middle-aged, a businessman, husband and father. He’s also a pretty cool guy except for that unfortunate tilt to the right (which is perhaps the result of an early TBI 🙂

  88. GROG says:

    @filistro,Fox News bringing up birtherism was used to support the argument that there is a birther movement. I pointed out that all the major news networks have mentioned birtherism as much as Fox News has.The whole birther movement argument is a farce. It’s pathetic.

  89. GROG says:

    Thanks fili. You’re exactly right. And I am extremely fond of you, as you already know. (I really am.) Dr. funguy just doesn’t know me very well. He’ll come around.

  90. shiloh says:

    FiliThe whole birther movement argument is a farce. It’s patheticgrog just ended the discussion lolor some such nonsense …

  91. shiloh says:

    Dr. funguy just doesn’t know me very well. He’ll come around.Fili is empathetic, whereas Doc is spot on! grog, like Bartles, is a quick study …

  92. Mainer says:

    No GROG the concern over the birther movement isn’t what is pathetic…..it is that there even is such a group and that main stream Republicans haven’t guts to put it in its place…to not do so is to tacitly approve of it or worse.I can’t think about this birther crap with out thinking about John McCain on the campaign trail in 2008 being confronted by that whack job calling the president a Muslim. Now to his complete credit McCain called her on it and did the right thing, hey it may have cost him votes, who knows? But he did what many others could do and don’t. Now I don’t know where McCain is now with it as he has morphed so baddly of late but the real story probably wasn’t even him doing the right thing. I will never forget the saddness on his face at that moment and the look of resignation……Could at that moment McCain the grand old war horse have come to grips with just what his party and his campaign had become? We will never know but that has stuck with me since that moment.

  93. marc miwerdz says:

    Rampant pander-monium going on

  94. shrinkers says:

    @GROGI’m also curious about filistro’s question. Please let me repeat it here:Just curious.. why are you resisting this so furiously? Do you really think you can convince people there’s no birther movement, or are you ashamed or worried by your own party’s behavior, or what? Your reaction is puzzling to me.

  95. GROG says:

    @Mainer,The so called “birther movement” is non-existent. As I’ve said, it’s something the left the needs to perpetuate and keep in the news so it can push it’s victimhood agenda. Nothing more. Freedictionary.com defines “political movement” as a “group of people working together to achieve a political goal”. All you (still) have is:-A MO state rep-A few TN state reps-Free Republic bloggersNo one has been able to show how the 41% of people from the CNN poll, Michelle Bachman, Mitch McConnell, Alan Keyes, Richard Shelby, Roy Blunt, Sarah Palin, David Vitter or Jean Schmidt have been working together to acheive the political goal of “birtherism”.

  96. GROG says:

    @shrinkers,I just posted a comment that never appeared that answered the question.My answer is that there is no “birther movement”. Thus far you have:-A MO state rep-A few TN state reps-Free Republic bloggrersThere is no movement. Freedictionary.com defines political movement as “a group of people working together to achieve a political goal”. Tell me how Bachmann or Mcconnell is part of group “working together to achieve a political goal”.It’s a leftwing, make believe movement created to perpetuate the victimhood meme.

  97. filistro says:

    @GROG.. There is no movement. Freedictionary.com defines political movement as “a group of people working together to achieve a political goal”. I see you haven’t as yet gotten around to looking up Bill HR 1503…

  98. shiloh says:

    grog, your debate style er lack thereof, is nothing but bob and weave, song and dance, nonsensical deflections.Thanx for playin’ :)You’re excused …

  99. mclever says:

    GROG,Your list of who is in the birther movement is radically incomplete. You’re conveniently ignoring several other mentions even on this blog, and all of the ones thus far put forth as examples are in no way a comprehensive listing of those who are endorsing and furthering the “birther” fallacy. Your protestations seem disingenuous to me. Can you really be denying that there are conservative elements pushing the idea that Obama’s birth is illegitimate?

  100. filistro says:

    @GROG.. There is no movement. Freedictionary.com defines political movement as “a group of people working together to achieve a political goal”.You obviously didn’t look up Bill HR 1503.

  101. GROG says:

    @fili,It seems that you would be in favor of HR 1503 as it would prevent any future controversies regarding a president’s birth certificate. That is what you want after all? Right?

