The weareSMRT blog (SMRT = Skeptical Minds and Rational Thinkers) has referenced this blog, atheism-analyzed as a bad example of something or other, possibly conspiracy theories. I welcome all SMRTies (if this name is annoying, what should I call you?) and I hope you all will stick around for discussions of whatever pleases you. Please read ahead.
The comment linking here was to a post that connects certain issues together into a single category: conspiracy theories. This is a tendency of block-thinking groups that proclaim “skepticism” for themselves, while also condemning any skepticism outside of their own accepted laundry list, as illegitimate. This is done via denigration by association – the False or Guilt By Association Fallacy – rather than to take on the issues one at a time and evaluate them based on the evidence pro vs. con.
The presupposition underlying the charge of conspiracy theory is that such questions are illegitimate, and therefore should not be addressed, much less answered. Further, the askers of such questions are presumed to be illiterate obstructionists trying to impede a current philosophy or policy, with no evidence even possible for proof of their reckless charges. This is true in some cases, so by lumping difficult or annoying issues in with illegitimate issues, they can be dispensed with, without the pain of proof or disproof. And of course there are conspiracy theories that cannot be proved or disproved, such as the moon-landing denial. Other conspiracy theories are blatantly false such as holocaust-denial. These are without merit, and indeed do not rise to the value of being pursued.
So charging conspiracy theory against a question automatically is expected to de-legitimize and neutralize it without having to actually deal with the intricacies of the evidence and rational evaluation of the evidence.
Is asking for Obama’s birth certificate a conspiracy theory? Is it asking a question that cannot be answered? Is it asking a question that should not be asked or answered? Clearly, No and No.
For example, the term “birther” is the denigration used for those who want to see Obama’s birth certificate, a prerequisite for his holding the office of President of the United States, under the U. S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1. The information is available, it just needs to be released; it is valuable, because it either validates or invalidates a presidency. True skeptics would be interested in the evidence pro and con, for allowing release of that document, because if the document indicates that the Constitutional requirements are not met, then everything Obama does during his illegal seating will be nullified in the future.
Here is the evidence as is currently available:
a) There was, for a brief time, an internet posting of the Hawaii document that points to the existence of a “live birth” declaration, which is not the same as a “birth certification” and which can be applied to foreign birth as well as domestic.
b) There was, for a brief time, a forged document that was presented as the birth document itself; this was a poor job of photoshopping the name, “Barack Hussein Obama” onto a form – but the spaces between the letters and the name contained a backgound that was different from the background of the form: a clear forgery.
c) There was, for a time, another forgery in the form of a birth document from Kenya. There remains no birth document that has been presented in support of Obama’s claim to the presidency under the U. S. Constitution.
Wishing to see this document is unfairly labeled by some dogmatists – not necessarily SMRTies - as first, anti-Obama; second, as racist; third as un-American; and fourth as illegitimate conspiracy theory. This series of Ad Hominem labels ignores both minority group members who want to see the document, and Obama well-wishers who want his agenda to succeed and not be subject to revocation on grounds of fraudulent occupation of the office.
Now, assuming that all this is unconvincing to the SMRTies, then there must be some other evidence regarding the concealment of Obama’s birth documents that is not revealed in the above evidence yet is available to SMRTies, and if so, I certainly hope that the SMRTies will reveal the evidence that has convinced them to congeal into such a dogmatic position of ignoring and/or delegitimizing the subject.
I look forward to discussing this and anything else of interest to the SMRT skeptics.
25 comments:
There is other evidence you don't mention.
One is the birth announcements that ran in both major Honolulu newspapers announcing that on August 4, 1961 the birth of a son to Mr and Mrs Barack H. Obama.
Yep. To not accept this obviously clear evidence, you would have to be a, what do you call 'em, conspiracy theorist.
Conspiracy nut.
There, fixed it for ya.
Thanks for the welcome.
To be frank I don't really mind about the whole issue. I'm not American, however a brief internet search found the Snopes article:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
I find the fact the claim of illegitimacy was analysed by two courts to be convincing.
That said I have little knowledge of the US courts, nor the requirements of maintaining birth records around that time.
Again, welcome guys!
The substitute for the real thing is not convincing. It is especially worthy of skepticism when the real thing is available but is refused to the public, which is expected to be satisfied with proxies such as those mentioned above.
