Category Archives: “Birther”

More on the Obama Memoir Authorship Question?

Dinesh D’Souza had a debate last night with Bill Ayers. The Obama memoir authorship issue came up as it apparently frequently does when Ayers makes a public appearance. And once again, Ayers answered the question as he always does, he says he wrote it but then obscures his yes in irony so you don’t know how to take it. The question is why does he do this? Why not just flat out say no? It’s possible that Ayers is just being a jerk and messing with “birthers.”  I know I have clicked on links before breathlessly stating that Ayers admitted to writing it only to read what he said and think “Well, not really.” It’s also possible, as is suggested in the link above, that he is keeping the Obama Administration on notice, in case they stray too far from a leftward course. Another possiblity, and this is my hunch, is that Ayers is not a humble man and really would like to get credit for his much praised creation. This is his way, consciously or otherwise, of leaving that door open. Here are some excerpts:

(Jack) Cashill, who makes his case in his book “Deconstructing  Obama,” said in a 2011 interview with WND he believed Ayers, with a sharp  intellect, had been “careful to couch his comments with irony.”

Cashill said he believed, however, that Ayers’s irony was not aimed at  critics like him but at the White House, “letting Obama know that he could blow  Obama out of the water, if he gets serious about it.”

Cashill noted Ayers is strongly anti-war and at odds with many of Obama’s  policies.

“All Ayers would have to do is give a press conference in which he  demonstrated he was the principle craftsman behind ‘Dreams’ and the whole myth  of Obama’s literary genius would come crashing down,” Cashill said.

Read more here…

Addendum: Listen to the exchange between Corsi and Ayers at WND. There is no video, just audio. It is a playful exchange, but what is obvious is that Ayers really doesn’t know who Corsi is, or only vaguely so. This is similar to a video clip I commented on before where Ayers said he thought Chris Matthews was a conservative. (I looked for where I said that, but couldn’t find it.) (Here is the video I was referring to, but I still can’t find where I commented on it.) Ayers is either dementing or he lives in a very insular world and is totally out of touch. Chris Matthews is a conservative? You’re in the middle of the Obama speculation storm and you don’t know who Jerome Corsi is? Since we know Ayers isn’t stupid, I suspect he has withdrawn himself from the broader political world.

Hawaiian Official Involved in Release of Obama’s Birth Certificate Dies in a Plane Crash

Things that make you go hmmm…

This is gonna have conspiracy theory tonugues a waggin’.

I’m not sayin’. I just sayin’.

The health director who approved the release of President Obama’s birth certificate has died in a plane crash, Hawaiian officials said Thursday.

Loretta Fuddy died after the Cessna Grand Caravan aircraft she was travelling on went down shortly after leaving Kalaupapa Airport at around 3:15 p.m. local time (10:15 a.m. ET) on Wednesday.

The other eight people on board were rescued, Richard Schuman, president of Makani Kai Air, told NBC News early Thursday, adding that that there was no indication as to why the plane had crashed.

Read more…

Who Shot JFK? The Return of JFK Conspiracy Theorizing

Below, Hawthorne mentions the recent proliferation of books about the JFK assasination.

Jesse Ventura, Roger Stone, and now Jerome Corsi, are all riding new books on the JFK Assassination, and if you have to ask, none of them support the Lone Gun Man theory.

(As an aside, I think Jerome Corsi has taken to writing books as a form of income generation. He has really been churning them out recently. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I just think he may pick topics he knows will sell books, which makes for a rather random list of books to his credit.)

I have never looked into the Kennedy assassination that much. It happened before my time, unlike Vince Foster, for example, whose investigation I followed pretty closely at the time. But I am somewhat familiar with the various theories, simply because you can’t travel in outside the mainstream circles and not be exposed to them.

With the Kennedy assassination, there are two issues that are often conflated but shouldn’t be. First, was Oswald the Lone Gun Man. The other largely separate issue is, whether he was or wasn’t the lone shooter, did he act on his own or was he acting for someone. Because so much has been invested by both sides in the first question, the second question has sometimes gotten lost.

