Birthers to target GOP Congress-critters?

[MattusMaximus]

More trouble ahead for the GOP. It seems that during the August recess the birthers are planning on, as I predicted, going after Republican Congress-critters when they appear in public forums...

GOP headache: The birther issue (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25444.html)
As GOP Rep. Mike Castle learned the hard way back home in Delaware this month, there’s no easy way to deal with the small but vocal crowd of right-wing activists who refuse to believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States.

At a town hall meeting in Georgetown, a woman demanded to know why Castle and his colleagues were “ignoring” questions about Obama’s birth certificate — questions that have been put to rest repeatedly by state officials in Hawaii, where the birth certificate and all other credible evidence show that Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.

When Castle countered that Obama is, in fact, “a citizen of the United States,” the crowd erupted in boos, the woman seized control of the gathering and led a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The video went viral; by Sunday, it had been viewed on YouTube more than half a million times.

And birthers say members should expect more of the same in the coming weeks.

“Absolutely,” says California resident Orly Taitz, the Russian-born attorney/dentist who has become a kind of ringleader for the movement. “It is a very important issue, one that politicians should have taken up a long time ago.”

Moments after speaking with POLITICO Saturday, Taitz posted a call to arms on her blog:

“I believe it is a serious concern and I hope that each and every decent American comes to town hall meetings with a video camera and demands action,” she wrote.

Wow, this is going to be interesting. Like watching a train wreck in slow motion...

[Tricky]

It seems odd to me that the Birthers, in a short time, have already gotten more press and more credibility than Truthers have in eight years. Is it because they have a better case, or is it because they fit more conveniently in a thirty-second news byte?

[corplinx]

It seems odd to me that the Birthers, in a short time, have already gotten more press and more credibility than Truthers have in eight years. Is it because they have a better case, or is it because they fit more conveniently in a thirty-second news byte?

It is probably because the eloquence, grace, and beauty of Orly Taitz. Her voice is like a soothing symphony that lulls the listener into..... Nah, I can't even continue that line of BS. I really have no clue either.

[Policenaut]

These people have severe mental issues. They were probably watching Lou Dobbs last week when most of the "inquiries" came in.

[Igopogo]

Shouldn't they have more of a problem with John McCain being born in Panama?

[Dr Adequate]

It seems odd to me that the Birthers, in a short time, have already gotten more press and more credibility than Truthers have in eight years. Is it because they have a better case, or is it because they fit more conveniently in a thirty-second news byte? It's because there are way more Birthers than Truthers. If I had to speculate on why that should be so, I'd guess it's because the vast majority of the nation's supply of stupid people loved Bush but hate Obama.

[ProbeX]

Birther's primary mantra: We jis wont ar good ole White yoo ess of aye back dagnamnit!" ... Iz at too much ta ask fer?

[timhau]

Shouldn't they have more of a problem with John McCain being born in Panama?

He's not a n*****, so it's allright.

[Travis]

An interesting implication is that, assuming what they allege is true, a non-American born man is much better at articulating in the English language than the vast majority of actual Americans (i.e. Birther supporters). I wonder if they ever stop to think about what that implies.

[leftysergeant]

If I had to speculate on why that should be so, I'd guess it's because the vast majority of the nation's supply of stupid people loved Bush but hate Obama.

Pretty good possibility of that.

Birfers also have more social contacts, so they propogate faster.

[Upchurch]

It seems odd to me that the Birthers, in a short time, have already gotten more press and more credibility than Truthers have in eight years. Is it because they have a better case, or is it because they fit more conveniently in a thirty-second news byte?
I'm more familiar with Birther-ism than I am Truther-ism, but I'm guessing the difference is framing and timing.

The Truthers were trying to argue that the US Government did something horrible to the people during one of the most fiercely patriotic times probably since WWII. That can't gain you a lot of sympathy from the public, in general.

The Birthers, on the other hand, are targeting an audience to whom the subject of the CT (Obama) is largely unpopular and connecting him to other ideas that are also unpopular (foreigners and possibly Muslims) with that crowd. You'll notice Birthers got little traction until the pool of people unhappy with Obama started to grow several months into his term.

