I don't know how many of my readers are familiar with Gulf Breeze, Florida, but it is one of those locales that seems to attract stories about UFO sightings. Like Roswell, Area 51, and a few others, following an initial high profile UFO story, it has begun to collect multiple sightings, and a cottage industry of UFO sightings sprang up. Person after person produced photos, films, eye witness accounts and so on.

The problem being that the initial sighting was debunked. Oh, some of the faithful disbelieve it, but for the most part, the most famous of Gulf Breeze sightings have been shown to be easily reproducible with pie plates and flashlights. Not to mention that a few who reported UFO sightings were found to have in their possession some such faking apparatus.

Now, given that the first and most famous sighting was a hoax, that makes sane people ask, why would other UFO sightings be more likely there? And the truth is, they aren't. The reason UFO sightings multiplied around Gulf Breeze was because of the first famous sighting. After that gathered attention, true believers were more eager to believe in sightings around Gulf Breeze, and so hoaxers and con men started "finding" UFOs around Gulf Breeze. Because it was a fertile area for men looking for some quick cash or momentary fame, Gulf Breeze attracted UFOs, not real UFOs, but stories of UFOs.

And in many ways, that has been the story behind Barrack Obama. He has become the Gulf Breeze of political conspiracy theories.

The Ed Walters of this story is probably Polarik, who published one of the first refutations of Obama's claims to citizenship*. Taking the published birth certificate, Polarik wrote extensively about the many flaws he found, including such claims as it having the wrong document code. The problem was, Polarik was wrong. When a real Hawaiian birth certificate surfaced, it bore the same document code, had the same border, and generally refuted many of his claims. But, like Walters, Polarik persisted, and many continued to believe, despite repeated refutations.

And thus a cottage industry was born. When the "forged birth certificate" theory faltered, then attention focused on why it was a "Certification of Live Birth" instead of the original "Certificate of Live Birth". When it was discovered that was the only certificate Hawaii issued, then new theories arose. He gave up citizenship when adopted in Indonesia, or when he traveled to Pakistan. He claimed Indonesian citizenship to get a Fulbright.

And when each of those was refuted, another took its place. As each plausible theory was demolished, an even more implausible one arose. Topics as remote as British citizenship law for the commonwealth, dicta from debate on the 14th Amendment and the philosophical musings of Swiss writers from the Age of Reason were brought into the fray.

But, as with Gulf Breeze, a troubling question comes to mind. If the initial charge was false, then why would any of the later charges be valid? After all, the whole initial premise was that Obama's published certificate was forged because he was hiding something. if it is not a forgery, why should we continue to believe he is hiding something?

"Where there's smoke there's fire"

That is the claim most often made. Obama has been spending a fortune on defense, he won't release his documents, he hasn't given his document tot he right people, so THERE MUST BE SOMETHING!

But the whole house of cards makes little sense when looked at rationally.

First, Obama offered a defense because he was attacked. He initially published a copy of his birth certificate because there were allegations he was not a citizen. He did not even have to do that. So why would he bother if it was a bad forgery? Some will claim disinformation, but if you think about it, he would have been better off ignoring the charges than posting a copy if his birth certificate were the bad forgery many claim. But, of course, it is not.

Then people mention the money he spent on court costs, but that was necessitated by those who brought charges. Had he not been charged by people who were supporting these claims, he would not have spent money in defense. Think of it this way, if you were arrested and charged with rape, would you hire a lawyer, or just assume the charges would go away? Well, why think Obama is guilty for doing no more than you would do in the same circumstances?

Then we have Obama's college records and other documents. Yes, he has resisted releasing them. However, there is no reason to assume it has anything to do with citizenship. For those of a suspicious mindset, perhaps there is something else to hide. Perhaps the fact that he was admitted on racial preferences, or that he did more poorly in college than his autobiography claims. Perhaps there is something else in there that either contradicts his public stories, or that is simply embarrassing. Or, even more charitably, perhaps he is resisting it because he has nothing to hide, but knows that those who are bent on finding "something" will read into his documents, and they will just create more headaches. And let us face it, releasing every last record would not make one of these claims go away.

And that is the absurdity of the charge that he could make this go away by "releasing his birth certificate". First, it would be the "Certification of Live Birth" so many reject on spurious grounds, so right there it would not satisfy some. And even if he did, to whom should he give it? No matter who saw his birth certificate, felt it and vouched for the notarization, someone would charge that they were "in on it", or the document was forged. Even if he sent a notarized copy to each citizen, and paid a Hawaiian official to visit every town to vouch for it, still some would find a conspiracy.

