Posted on 07/28/2009 10:22:30 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
In 2005, when I was working as a speechwriter in the South African parliament, a far-left faction of the ruling African National Congress spun a yarn that accused the leader of the opposition, the intelligence minister, and the Mossad of colluding to frame Jacob Zuma, the faction's chosen presidential candidate.
Intelligence agents loyal to Zuma bugged the opposition's parliamentary offices and produced a bogus document that they claimed was a transcript of Internet chats between Zuma's supposed opponents.
It was all nonsense, but the conspiracy theory galvanized Zuma's supporters, who soon pushed him to the top of the ruling party and the country, trampling the rule of law in the process.
Here in the United States, the conspiracy theory that alleges that President Barack Obama faked his American birth is likewise troubling. Rather than propelling Republicans to power, however, the "Birther" theory is being used by Democrats and their media allies to isolate and undermine the opposition.
Though some of the wonderful "facts" people have been led to believe about Obama are demonstrably untrue (he is still often referred to, for example, as a former "law professor"), the fact of his American birth is not one of them.
The test is not simply whether there are doubts, but whether those doubts are reasonable. That is a test the Birther theory failed long ago. Perhaps its proponents ought to have had their day in court, but that probably would not have helped their cause, nor convinced the most determined among them to abandon it.
The media has cast Birtherism as a conservative phenomenon -- and it is fast spreading among conservative activists -- but it was originally a Democrat obsession. The most prominent Birther, Philip J. Berg, is a Democrat who backed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary. Other rumors, such as the infamous and non-existent Michelle Obama "‘whitey' tape," were also weapons in the Democrats' internal struggle.
In the same vein, left-wing pundits claim the Birther thesis reveals latent racism in the Republican Party. But it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who made race an issue in the 2008 campaign. From the Obama campaign's charges that Hillary Clinton was the Senator from Punjab, to the Clinton campaign's leaking of a photo of Obama in Somali garb, right up through Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment and the whole Jeremiah Wright affair, it was the left that remained obsessed with race and identity politics.
The Birther theory is likewise an artifact of left-wing squabbles. Conservatives who are tempted by the Birther theory should ask themselves why the mainstream media is now so interested in the story when they were so reluctant to give any attention to the allegations during the 2008 campaign (when, if true, they might have made a difference).
It's not because there is any fresh evidence to support the Birther thesis, but because the Birther thesis has again become politically useful to the left.
Since Obama took office in January, his supporters have sought to entrench his power by creating controversy around one conservative after another. The first target was Rush Limbaugh, whom Obama himself singled out. Then they revived the smear campaign against Sarah Palin. The Birther controversy is the latest incarnation of this strategy, which aims to taint all Republicans by association with a discredited libel.
And too many conservatives have been eager to take the bait.
There are two reasons why so many find the Birther theory compelling. One is the opaqueness of Obama himself. There is much about our president we still do not know.
For example, throughout 2008 the media showed little interest in Obama's connections to the underworld of Chicago politics, regarding Hillary Clinton's references to fraudster "slumlord" Tony Rezko as mere fear-mongering. When the Blagojevich scandal exploded in December 2008, many journalists were quick to accept Obama's assurances of innocent naïveté.
Other details about the president's past remain hidden or suppressed. Obama has never, for example, provided a convincing explanation of why he disposed of his papers from the Illinois State Senate, or how he managed to lose the thesis he wrote at Columbia. He sometimes fibs about essential details of his personal life -- such as where he met his wife -- and offers inauthentic projections of empathy with ordinary folk, such as references to arugula or memories of "Cominskey Field."
The Obama team also has a habit of releasing information in cryptic drips and drabs, and Friday-afternoon document drops. During the campaign, he suddenly revealed that he had taken a trip to Pakistan in 1981 -- a voyage he had not alluded to in either of his two memoirs -- and his staff only belatedly acknowledged his authorship of an unsigned Harvard Law Review article on abortion.
The candidate who promised transparency has been anything but transparent, feeding the suspicion that drives the Birther theory.
The other reason the Birther theory has caught on -- particularly among conservatives -- is the weakness of the Republican opposition.
Despite the GOP's success in slowing down ObamaCare, Democrats still have a huge majority in the House, a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate, and a White House that is aggressively expanding its executive power. One Republican leader after another has stepped down or been tarnished by scandal.
Many Americans -- including some who had convinced themselves that Obama was a moderate -- are eager for a way to stop the runaway left-wing agenda of Obama and Nancy Pelosi's Congress. In the absence of strong Republican leadership, some find the Birther theory a compelling, if desperate, solution.
Yet it is ultimately a self-destructive one -- not just because it is almost certainly false, but because it contradicts the essential spirit of the conservative movement.
The philosopher Robert Nozick distinguished between two approaches to political thought: the "invisible hand" and the "hidden hand." Those who embrace the "invisible hand" believe that people, given the freedom to make their own choices, tend to achieve social goals without being forced to do so.
Sometimes the invisible hand fails, and strong central leadership is needed. But as a general rule, free markets and civil liberties have worked well in promoting human progress. They have certainly proved better than the alternative, in the form of state control, which has produced only poverty, war, and misery.