[Denver]

The birthers don't seem to be taking into account good game theory. Sure, if what they accuse is shown to be true, the pay-off might be pretty big. But, if what they say is shown to be false, the amount of credibility loss this lays on the GOP is killer.

And the odds are against them, because not only is there evidence to counter their accusations, but it doesn't even require showing that what they accuse is false for them to lose. It just requires not showing anything much either way.

I think this is why good strategists in the GOP are trying to distance themselves from this, no matter how much some may want it to be true. The odds say its a losing bet.

[Thunder]

Even if Obama's mother took a vacation to Kenya during the week he was born, and he was indeed born in Kenya, he would STILL be a "natural born citizen", as his mommy was an American citizen.

If my folks went to China on vacation, and I was born in China, Id still be a citizen AND eligible to be President.

John McCain was born of American parents on non-US territory, but he was still eligible to run for President.

This issue is gonna KILL the Republican Party. So, I say, keep it up!!!

=)

[corplinx]

I've threatened to beat someone up before for talking truther nonsense. My guess is that the birthers are treading a topic that is easier to talk about loudly without someone kicking your butt.

Maybe if Obama supporters weren't peaceniks we could shut up the birthers.

[dudalb]

The GOP does not seem to understand that although the honeymoon for Obama is over, there is no guarantee that the GOP will benfit to any great extend come election time.. The Dems might become the lesser of two evils rather then the party of change, but they will still win if the GOP continues to shoot itself in the foot with crap like birtherism.

[Ausmerican]

It seems odd to me that the Birthers, in a short time, have already gotten more press and more credibility than Truthers have in eight years. Is it because they have a better case, or is it because they fit more conveniently in a thirty-second news byte?

Tricky,
That may be in part because both sides of the aisle were quick to denounce Truthers while many of the GOP are in "no comment" or "there are some questions" mode when it comes to the Birther stuff.

[theprestige]

Even if Obama's mother took a vacation to Kenya during the week he was born, and he was indeed born in Kenya, he would STILL be a "natural born citizen", as his mommy was an American citizen.

If my folks went to China on vacation, and I was born in China, Id still be a citizen AND eligible to be President.

John McCain was born of American parents on non-US territory, but he was still eligible to run for President.

This issue is gonna KILL the Republican Party. So, I say, keep it up!!!

=)
That's not the way it works. Both parents have to be US citizens, for a child born in your scenario to be eligible for the Presidency. I was born overseas, to an American mother and a Brazilian father. I am an American citizen, but I am not eligible for the Presidency.

And while I am not a birther, I have to admit that the longer the Obama administration goes without attempting to publish the original "long form" birth certificate, the more my idle curiosity grows as to what-all is actually recorded on it.

[drkitten]

Even if Obama's mother took a vacation to Kenya during the week he was born, and he was indeed born in Kenya, he would STILL be a "natural born citizen", as his mommy was an American citizen.

Er,.... no.

The law on citizenship by birth is rather complex and has changed many times over the years.

For example: a child of two US citizens is automatically a US citizen no matter where they are born. BUT the child of one US citizen and a foreign citizen is only a US citizen if the citizen parent resided in the US for a long enough period of time. ETA: Actually, no. Even for a child born abroad of two citizen parents, at least one of the parents needed to have lived in the US for a long enough period of time.

I think right now (post 1986) the necessary "long enough period of time" is five years, but you might want to check on this. In 1961, which is the time in question, "long enough period of time" was at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14.

Obviously, an 18 year old woman can't have lived ANYWHERE for five years after the age of 14. So, no, if Obama's mother had taken a vacation to Kenya, he would not be a US citizen.

[drkitten]

That's not the way it works. Both parents have to be US citizens, for a child born in your scenario to be eligible for the Presidency. I was born overseas, to an American mother and a Brazilian father. I am an American citizen, but I am not eligible for the Presidency.

That is simply not true. It's unsupported by case law, and, more importantly, is actually contradicted by the case of Chester Arthur, who was born a British subject (US law at the time of his birth did not automatically grant US citizenship to those born in the USA).

