The conspiracy theorists who have claimed for more than a year that President Obama is not a United States citizen have found receptive ears among some mainstream media figures in recent weeks.
Despite ample evidence to the contrary, the country’s most popular talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh, told his listeners Tuesday that Mr. Obama “has yet to have to prove that he’s a citizen.” Lou Dobbs of CNN said that Mr. Obama should do more to dispel the claims. Larry King, also of CNN, asked guests about it, and other media types, including the MSNBC hosts Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow, merrily mocked the controversy. NBC News even did a segment on the subject.
Cable news is often stretched for news in the summertime, but the birth certificate case has been fueled by the combustible combination of luck, compelling video, an outlandish topic, and savvy activists
read more at http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/on-television-and-radio-talk-of-obamas-citizenship/?hp
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Monday, 27 July 2009
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Obama beset by conspiracy theories
The 9/11 attacks were an inside job perpetrated by the United States government. The Clintons had White House counsel Vince Foster murdered. John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Cuban exiles, the CIA, the FBI, the KGB or the mafia.
For so many signature moments in American history, there has been a conspiracy theory explaining how it all REALLY went down.
Now Barack Obama is finding out just how stubbornly some false charges persist.
Six months after he was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, Mr. Obama continues to be bedevilled by a hard-core group of skeptics who contend his Hawaiian birth certificate is an elaborate fake and that, well, he may not be the legitimate president of the United States
read more http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1794057
For so many signature moments in American history, there has been a conspiracy theory explaining how it all REALLY went down.
Now Barack Obama is finding out just how stubbornly some false charges persist.
Six months after he was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, Mr. Obama continues to be bedevilled by a hard-core group of skeptics who contend his Hawaiian birth certificate is an elaborate fake and that, well, he may not be the legitimate president of the United States
read more http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1794057
Who Are the Birthers?
Almost as soon as Barack Obama emerged as a serious candidate for the presidency, rumors about whether or not he is really an American, and thus eligible for the presidency, began popping up online. In response, the Obama campaign posted his birth certificate (here it is) showing that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
But that did not quiet the skeptics, a group that has been come to be known as the "birthers." If anything, it encouraged them. They argued that the birth certificate is a fake, and that Mr. Obama is not the "natural born citizen" he claims to be. Mr. Obama, many birthers say, was actually born in Kenya, though there are a number of theories that fall under the birther umbrella.
read more http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5182746.shtml
But that did not quiet the skeptics, a group that has been come to be known as the "birthers." If anything, it encouraged them. They argued that the birth certificate is a fake, and that Mr. Obama is not the "natural born citizen" he claims to be. Mr. Obama, many birthers say, was actually born in Kenya, though there are a number of theories that fall under the birther umbrella.
read more http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5182746.shtml
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory
This article is a followup article to an earlier piece I wrote concerning "absurd" questions about President Obama's birth certificate. I expected the previous article to draw some response from those who still believe that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen but I confess I was surprised by the quantity and veracity of such responses. The comments to the earlier article are still available for viewing to anyone who wishes to see exactly what I am referring to.
This article will be my last word on this issue for a long time which I am sure comes as welcome news for many of the those who still believe Obama is not a natural-born citizen. Any of those who disagree with my opinions here can certainly post their own last words in the comment sections below provided they argue in a civil fashion. Name calling, after all, should be a practice best left behind in elementary school.
The following is a summary of the arguments made concerning the last article and my responses:
Argument #1: Why would President not just release the long form version of his birth certificate or other documents proving his place of birth? The fact that he does not release these documents proves he is not natural-born.
First, President Obama has released a plethora of documents validating the place of his birth. Numerous photos exist the documents and the documents have been confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health, FactCheck.com, and Politifact.com. Some will claim these organizations are puppets of the Obama regime, I will address that argument later in this article. Regardless, the fact remains President Obama has released more information and documents verifying his place of birth than any other major presidential candidate as far as I know. I think it relevant to ask why these groups did not make the same sort of demands on George W. Bush or John McCain.
Secondly, no matter what President Obama releases many conspiracy theorists will still hold on to their beliefs. The documents President Obama did release have been called forgeries by the conspiracy believers. If he releases more documents the opposition can simply say these documents are forged or tampered with as well.
