Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Another military birther

Air Force Staff Sergeant Daryn Moran is being discharged for refusal to obey orders, since he claims Obama is not the legal President. [1]. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point, it is slightly more precise to say that Moran, who is being discharged, believes Obama is ineligible. The cause/effect is still unclear. --Weazie (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually he calls "B. Obama" (his preferred term for Mr. Obama) an "enemy". The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relevance this has to the article. I'm sure there are birthers in all walks of life. I don't think an Air Force Staff Sergeant being discharged for refusing to report for duty (whatever his excuse) is particularly notable. Mystylplx (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I just brought it up since it shows that the birthers have not stopped. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

People haven't stopped believing that lemmings throw themselves off of cliffs, but that doesn't mean the Lemming page should be updated every time someone reiterates that belief. 206.28.38.227 (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur that it isn't notable (at this point). --Weazie (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Relevance for Wikipedia

As the english wikipedia is read and edited from all over the world, I wonder why this article has to be THAT long. I really don't think this is really relevant. This article wastes a huge amount of energy which could be used to make sensible contributions to the wikipedia. Now this energy is wasted on fighting political polarised writers who try to hijack this article.

My proposition is that an administrator locks this article for public editing and cuts away unnecessary content. So far.

--81.57.8.148 (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it your belief that if this article didn't exist, people who work on it would work on other things? People work on what they feel is important. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Em, sorry for putting it on the top of the discussion page. @Mark: Actually no, probably more than the half would not contribute. Yet, the "other half" would not need to waste energy to counter balance opinions. But I am surprised, the revision history does not look that frequent to me. So maybe it is not that bad. But nevertheless I think this article is way to long, and has way to much media (8 pictures, 1 video) included. Quality is not quantity of information, actually to much unnecessary and boring information kills an article. Okay, to go into detail and waste energy.

• Political candidates and elected officials

Largely unnecessary, it is not relevant to give a detailed summary of the congressman which speculated on this matter, the article does not gain in quality through that. Such information may benefit the articles of these other "politicians". The only relevant entry is the one of Donald Trump who may have been the reason why Obama published his certificate,

• Campaigners and proponents

Unnecessary. Cut! Cut! Cut! If there is still flesh after removing the grease, well leave it.

Seriously, who is interested in what Charlie Sheen, WorldNetDaily, Talk Show Hosts and Second Row Politicians might have said about this issue? To state that birthers are mostly found within the ranks of the "Tea Party" and "Right Wing Extremists" (like blabla the terrorist) might be a good summarisation of the paragraph, notable exceptions to this statement might still contribute. The polls, in section "opinion surveys" might be merged with this section. To that matter I think it is crazy to give an overview over the existing polls on this subject, as if the subject could be voted on. Where the polls undermine or contradict a hypothesis leave it, otherwise delete it.

So I will stop for now and wait a few days for your opinions before starting the weed out. --Catmangu (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with cutting the sections you suggested. Cutting anything else would have to be decided on a case by case basis, but I support the cuts you suggest. Mystylplx (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be methodical in condensing the article, in order to gain consensus. It is a large subject at the intersection of a bunch of mainstream and fringe elements in American politics, and the article has bloated over time as it collected a lot of disparate information. Among the proponents WorldNetDaily is certainly an important piece of the puzzle. Orly Taitz for sure, and Hillary Clinton's campaign. I'm not sure any of the celebrities matter (other than Donald Trump, who's in the politician section) but the list of talk show hosts is pretty significant, as much of this stuff came from the blogosphere and talk radio. Regarding politicians, Gingrich, Bachman, Huckabeee, and Palin figure in. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur that this article needs to be shortened. It's way, way too long. This is, in my opinion, a fairly clear example of undue weight. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hawaiian Sovereignty Argument

Should the argument that Obama was born in a state that Hawaiian sovereign activists claim is not a legal state but an occupied Kingdom of Hawaii be presented? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Might as well add that Richard Nixon may not be eligible because some in Mexico saw the accusation of California as illegal. Or that Woodrow Wilson couldn't have been president because Virginia was part of the Confederacy. Perhaps no one can be president because some in Britain still may not recognize the independence of the USA.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about Nixon or Wilson, JOJ, and there's no need to be sarcastic. @KAVEBEAR, I've heard that one, but don't think it's very widespread. But if it's been written about in reliable sources there's no reason it can't be briefly mentioned. Mystylplx (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not sarcasm, its reality. Welcome to wikipedia.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't plan on writing anything, but maybe someone else would. That's the reason I brought it up. And a brief note is probably as far as it should go. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of this particular tinfoil angle. Inclusion would depend on the sourcing; if it only appears in a handful of fringe blogs, forget it. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hawaiian sovereignty advocates aren't white people, so birthers are unlikely to be interested in allying with them in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And, by the same token, the left wouldn't want to be critical of them. Xcal68 (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it's worth it....

