Who’s crazy now?

In today’s American Thinker, James Lewis says Americans have to stop being so polite and start calling crazy ideas by their true name.  Alan Keyes manifestly agrees:

Regarding Keyes’ points, I have a couple of my own.  Keyes is 1000% (yes, I meant 1000) right about the economic and border insanity that Obama is trying to foist on the American people.  He’s right about the fact that, even for a pro-abortion type, Obama exists on the extreme, brutal edges.  He’s right that this way lies madness and that we have to speak out about this craziness.

But then there’s the birther issue, which occupies the middle third of Keyes’ talk.  Certainly Keyes has something of a point.  While we all know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Obama’s unwillingness to make available substantive documentary evidence about his birth, childhood or education is stubborn verging on weird.*  The absence of smoke here is so unnatural that it almost seems to prove that there was a fire.

As for me, while I’m perfectly willing to accept that Obama was born on Hawaii in 1961, I’d just like him to be more forthcoming about his past.  It’s Obama’s reticence, not his mysterious place of birth, that bugs me.

Having said all of that about Obama’s closely kept secrets, however, I absolutely do not want conservatives to go down the birther path.  I don’t mind that various committed individuals are working in a low key way to discover what’s going on.  First of all, there’s nothing in a free country I can or should do to stop them.  Second of all, if they turn up nothing, there’s no harm and no foul as to the larger conservative movement, while if they turn up something . . . well, that would certainly make things interesting.

The problem remains, however, that for the conservative movement as a whole being a birther looks insane.  And sadly, while we conservatives are too polite to call the ideas animating the Democrats crazy, they have no such constraints.  Every media outlet will cheerfully use the birther issue as proof positive that we’re mad as March Hares — and that being the case, all of our ideas must be discounted.

Nor will anyone out there be amenable to the concept, well known in probate law, that a monomania, even a patently ridiculous one, is not an indicator of insanity.  In probate, even if a man is convinced that all dogs are actually agents from Venus who are planning an attack on earth, that isolated fact is irrelevant if it can be shown that he understands the nature of his estate and the identity of his heirs.

Being tetched as to one thing does not necessarily mean being tetched as to all things.  Once conservatives look insane, though, no one will take seriously their sane views on the economy, national security, immigration, etc.  Giving the birthers free rein will consign conservatives to that part of the dust bin of history in which the crazy people live.

Giving up on this point is not just a matter of placating the press.  There are real virtues to appearing sane on the issues of imminent importance — the ones that affect voters’ pocketbooks.  Our manifest rationality will highlight the fact that Democratic policies function effectively only in an alternate university, one in which (a) a broke government can spend its way out of debt; (b) government control of health care doesn’t mean that citizens abandon privacy and quality, and are instead subject instead to scary rationing and personal control; and (c) the bad guys of the world, rather than having their blood lust inflamed by groveling weakness, are instead assuaged and pacified by that same submissiveness.

One other pragmatic points is the fact that, even if Obama is kicked out, we still have Biden, Pelosi, Reid and Al Franken to contend with.  Nothing changes, but the insanity increases.  How much better, then, to focus on the rational world where the outcomes are real, and the effect on the American people profound.

That’s all, except that I have to end with an appropriate song:

________________________________

*As I understand it, although I’m very willing to be educated, the Hawaii short form birth certificate Obama has made available is not an original document showing his birth.  Instead, it is a contemporary document (the type face alone proves that it is a modern, not a historic document, not to mention the code at the bottom, showing it to be an official form created in 2001) reflecting a bureaucratic reality:  In 1972, Hawaii did away with its former practice of issuing two types of birth certificates, one of which reflected actual births and one of which retrofitted off-island births.  In other words, the current document does not tell us what the facts were on the ground in 1961.  As of 1972, all those birth certificates were merged into a single on-island category.

(Click on image to enlarge)

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Stealth is good. While honesty and the ability to confront corruption must be required, there must also be vital knowledge that must be hidden.

    The leaders of Charis had a similar dynamic. In order to fight the corruption of the one Church, they had to speak out against the excesses of such Church leaders. But they could not let it be known that they thought the entire Church was based upon a lie. That would be crazy talk. It would militarily disadvantage them.

    And military advantage is exactly what you need to win, because part of military advantages are political advantages.

  2. Quisp says

    Like you, Book, I’m not much of a Birther, but I sure as heck would love to see college transcripts and SAT scores. I find it very odd that, as many people at the various institutions who would have access to that information, none of it has ever found its way into the public sphere.

