The Evolution From Birtherism To Affirmative Action Scam


Leave it to Republicans in Arizona to take the birther conspiracy theory and find a way to make it more racist.

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett had backed away from his earlier attempts to keep president Obama off the ballot in the state and his flirtations with birtherism. But he’s jumped back into the fray with this twist on the whole thing: sure the president was born in Hawaii, but Obama later fraudulently claimed to be born in Kenya so he could get into college. That’s right. It’s an affirmative action scam.

From Talking Points Memo:

The co-chairman of Mitt Romney’s campaign in Arizona, Bennett made the comments recently at an event where he pleaded for local Republicans to unite behind their party’s presumptive nominee for president. He told them a world under Obama is “just very, very scary.”

“Now, I know there’s a lot of people that are very skeptical as to whether he was born in Hawaii,” Bennett told the crowd. “Personally I believe that he was. I actually believe he was fibbing about being born in Kenya when he was trying to get into college and doing things like writing a book and on and on and on.”

Bennett is not alone in embracing this diverging strain of bitherism. Some believers believe there are discrepancies in the presidents college transcripts which help prove that Obama’s entire life has been engineered as part of a grand plan to put foreigners in the White House. The evolution itself is largely irrelevant because it keeps to the same consistent theme: there’s simply no way a black man could achieve what Obama has without some sort of scam.

So long as people like Mitt Romney refuse to condemn this kind of absurdity and implicitly encourage and validate it expect it to stick around. As we’ve seen with birtherism and the attacks on Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., there is nothing that makes certain elements of the right more angry than a black man in power.


Related Stories:

Arizona Backs Off Birtherism, Kinda Sorta

Arizona Threatens To Keep President Obama Off Nov. Ballot

Sheriff Joe Can’t Let The Crazy Go

Photo from Richard Loyal French via flickr.


Cyan Dickirs
Cyan Dickirs3 years ago

John McCain's "natural born citizenship" was questioned, because he was born in Panama before the 1950"s law extending natural born citizenship to children born of 2 us citizens on foreign or US military bases. Sen. BO signed a proclamation making the law retroactive to settle the question, during the campaign. I think he did it to try to prevent questions about his birth, since he in one book "Dreams....." and in various campaigns prior and headlines he approved had indicated, stated, confirmed, did not contradict or correct, that he had been born in Kenya, before he realized that would prevent him from becoming President, something he should have known because he claims to be a constitutional scholar. The constitution clearly states that the President and Vice president have to be natural born citizens (jus soli-born on the soil).
It is appalling how ignorant of the Constitution and the laws governing citizenship are the voters and supporters of BO, as well as some critics.

Cyan Dickirs
Cyan Dickirs3 years ago

5. BO has revealed a vast dearth of knowledge about his supposed specialty, Constitutional Law, so there is a valid question of how much affirmative action or assistance he got to get him passed with a law degree. Of course, it is also possible that Harvard standards are so low that anybody could have gotten a law degree.
6. Holder has been attacked far less than he deserves, given his complete lack of competence, certainly less than other more qualified Attorney Generals who still deserved criticism. Surely even Pielko can't justify Holders role in gun running. The man, whatever race, is lower than an idiot.
This article says a lot about the mindset and incompetence of the former litigator than it does about conservatives, even the most extreme, who are far fewer than the illogical, irrational, liberal/progressive syncophants(sp) that Jessica Pielko represents so appallingly

Cyan Dickirs
Cyan Dickirs3 years ago

I just saw this article.
Re: the last line. Pielko is the worse kind of bigot. She projects her prejudices against people she assumes are the conservatives and with great irrelevance, bigotry and assumptions rampant, says there is nothing that makes certain elements of the right more angry than a black man in power.
1. BO is not a black man, he is a 1/2 white man. If his bio father was the Kenyan, he is only part black and part Arab. If his father is an American, named Davis, he may well be more than 1/2 white.
2. It is not race that makes anyone angry (another assumption). It is concern and disgust that race is claimed/played to somehow give greater validity and confer unearned credentials to otherwise unqualified individuals.
3. BO's records to a great extent have been made confidential. There is some evidence that he held an Indonesian passport and applied/was accepted to college as a foreign student prior to taking up his US born citizenship at 21.
4. Judging by his actions, words, and videotapes of him at college, supporting an affirmative action "law"professor named Bell who was by all accounts, only interested in UFO and aliens and black nationalism, BO would have needed foreign student aid and affirmative action to qualify for Harvard. Also, he never acquired the necessary credentials to be Law review, so the only way he could have gotten that position was by affirmative action.
5. BO has revealed a vast dearth of knowledge about his supposed specialty, Constitu

LMj Sunshine

Thank you.