Third, to those who say "Why doesn't he just release the documents to get it over with" again I would first respond by saying that would hardly make the doubters go away. Secondly, responding to a small group of extremists would only lend legitimacy to their argument which is right now outside the mainstream. Third, the doubters should ask themselves whether they would really be willing to give into someone demanding proof simply because they demand it. If the IRS does not believe your tax return numbers would you submit to their demands to see all your business records if they had no legal authority to make such demands? Going further, suppose you showed them all your receipts at which point they then accused you of forging the and tampering with the receipts. Would you then readily submit to their demands for even more proof?
Finally, let us do away with this concept that lack of document production = proof of conspiracy. To continue with my analogy, suppose I fail to produce a business receipt to the IRS; this fact alone does not prove I committed tax fraud it simply establishes that I cannot or will not produce one document. There could be a few hundred reasons for my failing to produce the receipt other than a supposed need to cover up tax fraud.
Argument #2: All the Obama documents are forged.
This argument is described in VERY great detail here by a man named Ron Polarik. I would explain all of Polarik's claims but it would make this post the length of a book. Follow the links if you want to read all the details. Liberals have questions whether Polarik even exist and, if he does exist, have questioned his curious absence from any public events and his supposed lack of credentials. Polarik's analysis was also criticized by another man who claims to be an expert in image analysis, Dr. Neal Krawetz, whose analysis can be read here. In the criticism it is alleged that, ironically, Polarik himself manipulated and tampered with images in order to try and prove Obama manipulated and tampred with images. If you are starting to get confused you are not the only one. Polarik, or someone pretending to be him, then responded to the criticism here.
Wow, OK what do we do with the contending experts who may or may not even exist? You can read both their arguments and decide for yourself. I am more convinced by the Polarik critic myself as I too have not been able to confirm the identity of one Ron Polarik, Phd or find any public images or speeches of Polarik. In addition copies of the Polarik material suspiciously keep moving around the internet while the critic's material stays in the same place.
Argument #3: Factcheck, Snopes, PolitiFact are all controlled by Obama forces. They cannot be trusted.
First, if FactCheck truly is a puppet of the Obama forces then some of the puppet strings must have snapped because FactCheck consistently and frequently criticizes claims of President Obama. One post in which FactCheck is very critical of Obama claims even goes as far as to call them misstatements can be found here. I encourage you to investigate their website yourself and see if you really think they are sold out to the Obama camp. Politifact too has been very critical and straightforward of calling out Obama on lies as can be seen here.
Argument #4: You cannot trust any information because it is all part of an Obama conspiracy.
Politifact did a very good job of basically addressing this argument here. The essence of their argument is this. Is it possible that there exist some grand Obama conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of people? Is it possible Obama was able to fool most of America and the mainstream media into believing he was a natural born citizen when he was not? Sure ANYTHING is possible. But just for a second let us ask ourselves what is reasonable. As Politifact puts it, is it really reasonable to believe Obama was able to control "officials at the Hawaii Department of Health, the Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics, the Illinois Secretary of State's office, the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and many other government agencies." In all sincerity I do not believe that is a reasonable belief. You simply have to accept too many assumptions to really believe the Obama conspiracy claims. Granted presidents are very powerful but you have to remember that this conspiracy theory began before Obama became president and while his Republican opposition held all the power in the White House.
Summary:
In the end I recognize no matter what I write or say there are many who will never be convinced. To a certain extent we have to accept this and while I will disagree with the conspiracy theorist strongly I will also, as Patrick Henry would put it, defend to the death their right to express their opinions. As I have said before I think our time is better spent debating the wisdom of the climate change bill or health care reform but if people want to continue to advocate the "Obama is not a natural born citizen" argument they have right to do so. This author, however, will be now be moving on to other issues.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-St-Louis-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m7d6-My-last-word-on-the-Obama-birth-certificate-conspiracy-theory
This article will be my last word on this issue for a long time which I am sure comes as welcome news for many of the those who still believe Obama is not a natural-born citizen. Any of those who disagree with my opinions here can certainly post their own last words in the comment sections below provided they argue in a civil fashion. Name calling, after all, should be a practice best left behind in elementary school.
