The Birther Movement: Beyond Unreasonable Doubt

The first encounter I had with what is now commonly known as a "birther" was right after the 2008 election. It was with one of my family members:

"Obama wasn't even born in this country," she-who-will-remain-nameless proclaimed.

"No, you've got it mixed up. McCain wasn't born in this country," I said. "He was born in Panama, but it was a US territory at the time."

"No it's Obama. He was born in Hawaii and Hawaii wasn't a state yet."

"Hawaii became a state in 1959," I busted out with some grade school civics class knowledge.

And then, there it was, the thing birthers are now being known for: My name-withheld family member then sighed and muttered, "Well, I don't know."

"No, you do know. Because I just told you." I thought but didn't dare yap aloud. "Hawaii was a state in 1959 and Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961. He just won the election by the biggest margin since Ronald Reagan and he's going to be the first half African-American president of the United States."

"Well, I don't know," she continued, sure of herself. Then she switched tactics, "He won't show anybody his birth certificate."

"I've seen it online," I said.

"Well, I don't know. It's suspicious. Don't you think it's suspicious? He won't show anybody his birth certificate."

"But he does. He has. I've seen it. Online."

"Well, I don't know. I think he should show it. It's interesting though, huh?"

No. No it's not interesting. There's nothing interesting. There are questions. Here are answers. Refusing said answers, doesn't mean there are still questions. Furthermore, refusing other answers and holding tight to doubt then blaming the proof-provider for not being forthcoming does not equal "interesting."

"Well, I don't know."

Now it's taken on a whole witch trial vibe. Very Malleus Maleficarum (1486's best-seller The Hammer Against Witches). Like the woman showing up to Rep. Mike Castle's town hall in Delaware bleating Obama is, according to her, a citizen of Kenya. Now it's to prove a negative. Their evidence is their own suspicion and the only acceptable defense is Obama stepping down as president.

"'Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States. Why not release your birth certificate?' What is the big deal with saying that?" asked CNN's "give us your huddled masses" opponent Lou Dobbs on the July 28 edition of his radio show.

What's the big deal with saying that? What's wrong with saying that is the simple fact Obama HAS released his birth certificate. That's what's wrong with saying it. It's like saying there were WMD's in Iraq. It's not true. It's been proven to be untrue. So what's wrong with saying that is -- it's wrong.

But birthers don't want proof of what they don't believe. They want to hold onto doubt regardless of evidence.

It's like drawing a saddle on a dinosaur. It doesn't make it accurate. It just shows one's convictions trumping overwhelming evidence. The birthers position is like asserting the earth is flat because when they flew around it they had their eyes closed.

Being a birther should disqualify you from serving on a jury let alone in Congress. But, Bill Posey, a freshman Representative from Florida, told the Orlando Sentinel he couldn't swear on a stack of bibles whether Obama is or isn't an American. He and other Republican congress people have been playing up the "non-denial denial" of this fiction. So willful ignorance on the part of the accusers is now giving the story more legs.

The origin hysteria of this is the holdover from the "love it or leave it" and "these colors don't run" crowd (my family). Their unflinching jingoism is now misplaced since there is a funny-named dark skinned guy in the White House. Everything American is good. We don't like Barack Obama. Therefore he must not be American.

Which could be progress since those of African descent in America were once not considered human.

But still, spiteful denial is what passes for healthy skepticism?

Well, I don't know.

Follow Tina Dupuy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TinaDupuy

Comments

[shades3]

Thank you Tina. There IS no reasoning with these people. They didn't vote for President Obama. They are bitter that they lost and the President is not their choice.
When George W. Bush was APPOINTED President by the Supreme Court the Democrats, although Bush was not their choice accepted the decision. Perhaps they should not have done that. After all, HE was not elected as is the custom.
But the current President WAS elected, by a large majority and will be President for AT LEAST four years. He is trying to undo the devastation of the last eight years, under George W Bush.
But, we can't have that......­..........­..........­..........­.....can we???

[1st and 10]

Great article, Tina...

