One might have differing opinions as to who created the birther movement. As we know, the core Obama conspiracy theory was first stated by an pseudonymous blogger; however, an obscure blogger doesn’t make a movement, and several key individuals helped make the birther movement what it eventually became. The only candidate I know who has actually claimed to have created the movement was Joseph Farah and his online news site WorldNetDaily. Farah said:
Well, [the birth certificate theory] is popular because of us. We essentially created it, didn’t we? There wasn’t a constituency out there waiting for this, [or] it was a way to make money. Those people had to be found.
Many birthers signed onto another theory of Obama ineligibility, an intent that they divined from the Framers of the Constitution that only persons born in the United States to two US citizen parents could become president. That’s a double whammy against Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada to only one US citizen parent.
Farah, however, doesn’t buy into the second theory, evidenced by his endorsement of Ted Cruz for president.
Ted Cruz is the real deal. That’s not to slight Donald Trump, who has played an invaluable role in this campaign – breaking the back of political correctness, presenting a positive vision forward for America and standing up to those who would prefer to see the nation borderless and rudderless.
If Trump turns out to be the winner of the GOP nomination, I will unhesitatingly support him.
Farah doesn’t mention anything about the Cruz eligibility controversy, but commenters on Farah’s WND article certainly did.
In news from the moral high ground, David Farrar is ashamed of Joseph Farah.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/mediaite/famous_obama_birther_supports_canadian_born_ted_cruz/#comment-2562795022
If Americans really want a President born in Canada, wouldn’t Justin Trudeau be a much better choice? It seems everyone in Washington is very taken with him (for good reason) while no one can stand Ted Cruz (also for very good reason).
In summary,
Born in Canada to one citizen parent = real deal.
Born in US or Kenya to one citizen parent = USURPER
can’t say no one saw this one coming …
Just the last smidgen of proof WND’s birtherism was fueled by racism and nothing but racism (note how they don’t ask Hillary about her birth certificate or her parents’ citizenship either).
Politics have always been “tribal” to some extent, but a disturbingly large fraction of the American right-wing has always been completely unhinged when it comes to their political opponents, be they FDR, JFK, the Clintons or Obama.
It’s not enough to be opposed to their policies, dislike the persons, but they have to fabricate preposterous reasons to hate them beyond the rational.
Speaking for my country, I can attest that both de Gaulle and Mitterand arose violent passions among their detractors (in the case of de Gaulle, to the point of generating several assassination attempts), but I can’t recall anything ludicrous or insane being laid at their doorstep, even by those who truly hated them.
I see with great concern how these things are becoming more common in Germany. So-called “concerned citizens” (who “aren’t Nazis”) erecting gallows at their rallies and yelling that’s what our chancellor deserves. The leader of a party that just got 10+% at state elections saying she wants our border secured with lethal force against women and children. Call it the Trumpification of the political discourse. It’s coming around here as well.
The French Far Right does put forward some pretty appalling and unworkable policies (both from a legal/constitutional and practical standpoint), but French Laws on hate speech, libel, etc. keep public discourse relatively within the confines of common sense/sanity and public order.
Arguably, one might say that in the US, the far right say & do openly the same things that some French extremists secretly think and would say & do, but can’t because of our laws. Myself, I’m grateful for this.
Looking a little farther back, I’ve been slogging through William L. Shirer’s “The Collapse of the Third Republic,” an ordeal every American voter should be subjected to this election cycle. It’s all there– political corruption, an irresponsible press, institutionalized disdain for the government in general, various shades of authoritarians, politics placed before the national interest. Just one parallel after another. I haven’t got very far into it– I’ve reached the events of exactly eighty years ago– but I know it doesn’t end well.
“…[E]very person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity…Under our constitution, the question is by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.
“A View of the Constitution” William Rawle, LL.D, 1825
According to the above, Ted Cruz, born in Canada, is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible for the office of president.
According to the above, Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible for the office of president.
It appears that Mr. Farah and WND have gotten it wrong on both counts.
I disagree with this reading of Rawle, and presented my argument that Rawle actually implies that all citizens at birth are natural born citizens here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/rawles-therefore/
I think it would be more accurate to say that Farah no longer buys into the two-citizen-parent “rule,” but he used to.
I read it years ago. American politics today have an uncomfortably familiar feeling with what Shirer observed.
I did too, plus a ton of other Hitler books back when I was arguing a different topic on the Internet. The striking difference between now and then is that Germany was an economic basket case, and the United States today is not. People act differently when they have little or nothing to lose.
According to the above (your quote from Rawle), it is ABSOLUTELY SILENT on the case of Ted Cruz. The quote discusses persons born in the United States. There is not one word in that entire quote that applies to someone born in Canada or any other country.
This is not rocket science. The quote neither supports or denies foreign born citizens as natural born citizens – it is completely silent on that subject.
Yes, that is trivially obvious. No arguement.
To be clear, I’m talking about the Third Republic in France.
Yes, Vattel is mentioned prominently in Jerome Corsi’s WND-published book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” Curiously, though, there is no mention of Vattel or the two-citizen-parent requirement in Corsi’s previous book, “The Obama Nation.”
