Conservative Heritage Times

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?

17 Comments »

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.

13 Comments »

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.

7 Comments »

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.)

1 Comment »

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.

3 Comments »

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.

HT: IPR

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.

7 Comments »

“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.

2 Comments »

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.

24 Comments »

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.

15 Comments »

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.

23 Comments »

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.

3 Comments »

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.

17 Comments »

World Net Daily has scheduled a press conference for tomorrow where they will announce their intent to sue Esquire Magazine over a satire Esquire published.

I am not a lawyer so I do not know the legal merits of the suit, but I do know that the article was bad satire. Good satire is subtle but obvious. The Esquire article was neither subtle nor obvious as evidenced by the fact that so many people mistook it for the truth, and also by the fact that Esquire had to issue an update to clarify that it was satire. The article does not read like satire. It reads like a mean-spirited vindictive liberal taking pleasure in the travails of his enemy, and that scenario should strike no one as unique. Ever watch Olbermann or Maddow?

Hopefully this press conference will give WND a chance to lay out some of the evidence that the long-form birth certificate the White House released is a forgery*, since the obvious question is “Didn’t a book entitled Where’s the Birth Certificate become a moot point after Obama released his long-form birth certificate?” Of course, the MSM should have had the birth certificate forensically analyzed immediately after it was released, but they didn’t, so this will hopefully nudge them to address the concerns.

*I do not dogmatically claim the long form is a forgery, but I have read some analysis that should make any fair-minded person wonder. What is needed is expert forensic examination, the type you would have in a high profile trial, of the scan the White House released and of the alleged original.

7 Comments »

It has been somewhat of a tradition here at CHT that we attempt  to cover outside the mainstream and otherwise non-traditional candidates. In that spirit, here is a suggestion I ran across on Facebook.

It’s is from Orly Taitz’s website, and it is not clear how “on board” Gen. Vallely is with the idea from the e-mail conversation she posts. The bulk of it is a call to action from Stand Up America which is apparently Gen. Vallely’s organization, but it also sounds like it could easily be a campaign platform. You may recognize Gen. Vallely as a frequent Fox News commentator on military matters. He earlier said he would consider running as Trump’s running mate.

The “call to action” is a mix bag of good and bad. He endorses the “Fair Tax” which would be a disaster, but he also endorses abolishing the “Departments of Energy, Education, (and) HEW” and dissolving “the EPA and IRS (and) Federal Reserve.” He surprisingly says we should “Cease this strategy of nation building in the Middle East as well as supporting corrupt and ineffective international organizations like the United Nations,” but is also excessively concerned about the threat from Iran. He seems possibly to be a John Bolton style nationalist interventionists but without being a neocon. His Stand Up America website contains links to The Weekly Standard and David Horowitz which isn’t encouraging.

What might make a Vallely candidacy intriguing however, is that he has openly questioned the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, has called for his impeachment,  and has questioned the authenticity of the long form birth certificate.

The campaign needs an open birther in my opinion to keep the issue out there. So far the current candidates have been completely ball-less on the issue, especially since the release of the long form birth certificate which may or may not be authentic.

1 Comment »

John Edwards has been indicted for actions related to his attempt to cover up a love child.

Consider this. If Edwards had won the election would he now be being indicted? If he won would people who claimed that Edwards had a secret love child be called “babyers?” Would they be dismissed as tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy kooks? Would the press look the other way instead of following up on leads and hostilely dismiss legitimate curiosity about the circumstances surrounding his relationship with Hunter?

How did we find out about the Edwards’ love child? The press did this novel thing and investigated suspicious circumstances, although much to the shame of the mainstream press, it was the National Enquirer that broke the story.

6 Comments »

It’s #6 on the Times‘ nonfiction list.

As I have said before, I think it is unfortunate that Corsi is staking his claim so strongly that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but he has been all over the alternative media (certainly not the MSM unless they are ridiculing him) keeping the issue of Obama’s murky background out there when few others are, so for that he deserves our thanks. Corsi’s book also explores other issues such as the Connecticut SSN, which should be considered fraudulent until proven otherwise.

Here is CNN covering the sales of the book.

Addendum: The UK Daily Mail has a story here.

Addendum II: Apparently, Where’s the Birth Certificate is the hottest topic on Amazon. This is Jerome Corsi’s Facebook post:

The customer forum on WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE is currently the hottest forum — most responses — of any other book or product on Amazon.com. The Obama birth certificate issue is not going away, especially as millions more Americans wake up to the fact the document released by the White House on April 27 is a forgery.

No Comments »

As I mentioned in the post below, Jerome Corsi’s new book Where’s the Birth Certificate was released today. Corsi has a lot of radio interviews lined up. This is from his Facebook page:

Book in the stores tomorrow. If it becomes a bestseller, the Obama eligibility issue will not go away. I start radio with Sean Hannity tomorrow. We have two weeks of back-to-back radio already scheduled. Obama lied. He was not born in Hawaii. Starting tomorrow, I plan to tell the whole story.

This is from the linked article:

“With the unprecedented success of this book several weeks ago, reaching No. 1 at Amazon, I fully expected Obama, in desperation, to release a fraudulent document – and that’s exactly what he did,” said Corsi. “I was warned by excellent sources it was coming. And it’s not even a good forgery. I am prepared to tell all beginning today – not only about the birth certificate, but also to explain why even a birth on U.S. soil could not possibly qualify Obama for the presidency as a natural born citizen.”…

… Corsi’s first nationwide interview takes place on the Sean Hannity radio show this afternoon. He follows that up with appearances on hundreds of other radio and television shows.