[LeFlaneur]

Dear Birther,

I have read many long posts from you about this issue. Like amateur sleuths you list various loopholes, contradictions, subtle re-interpretations of constitutional language and other means by which a citizen born outside the US might nefariously manage to appear eligible to be elected President.

But consider this: Hillary Clinton and John McCain both put the best legal analysts they could muster on this case, both desperate to find ANYTHING that would stick, and they couldn't. Other well-funded and well-connected conservatives would happily pour buckets of money into taking this all the way to the top if they thought they could.

Now you want us to believe that a shrill bleach-blond with an online law degree and a few dozen "regular Americans" with modems have cracked this case wide open, and only a vast country-wide conspiracy can explain why it's not in the courts or why not even Michelle Bachman, stood up in support of your beliefs.
Yes, you can point to a few who have taken up your cause. The more cynical pundits and politicians see you as a tool of distraction, noise and chaos. They don't believe what you're saying; they just find you useful. But the more people have to weigh in on this issue publicly, the fewer allies you will see and the longer the list of co-conspirators will become. At that point, you'll be well on your way to being really and truly crazy.

[zorrod]

Equating all “Birthers” to their most extreme representatives is setting up a straw man for the sole purpose of easily knocking him down. "Birthers" run the gamut of people who believe Obama is a space alien to people who believe public figures should be held to a standard of "transpare­ncy." Let me make this absolutely clear: the document produced by the Obama people is a "Summary." The original document shows much more information that may or may not embarrass the POTUS. The statements from Hawaii officials affirm that they have seen the original, so we know it still exists. Why does wanting to see this document, or for that matter, the college transcripts that are also being hidden make you a nut case...eve­n a racist? When I applied for an entry level government job 30 ears ago I had to show those 2 documents, my DD-214, valid driver' license, and original Social Security card. I showed the stuff. End of discussion­...

[Mzz Manners]

Your posting makes it absolutely clear that you concede the President's right to hold office; the short form certificate (the "Summary" of the long form) proves that. Now, what you want is the long form certificate with "more information" that may embarrass the President. Clearly, then, the ONLY purpose in this relentless pursuit is to try to EMBARRASS THE PRESIDENT. What sort of treachery is this? What sort of country-hating subversive are you, that you would seek to embarrass the President and destroy his ability to govern and his effectiveness in dealing with friends and foes alike, internationally? I don't think you are just a racist. I think you are a treasonous viper, masquerading as a "concerned citizen". You and your fellow conspirators are unhappy about the election and rather destroy the country than support the President of the United States.

End of discussion­...

[choprzrul]

Here are the facts: BHO is a US citizen. BHO's father was a British subject, SCOTUS made the distinction between citizen and Natural Born citizen, and hence BHO does not meet constitutional requirements. All we need to know to make an educated determination is what is written in the constitution, what is written in case law by the supreme court, and what we know about BHO's father.

This has nothing to do with Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, conservatives, independants, or liberals. Follow the rule of law for crying out loud.

It really does not matter where a president is born, but rather the status of the parents. The constitution does not define "Natural Born", however it does make the distinction when addressing requirements for elected office. The legislative branch must be citizens while the executive branch must be natural born citizens. Obviously, the framers recognized the difference in status between being a citizen and being a natural born citizen. Beginning with George Washington, all of our presidents have been citizens. However, they have not all been natural born citizens. The Ark decision I address in my previous posting addresses the difference in status through a compare and contrast whereby the rights of a citizen are the same as a natural born citizen. Notice I say rights. Becoming president of the US is not a right and the constitution spells out several requirements for holding that office. Article II plainly states that natural born status is required.

[ReedYoung]

On March 4, 1797 John Adams was the next President to be inaugurated after the Constitution was ratified in 1789. He was born to British subjects.

Checkmate.

[Beachchick]

A natural born citizen is a citizen who did not have to be naturalized. President Obama was born to an American Mother on American soil. It doesn't matter where his father was from.

You are suggesting that any American women ( U.S. citizen) impregnated by an exchange student or some other man living in the United States on a visa forfeits her child's citizenship. It's a ludicrous argument.