A couple of year ago, in the comments section of some blog, I asked Farah when and where he and Corsi first learned about the two-citizen-parent requirement, but he didn’t answer.
Keith:
“This is not rocket science. The quote neither supports or denies foreign born citizens as natural born citizens – it is completely silent on that subject.”
Rawle:
“…[E]very person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity…”
Rawle referred to natural born citizens as in reference only to the “United States, its territories or districts” and as the term related to the constitution of the United States. It was clear from what he wrote that people born in foreign countries were not considered part of his natural born citizen formula for the United States. The United States constitution was not written for foreign countries. Foreign countries obviously are not part of the “United States, its territories or districts.” In 1825, the word “natural” was defined as “a native; an original inhabitant.” “One born in any place is said to be native of that place, whether country, city or town.” Ted Cruz is a native of Canada, born on Canadian soil.
Personally, I believe that Rawle would find it difficult to accept Ted Cruz as a natural born citizen of the United States.
That is an excellent book, a great companion to his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I’d like to think that we (the French) have learned our lessons from what Shirer so accurately describes though there a few worrying “eddies” at the end of the French (indeed, European) political whirlpool right now. But they are nothing compared to your politics which, this cycle, have descended into full-blown third-world politics: the demagogy, the histrionics, the violence, the xenophobia, the tribalism, the supine media…
Much, if not most, of the GOP “base” disagrees with you. Especially the segment supporting Tiny Hands, who feeds, and feeds on, their fears with nonsense like “93 million people looking for work” (i.e., all the students, retirees, full-time housewives, etc. counted as “Not in the labor force”).
I’d been wondering what you’d think of it. I’ll take that as a very credible endorsement. It’s a fascinating story, but the players get confusing for one not familiar with the history. And those parallels are scarier than zombies in a hurricane.
So cynical. Cannot the man have been convinced by the rational arguments?
Curious George, I will agree with what you are saying here in the main, with the exception, that Rawley was writing/speaking to a specific not a general question. His answer to one respect of the NBC situation is quite clear and concise, but he was speaking to a specific situation. I will agree with you to a degree on your second point, but not for the reasons you give.
As to Germany, when Hitler began his rise to power Germany had been militarily and economically humiliated and defeated and for all intents destroyed. The economical issues are unquestionable, they existed throughout most of Europe and the world by that time, what isn’t also taken in to consideration is the mental state of the German people of the time. They had been humiliated and demoralized by what they considered the bullies of the western allies, and that sat and festered and got ever worse until Hitler came along and tapped in to that resentment and harnessed it to rebuild the German economy and attempt to return it to a world power. That condition DOES NOT obtain in the here and now in the US.
While the parallels, or lack thereof, of today’s US to Weimar Germany are a worthy topic, it should be noted that history never repeats itself exactly. If it did, our job to analyze our own times and situation would be fairly easy. Nor does Trump have to be Hitler to do great damage to the US and the world. Pick any authoritarian populist figure you like, whether from the past, like Juan Peron, or the present, like Putin or Erdogan and they have all done great damage. Trump doesn’t have to be Hitler re-incarnated for one to oppose his demagoguery,
One correction. My definitions for the terms Native and Natural were taken from an 1828 Noah Webster dictionary, not 1825. My copy of Rawle’s “View of the Constitution” is dated 1825.
Yes, Farah’s endorsement of Cruz has WND’s birther readers mad (there are nearly 4,000 comments on the endorsement column), so WND did a follow-up article trying to defend it, in which Farah dances around the birther double standard, finally punting on it by stating that “from my point of view, when the Congress and courts abdicated their responsibility with regard to the questions of Barack Obama’s eligibility, a precedent was set. If Obama was not going to be held accountable to any standard during eight years as president, how could we hold others accountable?”
http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/trump-fans-erupt-over-1-bold-endorsement/
In a follow-up column, Farah insisted, “Ted Cruz loves America. I could never say that about Obama.” Which is apparently now his standard for eligibility.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/why-i-like-ted-cruz/
Then, the next day — because apparently WND readers were still mad — Farah’s flip-flop is complete in a column headlined “What is a ‘natural born citizen’?” (a question he doesn’t answer): “As for me, I have studied the matter closely. But I do not pretend to be the last word. I have my opinions about the original intent of the founders. I have my opinions about what should be the standard definition. But I would be fooling myself if I thought anyone cared.”
Then he adds: “I had a choice: I could make the election all about constitutional eligibility, or I could look at the candidates and determine for myself who would be the best president. … As for me, I am not persuaded Cruz is ineligible. I am, however, convinced he is the best candidate running for president.”
http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/what-is-a-natural-born-citizen/
Farah has completely put political expedience ahead of his purported love of the Constitution he has been claiming for years. It’s quite a spectacle to see.
Both Shirer books are next to William Manchester on my history shelf.
Someone once said, History doesn’t repeat itself, it stutters.
The fate of Empires, from the Romans to the Spanish, French and British colonial empires, to the USSR, are a fascinating subject for study. There are parallels, of course, but also major differences.