[theprestige]

That is simply not true. It's unsupported by case law, and, more importantly, is actually contradicted by the case of Chester Arthur, who was born a British subject (US law at the time of his birth did not automatically grant US citizenship to those born in the USA).
Chester Arthur was born in Virginia. By contrast, I was born in Portugal. But I confess that there is a dearth of easily-googlable definitive information, one way or the other, on the subject. It is, however, my understanding that in the case where a person's parents are not both US citizens the time of the person's birth, and the person is not born in the US, then the current legal situation is that the person is not eligible for the presidency.

If you can cite a court case that explicitly states that a person such as myself is eligible for the presidency after all, I would be very grateful.

[Brainster]

It seems odd to me that the Birthers, in a short time, have already gotten more press and more credibility than Truthers have in eight years. Is it because they have a better case, or is it because they fit more conveniently in a thirty-second news byte?

Numerous reasons:

1. The Truthers' case needed years to build before anybody would respond with anything less than a sock on the jaw. Emotions were so raw after the attacks that it really took some distance before people would respond with rational arguments and not visceral hatred. Even Obama supporters I suspect don't feel an intense anger about the Birth Certificate nonsense; the reaction around here seems to mostly amusement mixed in with some wishful thinking that this will surely doom the Republicans forever.

2. Certain portions of the media have a strong vested interest in making the conservatives look like kooks, and certain portions of the conservatives never fail to oblige.

3. It's a dead news hole for political analysts right now because Congress is out of session. They have to talk about something.

[Dr Adequate]

And while I am not a birther, I have to admit that the longer the Obama administration goes without attempting to publish the original "long form" birth certificate, the more my idle curiosity grows as to what-all is actually recorded on it. Your claim not to be a Birther is somewhat belied by spouting Birther nonsense.

Obama can't "publish the original long form birth certificate" any more than he can give the Elgin Marbles back to Greece. These are, respectively, the property of the State of Hawai'i and the British Museum.

When you ask Hawai'i for a birth certificate, what you get is what they gave him. It is based on the original copy, which they do not let out of their possession.

[Darth Rotor]

Your claim not to be a Birther is somewhat belied by spouting Birther nonsense.

Obama can't "publish the original long form birth certificate" any more than he can give the Elgin Marbles back to Greece. These are, respectively, the property of the State of Hawai'i and the British Museum.

When you ask Hawai'i for a birth certificate, what you get is what they gave him. It is based on the original copy, which they do not let out of their possession.
Just curious: that Berg fellow from Philadelphia: did he ever go to Hawaii and look at it? He was all the rage before the election with his attempted court case.

If one were to go to Hawaii and, rather than ask for the document, ask to see it while in company of appropriate state personnal, etc, would that not be just as good a closure of this strange movement?

DR

[Upchurch]

If one were to go to Hawaii and, rather than ask for the document, ask to see it while in company of appropriate state personnal, etc, would that not be just as good a closure of this strange movement?
At a guess, inventing a time machine and allowing Berg and a thousand of his closest birther friends to be present at Obama's actual birth in Hawaii would not put a stop to the true believers.

Facts and evidence are irrelevant to their cause and conclusions.

[Tricky]

It seems odd to me that the Birthers, in a short time, have already gotten more press and more credibility than Truthers have in eight years. Is it because they have a better case, or is it because they fit more conveniently in a thirty-second news byte?
Wow! I've rarely generated this much response.

It is probably because the eloquence, grace, and beauty of Orly Taitz. Her voice is like a soothing symphony that lulls the listener into..... Nah, I can't even continue that line of BS. I really have no clue either.

It's because there are way more Birthers than Truthers. If I had to speculate on why that should be so, I'd guess it's because the vast majority of the nation's supply of stupid people loved Bush but hate Obama.

I'm more familiar with Birther-ism than I am Truther-ism, but I'm guessing the difference is framing and timing.

The Truthers were trying to argue that the US Government did something horrible to the people during one of the most fiercely patriotic times probably since WWII. That can't gain you a lot of sympathy from the public, in general.

The Birthers, on the other hand, are targeting an audience to whom the subject of the CT (Obama) is largely unpopular and connecting him to other ideas that are also unpopular (foreigners and possibly Muslims) with that crowd. You'll notice Birthers got little traction until the pool of people unhappy with Obama started to grow several months into his term.

