FLASHBACK: When Fox News Ignored The Birther Story In 2008
April 14, 2011 10:38 am ET by Eric Boehlert
One of the many mysteries surrounding the zombie-like resurrection of the thoroughly debunked Obama birth certificate story and its renaissance within right-wing media, and especially Fox News is, "Why now?" Other than Donald Trump’s decision to wallow in the shallow conspiracy, what has triggered the sudden interest and the sudden charade that the birther story is legitimate?
The questions mount when you look back and realize that during the 2008 campaign, when the birther story was first peddled and, one could argue, was more relevant as a national campaign played out, Fox News essentially ignored the story. As Obama was running for the White House and questions from the far right were raised about Obama’s eligibility and his birthplace, Fox News (wisely) turned a blind eye to the story. Then, in 2009, in the wake of Obama’s landslide electoral win, when Fox News personalities did address the birther issue it was usually to belittle the story and mock it as a foolish conspiracy theory.
That’s right. In 2008 and 2009, Fox News basically couldn’t be bothered with the birther story. Fast-forward to 2011, though, and the Fox team can’t stop talking about it.
Why? In terms of actual birther “news,” there is none today. And of course there hasn’t been any “news” in three years, because nobody on the right-wing fringe has been able to advance the so-called story. Not one inch.
Unlike the right wing’s hollow pursuit of the Whitewater non-scandal during the Clinton years -- at least that story had some actual twists and turns and breaking developments to cover. Not so with the birther story, which remains, as a news event, utterly stagnant.
And guess what? That’s how Fox News treated the topic in 2008.
Looking back at Fox News that year (or at least looking back at the prime-time show transcripts cataloged by Nexis), it’s startling how little the channel cared about the birther story, given Fox's current fascination. Based on my search of 2008, I found exactly two pre-election references to the Obama/birth certificate story.
The first came on August 15, in a report about a new, birther-friendly book by Obama critic Jerome Corsi, who claimed he could have learned more about Obama’s past if the candidate “would release primary documents like his birth certificate.” (Interestingly, the Fox News report seemed to dismiss the birther allegations, noting Corsi’s book contains “numerous factual errors especially about Obama's origins and family” and “repeats falsehoods” that were “long again disproved.” Ouch.)
Then on Sept. 16, host Bill O’Reilly answered some viewer mail on the air [emphasis added]:
Mel Westerfield, Brandon, Mississippi: "Bill, your report said Obama was born in Hawaii. It is my understanding he was born in Kenya."
Not accurate, sir. He was born in Honolulu. His birth certificate is authentic.
Bill Daniel, Fairfield, Texas: "Bill, you failed to mention Obama's mother and father were not married."
That is false, sir. They married on February 2, 1961. Now I can go on with these letters, but you get the picture. Please do not believe who you read on the Net.
And that’s it. Those are the only relevant references to “Obama” and “birth certificate” I could find in Nexis for Fox News in 2008, prior to Election Day.
The following year, Fox News’ interest in the story didn’t change much, and when birthers did get mentioned, they were usually mocked. That year, O’Reilly called the cause “irrational” and “dumb,” guest Bernie Goldberg denounced followers as “nut job birthers,” while Glenn Beck dismissed them as “idiots.”
All of which again prompts this question for Fox News: Why now?
If the birther story was of zero interest to Fox News during the 2008 campaign, and if it was mocked in 2009, why would the exact same set of birther facts now be of paramount interest? It’s rather baffling. Although the channel’s colossal flip-flop would seem to confirm that Fox’s new-found fascination with Obama's birth certificate has nothing to do with news or journalism, and everything to do with partisan politics.
Surprise!


















They see the trend, and are playing to their (stupid) audience. To their (stupid) audience, of course, the fact that Fox "News" has increased their birther coverage further validates this insanely stupid conspiracy theory.
A lot changes once a race starts and people slowly start to actually pay attention again. Ones like Trump are obliterated and 'encouraged' to back off gracefully, quite quickly.
http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/04/11/people-think-head-scars-prove-obama-s-had-brain-surgery
Thought I was kidding, right?
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/has-the-president-had-major
The brain surgery / alien meme is flat-out AWESOME!
Back in 2008 there was some mentally disturbed man who claimed that he had had a brief sexual rendezvous in a limo with Barack Obama while smoking pot together. I wouldnt be surprised if Faux News picks up this nonsense in the future
You establish he was born in Hawaii.