What are the limits of skepticism? In this case, the limits seem to be political agendas, which quench the thirst for a demonstration of the only valid document: the actual birth certificate or the actual certification of live birth.
It is bait and switch (in a sense) to proffer proxies, when the actual document is guarded and secreted away. And for what possible reason would such an innocuous document be held so secret? Skepticism is warranted. Would an impartial jury be satisfied with such proxies when the actual document is available?
I forgot to address the judges.
Our court system is infested with activist judges who not only make laws outside the legislative branch, but who make interpretations of prior decisions and the U.S.Constitution that are based on relativist, rather than absolutist views of existing law.
The courts have thus become a tool of Leftist agendas through such means and much of what they do and decide is questionable with regard to original meanings of the laws and the Constitution. The prevailing idea that the constitution is a "living document" is an example of the prevailing disregard for that document.
The courts as well the congress (both parties) are held in low esteem by a sizable chunk of the American voting population, which I expect to be confirmed in November. The congress can be replaced, but the courts continue in their preset path.
This doesn't speak to the individual judge's decision, both of which were made without the benefit of the actual, legal document as I understand it. It speaks, however, to the shift in political culture of the ruling class to a relativist ethical posture.
For those two reasons, a biased and untrustworthy judiciary and the continued secrecy of the document, I remain skeptical.
I'm not much up on this issue, but I use Snopes all the time to debunk Internet urban legends and I tend to trust them.
They say:
* The certificate is consistent with others issued at the time
* The embossed seal doesn't show up very well on the scanned image because it's on the back
* BOTH major newspapers of Honlulu report someone named Barak H Obama on Aug 4th 1961
* A friend of the family specifically remembers the birth and remembers writing down the unusual name on a napkin
The above coupled with Anne Coulter claiming the birth conspiracy was invented by liberals to make conservatives look like conspiracy kooks is enough to convince me and I see no reason to keep harping on it.
There exists sufficient evidence for me to accept the fact that Obama is, indeed, an American citizen.
I have, however, found that in almost all instances, anyone who says "Our court system is infested with activist judges" only considers those decisions "activist" that differ from the decision that coincides with their personal demagoguery.
When even Glenn Beck considers the birth certificate issue "The dumbest thing I've ever heard", you are nothing more a Myrmidon yakking up your agenda.
I am also personally ashamed that the congressman from my district has the dishonor to have personally challenged a standing President regarding his authority and legitimacy.
I'd be curious to hear your opinion, Stan: do you think that Obama was not born in Hawaii? Did the activist judges somehow fake the newspaper announcement of his birth? Evidence?
Whether activist judges exist or not is a moot point: unless you can demonstrate that those who specifically evaluated the birth certificate came to their conclusions via an ideological agenda (and not legal precedent), then "judicial activism" is nothing more than a smokescreen.
What convinces me that the birth certificate is genuine? The general behavior of Republican senators and congressmen. If the politicians from the Red side of the ideological fence had serious misgivings about Obama's legal status, the issue would've been in the news daily and nightly, for the last few years. Instead, the Birther movement and its issues are generally ignored by people who have the motivation and power to legally challenge the legitimacy of Obama's election.
I am convinced by the tone of the Birthers, and by the near total lack of sincere attention being paid to the issue.
EDIT: reposted to fix spelling and grammar
Incidentally, thanks for the cross posting and the welcome here.
We've continued discussion of your blog in the forums, and although we generally think your link between political ideology and belief in God is tenuous, some of us trying to be honest about the skepticism. For your interest only, here's my honest, introspective interpretation of what you write and how I view it.
Zilch said,
"I'd be curious to hear your opinion, Stan: do you think that Obama was not born in Hawaii? Did the activist judges somehow fake the newspaper announcement of his birth? Evidence?"
I think that there is a liklihood that Obama was not born in Hawaii, purely based on the mysterious secrecy with which the document is withheld, and the phony document that the WH posted for a while.
A newspaper announcement does not satisfy my skepticism, nor does the fact that two judges satisfied themselves without the actual document.
I don't really care too much, but I feel compelled to defend what I view as unfounded attacks on real skepticism that asks for evidence which exists, but is denied that evidence. Attacking such legitimate skepticism is especially odd when it comes from self-designated skeptics.
It is definitely legitimate to be skeptical of other skepticism, but it should be couched in the pursuit of evidence one way or another, rather than cheap attacks on the individual. Again, in this case resolution would be simple and quick by producing the evidence, but for inexplicable reasons, that is refused. So I remain skeptical.