What he has done is enough to prove citizenship in any reasonable context. There is no more proof that I am a citizen in my application for a passport, my selective service records, my application for a driver's license, or my work records. So, though it probably will upset some of my readers, the fact is Obama has proved he is a citizen**.

"All about the Benjamins. And Chads."

So, why does this theory continue to circulate?

The left would claim racism, and maybe for a tiny minority that is true. But most who promote this theory are not racists. They don't like Obama and his beliefs, but not because of races. No, the rank and file continue to sign on tot his theory, or these many theories, because they found something appealing in the initial claims Obama was ineligible, and they just never quite accepted the refutations. They might think there is some attack on the constitution, and find it easy to blame Obama, or they may worry about Obama's close ties to Islam, or any of a dozen other fears Obama inspires (many quite reasonably***). Still, the truth is, the conclusion appeals to them, just as the existence of UFOs appealed to the Gulf Breeze believers, and so the arguments find a more willing audience****.

But what about those putting out the theories? Those doctoring up birth certificates or mining old congressional records for debates over citizenship? What about the Bergs and others? Why do they continue to do it?

Some have the same motivations as those involved with Gulf Breeze, money and fame. Some just like the limelight, and some want the money the limelight brings.  As always, when there is money to be made, or applause to be gained, people will do whatever it takes.

But in this case there is one more angle, the political.

I doubt anyone really thinks Obama will be removed from office, or declared ineligible to run in 2012. Maybe a few true believers, but those pushing the stories do not. But that does not mean they cannot make political hay with these arguments. For instance, imagine a shaky Democrat seat, maybe a blue dog. As his district is more conservative than most, it make sense that there would be more believers there than elsewhere. So a challenger, pushing the Obama story, might be able to tar his rival with supporting an unconstitutional president, and, with luck, win over a few crucial swing votes. Or, more likely, in a Republican primary, a challenger might find he can attack the sitting Republican by asking him to reject Obama's presidency. As no sitting representative wants the headaches arising form publicly being labeled a birther, he will likely refuse, and thus the challenger will easily pick up a number of votes without much effort. It is an easy way to win votes.

Of course many will reject this explanation. And I did oversimplify a bit. But for every one who really believes in Bingham's argument, there are hundreds who are simply happy with the conclusion and so open to every argument that comes along. And then there is that "smoke and fire" argument. By having raised this question so many times, it has become something of a self-perpetuating argument. "Why would so many people be questioning him if there was nothing to it" doesn't work if the people questioning him are always the same handful, just with new questions.

But as I said, I doubt I will convince everyone, and that isn't my point. I doubt the birthers will go away before 2012 at the earliest. And I don't even intend to try to convince them. All I hope is that by explaining how this and other such beliefs come about and seize the public's attention, maybe the next such folly might not be quite as successful. Maybe one or two, having read this, will ask themselves the obvious question "if the initial claim was proved false, why would subsequent claims be true?" I doubt it will be enough to change the world, or even stop the next such folly (I have no illusions about my influence), but even reducing it a tiny bit might help, just a little.

------------------------------------------------------------

* Someone preceded Polarik, as the birth certificate on Fight The Smears was posted in response to anonymous claims that Obama was not a citizen.

** I am ignoring here the whole "natural born" thing, as that takes far too long for a brief post. In addition, it really is just another symptom of the same phenomenon, as no one ever asked if "natural born" and "native born" differed until now, outside of the single Bingham quote (as shown by the fact that every birther quotes Bingham and no one else). It is just another grasp at straws by those trying to attach yet another theory to the conclusion that Obama is ineligible to be president.

*** I argued before that Obama is too much of a  secular liberal to be a Moslem, so I think the fears of a "Medina Candidate" is a bit bizarre, but that does not mean worries are invalid. He definitely favors a more appeasement oriented foreign policy, a heavily socialized domestic policy and generally espouses a traditional liberal agenda. So these worries aren't unfounded, even if some specific aspects might be a bit off.

**** I don't want any who believe these argument to think this insulting. We all find arguments more convincing if we approve of the conclusion. Arguing that someone is a great human being is easier than proving he is a worthless wretch. I am guilty of this, and so are all my readers. No matter how rational or even tempered, we are more open to arguments which lead us where we want to go. And so proving Obama should not be in the White House is an easy sell to people who agree with that conclusion, just as proving Haliburton was behind the Iraq War was easier for those who already despised the Bush administration.

