« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | Unions and Grocers Against WalMart »

Mixed Nuts

Well, yesterday longtime commenter (and former Wizbang Blue editor) Steve Crickmore "outed" himself as a conspiracy nut -- he's a "Surpriser." That is, he believes in the "October Surpise" theory that Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign conspired with the government of Iran back in 1980 to delay the release of the American hostages until after not only the presidential election, but Reagan's inauguration to deny Jimmy Carter any political advantage from resolving the situation.

Wow. Steve, I had no idea.

I have a special contempt for conspiracy nuts. I'm kind of like an ex-smoker there -- I dabbled when I was younger. I spent a couple of years obsessed with the Kennedy assassination, finally latching on to the theory that the fatal shot had been an accidental discharge of a Secret Service agent's weapon, until I finally read Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" and decided that yeah, it was most likely Oswald.

But back to conspiracy nuts. We got a few of those. The "Suprisers" are fading out, as the 1980 election gets farther and farther into the past, but we Americans are all too prone to buy into conspiracy theories. Right now, we have two big ones that are pretty popular -- and, oddly enough, even though they each appeal to a different end of the political spectrum, there is considerable overlap in their adherents.

First up, we have the "Truthers." These are those who do not believe that 9/11 was the act of Al Qaeda, and is actually the responsibility of the federal government. These nuts are split into two camps, calling themselves the "LIHOP" faction and the "MIHOP" faction. The first is slightly less nutty, they say that the Bush administration was aware of the plot, but allowed it to proceed -- they Let It Happen On Purpose. The others are the real batshit nuts -- they say the government actually engineered it, or Made It Happen On Purpose.

On the other side, we have the "Birthers." These are the people who are convinced -- absolutely convinced -- that there is some "defect" in the circumstances in Barack Obama's birth that somehow disqualifies him to serve as President of the United States. He wasn't born in the US, he possessed dual citizenship that he never fully renounced, he wasn't "enough" of an American because his mother wasn't old enough, his father's citizenship somehow pushed Obama into a second-class level of citizenship that can't be president -- I don't know all the permuations, and I quite frankly don't care.

Now, Steve's brand of crazy isn't one that really bothers me too much. I get irritated with it, but it doesn't get under my skin.

The Truthers and the Birthers, though... they do rile me. They do get me angered and worked up. I don't actively seek them out any longer, but when they rear their little pin heads around here, I unload with both rhetorical barrels. Then I reload and fire again.

I've tried to decide which I find more offensive, and I really can't decide. They both really piss me off, and for similar reasons, but I just can't say one of them is "worse" than the other.

So I'm gonna toss it out to you, folks. Which of these two groups of nuts is more aggravating, and what other conspiracy nuts get you steamed?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40199.

Comments (51)

Conspircay nuts. Like thos... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Conspircay nuts. Like those who claim Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand and did nothing, or lied to get us into Iraq for oil, or FDR knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand and did nothing, or Lincoln wanted to set up a Whig empire, or the CIA created AIDS to wipe out blacks, yada yada yada.

Conspiracy nuts are so focused on their pet causes/theories that the very lack of evidence is proof that there is a conspiracy.

What exactly was the purpos... (Below threshold)
LeBron Steinman:

What exactly was the purpose of "Wizbang Blue"?
To provide therapy and useful activities to these leftard cretins in place of basket weaving or lobotomies?

LeBron, it was sold to me a... (Below threshold)

LeBron, it was sold to me as "if we give the nuts their own playground, they'll leave the big kids alone."

Much like liberalism, it sounded good in theory, disastrous in practice...

J.

I will always believe truth... (Below threshold)
howcome:

I will always believe truthers are the worst of the worst. Not because their whole conspiracy is so batshit crazy and illogical, it is. It is because of whom they hint was involved. The U.S. Military. I served in the Army and let me tell you there is no way members of the U.S. Military would kill American women and children on orders from their officers. There would be mutiny in the ranks. Anyone who has served knows there would be no way to keep a lid on any of this happening. So the truthers can go fuck themselves.

The birthers are fundamenta... (Below threshold)
Jeff Medcalf:

The birthers are fundamentally alleging negligence on the part of the House of Representatives, who have the responsibility of vetting that the President-elect does in fact meet the requirements of office. (They sign off on the ballot from the Electoral College.)

The truthers are fundamentally alleging that the government, particularly the executive branch, either killed, or allowed to be killed, thousands of Americans to serve the narrow (and, as alleged, batshit insane) interests of a few people in government.

