“Mr. Cantor [...] finds it ironic that those most eager to talk about the President’s citizenship are in fact some of his biggest cheerleaders–whether it’s Chris Matthews or others on MSNBC, the Huffington Post, or camera toting liberal bloggers chasing people through the streets of Washington.”
Of course one need only look at the recent Kos/Research2000 poll to figure out that this is complete bull. A search of my posts on "Right Wing Extremism", "30 Years in the Wilderness" and (perhaps most cogently) "Inciting to Riot" would provide additional texture on this story.
Interestingly, there is a component to the Kos poll that has not been widely reported:
QUESTION: Do you believe that America and Africa were once part of the same continent?YES/NO/NOT SURE
ALL 42/26/32
DEM 51/16/33
REP 24/47/29
SOUTH 32/37/31
WHITE 35/30/35
BLACK 63/13/24
LATINO 55/19/26
For space, I've truncated the numbers to the interesting ones. Notice that, the problem really is REPUBLICANS ... not Whites or Southerners, per se (although their performance is still embarrassing). Also interesting is that only three demographics got this right: Blacks, Latinos and Democrats.
But forget all that. For proof that this is not a concoction of the Socialist Liberal Media Conspiracy, one merely need look at the latest nonsense on the birther hotspot Free Republic, where they've posted a "copy" of "Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate." (Isn't that what got Dan Rather fired?) Read the comments ... These people are friggen nuts! (Good thing they aren't obsessed with guns or anything like that.)
I leave the closing argument to Bill Maher:
And once these stories get out there, they're hard to stamp out because our media do such a lousy job of speaking truth to stupid. Vietnam, Iraq and the Spanish-American War were all sold on lies that were unchallenged or even abetted by the media. Clinton got impeached and Kerry got destroyed in large part because the media didn't have the guts to say, "This is nonsense."Update: I received the following rebuttal by email (which I've republished in full, but ommitted the name and address provided, since I have neither sought nor obtained consent).
Lou Dobbs has been saying recently that people are asking a lot of questions about the birth certificate. Yes, the same people who want to know where the sun goes at night.
...
That's why it's so important that we the few, the proud, the reality-based attack this stuff before it has a chance to fester and spread. This isn't a case of Democrats versus Republicans. It's sentient beings versus the lizard people, and it is to them I offer this deal: I'll show you Obama's birth certificate when you show me Sarah Palin's high school diploma.
I will, of course, work through these arguments in detail when I get a chance. Suffice it to say: 1) a complete review of my "Inciting to Riot" and "Right Wing Extremism" threads will reveal the real advocates of hatred and fear; 2) despite all the serious looking Capitalization in this Rebuttal, it does not actually make use of any substantive Logical, Legal or Philosphical theory; 3) this version of the story gets a number of facts of the case wrong, most notably that Obama's "original birth certificate" is with all of the other "original birth certificates" of that era ... fully digitized in the hospital's archive; and 4) there is no room for appeal to logical fallacies when the issue at stake is a matter of objective fact (such as the fact that Pangaea existed!)
Why is it that convservatives are so fond of using 2 dollar words to express 2 cent thoughts? (I know where I'd rather invest the money.)The burden of proof does not rest upon those who doubt the claimant. The burden of proof rests solely upon the claimant. Mr. Obama has said, "I am qualified to be president." Forty million American citizens have said, "Prove it." Mr. Obama and his supporters have said in reply, "Prove that I'm not!"
Mr. Obama, et al, have offered a simple and obvious Burden of Proof Fallacy in support of their claims and then followed it up with Appeals to Ridicule, to Popularity, to Authority and to False Dilemma/False Choice. ("Believe me or else you're a nutjob!") In view of the lack of presentation of an original document, there can only be one rational conclusion: An original document does not exist, or if it does actually exists, it contains information that disproves the assertions made by Mr. Obama, the claimant.
At the moment, there is more proof for the existence of UFO's, remote viewing and psychic phenomena than there is for an original document of Obama's birth certificate. 'I saw it! It really, really exists!" or "John Doe has a picture of a certifed copy stating that it exists, so it must be true!" is not an original document.
In view of the objective evidence, it is a very sane and rational question to ask.
Where is the - original - birth certificate?
Please note: You are now openly promoting intolerance (hatred) against approximately 40 million American adults of every race and religion who simply disagree with you.
=====
refer:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report
=====
Natural Born Citizen defined same way seven times:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
Senators Introduce Resolution To Make Clear Senate's Position On Candidate's status. WASHINGTON (Thursday, April 10, 2008)
=====
refer also:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13295
Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers” - by JB Williams.