The following is a summary of the arguments made concerning the last article and my responses:
Argument #1: Why would President not just release the long form version of his birth certificate or other documents proving his place of birth? The fact that he does not release these documents proves he is not natural-born.
First, President Obama has released a plethora of documents validating the place of his birth. Numerous photos exist the documents and the documents have been confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health, FactCheck.com, and Politifact.com. Some will claim these organizations are puppets of the Obama regime, I will address that argument later in this article. Regardless, the fact remains President Obama has released more information and documents verifying his place of birth than any other major presidential candidate as far as I know. I think it relevant to ask why these groups did not make the same sort of demands on George W. Bush or John McCain.
Secondly, no matter what President Obama releases many conspiracy theorists will still hold on to their beliefs. The documents President Obama did release have been called forgeries by the conspiracy believers. If he releases more documents the opposition can simply say these documents are forged or tampered with as well.
Third, to those who say "Why doesn't he just release the documents to get it over with" again I would first respond by saying that would hardly make the doubters go away. Secondly, responding to a small group of extremists would only lend legitimacy to their argument which is right now outside the mainstream. Third, the doubters should ask themselves whether they would really be willing to give into someone demanding proof simply because they demand it. If the IRS does not believe your tax return numbers would you submit to their demands to see all your business records if they had no legal authority to make such demands? Going further, suppose you showed them all your receipts at which point they then accused you of forging the and tampering with the receipts. Would you then readily submit to their demands for even more proof?
Finally, let us do away with this concept that lack of document production = proof of conspiracy. To continue with my analogy, suppose I fail to produce a business receipt to the IRS; this fact alone does not prove I committed tax fraud it simply establishes that I cannot or will not produce one document. There could be a few hundred reasons for my failing to produce the receipt other than a supposed need to cover up tax fraud.
Argument #2: All the Obama documents are forged.
This argument is described in VERY great detail here by a man named Ron Polarik. I would explain all of Polarik's claims but it would make this post the length of a book. Follow the links if you want to read all the details. Liberals have questions whether Polarik even exist and, if he does exist, have questioned his curious absence from any public events and his supposed lack of credentials. Polarik's analysis was also criticized by another man who claims to be an expert in image analysis, Dr. Neal Krawetz, whose analysis can be read here. In the criticism it is alleged that, ironically, Polarik himself manipulated and tampered with images in order to try and prove Obama manipulated and tampred with images. If you are starting to get confused you are not the only one. Polarik, or someone pretending to be him, then responded to the criticism here.
Wow, OK what do we do with the contending experts who may or may not even exist? You can read both their arguments and decide for yourself. I am more convinced by the Polarik critic myself as I too have not been able to confirm the identity of one Ron Polarik, Phd or find any public images or speeches of Polarik. In addition copies of the Polarik material suspiciously keep moving around the internet while the critic's material stays in the same place.
Argument #3: Factcheck, Snopes, PolitiFact are all controlled by Obama forces. They cannot be trusted.
First, if FactCheck truly is a puppet of the Obama forces then some of the puppet strings must have snapped because FactCheck consistently and frequently criticizes claims of President Obama. One post in which FactCheck is very critical of Obama claims even goes as far as to call them misstatements can be found here. I encourage you to investigate their website yourself and see if you really think they are sold out to the Obama camp. Politifact too has been very critical and straightforward of calling out Obama on lies as can be seen here.
Argument #4: You cannot trust any information because it is all part of an Obama conspiracy.
Politifact did a very good job of basically addressing this argument here. The essence of their argument is this. Is it possible that there exist some grand Obama conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of people? Is it possible Obama was able to fool most of America and the mainstream media into believing he was a natural born citizen when he was not? Sure ANYTHING is possible. But just for a second let us ask ourselves what is reasonable. As Politifact puts it, is it really reasonable to believe Obama was able to control "officials at the Hawaii Department of Health, the Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics, the Illinois Secretary of State's office, the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and many other government agencies." In all sincerity I do not believe that is a reasonable belief. You simply have to accept too many assumptions to really believe the Obama conspiracy claims. Granted presidents are very powerful but you have to remember that this conspiracy theory began before Obama became president and while his Republican opposition held all the power in the White House.