I find the former annoying and stupid. I find the latter deeply offensive.

They get me steamed for dif... (Below threshold)
Sean P:

They get me steamed for different reasons.

The "birthers" tick me off because they seem deliberately oblivious to how badly their adherence to their theory undermines the cause they claim to promote -- ie, ensuring Obama's tenure as President is as short as humanly possible. If Obama somehow does get re-elected in 2012 we'll have the birthers, in part, to thank for it.

But the "truthers" are just vile, for the reason howcome (#4) points out. Claiming Obama somehow isn't a citizen doesn't say anything about Obama the person but claiming high level officials deliberately murdered thousands of Americans for political gain without any real evidence is beyond malicious. Worse yet, acceptance of this "theory" has enabled millions of Americans to fall back into the stupor that 9/11 briefly woke them out of.

The birthers, at worse, will cost of 4 more years of Obama. That is hardly a good thing, and lesser countries than the US would not recover, but we would. But the truthers? Their actions have contributed to the complacancy that could set the stage for more terrorist attacks in the future.

Of the two, "Truthers" are ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Of the two, "Truthers" are the worst. "Birthers" don't allege the government MURDERED 3000 citizens for some nefarious end.

However Jay Tea, you have to admit our government is it's own worst enemy. Take the Tuskegee "Experiment" of the 1940's as well as the CIA/LSD "experiments" of the 1960's. Then throw in a couple of loonies who are currently designated as 'czars' in Barry's administration who have rather 'strange' ideas about population control and who "should" get advanced medical treatment based on such factors as 'their contribution to society'.

Well, on the one hand we ha... (Below threshold)
Anon Y. Mous:

Well, on the one hand we have a supposed conspiracy where President Bush ordered the military to murder thousands of American citizens for political advantage, and they complied.

On the other, though there are many different variations, one of them is that Obama's mother, after having Obama overseas, returned to the US and fraudulently obtained a birth certificate for Obama by claiming she had delivered him at home here in the US. She also placed a birth announcement in a local newspaper. A conspiracy of one by a mother to obtain US citizenship for her child.

Which is the most difficult to believe? Which scenario really stretches the limits of credulity?

I've got a better question. Why do some people think that believing there could be something to that second theory is the equivalent of believing the first?

i actually didn't know much... (Below threshold)
warchild:

i actually didn't know much about the October surprise, I was pretty young then so I went to wikipedia.

I saw these two statements:

"After twelve years of mixed media attention, both houses of the US Congress held separate inquiries and concluded that the allegations lacked supporting documentation."

"Former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, former Naval intelligence officer and National Security Council member, Gary Sick; and former Reagan/Bush campaign and White House staffer, Barbara Honegger--have stood by the allegation."


So basically, it seems to come down to whether you find any of the men making the allegations credible or you trust the investigations of congress. I know nothing about the men so I'm inclined to remain skeptical. unless of course I see something really, really, really, compelling. The things if the allegation is true we are talking about Reagan taking an awful big risk to win. People have done that for power before, but if he were caught it would have ruined his presidency. I have trouble imagining he would have risked that.

As for The birthers and truthers they are both equally nuts and we are talking a whole new level of crazy. What is offensive to me is not who they are implicating but the sheer lunacy of believing a man without a birth certificate could make it all the way to the white house without someone proving he wasn't a citizen, or that the Executive branch, which has had it's rendition program leaked it's NSA program to mine calls leaked, hell virtually everything it does leaked could somehow manage to artfully craft the death and destruction of 3000 Americans without someone sounding the horn. The are both so ludicrous that anyone who believes it seriously is into some magic thinking and is not ready for the adult world.


Hey JT, if I look at the Wi... (Below threshold)

Hey JT, if I look at the Wizbang title logo thing up at the top and say "bryanD" 3 times, will he show up on this thread?

HE believes it's true; you ... (Below threshold)
Idahoser:

HE believes it's true; you believe it's false; neither of you can back up what you believe, making it religion, not fact. If one of you is a nut, then both are.

Much like liberali... (Below threshold)
Much like liberalism, it sounded good in theory, disastrous in practice...

But it did serve to illustrate, in a real, tangible way, the end results of liberalism. Given the opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of liberal values over the evil intolerance of neanderthal conservatives such as Kevin and JT, Lee Ward turned WizbangBlue into his own retarded little Stalinist empire where only the most rigid adherence to orthodoxy (as decreed by Mr. Ward) was permitted to exist and more posters were banned than anywhere except maybe LGF. In the end, it was mostly just Lee talking to himself.