BTW, "skepticism" should not mean dogmatism. But many of today's skeptics seem to engage in dogmatic argumentation rather than in pursuit of information. Witness the attack on Randi when he expressed mild skepticism about anthropogenic global warming, a subject held dogmatically dear by "skeptics" who ravaged Randi in print. A real feeding frenzy. Interesting.
Whateverman,
Interesting, thanks.
BTW, the connection between the Left, Consequentialism, Atheism, and tyranny goes back to the French Revolution. The term "Left" even comes directly from there. This is merely history, not something I have made up.
I've never claimed and never will claim that this connection "idea" is yours. It's obviously not, and you're certainly not the only person to buy into it.
What I'm questioning is that the phenomenon occurs today on a statistically significant level. I see no evidence of this, and (from what I've read here) you've not offered any.
That it occurred in the past is immaterial to whether it's happening now - let alone that it's happening on a scale which overtly influences the lives, laws and governments of contemporary society.
Nonetheless, I remain largely silent on this topic because I'm hoping to find evidence of it. I might be wrong.
Aparently you have come late to this blog; there are now over 650 posts, so many that I don't even remember some of them.
Have you read, "Rules For Radicals" by Saul Alinsky? Obama taught Alinsky from the book when he was a community organizer. Alinsky advocated Consequentialism in the pursuit of Leftist objectives. The only ethic is to not ignore a means to an objective; all means are ethical except the one ignored.
Obama also advocated for "positive rights", which are those rights restricted to those which are specifically allowed to the people by the state. As opposed to "negative rights" which are those rights which are not specifically prohibited by the state. The tenth amendment to the US Constitution Bill of Rights is intended to set up negative rights for the USA.
All the "czars" appointed by Obama are able to refuse to report to congress and usurp the powers of usual appointees who are shunted aside. This forms an untouchable shadow government outside the law and constitution. Some of the czars are openly Maoist communists, as well as leftist activists and open eugenists (for a list, check "Culture of Corruption" by Malkin. Or I can work up a list if you need me to.
Stan, why don't newspapers convince you? Who do you think was born in 1961 in Honolulu named Barak Hussein Obama if it wasn't President Obama?
The announcements as I understand it were of a "notice of live birth" which is a secondary category relating to all births to residents regardless of where they took place. The primary category is called "certification of birth" (or something like that) which indicates a local birth.
The legality could cause Democrats fits sometime later on down the pike, if Obama is discredited.
The question remains, why not show the certificate, why is it a state secret?
The newspaper announcements list the address of the parents of Barak H Obama in 1961 as 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy in Honolulu.
Does it list the location of the birth?
Nope. The information comes from the Hawaii Health Bureau, and is given to the papers for publication.
Here is one.
And here is the other.
And the birth certificate is not released because Hawaii state law prohibits it: Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18
Mr. Obama's behavior does not support the Leftist --> Junk Science --> Atheist notion. He's one guy; citing him as evidence is not statistically or logically convincing.
In any case, "czars" have been a political phenomenon since the mid 1930s. If they do represent some kind of shadow government, there's no evidence that they've had a significant impact on the policies and practices of this nation.
By way of comparison, while in office George W Bush appointed more czars than any president in US history - and yet, the gnashing of teeth IRT to this issue began only after president Obama took office.
10 minutes spent researching this issue reveals evidence that such people are politically motivated, rather than being concerned with the health and welfare of this country.
Source
INB4 "Zomg Wikipedia is leftist propaganda!"
Martin said,
"Nope."
and,
"Hawaii state law prohibits it"
There was a movement through the Hawaii state courts to force disclosure (maybe through freedom of information - it is a federal gov't issue) but the governor of Hawaii issued a decree of some sort prohibiting the release. And the governor was/is a Republican. Anyway, that locked it down, apparently permanently.
Whateverman,
Czars were never seen as a problem until Obama over-did them and at the same time transferred power from those officials requiring senate confirmation to the czars. Several of the officials requiring confirmation have quit due to being empty front offices now, while the power is with the czars.
So you are saying that I don't care about the welfare of the country? Just because I resent that power is being transferred from officials with congressional oversight to un-monitorable politically-appointed officials?
Odd. That's really odd.
Well at least you didn't call me a racist... so far.
Post a Comment