"Hidden hand" thinkers, by contrast, believe that everything is controlled by unseen forces -- not spiritual but human in nature. Socialism thrives on such ideas, including the notion that big business is constantly manipulating all of us to feed its insatiable greed -- an idea that Obama and much of his left-wing base subscribes to quite openly. In fact, socialism depends on conspiracy theories to justify its war against personal liberty, to blame for its inevitable failures, and to cover up its own very real machinations.
The real "conspiracy" in American politics is the way in which special interest groups loyal to Obama now have unfettered access to power and public money. The unions that ran themselves to the brink of insolvency by giving millions of dollars to Obama and the Democrats, for instance, are being handed taxpayer bailouts and huge shares in companies newly acquired by our rapidly-expanding government, the better to begin the cycle anew.
The answer is to expose this corruption, to fight for policies consistent with American values of freedom, and to win elections again -- not to waste time and resources on political alchemy.
The Birther theory is, in effect if not in intent, a gift to the Obama administration, bequeathed by the indignant rump of the Clinton effort and now deployed against the Republican opposition. It is also deeply corrosive of the spirit of liberty that conservatives bring to American politics.
That is why conservatives and Republicans should reject it -- and dismiss with contempt the media's effort to hang it around our collective necks. There is enough in this administration to oppose on the merits -- or lack thereof.
Alinsky preached planting “memes” into the public consciousness.
Didn’t matter one whit whether they were actually true or not...just that they were abundantly sown like bad seeds, to take root wherever they fell.
“Truth” has no place any more.
What is presented as “truth” does.
“What we perceive, we believe.”
Unfortunately, we are more often than not handed skillfully altered perceptions.
Alinsky would be proud of his proteges.
They have learned well at the Devil’s knee.
[seriously...everyone should get a grip on their gag reflex and read that evil book..all of this would suddenly “make sense”]
I’m sure it did.
Now let’s see who loves money more than fighting for freedom and truth.
Strawman argument, which is typical of you.
It started out as a resolution that talked about Hawaii and its history and then Ambercrombie stuck a clause in there pertaining to Obama being a natural born citizen. Bachmann tried to object, but realistically, it was too late at that point in time.
At any rate, it's a non binding resolution and if Obama has committed any malfeasence pertaining to his birth documents it will nothing to mitigate or absolve him of those transgressions or make him elegible to still hold office.
The answer is quite simple.
He travelled to Pakistan using his U.S. Passport.
Your dream Mandingo lover is the one that has provided no evidence.
And it is words like those that show us your true motivations.
Not a strawman if you are unable to get one singe member of Congress to say that Obama was not born in Hawaii.
I am not all that sure what a "FOAD" is but that does not seem to be the issue at hand.
But the answer to your question is simple, he went to Pakistan on a US Passport, which of course was perfectly legal.
Doesn’t the word “Birtherism” have a distinctive ring to it?
I think it’s more clever than that.
A seed of doubt, once planted, is not easily uprooted.
[”Hath God ~surely~ said Ye shall die?”]
Since marginalizing/ridiculing the opposition is a premier tenet of Alinsky’s “bible”, I think this was -intentional-.
He knew the circumstances of his birth was *just* “mysterious” enough to get traction in the “fringe” and planted the seeds of his ineligibility on purpose.
This sets the stage for “handling” any other questions that will ever be asked of him.
Whatever ~is~ or is ~not~ on the BC is nowhere as important as his refusal to release it.
[’Mystery hath more power than Revelation’]
If [more likely when] anyone who questions his birth is summarily slapped down, even by their “own kind”, he has won a HUGE victory.
From that moment forth, *any* question about him will instantly be classified as being on par with “those birther types”.
He will have absolute and utter free rein [reign?] over his cowering, silenced subjects.
If perverted laws are passed [”Fairness Doctrines”] effectively making it illegal to speak such “blasphemies” against him, how many will turn on [turn in?] their own friends/family *just* to appear to be in step with the program?
To take any possible suspicion away from themselves?
It’s not like this has never happened before.
We have 2 choices.
Pursue it to the bitter end, regardless of which talking heads betray us or roll over and accept him as the infallible, perfect messiah.
Another strawman. By law, he controls access the necessary evidence ( birth records ). So long as that is the case, it is entirely incumbent upon him to prove his elegibility.
BTTT!
Muawiyah, I too am worried about the health care scam.
My husband, who is literally my life, is 65 and although he’s hale and hardy, he is STILL “over 65” and therefore “expendable” to those who worship youth and inexperience.
*I* am sick from worrying what will happen to *him*, should this hell-spawned health care bill pass.
I will NOT worship their gold-plated moon calf.
Ever.
My birthday this year is ruined because it falls one day before we find out *for sure* if the health-scam is taken to vote.
My best to you.
Keep on mockin’....:)
Whether it's true or not, it doesn't matter. The left is using it for their gain. You have to know when to hold them, and know when to fold them. With the left controlling the story, it over.
Another factor pushing the birther phenomenon is that those who have thoroughly investigated the birther claims have much more detailed knowledge of the subject than the average pundit or reporter writing about it. Birthers keep waiting to hear real answers to the basic questions, but those answers just never come. Instead one hears bloviating reporters and pundits who don’t know a COLB from a parking ticket. “Shut up” is not an acceptable answer.
He ripped that off from Ezekiel.
[is there *anything* that is not derivative?]....:))
“Shut up” is not an acceptable answer.”
Just wait ‘til “Shut up or else” comes into play.
And he proved his eligibility in the same manner as those who have preceded him in office.
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.