  3. Jose says

    The American Spectator found no substance to the story of Obama’s alleged non-American birth. In fact, they found a birth announcement in a major Hawaiian newspaper. I’ve also read the McCain campaign investigated but found nothing. I’ve decided this this is a dead end.

    I agree that the spotlight needs to be directed towards Obama’s academic career. His lack of substance may yet enable him to become a conservative asset.

  4. suek says

    “Every media outlet will cheerfully use the birther issue as proof positive that we’re mad as March Hares — and that being the case, all of our ideas must be discounted.”

    Unless, of course, the birthers are right.

    “Once conservatives look insane, though, no one will take seriously their sane views on the economy, national security, immigration, etc.”

    Taking this attitude seriously just gives liberals the upper hand in any dispute. Just as they’ve done in so many other issues, they label conservatives with various labels and assume the high ground – because we let them. So what if they think we’re insane? We already think _they’re_ insane, and what difference does it make?

    ” Giving the birthers free rein will consign conservatives to that part of the dust bin of history in which the crazy people live.”

    Unless they’re right. I fail to understand why the issue hasn’t been addressed. I happen to have come to the conclusion that in some way, he doesn’t meet the criteria required, but at this point, I must admit it’s as much by his defense of silence as much as anything else. It’s obvious what a tremendous and chaos such a discovery would entail, but the fact is that if he isn’t eligible, he knows it, and has committed the greatest fraud perpetrated in US history.

    And I simply don’t understand why the law hasn’t addressed the issue directly. Why isn’t every candidate for president required to have an original birth certificate sent to every Secretary of State in the nation when they file to run for president? What would it cost – $1000 bucks?

  5. suek says

    >>In fact, they found a birth announcement in a major Hawaiian newspaper.>>

    You _do_ know that Obama’s grandparents were residents in Hawaii, don’t you? And that there has never been any record of his birth in the hospitals that existed in Hawaii at the time?

    As for McCain’s campaign – and the American Spectator – finding nothing…you do know also, that no one is authorized to get an original copy of his birth certificate other than the individual or a member of his direct family? The fact that they found nothing is proof of nothing. There’s only one way to offer definite proof – and that’s the original birth certificate itself.

    >>I agree that the spotlight needs to be directed towards Obama’s academic career. >>

    And why has this been suppressed? doesn’t it occur to you that one reason is that he may have been awarded a scholarship as a foreign student? I don’t know that to be a fact, but there is a suspicion.

    It would be so easy to make it go away.

  6. Jose says

    I think if there was a possibility of a story here, The American Spectator would pursue it. My opinion is based on what they published about Bill Clintion.

  7. says

    What you need is a smoking gun, suek. Otherwise you’re gambling on some nebulous future advantage, not utilizing a current advantage. You can’t come out of the shadows until you have the Left on the run. They aren’t on the run and it would take a pretty big hammer to make them back off and admit weakness, if not wrongness on any issue.

  8. says

    Right now, the ONLY story is the complete absence of data over which Obama has sole control. There may be another story (whether it’s that his IQ is lower than a snake’s or that he’s always been a registered Muslim or that he wasn’t born in Hawaii or that he’s actually everything he says he is), but we know nothing. That’s what drives me bonkers — we know nothing and we have a media that’s complicit in ensuring our continued ignorance. I say complicit, not because they’re hiding anything, but because they are not using their bully pulpit to demand access to this information.

    Also, I too have noted the fact that there is a black hole around Obama’s past. Not only are the official agencies (registrars offices, etc.) being exceptionally discrete, so is everyone else. I continue to find it peculiar that no one is seeking his or her fifteen minutes of fame by saying “I knew him when…” (and that’s true whether the person is saying positive or negative things about the man). Historically, there’s just no there there.

  9. says

    Not only are the official agencies (registrars offices, etc.) being exceptionally discrete, so is everyone else

    I think much of this is conducted on the individual initiatives of the people in question, along with laws against disclosure. But that wouldn’t have stopped somebody with Bush’s records, you know.

    They’re protecting his back history because they know exactly what such information can do. Obama himself has used it to win elections. They themselves tried to find the dirt on Sarah Palin. They know their own evil and ruthlessness, so they will naturally armor against it should anybody on our side penetrate deep into such records.