LMj Sunshine

Thank you.

Tim Raynor
Tim Ra4 years ago

@Paul - I would have to say some of the comments you post I do agree with, but there are certainly some I do not. I do respect the fact that you have not attacked me with any name calling and are just engaging with, if not intelligent, but adult debate. Disagreeing on political topics is fine with me, just as long as we can be cordial to each other, you'll have my ear, and respect. Nevertheless, fun jabbing and joking around are good with me, too; I'm not some stuffy, serious guy; I love comedy. Like what David did this morning! Holy crap! I thought he was being serious. Mind you, I saw it right after I got up and thought he was serious! Then I realized later it was just a jabbing, practical joke. Nice, David, you got me! LOL!!! =D

David C.
David C.4 years ago

@Paul B
You’re a sloganeer. You repeat Republican talking points but there’s no beef in your pronouncements. Regulations are strangling small business, examples or links please. Examples or links to “jobs” bills passed in the House. Leave out attempts to restrict abortions or chckenshit like “use US steel in water mains”. The R House hangs a “jobs bill” title on renaming an Post Office (yep this is rhetoric – about as accurate as most R descriptions).

The Keystone pipeline has been absurdly hyped by the R’s. They speak of 20,000 jobs. In fact there will be a few thousand US jobs during construction and a handful when it’s finished. The oil will be transferred to Texas whence derived products will likely be exported.

Why won’t the House pass the Transportation bill? Truly bipartisan in the senate. Blocked in the house. A few million jobs at stake.

Government regulations and jobs can’t create revenue? Investment in infrastructure can save billions. A new interstate can save billions in transportation costs. Lives saved, injuries avoided by the seatbelt law, save billions in medical care no longer needed. Incidentally, government jobs are down by 570,000 since 2009.

Laws can indeed be “purchased”. Entities with the resources to go in for heavy lobbying have major resources – big corporations, the super-rich. The R’s get most of this money – their goal is to pro

Tim Raynor
Tim Ra4 years ago

Paul said - "NEWS FLASH: If this administration had it's way, it would control the economy, what do you think the financial reforms,"

Lack of reforms is what got us into the mess we're in, the majority of the best economic analysts agree. Nevertheless, no administration can control the economy. The economy is its own free entity, as it should be. However, government is there to make sure "reforms" are in place so the "rest of us" don't get screwed from keeping a roof over our head and food on the table, as it should be.

Tim Raynor
Tim Ra4 years ago

Paul said - "NEWS FLASH: It is mostly the liberals that promote racism, keeping it alive purely as a weapon in attempt to silence those they can't honestly debate... it's that emotion thing on display again."

I find both sides of the media - right & left - can over-dramatize issues, including race. I watched Ed Shultz one night go on a rant on Newt G. Apparently the Newt called Obama the "welfare President", and Ed took that as an assault on Blacks. I even knew it was an assault on the poor, not any race in particular. Yet Ed ranted on the race-card, but the truth be told, more white people collect welfare. Therefore, yes, liberals are just as guilty as conservatives for over-blowing issues and pitting all the rest of us against each other. Note, Paul, don't think for a minute I have not seen the right-wing media lie and blow things way out of proportion, too.

Tim Raynor
Tim Ra4 years ago

Paul said - "NEWS FLASH: Republicans want to put people to work. Any harm in that, creating jobs. Maybe not the highest paying jobs, but someone needs to do them, lessening the load on taxpayers. We can't all be CEO of major corporations."

Really? They did run on the promise of "jobs, jobs, jobs", but I haven't seen some major super growth in jobs. Not feeling that "trickle down" economics really working. They didn't support the jobs bill because it would create "government jobs" (Oooh, communism, lions, tigers, & bears); never mind any employment puts workers back into the tax system, thus helping to raise revenue and take some burden off the rest of us, as you mentioned.

You are right that not everyone can big a CEO, at least not a major, huge one. However, is it reasonable that the super CEO's make 2/3rds of the entire payroll in the company? Keeping in mind, he/she is also free to make large dollar investments for even more money because, well, he/she can. Most people in our country agree that in a capitalistic society, the higher-up on the ladder make the Kwan. I would also agree that business success should come with its accolades, but is it really unreasonable, say, that same CEO makes 1/3rd of the payroll and everyone else below gets the 2/3rds? Keep in mind, even at 1/3rd the entire payroll, the CEO would still be the wealthiest guy on the block. Income equality (greed) is an issue, at some time we have to deal with it.