The Birther Crew

Post Reply New Topic

President Pelosi wouldn't be that bad. At least she wouldn't be speaker any more.

The purpose of the poll was to find out Republican attitudes towards Obama. I don't see how that in and of itself makes their methodology unsound. If they wanted to find out how Democrats felt about Cheney, that would be a separate poll. Of course Democrats would almost universally have a negative impression of Cheney, but I doubt that 24% of them would say he was the antichrist.


The OP was talking about the birthers in the context of the Republican Party, and the poll I gave was in reference to Republicans. As far as tea party = GOP, close to half the teabaggers are Republicans. The other half are almost all "Independents" who are a mix of libertarians, conservative-leaning independents, and assorted right-wingers who for various reasons do not formally affiliate with the GOP (usually because they are farther right). One thing is certain, the Tea Parties sure as hell are not a liberal movement.


NeantHumain referred to the Birthers as a "core constituency," meaning that they were a significant part of the Republican base. This is true simply by saying that the Birthers support Republicans, and a significant portion of Republicans are Birthers. You changed that around by misappropriating one word and trying to make it about whether Kenyan Obama conspiracy theories were the "core" of the Tea Party movement. No, probably not, they would find some other issue, but that's not what was being discussed. The problem is that you tried to shift the basis of the discussion away from its focus in what seemed like a very dishonest way.

I don't doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii, but I agree with your first sentence. It might help to note that the term "conspiracy theory" coming from the self-styled voice of reason Mr Orwell is a bit like the word "fascist" coming from a Marxist, i.e., pretty much meaningless.

I dunno, I think probably more 24% would say he's the antichrist, the only reason it wouldn't be higher is because they're not that religious not because they're more sensible or less partisan. I think you get my point about questions like that tho.

You said that birthers were "undoubtedly the core of the Teabagger movement" in your first post, I don't think I was being dishonest with the way I used it.

Thats probably a pretty reasonable position. In a situation where the dual citizen had spent some formative years in both countries, I could see issues potentially arise.

Having someone forswear their alternate citizenship under duress isnt necessarily going to change their feelings. In fact it might harden their hearts with determination. You might end up with a legislator with a secret allegiance.

So maybe its better off that dual citizens never hold office? I'd more trust someone that sticks to their principals than one that mouths the words everyone wants to hear.

So the other issue I wanted to ask you about is that of the adult who makes a rational and clear headed adoption of some creed. For example, the Christians with the deepest faith and loyalty seem to be those that adopted their faith rather than being born into it. I know you are conservative, but I dont know where you fit into that view. I'm an pearlist, but I recognize that faith is strongest in those who choose it.

It seems to me that an affirmation of that calibre would be nothing but laudable. As ruveyn said, there is little doubt that Arnold embodies the American spirit and loves his adoptive country above all else. His politics might not be agreeable, but his intentions for America are nothing but the best. Yet the door to the presidency is open to worse men than he.

You need to understand that there is a rule of law on the ability to hold public office. There was talk (before Obama) of getting rid of the "natural born" requirement, but that requires an amendment of the Constitution; which has not happened.

So, if Obama did con everyone with an abstract of his birth record when the actual document on file says he wasn't born in Hawaii, it means he has total disregard for the very rule of law he is sworn to uphold. It is a mockery of the legal and political process. It is the ultimate disenfranchisement because people are encouraged to support someone who cannot hold office.

In the meantime, Obama has access to things he'd otherwise be barred from having access to and placed in a position to do many things that could seriously harm the national security of the nation. If he committed fraud to obtain his office, on what basis should one believe that he will act with the nation's best interests at heart?

If it was proven that Obama is not a "natural born" American, he would likely be removed from office and Biden would finish his term. The political stain would likely keep Biden from ever becoming president. However, the bigger issue is that the whole electoral process was corrupted. McCain was denied a victory he should have had by default. Clinton was denied a nomination she would have gotten but for Obama being selected over her. The people were sold on someone unable to lawfully hold office rather than some other eligible candidate who was brushed aside because of Obama's charisma.

While I can see the virtue of spending time and energy focusing on Obama not being re-elected as compared to focusing on this issue, the fact remains that every day Obama sits in office illicitly means another day he can do untold damage to the nation. During Obama's tenure, he's already acted contrary to many of his "reform" promises made during the campaign and largely ignores experts in favor of his own beliefs and agendas. We're not even 2 years into his first term. By the time the first 4 years are over, it might be too much damage to ever undo.



Indeed, that is always a possibility, but someone running for office is subjected to scrutiny (look at recent Supreme Court nominees). As a result, people will examine a person's life to see if that renunciation is sincere or just a public act to sell an image.

I personally thing Obama is worse than pond scum purely based on facts documenting his political rise to power before even running for president. He's doing exactly what I figured he would do if he got into office...regardless of what he said he was going to do. His public acts to appear "presidential" didn't work on me. They were all flash, no substance or sincerity.

The same would be true if a candidate had to deal with a dual-citizenship issue. Their life choices would say much more about any potential allegiances they could have to a foreign power. Not that a "spy" can't infiltrate the best of systems, but a lot of people with a "hidden agenda" don't do that great a job hiding it. Rather, they rely on a lot of misdirection to fool the masses into not looking too closely.

Indeed that is true, but it could equally apply to a foreign born and naturalized candidate.



I vote ever election but I cant say I have seen too many politicians that were not like that. None perhaps.



Correct me in whatever way I am wrong, but it sounds like you are indicating that an honest foreign born president would be preferable to a shady American. You could find out what a Swede or a Canadian were doing as easily as an American. However, a Chinese born candidate would be more suspect as information is more tightly controlled.

