The Real ‘Birther’ Conspiracy Theory

In the course of my inquiries into many of history’s more recent controversies—JFK, Waco, Vince Foster, Oklahoma City, Ron Brown, TWA Flight 800, 9/11, Obama’s birth, the authorship of Obama’s books—I have come to see that when there are actual conspiracies afoot, they fall into two general categories, conspiracies of execution and conspiracies of concealment.

Conspiracies of execution, at least on any kind of scale, are rare in American history. The nature of our national character and the openness of our political culture war against them.

Conspiracies of concealment are another matter. When officials fail in their duties and let, say, a president get shot, a plane get blown out of the sky, or a hijacker fly into a building, their first impulse is to conceal their mistakes. Such is human nature.

To me, a “conspiracy theorist” is one who sees a conspiracy of execution where none could logically exist or who confuses a conspiracy of concealment with one of execution despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Given this understanding, it is the rare “birther” who qualifies as a conspiracy theorist. Few have conjured elaborate, impossible conspiracies on the scale Oliver Stone did in JFK or the French leftist Theirry Meyssan and others did with 9/11.

Most birthers simply want to know where and when their president was born, a not unreasonable aspiration. Few insist that they know the answer. Despite my ample research, I do not know.

All I do know is that the official story—the one Barack Obama trotted out in his memoir and both his convention speeches—is false. In my forthcoming book, Deconstructing Obama, I show in detail why this is so and what the alternatives might be.

If there are conspiracy theorists involved in the birther issue it is those cynical souls—and they are many, left and right–who insist that Obama and his operatives have purposefully dragged the birth certificate in front of the baying hounds of the excitable right like a red herring. In its simplest form, this theory at least sounds plausible.

14 th century philosopher William of Occam had a keen eye for plausibility. We know his approach to problem solving by the label “Occam’s Razor,” an axiom often stated in shorthand as, “The simplest explanation is usually the best.” The original Latin—“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate”—adds some nuance. This translates roughly, “One ought not posit multiple variables unnecessarily.”

The cynics’ case weakens the more variables they posit. In December, for instance, Hawaii’s Democrat governor Neil Abercrombie went public with his desire to silence dissenters by proving Obama’s citizenship. When the governor failed to find it, the cynics insisted that he too had been enlisted in Obama’s conspiracy to discredit the birthers.

Andrew Walden made this very case in American Thinker last week. Wrote Walden, “Abercrombie may act like a dopey doofus, but it is just an act.  He has spent a lifetime in politics manipulating conservatives to unwittingly serve his agenda — and he’s proud of it.”

As Walden sees it, Abercrombie likely conspired with Obama to keep this story in the news, all the better to embarrass the right. When Abercrombie pal, celebrity journalist Mike Evans, claimed on air that Abercrombie had told him there was no birth certificate—and then later retracted–Walden and others imagined him in the plot as well.

“The progressives know they can get the birthers to do anything they want,” concluded Waden. “They are having a ball, and they are discrediting Obama’s opponents in the run-up to 2012.”

In other words, Abercrombie’s failure to find the promised records and Evan’s recantation of a story he breathlessly told on more than thirty radio stations were part of a clever and increasingly intricate plot to enhance Obama’s electoral chances in 2012. Never mind that Abercrombie made himself look foolish and Evans lost his credibility in the process. The plot demanded sacrifice.

This, my friends, is conspiracy theorizing at its purest, and it makes little sense for two obvious reasons. First, there is no political advantage in attacking birthers. After two years of “having a ball” with them, the Democrats lost 63 seats in the House this past November.

The second is that Obama does indeed have much to hide. Whether he was born in Hawaii or in Washington State–or wherever–we know that he did not spend the first two years of his life in a happy, little multicultural home in Hawaii as advertised. He ascended to the presidency on a fully fabricated origins story.

The more these alleged conspirators talk about Obama’s origins the more attention they focus on that story. This attention is inspiring state legislatures to demand proof of citizenship before it puts candidates on the ballot. Even if Obama does eventually produce a birth certificate that squares with his origins story, critics can credibly ask why did he not produce it years earlier.

That is, if he can produce a birth certificate that squares with his origins story.

Jack Cashill is the author of numerous books which reveal key elements in our society and its crises, his latest, Deconstructing Obama is released February 15.

He is also an independent writer and producer, and has written for Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Weekly Standard, American Thinker, and regularly for WorldNetDaily. Jack may be contacted at

Article originally published in American Thinker.