Summary:
In the end I recognize no matter what I write or say there are many who will never be convinced. To a certain extent we have to accept this and while I will disagree with the conspiracy theorist strongly I will also, as Patrick Henry would put it, defend to the death their right to express their opinions. As I have said before I think our time is better spent debating the wisdom of the climate change bill or health care reform but if people want to continue to advocate the "Obama is not a natural born citizen" argument they have right to do so. This author, however, will be now be moving on to other issues.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-St-Louis-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m7d6-My-last-word-on-the-Obama-birth-certificate-conspiracy-theory
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Tim Graham spins a conspiracy theory to explain unremarkable occurance
The Obamas haven't faced much questioning from the White House press corps about when they're going to make a church decision. With most presidents, this might not be a big deal, but the establishment media's reluctance surely reflects its sensitivity to Obama's political problems with choosing radical, ranting Rev. Jeremiah Wright in Chicago and staying in his church for 20 years.
...
For the Obamas and for Sullivan, the question is this: if they wanted to claim the First Family was going to charm the evangelicals with their piety, do they think this game of kicking the can is impressive? Or doesn't it begin to signal insincerity?
Try to follow the logic of that first paragraph. According to Graham, it is not unusual for the White House press corps to avoid questioning the First Family about their church attendance. But in this case, the reason the press isn't subjecting the Obamas to such questions is the media's "sensitivity to Obama's political problems." The media is doing what they usually do, according to Graham - so they must be doing it for a different reason!
That's just dumb.
It is worth noting - though Graham does not - that George W. Bush did not regularly attend a DC church. And it's pretty safe to say that the Bushes tried to "charm the evangelicals with their piety."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906300011
...
For the Obamas and for Sullivan, the question is this: if they wanted to claim the First Family was going to charm the evangelicals with their piety, do they think this game of kicking the can is impressive? Or doesn't it begin to signal insincerity?
Try to follow the logic of that first paragraph. According to Graham, it is not unusual for the White House press corps to avoid questioning the First Family about their church attendance. But in this case, the reason the press isn't subjecting the Obamas to such questions is the media's "sensitivity to Obama's political problems." The media is doing what they usually do, according to Graham - so they must be doing it for a different reason!
That's just dumb.
It is worth noting - though Graham does not - that George W. Bush did not regularly attend a DC church. And it's pretty safe to say that the Bushes tried to "charm the evangelicals with their piety."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906300011
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
A garden variety conspiracy theory
A garden-variety conspiracy theory
By Susan ReimerThe Baltimore Sun Posted June 29, 2009
-->
It looks like the White House vegetable garden — first lady Michelle Obama's effort to model healthful eating for the nation — is infested with a pest previously unknown to horticulture. It's the boll weevil of the blogosphere: the conspiracy theorist.
Obama detractors are suggesting that the garden on the South Lawn (planted by Obama and schoolchildren in March) is fake. The conspiracy theorists claim that, despite a lot of compost and a very rainy spring, the vegetables harvested by the first lady and those same schoolchildren last week could not have grown so big in just 90 days.
These critics surmise that the White House substituted mature plants for immature ones — in the dead of night, I guess — in order to fool the public. An actual-dirt dirty trick that would live up to the name Watercressgate.
I wear two hats here at The Baltimore Sun. I write this column and a gardening blog called Garden Variety. It was in that capacity that I was invited to the White House last week to cover the harvest of the spring crop — snap peas and lettuces — and the picnic Obama and the children prepared with the results.
It was in the comments posted to Garden Variety that this new conspiracy theory emerged.
"That garden was bought at a produce section and faked," wrote Clint Brown. "That is staged and you all know it!"
"That's what they do on every issue," wrote Mike A. "1) bait 2) switch 3) media says 'who cares.' "
One said in a comment posted on Garden Variety that the media knew the garden was fake but "They're just forbidden to say or report it."
An Internet search revealed the same skepticism elsewhere, on news feeds like the Drudge Report and on conservative "Obama-watch" blogs.
My nephew (he is a Republican) sent me a message saying, "There's no way those are the same plants. If they are, then I'm moving to D.C. and starting a farm and raking it in."
The garden appeared legit to me.
The Swiss chard and the collard greens and the kale and the lettuces looked just like the produce being sold at my neighborhood farmers' market.