But somehow I think JT knew this would happen and is actually why he let it go forward. JT knew what he was doing. He had a secret agenda, namely, what better way to discredit progressivism than for the progressives to do it themselves?

That's my conspiracy theory, and I'm sticking to it.

Oregon Muse+1... (Below threshold)
zaugg:

Oregon Muse

+1

Jay Tea: "Much like liberal... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jay Tea: "Much like liberalism, it sounded good in theory, disastrous in practice..."

Hmmm, reminds me of a joke (that has several variations):

"An academic was asked, "What's the difference between theory and practice?" The Academic replied, "In theory, nothing"....."

(insert canned laughter here)

#12 And the namele... (Below threshold)
914:

#12

And the nameless one was oh so lonely he hung around here for a month throwing out the race card on every thread.

I have a conspiracy theory that Dane is rev ... ....

The Booosh did 911 wacko's are the worst. Michael Boar can be tossed in ith them.


Truthers. No contest.... (Below threshold)
Jay:

Truthers. No contest.

Idahoser- "HE believes it's... (Below threshold)
zaugg:

Idahoser- "HE believes it's true; you believe it's false; neither of you can back up what you believe,"
We do not have to prove a negative. You and Rosie Odumbell can believe that "the first time fire melted steel" till the cows come home. The facts are just that, the facts.

Well, on the one ... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Well, on the one hand we have a supposed conspiracy where President Bush ordered the military to murder thousands of American citizens for political advantage, and they complied.

On the other, though there are many different variations, one of them is that Obama's mother, after having Obama overseas, returned to the US and fraudulently obtained a birth certificate for Obama by claiming she had delivered him at home here in the US. She also placed a birth announcement in a local newspaper. A conspiracy of one by a mother to obtain US citizenship for her child.

Which is the most difficult to believe? Which scenario really stretches the limits of credulity?

I've got a better question. Why do some people think that believing there could be something to that second theory is the equivalent of believing the first?

Uhh, your saying, She did all this so one day in the event that her child actually grew up to be president of the United States, he'd look legal to do so? No, not a stretch of credulity at all.

There is and remains to be ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

There is and remains to be a huge differnce between the two nutty theories. The Truthers have to absolutely hate their country and believe the worst of our government. They do more then cause anger, they support the Arab view of this and they Middle East propaganda machine using them as support. The birthers are doing nothing but causing themselves embarassment.

Now for those of us who have watched and studied politics for years knows that for the Truther conspiricy to work, the secret had to have been kept for some time which in today's government, that can never happen. So many people would have to be involved that it goes beyond belief that the secret could be maintained. So the Truthers are not only america haters but they are by definition stupid to believe it.

I do think there is a conspiricy that is true. When the democratic apparatus wants to get their view or message out, the MSM just complies with it. Recently the DNC now says Tea Party people are not smart and low and behold and the MSM pundants lined up their show with that comment. Thank God for Fox News, Talk Radio and the internet blogs. The dem's cannot get away with their bullshit anymore. ww

Uhh, your saying, She di... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

Uhh, your saying, She did all this so one day in the event that her child actually grew up to be president of the United States, he'd look legal to do so? No, not a stretch of credulity at all.

Actually, it would have been to butress any argument to win child custody.

The whole President thing had no bearing on Mrs. Obama's actions in 1961.

Most conspiracies start wit... (Below threshold)
ron:

Most conspiracies start with some thread of truth. So I am not so loathe as to completely discredet conspiracies.

Whether or not the carriers of conspiracies are bat**** or not may be another issue. Besides I worry whether I am bat**** right along with them having my own personal conspiracy theories concerning future outcomes.

Uhh, your saying, ... (Below threshold)
Anon Y. Mous:
Uhh, your saying, She did all this so one day in the event that her child actually grew up to be president of the United States, he'd look legal to do so? No, not a stretch of credulity at all.

LOL. I said she did it to obtain US citizenship for Obama. I don't expect you to understand this, but for many, US citizenship is a thing to be valued for many things beyond the ability to run for president.

The truthers are worse beca... (Below threshold)
john:

The truthers are worse because their claims are so implausible. The birthers are worse because their claims have actually been disproved, but still they cling to them and delusionally believe they haven't. So it's a tie.

John: "So it's a tie."... (Below threshold)
Drago:

John: "So it's a tie."

No, it's not.

The birthers claim not to believe the non-birth certificate form provided by officials in the state of Hawaii is dispository regarding the events around Obama's birth. I disagree with them, but there you go.