The pro-conspiracy side believes that if the Lone Gun Man theory is disproved, then the whole story comes crashing down. The pro-official story side believes that if the Lone Gun Man theory is upheld, then the conspiracy theorists will lose face and can be ignored. From the beginning this has always seemed unfortunate to me. Yeah, if there really was more than one shooter then that would seal the deal of a cover-up, but that has always struck me as the secondary, not the primary issue.

Hence, I have never had a problem accepting the Lone Gun Man theory. It’s plausible. But I have always taken for granted that it is entirely possible some other forces were behind the shooting. I don’t assert definitively that others were behind the shooting, because I don’t know that. But it seems to me that that should be the default assumption and that Oswald acted on his own should require the burden of proof. That Oswald acted alone is plausible on the surface, but it is not a conclusion you jump to. If a wife turns up missing, you default suspect the husband. Doesn’t mean he did it, but you don’t default assume a benign explanation.

This is the problem with conspiracy theories. They make otherwise intelligent people stupid. People invested in disbelieving the official explanation will often believe highly implausible things. But people who are invested in believing and defending the conventional wisdom will often cast all their critical thinking skills aside in defense of the official story. Any questioning of the official story is tantamount to full bore conspiracy theorizing.

This dynamic was much in evidence in the Birther debate. Because the issue initially was about Obama being born in Kenya, something that always seemed highly implausible to me, then the defenders of the official story always made it about Kenya, but it is entirely plausible that Obama was not born in Kenya but that his story is still false in some other way. Anti-Birthers act as if it is inconceivable that anyone would ever lie about their past.

So I guess what I’m saying is that we need a more nuanced class of conspiracy theorists and a less lickspittle class of official story defenders, but what explains the recent proliferation of JFK books? I honestly believe that people are beginning to question the official line more and more. Doubt of the official story for more and more is becoming their default rather than acceptance. I noticed this with the Syria chemical weapons attack. The official story provoked immediate eye rolling in many. The people most accepting of the official story seemed to be the press who were trying to convinced a skeptical public, which is the opposite of how it should be. This changing dynamic bodes well for our cause IMO.

Originalism is Not That Complicated

This is a post about Justice Scalia, but Daniel McCarthy uses the opportunity to take a swipe at movement conservatism (what else is new) and a rather obtuse swipe at originalism. For this new iteration of Daniel McCarthy talk of nuance, thoughtfulness etc. is a synonym for moderation. But an honest examination of originalism leads to more, not less, radical outcomes. Below is my post which has not yet been approved. I can’t see why it would be censored, unless they are balking at my reference to natural born citizen, but that is a perfectly legit example.

There are issues with originalism. Do you go with what what was actually written or what was likely intended? And whose intent? The Framers only? The state ratifying conventions only? Popular understanding at the time? Some combination? But that said, most issues are not murky from an originalist standpoint, particularly the doctrine of enumerated powers. So if we have all these originalist jurists then why aren’t they striking down programs on the basis of enumerated powers? Saying “you can’t do that” is not activism. Expanding powers and rights is activism.

One issue where original intent really is murky is just what they intended by requiring that the President be a natural born citizen. Perhaps they could look into that. But whether the Framers/state conventions intended to allow the Feds to run a healthcare program is not murky. They didn’t.

Modern conservative judges are only originalists to the extent that it doesn’t strike at longstanding programs. They are originalists around the edges.

Note: My comment has been approved.

“Obama as Muslim”

There has been decent discussion here at CHT about the larger nature of the Birther persuasion.  I supported, for example, the long tradition of questioning the lineage of the Executive, while others (ahem, Red) were more interested in the details of the case.

As Ted Cruz (who if he were to run for President would be subjected, rightfully, to the same lineage inquiry) suggests that supplying Al-Qaeda with an air force is not in the American interest, it is worth noting the subgenre Birther meme, “Obama as Muslim” has gone absence at a moment of potential popular support.

 Certainly, this would be a moment to employ the meme—yet it’s gone a bit quiet save as satire.

 The actual geopolitical issues of dealing with Middle Eastern politics (the Saudis, the Wahabists, Western actors/cash, Israel) are very difficult to study, but if one supports populism as a means of hacking into complex issues to be reduced to simple phrases, simple phrases hopelessly offered to stop an atrocity in the making, then so be it.