Tricky,
That may be in part because both sides of the aisle were quick to denounce Truthers while many of the GOP are in "no comment" or "there are some questions" mode when it comes to the Birther stuff.

Numerous reasons:

1. The Truthers' case needed years to build before anybody would respond with anything less than a sock on the jaw. Emotions were so raw after the attacks that it really took some distance before people would respond with rational arguments and not visceral hatred. Even Obama supporters I suspect don't feel an intense anger about the Birth Certificate nonsense; the reaction around here seems to mostly amusement mixed in with some wishful thinking that this will surely doom the Republicans forever.

2. Certain portions of the media have a strong vested interest in making the conservatives look like kooks, and certain portions of the conservatives never fail to oblige.

3. It's a dead news hole for political analysts right now because Congress is out of session. They have to talk about something.
Good answers, all. I'm particularly interested by Brainster's answer. Yeah, it does seem a little anti-hero to be a truther. Because of the incredible web of lies needed, you eventually have to involve firemen, all of Congress, employees who worked in the building... pretty much everybody. At some point, you're bound to find one group you're not willing to implicate. At that point, you lose support for truthers.

I wouldn't say though that this is because of a news gap. The health bill, the "beer summit", the Palin story... I think it is a rich time for newspeople. I think that it is just interesting and newsworthy to film loud protesters. They would do it even if they protesters had a legitimate point. Frankly, I'd pay good money to see the cops tase one of 'em.:D

[Random]

Chester Arthur was born in Virginia. By contrast, I was born in Portugal. But I confess that there is a dearth of easily-googlable definitive information, one way or the other, on the subject. It is, however, my understanding that in the case where a person's parents are not both US citizens the time of the person's birth, and the person is not born in the US, then the current legal situation is that the person is not eligible for the presidency.

You may indeed be eligible for the US presidency. Only one parent needs to be an eligible US citizen in order to grant natural citizenship upon their child, but there are rules for it.

I am eligible to be president of the US. I am also eligible to be Prime Minister of Canada. Granted, with my political views I have a better chance of being struck by lightning, but it is theoretically possible. I have an American father and Canadian mother and was born in a hospital in Toronto. I have in my possession a "Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America" There is no indication that I was born without US citizenship and had it applied, it says quite clearly that I am an American citizen by birth, who just happened to be born in Canada. Of course, since I was born in Canada, I am also a Canadian citizen, making me eligible to hold office in Canada.

Of course, my father had lived in the US long enough to fall into "ten years in the US, five of which where after the age of fourteen" rule. Obama's mother did not. This is where a lot of people get confused. If Obama's mother did not live in the us for ten years, at least five of which were after the age of fourteen, then if she gave birth in another country her child would not automatically be a US citizen. Since she was less than nineteen when she gave birth, then Obama would not automatically be granted citizenship if he was born abroad.

Therefore, the Birther logic goes: Obama is ineligible to be President. Why? Just look at him he's a... Oh, right... uh... He's not a natural born US citizen! That's it! Why?... uh... Hey according to the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 301 (a), subsection (3), a child of a US citizen born abroad is not a natural born US citizen unless one or both of his parents have resided in the US for ten years, at least five of which were after the age of fourteen. Obama's father wasn't a citizen and Obama's mother hadn't lived in the US that long! Therefore he is not eligible! What?... You think he was born in the US? Don't be daft man! If he was born in the US, he would automatically be a natural born US citizen! Since that would make him eligible to be president, he can't be a natural born US citizen, and was therefore born overseas. QED.

Well, that is the Kenyan birth theory anyway. Sheer wishful thinking combined with a masterful command of obscure and irrelevant passages of US immigration law.

There are other theories as to why Obama is ineligible for the presidency (Indonesian Passport story, Indonesian school theory, etc), but they all start out with the premise that Obama is ineligible and try to figure out why.

[Brainster]

Wow! I've rarely generated this much response.

Good answers, all. I'm particularly interested by Brainster's answer. Yeah, it does seem a little anti-hero to be a truther. Because of the incredible web of lies needed, you eventually have to involve firemen, all of Congress, employees who worked in the building... pretty much everybody. At some point, you're bound to find one group you're not willing to implicate. At that point, you lose support for truthers.