The truthers claim that our own government mass-murdered thousands of our citizens and that, necessarily, hundreds (if not thousands) of military and civilian personnel cooperated in that act.

"a tie"??

Really?

LOL. I said she d... (Below threshold)
warchild:
LOL. I said she did it to obtain US citizenship for Obama. I don't expect you to understand this, but for many, US citizenship is a thing to be valued for many things beyond the ability to run for president.

yeah, that's really dumb. Even if he was born in Kenya he would be a citizen, so the whole paying off the local paper wouldn't be necessary, not that I'd expect you to bother researching immigration law before you spouted your lunatic theories..

Different rules apply to a child born out of wedlock outside the US. If the mother of an "illegitimate" child is a US citizen, her foreign-born child is a US citizen by birth if she had ever spent at least one year's worth of continuous literal, physical presence in the US. If the father is a US citizen (and the mother is not), the child is a US citizen only if the father's paternity is formally established and if the father has agreed to support the child. (This more stringent requirement for an American father to pass along US citizenship to a foreign-born illegitimate child may seem discriminatory, but it was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 2001 case, Nguyen v. INS.)

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#borndual

So the only reason to fake it would be in case he ever became president, i which he would have to spend time trying to ward off conspiracies from a bunch raving, frothing at the mouth, nuts.

Conspiracies centered on an... (Below threshold)
jim2:

Conspiracies centered on an assertion that the US President had foreknowledge and let the events happen are hardly new, of course.

For example, there were those who claimed (and some may still) that FDR "let" the Japanese surprise attack Pearl Harbor.

I've also seen assertions that Truman "knew" the Japanese were about to surrender in August 1945 and hurried the a-bombs to be able to justify the expense of the Manhatten Project and better position the US for after the war.

Truther's hands down are th... (Below threshold)
CDR M:

Truther's hands down are the worst. From claiming steel does not melt to insisting that the US military fired missiles at our own citizens is horrible. Still chuckle when I hear Bush is the mastermind yet the very same people that believe that think Bush is the dumbest person out there. Does not compute!

Truthers by a mile, by the ... (Below threshold)
John:

Truthers by a mile, by the way there was a guy with a gun on the grassy knoll........... Well actually that was last week but still.

A post on asshat conspiracy... (Below threshold)
Dane:

A post on asshat conspiracy theories and no mention of Palin's "death panels" and the typical conservative theories about Obama being a muslim, or about Obama and Ayers being socialist bomb throwers?

Short-sighted much?

And let's not forge tthat Obama took over GM so he could ROOL THE WORLD.

Oh, and more about Obama his BOOT ON THE THROAT OF BP.

Please.

Someone with more patience ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Someone with more patience explain to Dane the subject of the post? He seems not to know what a conspiricy is. ww

What I find worse about the... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

What I find worse about the birther theory is that it has been propagated by a dozen or so members of congress. As far as I know, no elected officials have ever supported truthers.

I think man... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:


I think many of you too willingly believe and take at face value what conservative or established authorities present, while reserving all your skepticism for someone like Obama, even though Obama is pretty safe hands.

For those of you who are disbelieving of all conspiracy theories, what about Watergate and Iran Contra?

The initial investigations by Woodward, Bernstein on Watergate and Parry on Iran Contra were ridiculed by the moderate center and the right as unbelievable.

On a personal note, I worked on a national radio network in Canada, the CBC with David Frum's mom, who got me the job when I was in London, and we were the only ones in north America, that were interviewing Woodward and Bernstein weekly early on in 72-73. No one else would touch them. Bernstein wasn't so pleasant. Bob McCord for example, was much nicer. The Msm, except for the Post, were initially very reluctant to cover the story. Even the Post wouldn't feature their initial investigations.

I have always been more interested in the story behind the story. I have witnessed story meetings where votes were 7-6 to go ahead or not, with the most lascivious details of example Jack Anderson columns of /Kennedy sex scandals. Our votes were pretty 'political', if it was too scandalous even if confirmed, we couldn't air it. Truth isn't always the first consideration even with muckrakers,(unfortunately) for the established political elite are very, very powerful. The teabaggers have that insight, at least.

In this vein, Jay links to a major Newsweek story rebutting the October surprise. I would suggest Jay and others read this July , 2010 account' history must finally confront the troubling impression that remains: that disgruntled elements of the CIA and Israel's Likud hardliners teamed up to remove a U.S. president from office.'

