It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Would there have been a "birther" movement even if McCain had been elected?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:41 PM
Many people are aware of the controversy surrounding Obama's birth. Fewer recall that similar questions were raised during McCain's campain: McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and even during the election there were a number of people who questioned whether that would disqualify him as president.

See, for example:
The New York Times: McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out

The London Times: McCain's Panama birth prompts eligibility probe by his campaign

Now, what are the odds of a single election cycle having not one but *two* candidates -- both winning their respective primaries -- who would bring to the office questions about birthplace and eligibility? Sure, it could be a coincidence, but as tinfoil-hat-wearing denizens of the fringe world, we must always ask ourselves: Could something bigger be at work? And if so, why this problem, and why now?

Maybe somebody or something wanted this particular question to be on the table, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican took office. I'm going to leave you geniuses to speculate as to who, and for what possible purposes. Those wearing their globalist/NWO hats might consider how the questions about birth, nationality, national boundries, cizenship, etc. at the highest level could influence broader conceptions in the move to erase borders and consolidate control. But that's just one possibility. It could have been done by a group or groups with more modest and specialized aims. Perhaps it makes sense as a weapon to hold over any president's head...somebody with "smoking gun" type evidence that could destroy an entire administration would have quite a leash around the President's neck, and would certainly never get put on hold during a call to the Oval Office. What else? Who? Why? Or is it mere coincidence after all?

edit on 1/3/11 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:57 PM
I think the better question is, why were the best two choices to run for POTUS not from mainland America to begin with.

300 million americans and none on the mainland matched up to people born off the continent...pretty interesting.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:34 PM
The answer is a big phat no. Republicans provide the anger and democrats provide the guilt. America would not be the same if the roles were reversed, correct? Not that the democrats are "all that" mind you. Every major politician in the western world is a pawn to the nwo corporate ifs or buts!

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by silent thunder

Too me the question is not about whether or not Obama has a legitimate birth record. The issue to me is the election committee board responsible for reviewing birth records did not have enough appointed members to watch over the elections and intervene when necessary. This board was left vacant without enough members to vote on the election status of either parties representatives.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:42 PM
Heh - remember years back when a young Republican Arnie got elected gov. some on the right were eying him for the oval office sooner or later and thinking that residency rule might need to go. Of course, now they are just happy Arnie is going.

Anyway, likely there would be some outcry. There always is these days on most everything. The extreme far left and extreme far right may be worlds apart in their ideology - but the loudness and silliness of their outcry are often pretty similar.

new topics

top topics

log in