I once argued that there’s been a US 1.0, a US 2.0 after the Civil War, a US 3.0 after the Great Depression and more arguably a US 4.0 that started in the 80s after Reagan and the End of the Cold War, and that you’re now lurching into a US 5.0 that will resemble (for better and worse) the modern oligarchies of Brazil or Argentina.
Shirer’s “Berlin Diary” is a nice companion work to “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” I also have “This is Berlin,” transcripts of his radio broadcasts from Berlin between September, 1938 and September, 1940.
Bernie Sanders uses the “O” word:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYjcjz8U7I0
USA 1.0 has to be the original USA under the Articles of Confederation.
USA under the Constitution is USA 2.0.
I think it is fair to say USA 3.0 after the Civil War, but anything after that, at least so far would, IMHO, be a “dot release”. Maybe 3.1 after the repeal of Prohibition, 3.2 after WWII, and 3.3 after the Nixon resignation.
I had a chuckle over the idea of blanketing a Trump event with copies of It Can’t Happen Here … but you know the sheep actually there to support the angry man would assume the reference was to Clinton and / or Sanders.
A number of whoppers in that one …
Firstly, that Farah adopts and drops his birthin’ whenever its convenient (well, duh, but just sayin’) …
Secondly that he repeatedly whines that “… no one seemed to care …” (that must burn all the true believer’s butts, those who spent the last 7-8 yrs repeatedly humiliating themselves!) …
Thirdly that Farah thinks he could “make” the election all about something. Grand delusion, sir. Grand as in size, not quality.
An interesting distibction.
I would argue strongly that the combination of FDR’s new Deal and WWII did create a new U.S., (ie 4.0 in your numbering) not merely a 3 dot iteration.
After that I’m open to discussing that we’re still in a 4.-something iteration, though it seems to me that 9/11 and the Bush regime either succeeded or came close in creating a 5.0.
Here’s hoping the people who brought us the “Sharknado” films don’t see your comment. And you know, once they do get around to making “Zombiecane” they won’t be able to stop at just one. I can see it now: “Zombiecane 4: This Time They Have Chainsaws!!”
And it will all be your fault, Dave!!
Uh, no, it’s going to be…Lupin’s fault.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Katrina-Protocol-Jean-Marc-Lofficier-ebook/dp/B0046REMDO
Way better than Sharknado.
I’m glad you enjoyed the book. It really was written for the French market (where it did very well) and, having retained US rights, I did the English translation for a lark.
I spent a fair time during my ill-spent youth in the late 1970s in New Orleans and reviewers (including a friend of mine from way back when who still lives in NOLA) praised its atmosphere and sense of authentic locations.
Dick Cheney is in it, too. And yes, it has zombies during Katrina. 🙂
(I was ahead of the curve then.)
I did enjoy it quite a bit. I particularly liked the gods who had better things to do than keep up with our goings-on.
I spent a ridiculously eventful week or so, including my twenty-first birthday, in New Orleans, Kenner, Metairie, Norco and Slidell, working a total of 47.9 hours at Good Hope Refineries. That had just about everything BUT zombies and Dick Cheney in it.
I’m sold!! I have a good friend who’s a bit of a zombie aficionado (graphic artist, animator, used to work at ILM; you know the “type”). His birthday is coming up in a couple of weeks, so he’ll soon be the proud owner of one copy of The Katrina Protocol.
Lupin, don’t spend the royalty check all in one place!
Thank you!!! It’s always a great source of joy to hear from a satisfied reader.
I will plan to buy treats for the dogs! 😉
(Probably unnecessary advice, but if your friend is a pro-Bush person, he might not enjoy the book.)
I’m pretty sure that on my friend’s list GW Bush lies somewhere between diaper rash and projectile vomiting. But at the top of his list would be dogs (right after his children and wife, of course 🙂 ).
BTW, I just ordered the paperback (new) from Amazon. Only one left in stock, but more are on the way, according to Amazon.
Another birther has joined Cruz’s team.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/ted-cruz-outdoes-trump-adds-muslim-hating-birther-conspiracy-theorist-to-his-foreign-policy-team/
Frank Gaffney was on the Birthers from A to Z list.
From your link:
“Gaffney has been shunned from much of mainstream conservatism, with the annual CPAC event repeatedly banning from him from speaking, after he accused anti-tax activist Grover Norquist of being a secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Say, Doctor Conspiracy, do you remember back in June of 2014 writing over at cafeconlecherepublicans:
“I personally agree with the conclusions of the CRS report and the article, but I also think that the Republican mind has been so affected by the nonsense of the Obama birthers that Cruz couldn’t get the nomination.”
http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/
Back then I was sort of thinking the same thing, but now we have evidence to the contrary. Joseph Farah, owner, editor, and lord of World Net Daily, endorses Ted Cruz. Now we see that even the deranged lobe of the Republican mind is not really so affected by the Birther nonsense. The Birther thing was never about law. It’s about hatred of Barack Hussein Obama II, 44’th President of the United States. They arrived at the merit-less legal position when Obama became the issue, and Joseph Farah is leading the way out now that Obama is no longer the issue.