 Just as the anti-war Hollywood celeb crowd has gone silent, it would appear the astro-turfing for the birther meme is also taking a pause.

Or perhaps, there is something else afoot in the hinterlands…some sort of dawning on the American mind that something terrible has happened.  Something far worse than a phony prince…

Ted Nugent Goes Birther

The Nuge wrote this op-ed for World Net Daily. He repeatedly uses the word phony because he is riffing off of the President’s recent mention of “phony scandals” (Benghazi, IRS, etc.). Here is the money quote re. birtherism:

And let’s all be honest here; more of us believe in the American hero Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s thorough investigation into your phony birth certificate and phony history than the phony media’s smoke and mirrors.

I don’t know if Nuge really wrote this himself. If he did, then he must be pretty tuned in. He even drops a Saul Alinsky reference. Nugent is what I call a visceral Red. He connects emotionally with Reds against Blues. We need more Red musicians and  entertainers.

Conservatives – Be Nice to Bill Ayers, We Need Him to Spill the Beans

I once heard an interview of Bill Ayers done by a conservative. I believe it was Sean Hannity, but I’m not totally sure. The interviewer immediately started hectoring and brow beating Ayers about his past terrorist acts. I couldn’t help but cringe. I kept thinking, “Shut Up! Shut Up! Or he’ll never spill the beans!” The interviewer was thinking like a typical mainstream conservative who was unfamiliar with all the ins and outs of birtherism and the cloud of issues that surround it, including the authorship issue. His desire was to paint Ayers as a radical and then tie Obama to him. Yes I understand that Bill Ayers is an unrepentant leftist. And yes the double standard that center-leftists get to associate with far-leftists without consequence, but center-rightists don’t get to associate with far-rightist without being accused of crimethink sucks. But Ayers also probably ghost wrote Obama’s memoir, and we need him admit this publicly. If he no longer has a desire to protect Obama, but doesn’t want to reward Obama’s rightist enemies, then he’ll continue to keep his mouth shut. But if he gets so frustrated with Obama and rewarding Obama’s enemies seems less obnoxious to him, then he may talk.

What is bringing this up now is this recent snippet from Ayers that has been making the rounds where he says Obama should be tried for war crimes. That sounds to me like a man who is very frustrated with Obama, a person he once had high hopes for. Is he on the verge of cracking? I don’t know. Let’s hope so. But let’s not give him reason to keep his mouth shut with our obnoxiousness. Bill Ayers is potentially our friend. He should be stroked, not chastised.

(BTW, watch the next clip where they ask Bill Ayers who his favorite conservative is. I have no doubt that the guy is still an ardent leftist, but his answers seems remarkably out of touch. He replies genuinely unknowingly that he likes Chris Matthews. Then asks if he is a conservative. Then says “I thought he was.” Then says he had never seen Matthews until he interviewed him. Wow! How out of touch do you have to be with the culture of modern leftism not to be familiar with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews?)

…one that you don’t really know

The Drone Ranger: Obama’s Dirty Wars

George Bush, a bit more squeamish than Obama, never did that; but Mr. Obama felt those decisions were the president’s responsibility: he want[s] to keep his own finger on the trigger,” according to one report.A tidy, scheduled man, the President only picks his victims once a week, now called “Terror Tuesday
On October 14, 2011, in Shabwah province, Yemen, Abdul, went out with his cousins and friends for a good old US-style barbecue, when Obama’s drone fired a rocket, blowing the teenager to pieces…

Obama’s minions tried to cover up the hit on the teenagers.  Attorney General Eric Holder informed Congress of the killings by writing that U.S. drones had blown up Anwar al-Awlaki, the crazy cleric and three other Americans who “were not specifically targeted.”

Holder’s comment makes it seem that Awlaki’s son was blown up with him—a sad case of ‘collateral damage.’

But are you ready for this?  The teenager—along with his cousin and friends—was killed two weeks after and hundreds of miles away from the site where rockets killed his father…

I am convinced the hit on al-Awlaki’s son was meant to teach a lesson, If you want to be a martyr, we’ll make your son and your mom and daughter martyrs too. 

