Putting paid to ‘birtherism’

As I often do I am going to take a contrarian position on this whole story, which is being discussed here, on Steve Sailer’s blog, among other places.

Does it all end with a whimper, after, what, 8 years of controversy? And all because one man steps before a microphone, saying it isn’t true?

I am sure that ‘resolution’ makes certain people in high places very happy; now the issue can be declared dead and laid to rest. And even more to the point, the whole issue of the ‘natural-born’ requirement for presidential candidates is now declared irrelevant, according to those who were always opposed to the so-called ‘birthers.’

The consensus on the ”right” seems to be that the whole controversy originated with Hillary Clinton, or her campaign in the person of the sleazy Sid Blumenthal. Therefore, goes this line of ‘reasoning’: Hillary started it, and therefore it was bogus and it was a lie, hence it’s delegitimized by being associated with her or her lackeys.

Now what’s the name of that logical fallacy again? Whatever it’s called, it is dishonest and just not valid to say that because person X makes a statement or raises a question that the claim is automatically discredited, or obviously a lie. The fact is, too, that nobody offers proof of the statement that Hillary (or Blumenthal) started the controversy, or that they were the first to ask the obvious questions about the birth of a presidential candidate.

Those who’ve read this blog know that while I didn’t write much on the ‘birther’ issue I expressed my disgust with the very vociferous ‘anti-birthers’ who acted as ”concern trolls” whenever people posted blog pieces or forum topics on the birth controversy. If those antis had had their way, nobody would have been allowed to discuss it, lest ”we look ridiculous to the left”. “You’ll make us a laughingstock; we’ll lose the election if you don’t shut up!” Such was the tenor of their ‘arguments.’ Sad. More than sad.

Does the Truth matter to more than a handful of people on this planet anymore?

I do remember that during the 2008 election the birth issue was raised by a number of bloggers, one being a blogger known as Dr. Kate. There were a number of others. A lot of scholarship and investigation went into the question on the part of some people, whose efforts are now being repudiated.

The only reason, as far as I can see, that the GOP establishment did not take up the hue and cry is political correctness. Then, as now, they were running scared from the ‘r-word’, just as I knew they would. They refused to touch the issue, while Hillary felt more free to exploit the obvious doubts, being more protected by the media and her constituency. That does not mean she invented ‘birtherism.’

It is by no means self-evident to me that Hillary started it all with a big lie as most are happy to accept. I need to have that proven to me, but then again there will be few people who will touch the subject now. Nobody likes being smeared as a ‘conspiracy kook’, a ‘birther’ (why should that be a slur, anyway) or a ‘Sperg.’  I really hate that last childish insult. It’s a low kind of ad hominem aimed, I guess, at people who are deemed too ‘nitpicky’, what the Freudian idelogues call ‘anal.’ So you see, standards and rules are important only to people with Aspergers, or autistic people, or ‘anal’ people. Thank you, social “sciences”, for creating new labels to discredit differing opinions and the personalities of those who hold unpopular opinions.

I know that the younger ‘rightists’ say that the Constitution has become an idol and that we need to get over our obsession with the Constitution — but that’s much like what C.S. Lewis warned about when he said that each age paradoxically argues against the very things that are all but defeated and extinct. For example, a libertine and licentious age rails against ‘puritanism’ and ‘prudery’, as is happening now, things which most know full well are on life support. The antis just want to make sure that the old standards are good and dead, and in no danger of resurrection. They are determined to put a stake in the heart of anything traditional lest it recover and spoil their party.

So to most ”rightists’ of whatever stripe, the Constitution is something best forgotten, including the requirement that our presidents be natural-born. They say they do not care. And during the primaries the Cruz supporters declared that the ‘birthers’ who objected to a Canadian-born, half Cuban immigrant candidate were crazy or out of bounds to even raise the question.