Jay more than anyone knows how much the CIA ( well, not initially) and Likud loathed Jimmy Carter. What would a little delay in releasing the hostages be, compared to getting rid of Jimmy Carter and having eight years of Reagan/ Bush senior (the spooks really liked George Sr) in the White House and Casey, a former Donovan boy as head of the CIA. Jay, use your imagination and link the dots. You are not the only one who absolutely hated Jimmy Carter and his Middle East policy.

Almost simultaneously, Newsweek published its own cover story also attacking the October Surprise allegations. The article, I was told, had been ordered up by executive editor Maynard Parker who was a close associate of Henry Kissinger and was known inside Newsweek as a big admirer of prominent neocon Elliott Abrams.

The two articles were influential in shaping Washington's conventional wisdom, but they were both based on a misreading of attendance documents at a London historical conference which William Casey had gone to in July 1980.

The two publications put Casey at the conference on one key date - thus supposedly proving he could not have attended one of the Madrid meetings with Iranian emissaries. However, after the two stories appeared, follow-up interviews with conference participants, including historian Robert Dallek, conclusively showed that Casey wasn't there.

Veteran journalist Craig Unger, who had worked on the Newsweek cover story, said the magazine knew the Casey alibi was bogus but still used it. "It was the most dishonest thing that I've been through in my life in journalism," Unger later told me.

If you want to have fun wit... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

If you want to have fun with the conspircy theories, apply the logic of LIHOP with Obama's "we can absorb a terrorist attack" bit, mix in the October surprise and finally forecast the Obama approval ratings by looking at the pre and post 9/11 Bush ratings. Personally I can see Obama making political choices that unintentionally enable an attack, but not intentionally allowing an attack to take place for political gain. And given Obama's ineptness, I really have a hard time imagining the dems would have the ability to schedule an October surprise.

As some have pointed out ea... (Below threshold)
boqueronman:

As some have pointed out earlier, there is one measure of how very different these two "conspiracy" theories actually are. One, the "Truthers," supports the proposition that elements of the executive branch of the U.S. government conspired in an organized and premeditated plan to murder U.S. citizens. I'm still a bit unclear as to what the ostensible purpose was supposed to be. Clearly, Vietnam showed that war for political gains is mostly a losing strategy. Then there was some convoluted idea about going into Iraq for oil that Bush could give to his buddies. That one pretty clearly looked ludicrous within months and it isn't often offered these days. The "Birther" conspiracy, to me, is a little like alien abductions or the flat earth. It's not some grand, multi-tentacled secret society paranoia. It's mostly just like the guy carrying "The End Is Nigh" sign. The best idea is to just walk on by. The "Truthers" are saying that the elected Constitutional government is a sham and cannot be trusted. A dangerous path to trod in these trying times.

The birthers claim not t... (Below threshold)
john:

The birthers claim not to believe the non-birth certificate form provided by officials in the state of Hawaii is dispository regarding the events around Obama's birth.

Right. So in other words, exactly what I said.

I disagree with them

Your comments above indicate otherwise.

One, the "Truthers," sup... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

One, the "Truthers," supports the proposition that elements of the executive branch of the U.S. government conspired in an organized and premeditated plan to murder U.S. citizens. I'm still a bit unclear as to what the ostensible purpose was supposed to be.

I think the truthers believe that the neocons were behind it and wanted an excuse to go to war.

Truthers. Not enough scumb... (Below threshold)
Timmer:

Truthers. Not enough scumbags to pull it off and, we're just not that good at keeping secrets. We're not. Someone would have blown the lid off by now. Sets new standards for self-loathing that lot.

Seems like Tina S. is a tru... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Seems like Tina S. is a truther. I am surprised. ww

I'm always surprised that w... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I'm always surprised that with these conspiracies pro and con, there isn't more personal investigation or leg work done. Documents are one thing but?

For example, Obama`s birth seems to a mystery, with no first hand accounts to settle it definitively one way or not. If Obama`s mother had no close friends or her mother and father at his birth to attest to the circumstances, which seems hard to believe, I would start by tracing, through the Honolulu paper other babies born on the same day and in the same hospital and go from there. Surely there are people alive; who were young doctors/ nurses/ vistors/relatives of other babies born on the same time, in the obsetrics ward, in the Honolulu hospital that could remember or remember being told about a black baby born from a white mother, which must have been a rare event, then in Hawaii.

And if you think I'm giving credence to birthers, to disguise long distance travel and of someone "carrying child" is well nigh imposisble and this would be August in Hawaaii, very, very hot.