[woodwakr]

Thank you. Birfers prove he's not a Natural Born Citizen by giving whatever definition of that term they care to give ("both parents had to be citizens," etc.) Never the actual one:

Born on US soil = NBC.

[choprzrul]

1898 SCOTUS decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Gray, in writing for the majority: "The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.­"

That is what Gray wrote, what he did NOT write is: "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a NATURAL BORN citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.­"

To be constitutionally eligible for POTUS, it doesn't matter WHERE you are born, only that you are NATURAL born. Having a parent with British citizenship forever removes the opportunity to be considered NATURAL BORN in this country, at least according to the SCOTUS.

BHO is a citizen of the US without question. The operative question is whether or not he fulfills the requirements to hold the office of president as spelled out in the constitution. Having a parent who is loyal to the British crown is exactly the situation that the constitution plainly seeks to avoid.

[ReedYoung]

So why didn't you challenge his candidacy when he became the Democratic Party's nominee?

[ReedYoung]

Waiting until after the Inauguration gives the appearance that birthers are less concerned about a Constitutional crisis than with your personal vendetta against President Obama. What do you have against -- if it's not about race, Hawaiians born to Kansans, then?

[woodwakr]

If that were true, why are babies born to two illegal immigrants CURRENTLY considered natural-born citizens?

Nice try, though, with the 110-year old SCOTUS quote.

[czarina]

I wish everyone could read this.

[DreamsInAction]

This policy surprises me because when I ran for the Senate in Puerto Rico, I had to submit an original birth certificate. It identifies the date of birth, time of birth, names of my parents, place of birth, birth place of both of my parents, date in which the birth certificate was recorded and the ages of both parents. It shows the registration number, the birth registration number, the place of birth, the residence of the mother, the name of the hospital, the person’s complete name, their gender, whether they were born alone, as twins, or as triplets; the date of birth, the age of the father, his residence, his birth place, his occupation, his skin color (race), the mothers full name, her domicile, her occupation, her skin color (race), her age, her birthplace, how many other children she gave birth to, how many children died that she gave birth to, how many children were born dead, the signature of the father, where the birth certificate was signed, the name of the doctor, the name of the individual who registered the birth certificate; and the location and date. It had to show the signature of the Director of the Department of Health in Puerto Rico, the Secretary of Health as well as the Director of the Division of Demographic Registry. It had to be certified and stamped the day it was recorded. If his original birth certificate looks anything like mine, he’s got a lot of “ik-splan’n tu du”!

[woodwakr]

How many times?

BIRTH CERTIFICATES, AND THE PROCEDURES FOR KEEPING THEM AND PRODUCING WORKING COPIES, VARY FROM STATE TO STATE.

What yours says or how it looks is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT unless you were born in Hawaii. No Hawaiian has come forth to say that his records vary in any way from Obama's.

Get over it already.

[ThermoChemist]

I can personally attest to the effort put forth by people who continually deny ANYTHING that may contradict their pre-conceived notions of reality (despite evidence to the contrary). [all they do is "hem-and-haw" and "huff-and-­puff".]

When speaking with Conservative colleagues, whenever I mentioned something negative about the Dubya Admin (or Repubs; in general), they'd ALWAYS give one excuse after another to NOT accept information that did not conform to their pre-conceived notions.

I'd point out an article detailing something ridiculous stated by Dubya (or the Repubs).
They'd say "That's second hand info. That's not exactly what he/they said".

I'd then provide the actual quote (with multiple sources); attributed to the actual speaker.
They'd then say "That's taken out of context. Let's see the whole quote".

I'd then provide the "entire" actual quote (with multiple sources).
They'd then say "That's from a Liberal source; there's a vast Liberal Media conspiracy in the US".

I'd then provide the same (or similar) information from overseas sources.
They then CHANGE THE SUBJECT or CHANGE THE CONTEXT of the original topic/disc­ussion..!

[it's really quite pathetic..­!]

[woodwakr]

Bingo.