Anti-birthers, you won, and now the field is officially wide open for anyone from anywhere to be elected presidents. Thanks to the anti-birther concern trolls, who’ve won the day by shouting down the people with legitimate unanswered questions.



4 thoughts on “Putting paid to ‘birtherism’

  1. I’m glad you don’t give up on this one VA. As you say, enormous good quality research was done to try to understand this case. It was met by ridicule and stonewalling by government officials. They shirked their duty at a minimum and perpetuated some fraud it seems likely given their attitude.

    Why should they have such contempt for those asking questions or doing research? The answers were never self-evident, nor did most of those expressing contempt have the secret files. They don’t know the answers even now.

    If the case is closed, why isn’t the mystery over? This classic line applies to the Obama birth case more than ever. After 8 years, we seem no closer to the truth than the start. There is loads of contradictory information. There are many possible scenarios still open. The records are still closed, not just in Hawaii but Indonesia.

    Who was Obama’s real father? Can we even be sure of the mother? Where was Stanley Ann Dunham in 1960 and 1961? Month by month or day by day as the case may be.

    Obama flew to Indonesia after he turned 18. Shortly thereafter, his stepfather Lolo Soetoro divorced Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro (SADS) and married his long time girl-friend.

    SADS continued to live and work in Indonesia. Did she own her own home? Was she an Indonesian citizen? Could she own property? What were her work permit based on? Did she need Obama to register as an adult male Moslem citizen of Indonesia when he turned 18 so she could stay and work in Indonesia? Buy a house in his name for her to live in? Is that why the divorce was delayed?

    If Obama registered as a citizen of Indonesia, had a house in his name, with property taxes paid in his name for 20 years, he might very well have lost his US citizenship under the still existing US Supreme Court cases in this area.


  2. As of the 1960 law to into the 1990s and beyond, foreigners could not own land or a house in Indonesia. So if Stanley Ann Dunham was not a citizen of Indonesia she needed Obama to own her house in his name if she wanted to in effect own her own home.

    Indonesia Act No. 5 of 1960 regulated foreign ownership of land, apartments or houses. It was not allowed when Obama turned 18 and returned to Indonesia and Stanley Ann Dunham divorced Lolo Soetoro but continued to live there.

    Obama may still own it. Very likely, some interesting people have lived in that house.


  3. “We, her friends, have gathered around her large table for one of our frequent dinners at her house. ”

    “The time was the early 1980s at the height of the repressive Suharto regime. Ann was the one with the great cook, the spacious house ”


    The divorce from Lolo Soetoro was 1980. So Stanley Ann Dunham either rented this house or it was owned in the name of Barack Obama. For Obama to own it, he had to have registered as an adult male Moslem citizen of Indonesia after he turned 18. Religion is required in Indonesia and we know he was registered as a Moslem in school there.


  4. VA,
    While obviously I don’t know Trump’s mind, his “disavowal” of “birtherism” appeared to me a political maneuver, cleverly timed, rather than a genuine statement of deep-seated belief.

    Of course Obama’s entire fabricated past – including where and to whom he was born – is relevant, but to actually investigate it would be to indict almost all of post WWII American history, and upset far too many apple carts. Immigration, miscegenation, sexual liberation, victimhood, etc. ad nauseam, are all unquestionable pillars of the narrative. Most people are far too fearful to even think of questioning these things, let alone face the consequences (how many people are traitors, how much “law” is treasonous, etc.).

    Ultimately, until the Alt Right truly triumphs and has a country of its own, no legitimate investigation will ever happen, because that would call the legitimacy of America 2.0 into question, and that would upset all the Ellis Island descendants who insist their g-grandmother was the bestest, most patriotic American evah! I truly understand and share your concern, but would argue at this point it’s an unnecessary sticking point. The most important battle is to beat, by any means, the globalist administrative state. Elect Trump and have him act, as Decius noted (author of flight 93 election), “like a burly blocker who’s opening a path for us to run through.” Let’s get past that first, or what might possibly follow will die aborning.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s