You Establish his parents were married.
However you seem to have conveniently skipped over the fact his father was a UK citizen, in the US on a student visa.
He would be under British consular jurisdiction, per UK/US treaty.
His birth would be governed by the British Nationality Act, 1948.
The requirement that for consular registration within one year of birth applied only if the father was a Citizen of the UK and Colonies (CUKC) by descent only and the child was also to become a CUKC by descent rather than birth in the UK or colonies. As Barack Obama Sr, was born in the colony of Kenya, he was a CUKC by birth rather than descent. Thus, Barack Obama II was capable of becoming a CUKC by descent without the need for consular registration.
British Nationality Act, 1948
(11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56.
Part II Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Citizenship by birth or descent.
5. Citizenship by descent.
"5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:
Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—
(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or" ...
When trying to articulate the qualifications for the Office of the US President, it is important to remember s/he is also the Commander in Chief of the military, the militias, and can declare martial law. It is therefore imperative to narrow the possible candidates who from birth on the soil and of the blood of two citizens, would derive loyalty to this soil and people. The natural born citizen, owes loyalty to no foreign nation or people, and is the only pool of candidates for the Office of the US President.
A natural born U.S. citizen can choose dual citizenship at majority, but must relinquish foreign nationality before taking political office in the US, and anybody previously a dual-national is ineligible for the US Presidency and Commander of the military.
The problem with it is that the dual-citizenship is only granted under British law. It isn't recognized under American law. Obama is recognized as an American citizen and any other citizenship recognition granted by any other nation is completely irrelevant.
Throwing out an analogy I've used before, let's say that a small South American nation granted citizenship rights to all Caucasian males born in the US. All of a sudden, under the principles of your argument, all white guys running for President would be ineligible for the office. It's no more idiotic than the idea that a peculiarity of British law somehow supersedes US law on citizenship.
Lastly, you're asserting a definition of "natural born citizen" as factual that has never been established as such in law.
And theres the treaty of tripoli, spelling out in no uncertain terms that we the US is not a christian nation nor an anti-muslim nation. They just pretend like that thing doesnt exist, because ive never heard them use it in one of thier arguments or respond when we do.
If they can't even accept the stuff written by the founders they love so much, we certainly cant expect them to do so with *modern* legislation.
Since you established in your first sentence that you dont know what you are talking about there really isnt much reason to read further
I'm opening myself up to being labeled a birther, but...
If Obama's 'Certificate of Live Birth' is supposedly a "copy of the original"...
Why then is it printed on "Laser" Paper?...
When we all know there were no Laser Printers, much less Laser Paper, back in 1961?
Follow the link below and look in the bottom left hand corner of the certificate to confirm... Laser Paper???
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/n_obama_birth_certificate.htm
Under the above super silly argument, no Jew could ever run for President, nor could anyone who had one or more grandparents or even great-great grandparents from any number of countries.
Basically, anyone whose ancestors did not come over on the Mayflower could be barred under this silly logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Background
o 1.1 Reacquisition
* 2 Armenia
* 3 Belarus
* 4 Bulgaria
* 5 People's Republic of China
* 6 Croatia
* 7 Cyprus
* 8 Czech Republic
* 9 Diego Garcia's Chagossians
* 10 Finland
* 11 France
* 12 Germany
* 13 Greece
* 14 Hungary
* 15 India
* 16 Iraqi Kurdistan
* 17 Ireland
* 18 Israel
* 19 Japan
* 20 Lithuania
* 21 Norway
* 22 Palestinian refugees
* 23 Poland
* 24 Romania
* 25 Russia
* 26 Serbia
* 27 Spain
* 28 Taiwan (Republic of China)
* 29 Ukraine
* 30 United Kingdom
As it is, we are shown Obama's 'Certificate of Live Birth',
which is supposedly, a 'copy of the original'.
So why is it printed on "Laser" Paper?...
When we all know there were no Laser Printers, much less Laser Paper, back in 1961?
And, why does Obama spend a small fortune in defense of hiding his Birth Certificate?
So, why doesn't he just show it, and forgo all the questioning?
direct questions - would generally deserve direct answers... but of course, only Obama knows the answers to these questions.
To view Obama's Certificate of Live Birth,
follow link and look in the bottom left hand corner to confirm Laser Form.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/n_obama_birth_certificate.htm