  102. GROG says:

    HR 1503 would require all future candidates to supply proof (in the form of a valid birth certificate) when establishing a presidential campaign.Are you saying you’re opposed to that?

  103. shiloh says:

    It seems that grog can’t stop deflecting as he avoids answering all questions thrown his way …Not a surprise.

  104. GROG says:

    mclever:Can you really be denying that there are conservative elements pushing the idea that Obama’s birth is illegitimate?Not at all. There is a small fringe element, but it certainly is not a Republican or mainstream conservative movement as the left would like everyone to believe. It’s like spotting one racist sign at a Tea Party rally with 100,000 people and the left claiming all Tea Partiers are racist. And they claim it in the name of “messaging”. It’s BS.

  105. shiloh says:

    grog, all presidential candidates are already required to be natural born citizen per the U.S. Constitution:No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.Again grog, thanx for playin’ :-Ptake care, blessings

  106. shrinkers says:

    I get it. GROG is playing semantic games. He says there’s no “movement,” the way Bart says there is no Tea “Party.”What there is, however, is a concept, the idea that Obama may not be a citizen. This concept is being pushed by FOX News, virtually all of the right-wing radio entertainers, and a handful of elected Republicans. The rest of the Republican Party tolerates and winks at this concept, refusing to dispute it. It’s a popular idea among Teapers and Freepers and other right-wing crazies (who, by the way, Bart insists account for maybe 40% of the American public). It’s an idea embraced by about 50% of Republicans, according to reputable polls.But it’s not a “movement” because it doesn’t have membership cards and secret handshakes and a published Manifesto. It’s just one of those common lies the Republican Party (and its owners, FOX News) uses to spread fear and hate.

  107. dr_funguy says:

    Well, I’ll take your opinion under consideration but I also have to way the evidence.Apologies to sophomores.

  108. Jean says:

    Mclever,re: It’s not the Left bringing up birtherism when it gets mentioned on Fox News every week. When 40% of self-identified Republicans also express belief in the birtherism conspiracy, then the problem is not on the Left.Well, you have to consider that the choice made by a seventeen year old white Christian girl from Kansas, was all part of her evil plan, to have a son, who would one day become President, and have America become a Muslim nation.You know how teenage white girls are. They are always plotting long term world changing events (snark)

  109. American by Birth says:

    Yes yes yes. I am absolutely convinced that bho was born in the Kap. Now I have to go swear out a warrant against my brother who was born there for showing his COPY of his Certificate of Live Birth to me when I had no authority to view it.Man, how could we have ever doubted the smartest man EVAHS, even though he spent countless thousands of dollars to make us doubt. Maybe he was trying to keep people employed and provide a little bit of entertainment for a bunch of whack jobs.Remember this the next time you question anyone who will not give you a straight from the horses ass (or mouth) answer. They are telling the truth. You just don’t have a right or reason to know.

  110. filistro says:

    ABB… just curous… how do you whackos explain the notification of Obama’s birth in two Hawaiian newspapers, when those announcements were sent to the papers FROM THE HOSPITALS. (as is explained in the link I sent you above.)I guess you just conveniently ignore that fact, eh? After all, wingers never let facts get in the way of a good freak-out.

  111. shiloh says:

    Fili, at first thought ABB’s post was Poe’s Law but it’s soooo disjointed/discombobulated decided it was best to ignore it altogether. ;)but like Bartles, if I were to guess 😛 I’d say it was tongue-in-cheek …

  112. filistro says:

    ABB… here is the article.And here is he key info…In November 2008, The Advertiser reported that the first published mention of the future president appeared in a Sunday Advertiser birth announcement that ran on Aug. 13, 1961:”Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4.”The identical announce- ment ran the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.Birthers wave off those birth announcements, saying that Obama family members 48 years ago could have phoned in false information to both newspapers.Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said.”Birth announcements from the public ran elsewhere in both papers and usually included information such as the newborn’s name, weight and time of birth.”Take a second and think about that,” wrote Robert Farley of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times’ Pulitzer Prize winning Web site PoliticFact.com on July 1. “In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers — on the off chance this unnamed child might want to one day be president of the United States.”But of course… FEEL FREE TO IGNORE IT… because REAL wingnuts don’t need no stinkin’ facts….

  113. filistro says:

    @shiloh… I’d say it was tongue-in-cheek …Oh, I don’t think so. ABB sounds too much like the rocket scientists one runs into in the birther threads at Freeperville.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s