Confessions of a Birther Evangelist

This article is notable not only for it’s clear-eyed perspective on the realities surrounding Barack Obama’s dark (oh-oh, not a racist expression I promise) background, but also that it was published in the esteemed American Thinker. Well written, writer; well thought of, Thinker. – AW

by William Lolli

I am an information technologist by trade and a Birther evangelist by proclivity.

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross

When discussing or debating the Birther issues with a newbie, in addition to a transfer education in law, the Constitution, the jurisprudencial system, and history, I frequently am a witness to the real-time acting out of the Kübler-Ross behavioral model of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

For the duration of the discussion, the political spectrum orientation of the listener doesn’t seem to matter, since the topical reactions and counter-bullet points are always the same.

The debates are never linear, but desultory. And the satisfaction is in the observation of dominant human nature as it dictates the repetition of behavioral responses to Birther political stimuli.

Discussions with actual politicos, such as direct talks with Congressman Brian Bilbray, are particularly revealing, in that one presupposes that once the facts are discussed, there is a presumption that the revelation of truths will result in a commensurately engaged moral action. But this is not so.

Most people mildly exposed to Birther issues are stuck in the denial stage. However, anger erupts once the message sinks in that Barack Obama’s April 27, 2011 LFBC (long-form birth certificate) is forged, that multiple criminal acts have been perpetuated, and that both political parties and all branches of government are culpable.

Many politically active Birthers are stuck in the anger stage. You can see that by reading their blogs, letters to editors, emails to congressman, and their use of invectives like “long legged Mac Daddy,” “Usurper,” “Traitor,” and the like. The ad hominem attacks do little to persuade, but they do provide emotional relief to the mass of frustrated Birthers, who find it difficult to understand why the legal and moral clarity of their arguments are systematically ignored.

Anger yields itself to the “But what about…” bargaining arguments — which after thorough vetting fail to yield any other conclusion than the moral imperatives of the preservation of the integrity of the Constitution’s framework.

The results of the intellectual and moral inculcation of bargaining yields the epiphanal state of depression, as the destructive costs of the nullification of an illegitimate presidency set in:

The nullification of Obama would instantly remove two Supreme Court justices; reverse all court appointments of judges and federal posts made by Obama and the decisions heretofore made, creating instant chaos in all matters decided or presided over by those justices or czars; reverse ObamaCare and its funding; nullify the GM bond buy-outs; reverse the Wall Street GM stock sale to the Unions; make internationally illegal the orders to soldiers in 3 Islamic theaters of war; wreck EPA rulings; throw the SEC under the bus; drag BLM decisions back into court; reverse executive sanctions placed on BP after the spill; confuse Treasury-induced Federal Employee Pension fund account borrowing deals; force the return of bailout money made to the states; dump Bernanke’s 2009 second-term appointment — potentially nullifying all of the Bernake’s decisions; and the list goes on.

And then finally, acceptance: the perception that the entire system of government is corrupt, there is no regard for the law or the Constitution, and any illegal alien or naturalized citizen can argue that he can be president without regard to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

Yet despite the blessings of Kübler-Ross, converts to Birtherism continuously ask the question “why?” as it pertains to the existence of systematic efforts to suppress Birther evidence and debate. Although they acknowledge that evil exists in the world, they can’t seem to comprehend why opponents to Birtherism, particularly the Republican Party, the Tea Party leadership, and prominent members of the conservative movement, attack them with more vigor and vitriol than the left.

The answer lies in information cascade and Wilfred Trotter’s herd-instinct theories.

Information cascade and social human-herd theory are related, if observed in the context of the systematic suppression of Constitutional-Birther debates. Indeed, now that the president’s long-form birth certificate has a lengthy line of forgery experts willing to testify that the April 27th White House PDF is a complete digital fabrication, the amount of force to kill the Birther Movement is politically palpable.

In Trotter’s herd theories the assertion is made that the instinct to be part of the herd is stronger than self-preservation. Further, if a member of the herd is perceived to be a threat to the herd, the herd will react to destroy that herd member faster than the herd would respond to a threat from the outside.

Information cascade “occurs when people observe the actions of others and then make the same choice that the others have made, independently of their own private information signals. Because it is usually sensible to do what other people are doing, the phenomenon is assumed to be the result of rational choice. Nevertheless, information cascades can sometimes lead to arbitrary or even erroneous decisions.”

When combined, these two social theories explain why Dr. Jerome Corsi’s book is pooh-poohed by the MSM, why Donald Trump was a falling star after he went “Birther” and is now New York’s persona non grata, and why Bill O’Reilly had lies-stated-as-fact upon which he bet his reputation concerning Obama’s fraudulent Connecticut social security number disappear from Fox News’ website (they can still be seen on YouTube).

It also explains why no member of Congress will address — factually or morally — any of the Birther legal, criminal forgery, and SSAN matters.

The Republican leadership already dislikes and fears the Tea Party members within its ranks, and the TP people are keeping the Big Government-Big Business cabal-wing of the Republican party pretty busy. The Tea Party itself also sees the Birthers as an annoying sideshow, and one which — they believe — competes with their own loosely affiliated and fragile power base.

If the Birther movement gained legitimacy in any mainstream venue, it would divide the Republican-Tea Party marriage even further, as there are already multiple competing interests within the GOP regarding methodologies as to how to keep the rank and file base in line.

Thus there is a tacit agreement among the DNC, GOP, the legislative and judicial branches, each state’s office of Secretary of State, and conservative and liberal media outlets that the Birthers are kooks, Obama’s digitally assembled birth certificate is legit, and to hell with that old, racist Article 2, Section 1.

In the end, Birtherism would not be a big deal at all, if it weren’t for the fact that we have nearly an entire executive branch engaged in the office of running guns to drug cartels in Mexico — arguably an act of war, starting and perpetuating a war in Libya without congressional consent, “borrowing” billions of funds from the Federal Employees Pension Fund so as not to violate a debt ceiling that is already being violated, running election campaigns out of the White House, not enforcing polling place protection laws from Panther thugs, circumventing fed fund restrictions to abortion clinics, arranging Wall Street payouts to unions for stocks created out of thin air — and probably more.

So where do you draw the line when it comes to supporting the integrity of the Constitution and the Rule of Law?

For Birthers, the line has already been drawn.

William Lolli is an IT consultant and published author. He has written conservative commentary for Gun News Daily for over ten years.

Mr. Lolli also suggests the unfortunate example of Fox News Radio’s John Gibson, which may be traced in the Post & Email’s “Well-Known Fox News Radio Host Labels Caller “Crazy;” Refuses to Discuss Possible Obama Crimes,” June 28, 2011.