The tomato plants look further along than mine, but then, Washington is 40 miles farther south.
But I am a liberal feminist gardener, so of course I can't be objective.
Other readers of the Garden Variety blog jumped in to defend the Obamas and said "Vanderleun" and Clint Brown wouldn't believe the garden was real if the White House produced time-lapse photographic proof.
I'd be laughing if this wasn't so scary.
There are people who believe President Barack Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate is forged. And those who are convinced he is a Muslim mole.
But a fake vegetable garden?
And the point of faking a vegetable garden would be ... what? To trick the American people into believing that the first family is eating nutritious food when they are really sneaking out for burgers?
Wait. The president already did that.
I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, to keep the vegetable analogies going here, and I know the White House vegetable garden is more than a good example of being a good example.
While the fifth-graders from Bancroft Elementary School waited patiently to chow down last week, the first lady addressed the attending media on the role a healthful diet plays in good health and — ba-da bing! — the importance of the health care reforms her husband is undertaking.
But to secretly truck in full-formed vegetable plants and plant them when no one was looking seems like a long way to go to make a point. She could have just visited a D.C. farmers' market and saved herself some dirty knees.
Well, if all politics is local, I guess all local vegetables are political
By Susan ReimerThe Baltimore Sun Posted June 29, 2009
-->
It looks like the White House vegetable garden — first lady Michelle Obama's effort to model healthful eating for the nation — is infested with a pest previously unknown to horticulture. It's the boll weevil of the blogosphere: the conspiracy theorist.
Obama detractors are suggesting that the garden on the South Lawn (planted by Obama and schoolchildren in March) is fake. The conspiracy theorists claim that, despite a lot of compost and a very rainy spring, the vegetables harvested by the first lady and those same schoolchildren last week could not have grown so big in just 90 days.
These critics surmise that the White House substituted mature plants for immature ones — in the dead of night, I guess — in order to fool the public. An actual-dirt dirty trick that would live up to the name Watercressgate.
I wear two hats here at The Baltimore Sun. I write this column and a gardening blog called Garden Variety. It was in that capacity that I was invited to the White House last week to cover the harvest of the spring crop — snap peas and lettuces — and the picnic Obama and the children prepared with the results.
It was in the comments posted to Garden Variety that this new conspiracy theory emerged.
"That garden was bought at a produce section and faked," wrote Clint Brown. "That is staged and you all know it!"
"That's what they do on every issue," wrote Mike A. "1) bait 2) switch 3) media says 'who cares.' "
One said in a comment posted on Garden Variety that the media knew the garden was fake but "They're just forbidden to say or report it."
An Internet search revealed the same skepticism elsewhere, on news feeds like the Drudge Report and on conservative "Obama-watch" blogs.
My nephew (he is a Republican) sent me a message saying, "There's no way those are the same plants. If they are, then I'm moving to D.C. and starting a farm and raking it in."
The garden appeared legit to me.
The Swiss chard and the collard greens and the kale and the lettuces looked just like the produce being sold at my neighborhood farmers' market.
The tomato plants look further along than mine, but then, Washington is 40 miles farther south.
But I am a liberal feminist gardener, so of course I can't be objective.
Other readers of the Garden Variety blog jumped in to defend the Obamas and said "Vanderleun" and Clint Brown wouldn't believe the garden was real if the White House produced time-lapse photographic proof.
I'd be laughing if this wasn't so scary.
There are people who believe President Barack Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate is forged. And those who are convinced he is a Muslim mole.
But a fake vegetable garden?
And the point of faking a vegetable garden would be ... what? To trick the American people into believing that the first family is eating nutritious food when they are really sneaking out for burgers?
Wait. The president already did that.
I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, to keep the vegetable analogies going here, and I know the White House vegetable garden is more than a good example of being a good example.
While the fifth-graders from Bancroft Elementary School waited patiently to chow down last week, the first lady addressed the attending media on the role a healthful diet plays in good health and — ba-da bing! — the importance of the health care reforms her husband is undertaking.
But to secretly truck in full-formed vegetable plants and plant them when no one was looking seems like a long way to go to make a point. She could have just visited a D.C. farmers' market and saved herself some dirty knees.
Well, if all politics is local, I guess all local vegetables are political
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)