31 July, 2009
=====
Update 2: For those of you keeping score at home:
Update 3: Following up on the second link provided in the above rebuttal, we find the following nugget from Bush DHS Secretary Chertoff (reflecting my own intuitions) about the meaning of "natural-born citizen":We asked for and received a copy from the Obama campaign. It is too large to display full size on this page, but you may click on this link to see a copy of the document just as we received it.
It indicates Obama was born at 7:24 p.m. Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. That should be no surprise, as it merely documents what Obama and his biographers have always said. But the document should put to rest groundless speculation raised on some conservative Web sites that Obama might not have been born in the U.S. and therefore might not qualify under the Constitution as a "natural-born citizen" to be president.
So then, why all the drama? Even if he was born in Kenya (and any objective analysis indicates that he was NOT), he's eligible to be President. Just like John McCain and Mitt Romney.Chairman Leahy: We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe--and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind--I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
Secretary Chertoff: My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
Chairman Leahy: That is mine, too. Thank you.
Update 4: So I tried to dissect the first link in the rebuttal. Unless you want to suffer through over 20 pages of thick pseudo-intellectual speculative drivel, I wouldn't recommend it. For the interested reader, here are the "highlights":
In short, the argument is that Obama must have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, because if he had been born there, his "original birth certificate" would have indicated this, and therefore not be a political liability for him to release. It's basically an analogue to the "why worry if you're not breaking the law?" argument we often see from the anti-ACLU types when promoting increased police powers.Sections 57-8, 9, 18, 19, 20 & 40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act explain why Barack Obama has refused to release the original vault birth certificate. If the original certificate were the standard BC1 type of birth certificate, he would have allowed its release and brought the controversy to a quick end. But if the original certificate is of the other kinds, then Obama would have a very good reason not to release the vault birth certificate. For if he did, then the tape recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother asserting that she was present at his birth in Kenya becomes far more important. As does the Kenyan ambassador’s assertion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, as well as the sealing of all government and hospital records relevant to Obama by the Kenyan government. And the fact that though there are many witnesses to Ann Dunham’s presence on Oahu from Sept 1960 to Feb 1961, there are no witnesses to her being on Oahu from March 1961 to August 1962 when she returned from Seattle and the University of Washington. No Hawaiian physicians, nurses, or midwives have come forward with any recollection of Barack Obama’s birth.
The fact that Obama refuses to release the vault birth certificate that would instantly clear up this matter almost certainly indicates that the vault birth certificate is probably a BC2 or possibly a BC3.
So we come at last to logical fallacies. Let's start with the the "political liability" reasoning above. Here we have at least 1) argumentum ad ignorantiam: Obama has not proven his argument about being born in the United States to my satisfaction, so he must not have been; and 2) petitio principii: if we assume that Obama was not born in the United States, then his behavior proves that he was not born in the United States. I'm sure there's more, but the point is that appealing to classes of fallacies is more often a rhetorical device than a substantive one (as I hinted at in the first update above).
But wait, there's more! To be thorough, we should address the question of the Burden of Proof. Notice the particular language used in the original text of the rebuttal above:
The burden of proof does not rest upon those who doubt the claimant. The burden of proof rests solely upon the claimant. Mr. Obama has said, "I am qualified to be president." Forty million American citizens have said, "Prove it." Mr. Obama and his supporters have said in reply, "Prove that I'm not!"Hmmm. In this case the claimant appears to be the coalition claiming that he is NOT a natural-born citizen. Obama has provided documentation sufficient to answer the question at hand. The standards for "Burden of Proof" vary from venue to venue, but all documentation points to the fact that President Barack Hussein Obama was born either: 1) within the territorial United States; or 2) to an American citizen. So Barack Obama has fully satisfied his burden of proof. Repeated rulings in actual courts of law have made equivalent claims.
Further, even the most generous reading of the brain-melting document linked above grants that at least scenario (2) is the case. Here the actual argument is that some people believe that this public-domain information is false. In that case, the burden of proof would fall on those claimants. Again, all legal precedent on this matter sides with me on the burden of proof issue.
Oh and one last note ... I'm not promoting intolerance against "40 million American adults of every race and religion who simply disagree" with me, I'm promoting intolerance for the 100M+ American adults (58%: 26% no + 32% not sure) who are so ignorant of accepted scientific work that they deny or overlook the existence of Pangaea.
Suffice it to say, I'm no knee-jerk liberal and you'll see me shed no tears about being "insensitive." Tolerance is not a suicide pact.
That's all. Additional comments (including those pertaining to the the third link in the rebuttal) will be on a fresh post.
No comments:
Post a Comment