“Obama tried to preempt this book with the release of a document he had been hiding with good reason for two-and-a-half years,” said Corsi. “However, he has done himself in by counting on a compliant media to simply accept it at face value as authentic. It is not. Now he will have to face the music for attempting to deceive the American public and defraud the Constitution he took an oath to uphold.”

On April 27, with great fanfare, Obama finally released his “birth certificate” after years of stonewalling, after spending a fortune on attorneys to block its release and defend against dozens of lawsuits brought by citizens wanting to see it, after claiming he had already released it and after ridiculing everybody who said he had not released it.

Yet a stunning Gallup Poll taken more than a week later (May 5-8) shows more than half of all Americans remain unconvinced Obama was born in the U.S.

Reportedly, the book also covers the original intent of the phrase “natural born citizen” and the Connecticut Social Security number issue.

Corsi makes the bold claim above that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Personally, I would not make that claim because even if his long form birth certificate is fraudulent, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t born in Hawaii. But on an issue where a lot of people make a lot of claims that are speculative or not accurate, Corsi has always been well informed and careful about what he says so maybe he has sufficient grounds to make that claim. Anyway, I wish Dr. Corsi great success with the sale of his book and hope he represents those of us with doubts about the Obama narrative well.

39 Comments »

Sean Hannity is a coward. This is from Jerome Corsi’s Facebook page:

At the last minute HANNITY CANCELLED — I guess joining Bill O’Reilly to dismiss the “Birthers” — we had keep the first radio for Hannity for 3 months. He cancelled today. STEVE MALZBERG gets the first interview later this afternoon. Call Hannity and let him know what you think.

For those who don’t know, Jerome Corsi’s book about the Barack Obama birth certificate issue was released today. Corsi has A TON of radio interviews scheduled in the next couple of weeks, but Hannity was supposed to be his first interview.

Send Sean an e-mail and ask him why he chickened out. Please be civil.

22 Comments »

From the AP:

Obama spoke shortly after the White House released a copy of the long form of his birth certificate, which contains more extensive data than a version released earlier.

The certificate says Obama was born to an American mother and Kenyan father, in Hawaii, which makes him eligible to hold the office of president. Obama released a standard short form before he was elected in 2008 but requested copies of his original birth certificate from Hawaii officials this week in hopes of quieting the controversy.

Until Wednesday, the White House had insisted that the short form certificate was the appropriate legal document confirming Obama’s birth and no further proof was needed.

The newly released certificate is signed by the delivery doctor, Obama’s mother and the local registrar. His mother, then 18, signed her name (Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama.

The form says Barack Hussein Obama II was born at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, within the city limits of Honolulu.

There’s no mention of religion. It says his father, Barack Hussein Obama, age 25, was African and born in Kenya and his mother was Caucasian and born in Wichita, Kan. Obama’s mother and the doctor signed the certificate on Aug. 7 and 8.

Hawaii’s registrar certified the new photocopy of the document provided to the White House on April 25, 2011.

Hopefully the matter is at last closed, though Obama should have released this long form years ago…

6 Comments »

In order not to clutter up the site with multiple links only posts, I will combine some Ron Paul and Donald Trump related links of interest in a single post. My minimal commentary will follow some of the links.

Ron Paul gets a little love from The Hill. In the same blog post The Donald gets dissed.

Bussiness Insider also give Paul a little love and respect.

Public Policy Polling says we should take Paul seriously.

Politico has the story on Paul’s announcement. This story irked me a bit. It begins:

“Ron Paul will move one step closer to a long-shot presidential bid Tuesday, when he announces the formation of an exploratory committee in Iowa.”

Ron Paul’s campaign honestly is a “long-shot,” but it is poor form for the allegedly neutral Politico to inject that editorial description of the campaign into its story, especially in the first sentence.

Trump questions how Obama got into Harvard Law School. The reigning assumption of a lot of people including Trump (and Wayne Allyn Root who has harped on this issue a lot) seems to be that Obama is not disclosing his school records because his grades were poor, and this seems likely true, but I also think he may not want his school records revealed because they might reveal he attended school as a foreign student or have some other embarrassing information. So the focus shouldn’t just be on grades. That said, it is good that this issue is being brought up because it also focuses the attention of a lot of people on the unfairness of Affirmative Action. We do know that Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law because that information is public, so he is no dummy, but he likely didn’t earn his way in.

Trump claims Obama’s birth certificate is missing. This is a bold and reckless, if not true, claim. Does Trump know something? The problem is Trump tends to shot from the hip. He says he has been “told.” Anyone else I would think they might know something. Trump I’m not so sure.

De Niro criticizes Trump. Trump fires back. As much as I appreciate Trump for having the balls to raise and pursue the birth certificate issue, he really is too thinned skinned for politics. Trump has a tendency to respond by going for the neck. For example his famous exchange with Rosie O’Donnell. Here he calls De Niro dumb. Trump’s handlers, if there can be such a thing, need to help him reign in this type of reaction.

HT: IPR, Lew Rockwell

17 Comments »