Such terror-for-terror can be, I’ll admit, quite effective.  During the Ronald Reagan years, that gutless faux-cowboy President sent weapons to Ayatollah Khomeini in return for the release of hostages taken by Hezbollah.  The Russians got their hostages home another way.  The USSR didn’t accept an arms-for-hostage deal. Rather, the KGB systematically assassinated the hostage-takers’ cousins, mothers and brothers one by one—until Hezbollah released all the Russian hostages.

The narrative, particularly strong on the various forms of the ‘right’, portrays Obama as a disengaged (seen as a positive), perhaps, lightweight, a product of his managers.  Even the most frustrated paleo noted that George W. would mock the “neocons” Kristol and Krauthammer, by calling them the Bomber Boys.

Obama is something new; I am not sure what.  I know Presidents in the past have made Executive Decisions (e.g. Diem in Vietnam), but this, this is something new as it’s quasi legal, does not involve the elimination of Executives and in this case,  Anwar al-Awlaki, had been invited to the Pentagon in the months after 9/11, and apparently, this is a weekly event.

The Italian (or Sicilian) Mafia was able to provide a certain order (at least according to myth) by agreeing that families were off limits.  It was the arrival of the Russian Mob to Brighton Beach (thank you, Senator Scoop Jackson, arch neocon!) in alliance with NY Politicos (looking at you Guiliani, Schumer and D’Amato)  that did in the Italians, and allowed the rise of the Russian Mob, and the death of the ‘family off limits’ ethic.

Anyway, read the article.

Geto Boys, D-mn it Feels Good to be a Gangster  (a worthwhile “rap” video from 1992–linking to the relatively clean version)

Donald Trump, Unlike Obama, Mans Up When Challenged

I’m sorry, I just can’t resist posting about this story.

One thing that I have maintained all along about the “birther” issue is that Obama, whether guilty or not, has behaved like a guilty man. When he released the short form birth certificate and people questioned its authenticity and wanted to see the long form birth certificate, the thing to do is not to brush it off or roll your eyes or make snide comments or hide behind your spokesman or call the other side names or hire lawyers to fight it in court or claim that Hawaii won’t release it or whatever else. All that makes you look either like you have something to hide and/or like you’re a dude who is completely oblivious to guy code. (This being a family friendly site prevents me from saying that in a more graphic manner.)

When Philip Berg, for example, questions your credentials, particularly in the context of this already being a big story, (not just some random claim from a lone wacko) the appropriate response is to march into the Hawaii DOH and demand they release a copy of your long form which you would then wag in the face of all the doubters and personally attempt to shove up Philip Berg’s posterior. When they ask for it in court you gladly turn it over saying “Here you go Judge. Anything else I can help you with?”

When Donald Trump calls you out publicly and says he will donate 5 million dollars to the charity of your choice if you produce your college records, you produce your college records. This does three things. It clears any doubt there may be about you, it makes Donald Trump look like a fool, and it get your charity 5 million dollars. What did Obama do? He wiffed. (I’m not defending the way Trump led us to believe he had something new when all he had was a challenge.)

So, when Bill Maher laid down a five million dollar challenge to Trump, what did Trump do? He did what a man would do, he stepped up and produced.  Obama should take a lesson. I didn’t see the Maher interview. I’m sure he was his usual snide mocking self. But now that Trump has called his bluff, is he going to pay up or look like a sniveling weasel?

Oops … I Guess Nelson Mandela Really Was a Communist After All

This story doesn’t surprise me at all. I never really followed the issue all that closely, but I never doubted he was a Communist because the ANC was clearly Communist. The self-interested denial of the person at the center of the scandal is virtually meaningless. Remember Bill Clinton “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…”? The reason a denial is virtually meaningless is because there is virtually a 100% chance that a denial is coming whether the allegation is true or not. Therefore, the denial doesn’t help you discriminate, although I suppose there are more and less credible denials. Remember someone hacked Anthony Weiner’s Twitter? Remember Herman Cain’s staff didn’t know anything about any sexual harassment settlements?