[1murillo]

The "non-denial denial" you mention that officeholders and pundits use to safely play both sides on an issue is another version of the "as far as I know" school of politics, journalism, [fill in the blank].
People like Steele, Dobbs, and LCheney are perfect examples. They'll say they believe he's an American, but that birthers' (silly name) deserve their issue to be heard.

[iggy06]

And Obama isn't? I have heard plenty of non-denial denials out of him. As for the birther controversy, you are purposefully misleading. You know the controversey is his "original long form birth certificate" with doctors signature, hospital, length and weight, etc. and NOT the "certification of live" birth COPY.

[woodwakr]

Here is a COURT FINDING on the matter:

"The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the COLB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the COLB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted the argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors."

[hayness]

What do you expect from people whose religion dictates that evidence is worthless and all that counts is personal feelings and faith? This is exactly where you'd expect them to end up.

And savvy politicians promote this idiotic religion for the simple reason that it's incredibly easy to manipulate these folks. All you need to do is start a rumor and keep repeating it.

"A lie told often enough becomes truth" Vladimir Lenin.

William James (1842-1910) The father of modern Psychology "There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it."

[crow man]

from crawfordsl­ist...trun­cated to fit here...

......."Th­e passive acquiescence of a Christian community which has lost its moral conscience in matters of state contributes substantially … to misery and oppression. … ‘Seek your own welfare above all else’ has become the maxim of the day."

Hunsinger has earned the right to criticize those who confess Jesus of Nazareth "from the safety of some remote enclave, where confession may be true but costs nothing."
He is professor of systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, but was so aghast at U.S. practice of torture that he devoted untold time and energy to founding the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT).
Posted by: SolarCrete | August 1, 2009 1:36 PM

[ratmonkey1]

Hayness hit the nail on the head. We are a country who sucks up propaganda
like a sponge. It's spoiling what was a half way decent country & turning us
into a nation of religious dimwits.

[gettingitright]

Yes, the birthers are like little kids who put their hands over their ears and hum and say they can't hear what you're telling them because they don't like it.

[LeftLeanWing]

They're more like little kids that do dookey in their pants then call it Play-Doh and want you to prove otherwise when after you explain to them that PlayDoh does not come in that shade of brown they'll proceed to make a little brown basket..

[2sun]

The heart of Obama’s eligibility issue is if by Amendment XX, a President Elect with foreign allegiance (dual nationality) can constitutionally qualify as “Natural Born Citizen”vs“Citizen” for Senator.

Constitutionally, the President must be born of two US citizens within US jurisdiction to exclude all foreign influence.

Barack H. Obama (II) acknowledged his British citizenship at birth through his alien father, by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That disqualified Obama from becoming President.

John Jay recommended to George Washington:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check on the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” (Jay emphasized “born”).
Washington acknowledged and the Convention changed “citizen” to “natural born citizen” without debate.

The ONLY definition of "Natural Born Citizen" was by Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations”, (1758) combining parents’ allegiance (jus sanguinis) with birthplace(jus soli):
". . .natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . . to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . ."

Will we enforce the Founders' constitutional intent to exclude all foreign allegiance and influence?

[callinguonit]

What? He is automatically a citizen because he was born on US soil to an American Citizen. In fact, You can be born on US. soil and be a US citizen even if........­..........­.......Oh I give up.

[woodwakr]

My sympathies.

[LeftLeanWing]

Last time I checked Emmerich de Vattel was not a Founder...­. Was he ?
He sounds French, therefore he must be a Socialist. Since when do we listen to Socialist ?

Chester B Arthur's father was British when he was born... Therefore CBA was British born .
Should we subtract him from being a Real American President ?

What would our founding father Emmerich de Vattel have to say ?

[SeriousBlack]

"That disqualified Obama from becoming President.­"

Oh it did, did it? Well geez, I guess you should tell the United States Supreme Court that, because they, ummm.... kinda disagree with you.

But I guess YOU know better than the United States Supreme Court.

Hmmm... Let me see, should I believe YOU? Or should I believe the United States Supreme Court?

Heavy sigh - You'll just keep arguing (next right-wing talking point - that the SCOTUS didn't hear the case. YEAH - BECAUSE THEY DECIDED IT HAD NO MERIT.)

Heavier sigh.

[iggy06]

The supreme court doesn't uphold the law as you should know after Bush V. Gore.

[lila17]

Excellent piece, Ms. Dupuy. Thank you. The "birthers" have about as much logic as those who say the earth is flat - but they aren't just idiots; they're idiots driven by xenophobia. "Racist" seems too mild as an adjective. What is a better one? Appallingly bigoted? Here is what I want to know: aren't there ANY principled Republican members of Congress who are willing to stand up and denounce this garbage? It is not enough for me to hear them say (as some of them do) "yes, Obama is a citizen." I want them to say "You birthers need to can it. You are demonstrably WRONG. Quit saying this; it is offensive.­"

[Know One]

No further action need be taken to "end the discussion" or to "end the questions". The discussion is closed by order of the US Supreme Court, whose Chief Justice administered the Oath of Office of President of the United States, and by order of the Senate of the United States whom confirmed the electoral college voting results.

The discussion is OVER.

Anyone applying for a passport would get a certificate from their state of birth similar to that issued to Barack Obama and the same as publicly circulated and displayed. The Constitution does not require special forms of birth certificates to appease racist subversives undermining the presidency using falsified Kenya documentations and claims.

When it comes down to who do you trust, the STATE of HAWAII is trusted over unknown Kenyan alleged witnesses. STANLEY ANN Obama, Barack's mother, was unable to travel to Kenya for medical reasons, and an infant returning with her would not be admitted into the US for medical reason -- it didn't happen and was medically impossible due to Yellow Fever Virus Vaccination medical requirements.

Pregnant women were not vaccinated and infants under 1-year-old were not vaccinated. It didn't happen.

Stanley Ann was in classes at University of Hawaii before the birth -- there was no prolonged absence from classes. Barack Obama Senior was conspicuous as the FIRST-EVER BLACK STUDENT at University of Hawaii, and was not absent from classes before or after the birth.

[Citizen4honor]

Obviously you are not clear on the issues. It's not just his birth certificate. It's all the other stuff.

Obama was never vetted. No copies of degrees, all universities he attended have restrainting orders from releasing anything about him. Why would he do that?

It's more than the birth certificiate. Birthers want all the date presented. Did he give up his USA citizenship when he was in Indonesia (their laws indicate he should have). Does he carry British dual citizenship.

All Obama has to do is present the date. He has never done that and filed all these restraining orders. Makes me suspicious. Should make anyone suspicious. I'd like to see someone from Huffington actually try to answer all the questions. Wouldn't you?

[LegalProf]

all the other stuff = he is black

I think you mean "data," but anyway he should never ever present more date than any other president had to. He has some pride, you know, and I hope he never gives in to the demands of nuts who think he is really indonesian or british. He is the president of the US, as confirmed by the Senate and electoral college. He was born here and lived here since he was 10. No kid born in the US becomes unAmerican because of what his parents do. Geez! Use common sense.

But no, you and the others just have "questions" that he has not answered. Except when he produces date, you say it is a lie. So whatever, vote against him next time.

And on a practical legal level, I assure you that the Supreme Court (even this one) is never ever going to unseat the President of the US based on your flimsy theories of he's technically indonesian or british. It will never happen. So all that is left is racist rantings.

As Know One noted, this issue ended when he was sworn in, period. Anyone who keeps fighting it (really, the civil war) is self-inflicting the label of nut or racist. That is the reality. Share your weird indonesian adoption theories at work and see how fast management has a talk with you about upsetting the normal people.

[woodwakr]

Who cares what you want? Congress accepted his citizenship, ditto every State election board and the Supreme Court, and he was elected by the largest majority since Reagan.

Everything you mention has been answered, or debunked as an outright lie.

YOU GET NOTHING ELSE. It's over.

[crow man]

...okay! enjoyed spending time with you folks...i am off to work now, and i cannot seem to locate m tin foil hat...mayb­e i woke up and put it in the microwave by accident, while still asleep...