The constitution still stands of course. This is pure speculation and I am asking your opinion.

This is only one of several polls that have found that right-wingers hold crazy ideas. The majority of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim, for instance, and 38% think he's like Hitler (ok, so a lot of Dems might say that about Cheney... but then, Cheney actually went out in pubic and promoted torture)


The birthers are the "core" of the Tea Party movement in that they constitute a significant chunk of that crowd. That does not mean that the Birther conspiracy is the core belief of the movement.

Quite a few opportunistic pricks, even from the Left (COUGH*Members of my own party, NDP*COUGH) objected to Stephane Dion's dual citizenship. In America, the controversy would be tenfold.

I believe those are all from the same Harris poll but regardless as I said I think most partisans will believe whatever negative story that is out there about the other side. I just don't think they're honest heartfelt beliefs more of just an irrational emotional response.

The way I define core is as the central and most important part which I believe correct but thanks for clarifying what you meant. I wasn't trying to be misleading or dishonest. Do birthers support republicans and or the tea party, I'd have to say most do. Is everyone that has doubts about Obama's citizenship/birthplace/whatever a birther though? I think if it was narrowed down to the people which this is their preeminent issue, it would be a very small minority. The birther conspiracy theory is a pretty much an afterthought at this point for most people and pretty much the only time it's brought up anymore is when so and so is trying to say tea partiers are crazy.

Well apparently this birther lawsuit stuff is not new. I checked online and it seems that even John McCain, FDR Jr, and Barry Goldwater were subject to similar legal technicalities. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, FDR Jr was born in Canada and Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state. All of them filed as soon as their names were dropped as potential presidential contenders.

As for the dual-citizenship, I don't mind it. If they are American citizens then they pass the criteria to run for office and should be free to do so, though they may be barred from some non elected positions that require security clearance. I technically have dual citizenship via 'Jus sanguinis', though I have never been to said country; but may find myself facing discrimination in the future. Should my loyalty to my country be questioned? I'm more likely to betray the US to save my dog than for Italy.

If someone is a dual citizen it doesn't mean they are double agents with shady loyalties, I'm more worried about our current officials (Many just US citizens) and their loyalties to their lobbyist donors rather than their constituents.

Well, that whole angle is an Obama red herring argument.

McCain was born to two adult US citizens, on a US military installation. He is "natural born" with no debate. Goldwater was born in a US territory before it attained statehood. Maybe a bit more of a gray area, but he was still in the "USA" when he was born.

Obama has a Kenyan father, arguably born in Kenya, not Hawaii as claimed (we need to see the original document to know which is the truth), and his mother (as I understand the argument) was under age and her supposed US citizenship would not transfer due to her age when Obama was born.



That someone might make a better leader is irrelevant. I know a lot of people who won't be allowed within 100 miles of the Oval Office who are clearly better leaders than we've had in the last 50 years, but for whatever reason they don't get into office has no bearing on the Constitutional issue.

There is debate about the "ORIGINAL 13th Amendment" to the Constitution. I've seen it from a team that recovered it from old copies of state codes (which always reproduce the current US Constitution within its content). The original 13th Amendment purportedly prohibited anyone having a title of nobility from every holding public office (the term "esquire" is given to lawyers and bankers). One year, this amendment vanished and the rest were bumped up a notch. Nobody seemed to notice, and not long afterward, the bankers and lawyers took over the political system.

It's also proven that the 16th Amendment was fraudulently ratified (the US secretary of state declared it ratified when it did not get the needed number of ratifications...this was proven by a man going to each state and getting certified copies of what they sent back to DC), but the legal system upholds it on the basis of "well, we've had it in place for over 40 years and it'd be too hard to reverse it now" (almost exactly what the trial court said when confronted with the evidence). There is similar controversy over the 17th Amendment's ratification which allows direct election of congressional officers, something needed if they didn't want a revolt over the "no taxation without representation" issue.

The real problem in politics with any candidate is money. Money controls not only who can run for office, but who will likely win.

It never ceases to amaze me how the repetition of propaganda gives it the ring of verisimilitude.

It does not matter whether it is the propaganda of the left or of the right, if a falsehood or an unproven allegation is repeated often enough, the masses will pick it up and run with it. The Courts have, on more than one occasion, considered the allegations of birthers, and have without exception dismissed them. From a legal perspective, the matter is res judicata and no amount of propaganda will change that.

It is one thing to oppose the policies of the Administration. It is quite another thing to repeat unfounded and discounted allegations in an attempt to illegitimize the Administration. The former makes a person look like an engaged, intelligent citizen who seeks to participate in his government. The latter makes a person look like a drone.

Clearly, there was a wormhole between Ann Dunham's cervix in a maternity ward in Hawaii and the plains of Kenya

I disagree. Show me a single case where the judge actually heard the facts and ordered discovery to adjudicate the dispute? To what I know, it has never happened. This is such a loaded political issue that no judge wants to touch it for fear of what it might do to their careers.

The Supreme Court choosing to hear a case doesn't mean it has more merit than one they choose not to hear. The Supreme Court choosing to not hear a case does not mean it is without merit. They have hundreds of potential cases and only so much time on their docket to hear them. Many meritorious cases are passed over because there isn't time to hear all of them.

Somehow I think people would have noticed that.


This has been quite thoroughly refuted.

If you want to talk about illegitimate amendments, how about the Reconstruction Amendments (13-15)? The South "ratified" all of them quite literally at gunpoint—their voting was "supervised" by armed Yankee troops.


So you want public financing of campaigns and strict spending limits?