    They don’t need to be given orders to do it. Then again, Leftists don’t need to be told what to say. They mimic each other automatically. Like a herd or an insect colony.

    (and that’s true whether the person is saying positive or negative things about the man)

    Some of the people that knew him when he was in school have done so. Ayers and Bernadine, however, of course not.

  10. suek says

    Ok…so just suppose Obama finishes his term. Then is voted out of office and doesn’t have a second term (Please, God!). The new president decides to do some investigation and determines that in fact, Obama was never eligible for the presidency.

    What then?

    If I could write, I’d write a book! It could be a thriller, I think, even with all the legalisms that would have to be investigated. Lots of people with lots to lose…conspiracies all over the place! To be honest, the possibilities fascinate me. When the question first came up, I found it really interesting to follow the ins and outs of the question. I really hoped that the courts would address the situation, and was astounded when they basically refused – particularly on the basis of standing. If a citizen doesn’t have standing in determining if a man running for president is eligible for that office, who does! Now we’re past that, and the issue is what if you have a president who doesn’t meet the criteria for eligibility. Theoretically, any bills or any executive orders he signs are null and void. Oh what a mess that would be! Certain people, I think, could be prosecuted for fraud. I think some of them acted with knowledge.

    It could be a real interesting plot!!

  11. says

    He can’t be voted out of office. There is no referendum recall, like with Arnold in Kalifornia.

    The only Constitutional method is impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, with falsifying or covering up documents being a misdemeanor. So would vetoing every bill from Congress.

    Democrats will not impeach Obama, however. Not even close.

    This goes back to John Ringo’s Last Centurion. He wrote this about Hillary Clinton, but it wasn’t Clinton that was elected now was it ; )

  12. suek says

    No no no…you misunderstand. I stated it poorly. He would not be voted out of office – he would be not re-elected. In my mind, not re-electing him would be effectively voting him out of office. But you’re correct. Actually voting him out of office is not something we can do. And I also agree – it’ll be a cold day in hell before the Dems would impeach O – no matter _what_ he does.

  13. expat says

    The birth certificate is a minor distraction that will hurt Republicans. The big problem with Obama is that he doesn’t feel like an American in his heart. He wants to teach us, preach to us, and, according to his wife, make us work–in short, he wants us to become a country that is worthy of him. I am sick of his condescension, and I think others will get to that point too.

  14. SADIE says

    I am with Book on her lingering questions. Sometime after the age of 9 or 10 whenever he left Indonesia you’d think, some classmates, some school, somewhere some one would have had something to say.

    Who paid for his trip to Karachi? What passport did he use and in fact, how many passports and under what nationalities and names did he use. Who paid for his education? Who funded his run for the Senate? Why?

    I can’t think of a president post Eisenhower, who did not have the big bucks from family money or big business money, who became president (maybe Nixon?). He’s like the character “Chance” from the film Being There or………………….

    One day he just appears like an abandoned baby on a door step one day, taken in by (grand) parents in Kansas, grows up to be …wait, wait, I think I’ve just stepped into the origins of the Superman story.

    QUICK…everybody grab your kryptonite he’s an imposter!

    suek: There’s your title for the book – The Imposter

  15. Mike Devx says

    I wonder… how did Sarkozy get to be president of France? I didn’t follow that campaign. I assume he expressed great love and admiration for all things traditionally French.

    Obama, on the other hand, has nothing but disdain and disgust for all things traditionally American. I still can’t understand how he made it through the entire campaign without that turning to bite him. He is an outsider to America, as Sarkozy was to France, but in Obama’s case, he is the classic “World Citizen”, especially in the sense that all World Citizens are required to hate America and Israel.

  16. says

    You don’t have to be rude, Book. It is not about politeness or non-politeness. Gentleman have used politeness as a shield and a safety guard in duels since, well, the Code Duello started.

    It is about recognizing the enemy for who he is. Is he an enemy? Is he a friend that can be turned into an enemy? An enemy that can be turned into a friend? A stranger that you can neither turn into friend nor enemy, but who will turn himself into one or the other irrespective of what you say or do?

    It depends.

    It doesn’t depend on politeness. People seem to think that the Left would become better if they were more polite. That’s not actually true. If it came about that politeness was the only way they could gain power, they would be polite. But they would just be as power hungry and megalomaniacal as they currently are. The abuses of power won’t go away. Its superficial skin color will just become more appetizing.

Leave a Reply