I wouldn't say though that this is because of a news gap. The health bill, the "beer summit", the Palin story... I think it is a rich time for newspeople. I think that it is just interesting and newsworthy to film loud protesters. They would do it even if they protesters had a legitimate point. Frankly, I'd pay good money to see the cops tase one of 'em.:D

Tempting, very tempting. My cousin mentioned that "Don't _ _ _ _ me, bro!" appeared in last Saturday's NY Times Crossword Puzzle.

A large part of it is the news hole; health care didn't get passed (no drama), Gates and the cop seem to be mending fences, Palin's only newsworthy because she's dropped out of the news-watchable. Yes, the media can flog all those stories for a few more days, but then it's really August. In an on-year there would be stories from the campaign trail and that sort of BS.

At this point I don't see it as media bias; I see it as more "Wow, look at these nutbars!"; a sentiment I agree with, combined with the "nothing else here, Katie" factor.

[Tricky]

Maybe so, Brainster. Maybe with any luck, the appetite for stories about loonies will remain unsated and we'll get some "why people believe insanely idiotic things" type of exposés , ala Mythbusters. Why should Truthers be deprived of all this public scorn? :D

[hgc]

Chester Arthur was born in Virginia. By contrast, I was born in Portugal. But I confess that there is a dearth of easily-googlable definitive information, one way or the other, on the subject. It is, however, my understanding that in the case where a person's parents are not both US citizens the time of the person's birth, and the person is not born in the US, then the current legal situation is that the person is not eligible for the presidency.

If you can cite a court case that explicitly states that a person such as myself is eligible for the presidency after all, I would be very grateful.


This is quite simple. Two questions:

1) Are you a U.S. citizen?
2) If yes, were you naturalized to become a citizen?

If the answers are 1-Yes and 2-No, then you are eligible to be president. Natural born refers to every citizen who was not naturalized.

[drkitten]

Chester Arthur was born in Virginia. By contrast, I was born in Portugal. But I confess that there is a dearth of easily-googlable definitive information, one way or the other, on the subject. It is, however, my understanding that in the case where a person's parents are not both US citizens the time of the person's birth, and the person is not born in the US, then the current legal situation is that the person is not eligible for the presidency.

If you can cite a court case that explicitly states that a person such as myself is eligible for the presidency after all, I would be very grateful.

Turn it around. If you can find a court case that explicitly states that such a person as yourself would NOT be eligible for the presidency, you'll be the first to do so.

You are a US citizen from birth, therefore you are a "natural-born citizen." Title 8, Chapter 12 defines "citizen at birth," into which group you fall. No case law and no statute uses the phrase "natural-born citizen," so there's no support whatsoever for your contention that "natural-born citizen" has any specific meaning beyond citizenship by birth.

[dudalb]

A large part of it is the news hole; health care didn't get passed (no drama), Gates and the cop seem to be mending fences, Palin's only newsworthy because she's dropped out of the news-watchable. Yes, the media can flog all those stories for a few more days, but then it's really August. In an on-year there would be stories from the campaign trail and that sort of BS.

At least this August, when all else fails they can dig up some more Michael Jackson news....

[EvilSmurf]

Please, all birthers read this (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html). It's from factcheck.org, probably the most non-partisan site on the web.

[leftysergeant]

It's all so absurd. Karl Rove, the most evil and manipulative man on the planet, had people infiltrating the State Department prior to the election and some of them accessed passport records of persons of interest in the campaign. U]nless they had 20 IQ points less than the average neo-con they could have also found the records for Obama's mother.

Doesn't look like they found anything, like a trip to Kenya in 1961.

LOSERS!

[hgc]

It's all so absurd. Karl Rove, the most evil and manipulative man on the planet, had people infiltrating the State Department prior to the election and some of them accessed passport records of persons of interest in the campaign. U]nless they had 20 IQ points less than the average neo-con they could have also found the records for Obama's mother.

Doesn't look like they found anything, like a trip to Kenya in 1961.

LOSERS!


Not sure what you mean by "passport records," but if it's the original application and related documentation, then that wouldn't mean they'd have records of who traveled where AFTER the passport was issued.

Prior to this age of passport electronic scanning at borders (very recent), who would have a record of what Americans traveled to Kenya in 1961?