------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

For those interested, my previous writing on the Obama controversy:

An Interesting Question
A Small Update on the Birth Certificate Controversy
Birth Certificate Controversy Revisited
One More Post on the Birth Certificate Controversy
Really, The Last One on This Topic
Wrong is Wrong
A Few Comments on the Berg Ruling
A New Take on an Old Topic
A Brief Follow Up
Slate Imitates Me, But I Really Don't Mind
Legislative Intent
Not A Smoking Gun
Can Hawaiians Travel Overseas?
An Impossible Argument to Lose
While I am Away... (A Question on "Natural Born")

And on conspiracy theories in general:

Sinister PNAC? Hardly!
Food For Thought
Bill Clinton Murdered Leon Trotsky!
Idiots or Geniuses?
Dismissing Conspiracy Theories
Our New Paranoia
259 Lies?
Isn't History Enough?
The Appeal of Conspiracy Theories
A Shortcoming of Conspiracy Theories
Amusingly Left Wing
Absurdities on Oil
Your Fellow Man
Revival of an Old Absurdity
A Question for Those Who Believe "Bush Lied"
Tips for Conspiracy Theory Buffs #1
Rewriting History Concerning World War II
Those Darn Jews
Those Darn Jews Part 2
One Last Time
Conspiracy Theorists' False Logic
Conspiracy Theory Enters the Mainstream
Can They Both Lose?
All In How You Say It
Conspiracy Theories
Sorry, But Jews Aren't the Problem
Mumia, the DaVinci Code, Full Body Scans, and Loose Change - How Conspiracy Theories Arise
The Zionist Conspiracy and Israel Lobby
Life is Strange
The Delusional World of Oliver Stone
False Flag Theories and 9/11

As I said, some will no doubt disagree with my conclusions, and as I said in "While I am Away... (A Question on "Natural Born")", I am open to such arguments, and welcome those who would prove me wrong. But all of the evidence I have seen so far has done nothing to persuade me.All seems to be much more a conclusion seeking a rationale than a well reasoned chain of thoughts taking the seeker wherever it might lead.

POSTSCRIPT II

I am certain someone will read this post, and, not knowing my blog, will tear into me as a liberal, an Obama apologist, or an enemy of the constitution. Before doing so, I would suggest reading "My Vision of Government", "My Vision of Government Part II", "Prelude",  "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government", "Greed Versus Evil, "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism","Planning For Imperfection", "The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises", "The Benefits of Federalism" and "Why I Am Not A Libertarian. There are many others, but those should show my beliefs are far from a liberal, anti-constitutional writer. And as far as loving Obama, well, just read any page in my blog that has his name on it (eg "Medical Reform, An Overview", "The Insurance Sham" or "Utopianism and Disaster"). As I call him the second coming of Carter ("The Carter Analogy", "History Repeats Itself", "One More "Crisis", "Thank You ObamaCare!", "Memories of Jimmy") I doubt I could be called a fan.

No, what makes me write this is not a love of Obama. I write this first because I value the truth, and I think in this case many are being distracted by a falsehood. Second, and more importantly, as I wrote in  "Think of the Impresison You Make", "Our Donatists", "Picking Your Fight", "To Clarify - Birther Controversy" and elsewhere, by focusing on the birther distractions we do not spend our time wisely, we waste time on these arguments instead of rebutting Obama's many claims about his policies, and, worse, we give the media a tool they can sue to portray us as lunatic fringe members. No, I do not refute birther arguments out of love of Obama, but because I want to see him removed form office in 2012, and birthers may, despite their wishes, help to keep him in office by giving the media a tool with which to tar all conservatives.

POSTSCRIPT III

The worst part of this whole issue is that it creates yet more perils for Republicans seeking office. Anyone seeking Republican office already had to contend with single issue voters on  the pro-life side, who would vehemently oppose anyone who did not espouse a sufficiently strong position on abortion, and social conservatives who demand some degree of support for censorship and public morals laws, and now Republicans must face birthers. And it is a problem. Any candidate who comes out and says birthers are wrong is likely to face the criticism of a small but vocal minority, which can have a disproportionate impact, while if they pay lip service to giving birthers some credence, the majority will come to believe they are loopy conspiracy theorists.

As I said before, Republicans have one very simple problem, we tend to self destruct by eating our own. Unlike the Democrats we can't accept small victories, or accept tactical allies with whom we agree 50% or 60%. There are no "red dog" Republicans for that reason, we would call them RINOs and try to run them out, rather than embrace the 30% or 40% or 50% of their beliefs with which we agree and try to pull them into the fold over time. It is a self-destructive position.