But a Georgia court has actually agreed to hear a birther case: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2012/01/04/1880356/georgia-judge-to-hear-arguments.html 147.138.92.76 (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If it gets anywhere, maybe. It's mentioned in Orly Taitz and Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation, both linked from here and the latter noted in the litigation section as the detailed article for that topic. Ravensfire (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mars Missions and CIA Links

Can someone add in the Mars missions and CIA links to this? Recent stories out last week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.97.120 (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

roflmfao...

This one is too good to miss:

Two former participants in the CIA’s Mars visitation program of the early 1980’s have confirmed that U.S. President Barack H. Obama was enrolled in their Mars training class in 1980 and was among the young Americans from the program who they later encountered on the Martian surface after reaching Mars via "jump room".

Andrew D. Basiago, 50, a lawyer in Washington State who served in DARPA’s time travel program Project Pegasus in the 1970’s, and fellow chrononaut William B. Stillings, 44, who was tapped by the Mars program for his technical genius, have publicly confirmed that Obama was enrolled in their Mars training class in 1980 and that each later encountered Obama during visits to rudimentary U.S. facilities on Mars that took place from 1981 to 1983.

Their astonishing revelations provide a new dimension to the controversy surrounding President Obama’s background and pose the possibility that it is an elaborate ruse to conceal Obama’s participation as a young man in the U.S. secret space program.

http://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2011/11/mars-visitors-basiago-and-stillings-confirm-barack-obama-traveled-to-mars-1.html

http://www.geekosystem.com/mars-obama-conspiracy/

Fat&Happy (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

:) I really wish we could add that! Mystylplx (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait! We can! 1, 2, 3! Mystylplx (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet more confirmation of the interesting idea that people dream up ever-more crazy things to believe as a sign to their peers that their belief is even stronger than that of the group—which elevates their status and the exclusivity of the group. Is there an article about this somewhere? Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

See the three links I posted above. :) Mystylplx (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I already enjoyed them, thanks. I'm now wondering about the big picture: how do people manage to believe the stuff they do (or say they do), as in my previous message. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Either way it would not belong here since according to this theory Obama is American so he would still be the legitimate president even if this was true.--69.159.111.241 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but this article isn't actually about his eligibility, it's about conspiracy theories about his eligibility. And here we have a new theory on why those theories came about. A conspiracy to obfuscate by creating conspiracy theories, if you will. Or possibly an entire new article on Barack Obama CIA conspiracy theories would be better. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What if the reason he went to Mars was to visit his real parents? JamesMLane t c 07:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought they were from Krypton. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What if he holds dual Martian/American citizenship? :P

Maybe the article title should be renamed to simply Barack Obama Conspiracy theories. After all, some birthers don't even claim he's not a citizen, just that he's not a natural born citizen. There's also the claims that he's secretely a Muslim, that he has ties to terrorists, that he's not actually black but instead is an Arab, that he's secretly gay, that he's spent $2 million to hide his records, that OBL wasn't really killed, that his middle name is Muhammad, and that his real father was Frank Marshall Davis. And that's just off the top of my head. Is there some reason this article is specific only to citizenship conspiracy theories? Mystylplx (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Single-article overload? Remember, we also have Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. Fat&Happy (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

== Social Security Number ==

I do not see any mention in the article of his social security number. The number is [redacted] and is from a dead person in Connecticut. Source http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/barack-obamas-ssn-042-68-4425-fails-e-verify-system-birth-ceritificate-forged-draft-registration-forged-17-oct-2011-issue-washington-times-national-weekly-edition-pg-5-cdr-kerchners-bl/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.59.207 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A Wordpress blog is not a reliable source. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Although many birthers like to claim Obama is using a dead Connecticuter's social security number, that has nothing to do with Obama's citizenship (or eligibility). (And I redacted the actual number from the IP's comment.) --Weazie (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to throw this out there: Jean Paul Ludwig's SSN is not the one listed by the birthers. The guy died in 1981, twenty years after Obama was born and, most likely, well after Obama already had his SSN issued and was using it.[2] Dueling NRS. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

National Review as a reputable source and the Drudge Report

I also notice the 2011 long form cites the National Review as a reputable source and the Drudge Report as conspiracy theorists, even though Drudge has a much higher Alexa rank and readership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.59.207 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And your point is? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In no way is a websites Alexa rank relevant. Mystylplx (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Course it is! Youtube is rank 3rd in the world. That means if it's on Youtube it's 99.99% reliable and trumps everything. Except a Facebook group (rank #2), that is. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of I Can Has Cheezburger?, which is 60k higher than Drudge on Alexa's ranking. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)