The reason I bring this up is that it illustrates a phenomenon I have observed and lamented. This story has passed with little more than a whimper. Had this come to light in the middle of Mandela’s trial, it would have been earth shaking. Now, no one cares. So I guess it does pay to deny deny deny and pray the storm passes, because at a later date no one will care.

I can’t help but relate this to the “birther” issue. It will absolutely not shock me in the least if 20 years from now we learn that “Oh yeah, Obama really did attend Occidental College labeled as an Indonesian citizen” or whatever and the response will be “Whatever.” But had the information come out in 2010, there would have been outrage. This is why I could never understand and was so frustrated by people (Patroon, Kirt, etc.) who seemed perfectly OK with the deliberate incuriosity of the press and certain segments of the punditry. If we don’t figure this stuff out now when it matters, it won’t matter when we do.

And just to demonstrate that I am consistent with regards to how I think people should view allegations, here is what I had to say about the allegations made against Nikki Haley.

Trump’s Big Announcement Today

This should be fun.

Trump has a history of over hyping things. I hope he has learned his lesson. If this turns out to be a big nothing burger, then people are going to be ticked. Since he knows he has set expectations so high, I’m mildly hopeful that there will be some there there.

If it is divorce papers, some have jumped to the conclusion that divorce is imminent and find this not likely. I would agree. But my first thought was that these were old divorce papers. That the First Couple was near divorce in the past has been widely rumored.


If Obama Was a Muslim Wouldn’t He be a Social Conservative?

Everyone here should know that I think Obama may be hiding something about his background, but there is one thing I don’t get. I keep seeing people suggesting (such as some of my friends on Facebook) that Obama is secretly a Muslim. I know Obama was a Muslim when he was a child because of his step dad, but if he were still a Muslim then wouldn’t he be against abortion and gay marriage? Heck, I think we would be better off if he was a Muslim. Then he would oppose abortion and gay marriage and withdraw us from the Middle East. Obama is a liberal “Christian.” He attended the Trinity United Church of Christ. This is not a mystery. (I put Christian in quotes because I don’t think Obama actually subscribes to the traditional creeds of the Faith based on some things I’ve read.)

Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs) Pitching a Hissy Fit Over Root Article

Poor Charles Johnson. He can never seem to get his panties out of a wad. Every non-conventional wisdom approved thought sends his little prissy self into hysterics. Now he’s pitching a hissy fit over the Root article we are discussing below.

In other news, the Sun rose in the East this morning.

Wayne Allyn Root Gives Romney the Same Advice I Gave Him a Month Ago

In his latest column, Wayne Allyn Root gives Romney the same advice I gave him last month. 

Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.

My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again.

Here is Root’s “gut.”

Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A)   He rarely ever attended class.

B)   His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C)   He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D)   He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?

First of all, I’m not sure you would know how frequently Obama attended class based on his records. Also, I wouldn’t have been as definitive as Root with my speculation. It is wise to be vague when you don’t know something for sure lest you look silly if you are proven wrong. That said, the possibility that Obama attended college as a foreign student has been much speculated on and is not really an at all implausible senario. At the time, Obama would not have known he would one day run for President. It would simply be something he would later need to cover up.


Addendum: As you can see from the IPR post, Drudge linked to the Root article and the cosmotarian big babies over at Reason are predictably crying about conspiracy taint.

What Romney Should Say About His Tax Returns if he Had the Guts

“I’ll release my tax reruns when Obama releases his college applications, transcripts, passport records, LSAT score, etc. and authorizes the forensic inspection of his original birth certificate and Selective Service registration form.”

Of course Romney won’t say this because Romney has no guts.

Trump, a man who is not without flaws but lack of guts is ceretainly not one of them, agrees with me.

Virgil Goode on Birtherism

William Saturn at IPR asked Goode his thoughts on birtherism. Here’s Goode:

I would like to see the original birth certificate of President Obama. I assume that there exists an original file with the physician signed paper.  Until I have the opportunity to see such original material I am reserving further comment.

