Fox’s New Birther Meme: Obama’s Dad Was a “Serial Womanizer”

The birth certificate’s real. So presidential critics have found a new way to stoke age-old racial fears, with help from the media.

Screenshot/<a href="http://www.foxnation.com">FoxNation.com</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Now that denial isn’t much of an option, the anger stage has kicked in: Birtherism has given way to fear-of-a-virile-black-man-ism. If you navigated last night to the front page of Fox Nation, a Fox News-run website, you’d have found this lead story, splashed with a grainy photo of Barack Obama Sr.: “‘A Slippery Character’: New Details Emerge About Obama’s Father.

The story, based on documentary evidence obtained by an Arizona nonprofit news site, is lifted from the UK’s Daily Mail tabloid (more on that below). It’s a roughly 1,100-word hatchet job, offering few actual new details, to confirm what President Obama had already stated in his memoir: His dad wasn’t the greatest of guys. But it’s all in how the article conveys that message:

With a father like this, it is little wonder President Obama did not want to release his full birth certificate.

Though the proof that he was actually born in Hawaii may silence some critics, a new, rather more interesting side of his life has emerged—that his father Barack Obama senior was a serial womaniser and polygamist who government and university officials were trying to force out of the country.

Obama senior married Stanley Ann Dunham, a white student from Kansas, not only when he was said to have already been married to a woman in Kenya, but at a time when interracial marriages were still illegal in many parts of the U.S.

Documents obtained from the U.S. immigration service paint a picture of a man who ‘had an eye for the ladies’ and, according to his file, had to be warned several times to stay away from girls at the university.

This certainly has it all: polygamy, the suggestion of illicit interracial sex, and the predatory sexual appetites of a dark-skinned African man. In fact, this theme’s got a name, or a couple of names, in popular Western culture: “Black beast“, “black buck“, “Mandingo“. It’s the theory that black males are more animal than human, with an insatiable predilection for defiling white (read: virtuous) women.

“There is little doubt that our white countrymen have been in a chronic state of paranoid fear over black male sexual power,” Harvard psychiatrist Alvin Poussaint wrote of the stereotype in Ebony…in 1972. “‘N***er’ jokes and pornographic literature abound with stories testifying to the black male’s sexual appetites and attributes. The preoccupation is evident in much white folklore.”

“Folklore” is probably a good way to describe the birther movement, which surmised that America’s first multiracial president couldn’t possibly be a real American. But now that Obama’s longform birth certificate quashes any lingering doubt that he is American-born, the folklore evolves to accommodate it: Heaven forfend if it should be the case that we, the people, elected the offspring of an unholy union between a bestial sexual predator and an innocent Kansas girl…a union that’s proven by the existence of the birth certificate!

So who’s responsible for this race-baiting wolf rolling in the sheepscloak of investigative reporting? Hard to say, since the original story is unbylined. It comes from a right-wing British tabloid, the Daily Mail, whose previous claim to fame was extolling fascism in the 1930’s under headlines like “Hurrah for the Blackshirts!” But Fox Nation—which claims it’s “for those opposed to intolerance”—saw fit to republish it with nary a challenge…not even to this final, peculiarly agnostic comment on the birther controversy:

Mr Obama has been dogged by persistent questions about his citizenship since the election more than two years ago. More than 60 per cent of Americans have told pollsters they are not convinced he was born in the U.S.

If true, this would make the politician constitutionally ineligible to occupy the White House.

It’s unclear what polls the Daily Mail was looking at. Nor is it clear why, after Longformgate, it evaluates the birthers’ claim as possibly “true.” But it suggests a novel reason why the birther controversy has lasted so long:

Many senior Republicans have tried to distance themselves from the birther movement and some suspect it has been encouraged by the White House in order to discredit the opposition party.

Yes, that Barack Jr.: Sneaky and underhanded, just like his old man.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate