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.

Yes and “tea baggers” think that the government is too big and taxes and spends too much, right? /s

I’m tired of putting up with vulgar slurs coming from rat bastard leftwing bloggers.

Screw’em. I refuse to be a punching bag for them.

I am a documenter and a tea partier and if I am touchy about it, I have good reason-—not just identity politics like the touchy types on the left.

Finally a very well written article that articulates the different between an

1. Conspiracy of execution

and

2. Conspiracy of concealment

These two branches of conspiracies are rarely separated as done in this article.

And the article correct points out. #1 is rare, #2 is much more common.

I am disappointed that the article does not reference the greatest American conspiracy of all - The Watergate break-in cover-up.

And they forget that even men would likely be considered ‘good’ men and not involved with conspiracy chose to disregard direct, credible information when it was brought to them. Few remember Richard Kleindienst. After 5 days on the job and taking over from his former boss (who was part of the conspiracy) he was approached by Gordin Liddy and DIRECTLY TOLD - THE BURGLARS WERE FUNDED AND SUPPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE TO REELECT THE PRESIDENT (i.e. CREEP). Liddy wanted him to release the burglars and sweep the whole thing under the rug. Mr. Kleindienst did not do that and for that he seems to be one of the ‘good guys’ in the Watergate era. But he also DID NOT REPORT THAT LIDDY TOLD HIM DIRECTLY THAT THE BURGLARS WERE TIED TO THE WHITE HOUSE. Had he done that - we like would never had heard of Woodward or Bernstein and Nixon would have been forced from office a year or more earlier.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwatergate.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kleindienst

So ask this - How many Kleindiensts are there in the Obama administration? Or in Hawaii?

Look at the Okubo and Fukino statements. “The records show...” or “The records indicate....”. Active conspirators or Kleindienst-like actors. Look at the lack of standard eligibility language in Hawaii O-CON submitted by Brian Schatz. Is he an active conspirator or another Kleindienst-like player here who avoided making a sworn statement that he knew was not true?

In 1972 the AG of the United States of America was told directly of the White House involvement with Watergate by a credible source. And yet it still took 2 years for this shameful period to come out.

How many parallels exist between now and 1974?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.