If I’m going to rag on Goode, in fairness I should praise him when he gets something right. Goode answer this question adeptly and about the only way he could. Had he declared himself a convinced anti-birther or brushed off the question he would have alienated a huge portion of the kind of people who might vote for a conservative third party candidate. Had he declared himself a convinced birther he would have created a big distraction. His answer expresses just the right amount of skepticism. (Possibly good coaching.) Good for him.

Does “Natural Born” Require Two Citizen Parents?

Does the phrase “natural born citizen” require a President to have two citizen parents? This came up in a thread below, and since I think it is an issue of utmost importance to anyone who says they care about original intent, I have decided to post my rather long thoughts on the matter below. (I post it as is so look back to understand the context and what and who I am addressing.) I don’t really answer the question here, because I haven’t seen it decisively answered, but I offer a way to approach the question and what I think the most cautious consensus opinion should be. I would prefer people take up the issue under this stand alone threads so as not to clutter up this very important question with more stuff about the Trump debate.

Kirt and C Bowen, I don’t think a definitive case can be made about what the Founders intended, but I think a compelling case can be made. If a definitive case could be made then someone would have already made it. I’ve only looked into it superficially and asked people I trust. There was actually surprisingly little said about what they meant and intended. That is why so many people end up referring to a foreigner, Vattel. What I believe is that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the person was supposed to have two citizen parents. As Kirt rightly points out, the issue is complicated by matters of history. They didn’t have all the apparatuses of state for recording citizenship back then that we have today nor hospital births nor easy mass travel etc. So people were generally assumed to be subjects of the place they resided unless they otherwise weren’t, meaning they still claimed allegiance to a foreign government/King, they were obvious temporary residents, etc. IMO, at a minimum, the person should be born of two parents neither of whom still legally technically owed allegiance to a foreign government. This IMO represents the most cautious default opinion. This should be the opinion that conservatives defend with a unified voice. I think the issue should be clarified with a Constitutional amendment, although I don’t think I would like the way that would likely go. I think requiring that the President be born of two citizen parents is a good and cautious policy. There is no right to be President and if the President were the minimalist position it ought to be, no reason to believe that we so desperately need to broaden the talent pool to include those otherwise born.

The problem is that very few conservatives initially even bothered to look at the issue from an original intent standpoint. Many just made arguments off the top of their head based on what felt right to them. Worse, many made definitive foot stomping arguments based on what felt right to them. This is true of both the birthers who foot stomped that being born on foreign soil, if true, was exclusionary, and anti-birthers who foot stomped that it wasn’t. I was guilty of this at first, because initially I argued that what was meant by natural born was “not naturalized” or “born a citizen,” essentially what Kirt says it means. In fact, I’m still of the opinion that a better case can be made for a child of two citizens born on foreign soil than can be made for someone born on US soil with one or two foreign parents. The birthers in general, there are exceptions I’m sure, generally didn’t latch on to the Obama is inedible regardless of where he was born argument until definitive proof he wasn’t born in HI seemed less and less likely to be forthcoming, which raised skepticism and decreased the credibility of the claim in the minds of many.

This is an issue of extreme current and future importance. If “natural born” means simply born a citizen, then Obama (assuming he was born in HI which I do), Jindal and Rubio are eligible. If natural born means something other than just born a citizen then Obama, Jindal and Rubio are not eligible. Since Rubio and Jindal are both talked up as potential VP nominees and future candidates and Obama is the current President who is seeking reelection, then I can’t understand how this could be viewed as an issue of little significance.

I don’t think there is a conspiracy of silence on the part of organized conservatism to not address the issue because they want to maintain the viability of Rubio (I believe this is what C Bowen is implying), although I think many do. That would imply more logic and forethought and organization than I have witnesses in this debate which I have been following closely from the start. As I said, I haven’t seen any kind of organization or a script or talking points. I’ve just seen a bunch of knuckleheads foot stomping and making definitive statements based on what felt right to them. I do think fear of birther taint has contributed significantly to this lack of a consensus. I also think that modern “conservatives” are just squeamish about making the argument because it seems anachronistic and harsh to them and might bring the dreaded r word charge. Birthers are partially at fault for their own taint associated with them because they weren’t cautious with their claims or their sources and brought discredit on themselves in many ways. But “reasonable” conservatives are guilty of letting their fear turn off their brains and silence them. Reasonable conservatives ought to be able to sift through the junk and figure out what is important. From the very beginning organized conservatism should have made the case in a unified voice that Obama is most likely ineligible because his alleged father was a transient foreign national. (The transient issue is potentially important because Obama’s alleged father wasn’t even here with the intent of becoming a citizen in the case that allegiance is the issue.) I’m as guilty here as anyone, because I didn’t make that case from the start, but at least I always had sense enough never to foot stomp and never to believe that his eligibility was determined by anything other than the original intent of the Constitution. By implication, organized conservatism should rule out Rubio and Jindal as potential VPs or Presidential candidates.