Graphic added by Gulag Bound


  1. Actually Jack, We are not “Birthers”. We are just People who simply would like to know the TRUTH,
    and would like to have PROOF concerning Barak Obama birth.
    Not all of us are denying Obama was born in the USA, we simply want valid Proof.
    (Sort of like Reagans old saying, Trust, but Verify.)

    People who say the “birth” issue came about just to “dangle a carrot” to antagonize conservatives
    are quite frankly making fools of themselves and only shows a lack of respect to others.

    I, for one, do not wish to have a President, or any other “elected” Official who plays this type of game
    over a very serious matter.

    The only thing the mis-named “birthers” want is to have a simple birth certificate verified in
    a Court of Law, which shows Obama’s parents names, address & nationality at the time of his birth.

    When people apply for a Driver’s license they have to submit a “seal stamped” birth cerificate.
    They do not spend Millions of Dollars to avoid doing so as a joke, for if they don’t show it, they won’t
    get a License. Common sense.

    Furthermore, since when is “demanding” PROOF of the TRUTH a Conspiracy?
    Our First Amendment “supposedly” gives us the Right to petition the Government for
    a redress of grievances.

    To this date, there have been NO documents submitted in a Court of Law that “proves”
    Obama is eligible to be president under Article II, section 1, clause 5 of Our constitution……..Dan

    As Bobjen3 remarked, perhaps We should be called “Proofer’s”.

  2. That’s right Dan. Jack-nobody can really blame us for asking either. After all there is ample evidence as spoken by Obama and Michelle themselves that Obama is not a natural born citizen. He says o himself in a vidio tape while to speaking at a college that he was born in Kenya. Michelle referred to his country as “his home country of Kenya” and numerous other instances.

    The worst however, is Obama’s and Michelle unAmerican actions and words against America. They are both very anti American and if left in office, we will have nothing left.

    The media is complicit and the most dispicable of all.

    There is no hiding it any longer. All of congress knows and all the left wing media knows. It is up to us to go to Washington and stay there until Obama steps down.


  3. Jack,

    First and foremost I must say thank you for putting out such a well researched and well written piece of work for Americans to get their hands on. Needless to say I am a avid follower of yours and your work. I have been waiting tirelessly for “Deconstructing Obama’ and it was well worth it. I highly recommend it to anyone and everyone. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, Christian, Atheist, etc.

    Maybe we can get Darrell Issa to read a copy and call a few hearings on it, before the liberals stop him?!


  4. It’s Not About Citizenship, It’s About Constitutional Eligibility!

    The loons on the left and the rest of the Obots will only talk about Obama’s lack of constitutional eligibility when they are backed into a corner and have no other choice. Even then they are only willing to mention the birth certificate question and maybe refer to the proven forgery posted on the Internet. They totally miss or ignore the fact that Obama could have been born in the oval office, on top of the resolute desk, on TV and he still would not be a natural born citizen. Natural born means native born of two citizen parents. Obama’s father was Kenyan and Kenya was a British colony at that time so Obama would have been a British subject at birth or at best a dual citizen. The constitution was written the way it is in order to prevent anyone with other than sole allegiance to America from becoming president for obvious reasons and yet that is exactly what we have allowed to happen. Because his mother was an American if he were to prove he was born on American soil he would be a naturalized citizen but, there is no way he could be natural born and therefore he is in the white house illegally. Let me say that another way, in order to be a legal president Obama would have to produce a long form birth certificate that proves he not only was born on US soil but, also his father and mother were both American citizens. It’s that simple and the reason he hasn’t done it is because he can’t! ~~~ *M*

    Based on all current available evidence or lack thereof, and failing evidence-based qualification from the party to the state to the federal (constitutional) levels, BHO cannot be a legal president or CIC per the 20th amendment and Article II. Again, the Oath and Electoral vote count do not serve to qualify eligibility. As Edwin Vieira pointed out in 2008, the United States is in a state of Constitutional crisis with an ongoing coup and usurpation. The Constitution is merely a contract binding the nation states, and since the office of the President is held by a contractually unqualified person, the entire constitutional contract is null and void. Any document, treaty, bill or debt is likewise null and void. The implications are too vast to describe here.
    In 1797, a decade after the Constitution was adopted, the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations was revised to include the term “natural born Citizen.” The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of natural born Citizen, as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century:
    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19).
    In 1874, in Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born Citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:
    It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

Speak Your Mind