Comments On The "Birther" Conspiracy: A Response To James Taranto

[Dear Readers: For the following comments to make any sense, they need to be placed in context. Please read James Taranto's first entry in yesterday's column, "Birthers Lay An Egg." What follows here is what I posted in the comments thread at Mr. Taranto's Wall Street Journal blog.]

Dear Mr. Taranto,

I hope this note finds you well.

Re: "BIRTHERS"

Again (though this is a new topic), I don't see what you seem to see. Now let me jettison this whole theory about Mr. Obama's place -- or places -- of origin. He's a natural-born US citizen. Fine.

How, pray tell, does it help ANYONE, particularly Mr. Obama himself, to have “The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii” included in a non-binding resolution honoring Hawaii's reception into the union? If this whole "birther" thing is simply a wacko conspiracy fit for madness, doesn't this resolution bring madness into the very heart of the US House? The blogger you quote, a Mr. Sargent, thinks this little tack was to force "birthers" to shut up or crash into a contradiction. But if this is true, then the powers in the House really thought that the "birthers" arguments had some merit; and if not merit on rational grounds, at least merit on political grounds: they believed some political hay could be made by Republicans sowing doubt and fear. But can you recall ANY non-binding resolution drafted as a trap to catch those congressional Democrats who might be prone to thinking that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney devised 9-11 for oil? No, you can't, because the "truthers" arguments were dismissed as utterly and completely preposterous. By your own admission the "birthers" argument is sheer madness, and yet you countenance, with something of a chuckle crossing your keyboard, that this resolution is a birther's smelly egg. Interesting.

You have consistently pointed out in your column that certain words are considered to be racially charged in large part because the fusspots among us keep reviving dying and/or dormant racial innuendoes and stereotypes each time they protest about those very words. I am surprised that you don't see how this resolution has only revived and enlivened the whole "birther" conspiracy. Don't you see that Mr. Sargent, the blogger, has opened the door to suspicion, i.e., that Democrats have used a sneaky clause in a non-binding resolution to hide something? Here, at a moment when Barack Obama's poll numbers are slipping, a congressional resolution is passed in part to silence those who doubt Mr. Obama's birth certificate. Is this funny? Is this brilliant? I think it is neither. And it surely does not help Mr. Obama's slide into the abyss of the ordinary. MORE attention, not less, will now be directed at his "phony" birth certificate. Or so I suspect.

Lastly, there are those who believe that sowing seeds of doubt about Mr. Obama's nationality or lack thereof make him vulnerable to those who would seek to harm him in some way. Doubts about his legitimacy only fuel hatred and invite violence. Fair enough. But what about sowing seeds of doubt about another president's legitimacy? What about theories that posit George W. Bush orchestrated 9-11, that he killed 3,000 people in September 2001? What about asserting that same president rushed into an illegal war, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans, 100's of thousands of Iraqis; that he made us "less safe" with his war of "distraction"? What of his penchant for spying on Americans and his fetish for torture? Did these sorts of charges not make Mr. Bush vulnerable to harm?

It seems that the non-binding resolution touted by blogger Sargent and yourself as something ironic and even amusing has only exacerbated the problem of Barack Obama's origins. Or so I will guess.

Peace to you,

Bill Gnade

[A note to Contratimes readers: It seems that Mr. Sargent, the blogger mentioned above, has REALLY elevated the "birther" movement by contacting the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. Sargent has Steele's spokesman announcing that Mr. Steele believes this is all a distraction and that Mr. Obama IS a "US citizen." All this proves my point that instead of tamping down an issue the US House, Mr. Sargent, and Mr. Taranto have actually elevated it. I am sure Mr. Obama is grateful for all the help.]

©2009/Contratimes. All RIghts Reserved.

BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT: A New Word

It seems that during, or just prior to, the month of July 2009, in a place of dubious certitude and of equally dubious parentage, "Birther" was born. This word, by some accounts a bastard word, came into the world to denote, and to denigrate and marginalize, those who have doubts about the authenticity of Barack Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate or claims that he is a natural-born citizen.

It is a very curious word. So new. So fresh.

Birther happily joins his older brother, Truther.

(As an addendum to my earlier post, En Passant: Words Out Of Nowhere.)

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

PREDICTION: Trouble, Chaos, Anarchy

[Assignment: Read this first, then this (especially Sec. 5). I am not saying these things are true or right, but I am saying that they are important.]

Prediction 2008: Either a major challenge in the US Supreme Court will be undertaken regarding the "certificate of birth" of Sen. Barack Obama before Nov. 4, or it will occur before the inauguration should Sen. Obama be elected. Either way, we are looking at the most tumultuous political event in modern US history.

Have I exaggerated? Perhaps.

It appears that another lawsuit has been filed in Washington (state) challenging whether Washington's secretary of state has duly proven that Barack Obama is a US citizen. It also appears that there might be a movement afoot to file suits in each state, or at least all key battleground states.

If Barack Obama indeed releases his "official" birth certificate, it will be profoundly and exhaustively scrutinized. If it is proven to be false, well, you can imagine what will happen. But if proven true, the lawsuits disappear, my prediction falls flat, and a bunch of people -- and I guess I would be included -- will look incredibly foolish and even petty.

The fact is, though, that the Obama legal teams have been combating rather than simply correcting those who are bringing lawsuits. This sort of malarkey, if it is malarkey, is being fueled by the Obama Nation: they could easily and quickly bring an end to it. Why haven't they? And if this does escalate into the worst-case scenario -- that Barack Obama and his handlers KNEW BEFOREHAND that he was not constitutionally qualified to be sworn in as president (I am sure they could make a great case that the rules say nothing about RUNNING for and being ELECTED president) -- then the only people to blame will be Mr. Obama and his handlers. But my guess is his handlers and his many supporters will blame any attempt at maintaining law and constitutional integrity on "racism," "partisanship," and the like.

Here's one scenario predicted by a commenter at Injuryboard (link above):

[Barack Obama] knows & is hiding the REAL TRUTH! If he's elected he and the liberal congress will not only seek to "erase" the 2nd Amendment, but they will also seek to further twist up OUR CONSTITUTION that states "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 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States." He will say that it was the "will of the people" that he was elected, and that OUR CONSTITUTION needs to be "corrected" as a result; essentially making him a legitimate, illegitimate president. Can we not postpone the election until he has provided definitive proof of his citizenship? More conservatives in every other state need to file a lawsuit every day until Nov. 04.

Of course, Scott overlooks the whole political procedures necessary to amend the constitution, or to change it as much as I think he's suggesting the Obama defenders will (perhaps) seek to change it. Regardless, Scott has shown us at least one curious and chaotic possibility. But perhaps Scott is an anarchist plant; maybe he's just shilling for constitutional chaos. Who knows?

Just imagine what will happen (domestically and elsewhere) if Sen. Obama wins the election but is deemed ineligible for office. Could it be that some people who have supported Barack Obama have actually hoped for such a scenario?

Crazy, I know.