While I agree with Kirt that we are unlikely to overturn a popular election based on a preponderance of the evidence interpretation of the Constitution that contradicts the “current interpretation” so blatantly, to me this is also about what our unified voice should be. At a minimum, no one who calls himself a conservative or a Constitutionalist or anyone else for that matter should be able to simply assert the eligibility of Obama or Jindal or Rubio without being asked to back up that opinion with evidence regarding original intent.

Ron Paul Should Attend the Trump Debate

It looks like most of the candidates are dropping out of the Trump moderated debate. This is unfortunate.

Trump has gone out of his way to criticize Ron Paul, I think because his ego was bruised when people were chanting for Ron Paul during Trump’s speech at CPAC, and Paul’s supporters went after Trump for his response. So I can see why Paul might have a legitimate beef with Trump, but I think Paul should have agreed to attend the debate anyway. Not attending, gives the appearance, whether real or not of shunning Trump because of the birther stuff. This then gives the appearance of deliberately attempting to avoid conspiracy “taint” which I think empowers the conventional wisdom right think enforcers. Paul should have gone to the debate if for no other reason than to not be accused of not going to the debate base on Trump’s birther history and giving the conventional wisdom enforcers the satisfaction if that makes any kind of convoluted sense. It looks particularly bad since Paul was one of the two earliest to decline. Huntsman, the other candidate to drop out early, was clearly looking to avoid Trump taint.

More Evidence Obama Did Not Write Dreams From My Father

Jack Cashill has come across another example of Obama’s early writing that demonstrates further, as if any additional evidence is needed, that Obama did not write Dreams From My Father.

I really wish that PJ Foggy and Dr. Conspiracy and all the other prominent debunkers would come on here and state categorically that they think Obama wrote Dreams. I don’t think they’ll do it because I think they KNOW good and well he didn’t. They may be apologists, but they are not stupid.

Update: Lew Rockwell is running this story on his frong page today (1 Sep). This should bring it to the attention of a different set of readers.

Coverage of World Net Daily Press Conference

Yesterday to get some updates on the WND press conference I searched Yahoo using “world net daily press conference sue esquire” (no quotation marks in my search), and I would like to point out that my blog post from 28 Jun on the issues was the number one search result. While this is good for my ego and this site’s credibility, it doesn’t speak well for how larger news organizations have covered the press conference.

But some stuff has been trickling out, and as usual it is more snark than honest reporting. The reports are more an excuse to ridicule birthers than to report the news.

Here is Forbes’ report. (I have a comment below it.)

The Atlantic Wire.

Huffington Post.

What these all have in common, besides substituting snark for the actual reporting of facts, is they all accept the long-form birth certificate the President released at face value. This is journalistic dereliction of duty. Given all the controversy and delay, the MSM should have immediately investigated the authenticity of the document the White House released. I do not believe this is a debatable point among objective, fair-minded people. If you believe the press should have accepted the long-form bc at face value, then you are either deliberately incurious or a shill. The press is supposed to be skeptical of the powers that be, not defenders of the conventional wisdom.

Here is what Corsi had to say on Facebook about The Atlantic Wire article:

Here’s the left’s spin on the WND law suit — Left wants to keep laughing it off — in blind belief that the WH released birth certificate settles everything — if the birth certificate issue had involved George W. Bush, the Left would be up in arms — demanding a forensic examination of the original document. Only lies keep Obama in office at this point.

Corsi is right, of course.