Wild Willie, I sure am a tr... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Wild Willie, I sure am a truther. It was all a plot in which Karl Rove, Dick Cheney & the 3 Bush's conspired with Cat Women, Darth Vader and Jeffrey Dahmer(his death was faked);)

I think comparing birthers ... (Below threshold)

I think comparing birthers and truthers is about like comparing apples and backsides. Given that Obama's birth certificate is an orange not an apple, and 9/11 is a giant hole in the ground not a...

Well, you get the idea.

So where do the folks that ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

So where do the folks that claim John McCain wasn't born a US citizen fall in the mix?

What I find amusing is that... (Below threshold)
John S:

What I find amusing is that before his 2004 election, Obama was routinely described in media reports as the "Kenyna-born" state senator of Illinois. After the election, this is no longer true.

9-11 trufers now have anoth... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

9-11 trufers now have another ally. Imanutjob of Iran. That puts them in the right company.

What I find amusing is t... (Below threshold)
john:

What I find amusing is that before his 2004 election, Obama was routinely described in media reports as the "Kenyna-born" state senator of Illinois.

False.

www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ap.asp

Nice try, birther.

Truthers. they have most of... (Below threshold)
Ernie:

Truthers. they have most of Canada thinking that the Government did it.
Birthers just have it wrong! Because our Congress never reads the Constitution, that is why he is President.
Artical 1, 1.5 No person except a natural born citizen, shall be eligible to the office of President.
Natural Born is where you are born of parents who are citizens of that country.
They wanted the President to have allegiance to another country by birth. Like Kenya!!

Well instead we could have ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Well instead we could have had a President whose allegiance was to another country by birth like Panama!

Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual) reads:

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

RE: 47THis is mean... (Below threshold)
epador:

RE: 47

THis is meant regard the birth of kids not born to two US citizens. Just a little out of context there, Steve, huh? Then again that codifies you completely.

epador, this is a surprisin... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

epador, this is a surprisingly a complicated subject; nothing is clear, even the term natural born citizen. According to wikipedia..yes I know, but then the bible was the wikipedia of its day, and it is considered gospel.

status as a natural born Citizen of the United States is one of the requirements set by the United States Constitution for candidates to be eligible for election to the office of President or Vice President.

There is not any authoritative, universally accepted definition of the phrase "natural born citizen". There are several different views that have been advocated by various people over the years, but nothing is a settled matter of law.


And McCain wasn't born at a miiltary base as I thought.

John McCain (born 1936), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born of two U.S. citizen parents at the Colón Hospital in Colón, Republic of Panama. The city of Colón was outside the US-administered Panama Canal Zone and remained Panamanian territory throughout the existence of the Canal.

So its possible, (okay only remotely), we could have had two Manchurian candidates. The Senate resoution legiimitizing McCain's status as a presidential candidate was non-binding.

Further "In Rogers v. Belle... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Further "In Rogers v. Bellei the Supreme Court only ruled that "children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment", and didn't elaborate on the natural born status...1971

There are several factors t... (Below threshold)

There are several factors that contribute to the growth of theories about events or situations. The biggest factor is the fact that in most cases we are talking about a disaster, assassination (Lincoln, JFK, etc), attack (9-11, Pearl Harbor) being reviewed after the fact from only one side. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, the hijackers, etc were not exactly cooperating witnesses to the investigations. Obviously, those charged with piecing together the answers to the who, what, when, where questions will be able to ascertain some provable facts and some positions which are believed but unprovable. After the findings are released there will always be some who refuse to believe the official investigation findings. Sometimes they will focus on scientific issues where they are convinced X "couldn't" happen that way. That can be just from gross ignorance (Rosie O'D insisting metal can't melt) or it can stem from misreading the report. Some folks have such a strong distrust of the government that they operate from a thought that whatever the government said happened (especially is the opposition party is currently in charge) must be a cover story. When it comes to theories like the Obama birth issue those type seems to be started accidentally by the subject of the rumors. President Obama is one of the most secretive person to run for national office. I don't know if that is just his nature or if he has reason not to release various documents. My guess is he is careful politician and decided certain things (grades, etc) would detract from the personal narrative he was selling. You can't just hold back one document or you end up drawing attention to the item you didn't want exposed. So, instead you accept that people will call you secretive and you dismiss it by saying you just want to maintain some privacy. It also gives him the added benefit of being able to marginalize anyone asking about your past as just part of the nutty birther crowd. Mind you, I am not saying they initially planned to go that route, but once they saw folks latch onto the citizenship issue it was obvious that anyone who went down that road would look foolish.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy