Idiot leaves Ron Paul coalition; finds natural home in Democrat Party

Ron Paul yard signA liberal friend who despairs of my decision to turn my back on the Democrat Party and declare myself a conservative, sent me an article from Salon.  In it, the author smugly explains that he was a life-long libertarian, went to a Ron Paul convention, saw that a lot of the people there were conspiracy theorists, and then joined the Democrat Party.

Here’s the gist of it:  the guy grew up in Nevada, in a town that valued guns.  He was told that he was a libertarian, so he was.  Without showing any actual understanding of the principle’s behind small government and individual freedom, he liked that Ron Paul libertarians want to make pot legal and hate Wars for Oil.  In 2008, he went to a Ron Paul convention and was shocked that people there espoused conspiracy views (which Ron Paul followers are famous for doing) and believed that welfare is a bad thing.  Then, when the financial meltdown happened in 2008, he opposed the bank bailout (which libertarians opposed), but approved of greatly increasing the welfare state (something libertarians also opposed).  Oh, and he “wept with joy” when Obama was inaugurated.  As for the Tea Partiers, they were “monsters” who made him want to “puke.”  You see, there are “racists” amongst the Tea Partiers, as well as 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Birthers.  He then went to a Progressive college to get a degree in creative writing and married a liberal Canadian.  And then, pretty much badda-boom, badda-bing, there he was, a happy Democrat.

What this guy utterly fails to see is that he started out with hard-core Leftist ideology — free pot, no War for Oil, don’t give money to evil bankers, government is the solution, Tea Partiers are racist, Obama is a God who causes tears of joy — but by an accident of birth, ended up thinking he was a libertarian.  Then, when he figured out that he was a moonbat, he headed for his real political party.  It’s not so much a case of conversion as of mistaken identity.  “You mean I’m not really Lord Ambrose Wafflepoof-Chilteningham?  I am, instead, plain old Comrade John Brown?  At last, the world makes sense!”

As for his attacks against the Ron Paul group, I have to agree that I don’t like Ron Paul or his followers either.  Their isolationism (which the proto-Democrat convert loved) is dangerous, and their affinity for neo-Nazis and other immoral, bad actors is awful.  Paul is too dumb to realize that the neo-Nazis are statists who hide in his Libertarian enclave because they believe it’s the best incubator for people too dumb to realize that the libertarian’s totally laissez faire attitude to everything allows evil to grow as well as good.

The two main problems with the guy’s post are that he (a) never understood true conservativism and (b) conflates Ron Paul libertarians with conservatives.  Conservatives embrace constitutional government, not no government.  Most conservatives are not conspiracy theorists, although the Birther meme is out there — in part because Obama has withheld evidence (birth certificates and transcripts), either to stir up conspiracy controversy (“Hey, look!  I can make my dog crazy by hiding his bone”) or because there really is something to hide (I believe he might be hiding a pretense that he was a foreign national to help him get college admission/aid).

If you want serious conspiracy mavens, look Left.  That’s where the Truthers live, that’s were the antisemites who subscribe to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion live, and that’s where the people who focus obsessively on the Koch brothers live.  The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Koch brothers did anything more than fund the Heartland Institute is irrelevant:

"The Nation" uses its Koch brother paranoia to fuel a fundraising drive

“The Nation” uses its Koch brother paranoia to fuel a fundraising drive

Funnily enough, all these Lefties never seem that exercised about George Soros’ funding of just about everything to the Left, which is as much an exercise of free speech as is the Koch’s funding of the Heartland Institute.

Another conspiracy meme on the Left, one that helped propel Obama back into the White House in 2012 was the spurious war on women. The Left convinced credulous women and metrosexuals that a vote for Romney was a vote to put women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, as forced sex-slaves to slobbering, fat, white Bible-toting Christian males. (In other words, The Handmaid’s Tale.)  That this dark vision had no reality outside the pages of a bad 1980s feminist novel is irrelevant.

And of course, there’s the “Tea Party is racist” meme that the guy, studying at his Progressive university, totally accepted.  He seems unaware that Andrew Breitbart’s $100,000 reward for anyone spotting racism at an Obamacare protest is still out there, unclaimed.  If you want racism, look Left.

The guy who wrote the Salon article was never a conservative.  He was always a hardcore, big state Leftist who had accidentally wandered into the wrong party.  His little post isn’t an indictment of conservativism.  It is, instead, a confession of his own lack of self-awareness and facile embrace of the party of the moment.

The predictable Democrat ad hominem attack against those special forces who fear the administration’s loose lips

Yesterday, I urged you to view a 22 minute video that a 501(c) organization put together to show how severely the publicity-hungry Obama administration has damaged America’s national security and the risks to which that same administration has exposed its special ops forces and human intelligence assets, both at home and abroad.

The Democrats have reacted in predictable fashion, not by addressing the challenge leveled against the administration, but by using a “guilt by association” tactic.  As Bruce Kesler discusses, they’ve latched onto a quotation from one retired SEAL who admits to being a Birther and claimed that he discredits every accusation brought against the administration.

In law, we call this an ad hominem, or personal attack.  In law, we also understand that a party uses ad hominem attacks only when it has no other credible argument to make.  If you can’t defend on either the law or the facts, call your opponent names.

Certainly, one can challenge Birtherism, but the fact that a highly qualified, experienced military veteran also happens to be a Birther doesn’t discredit him on the subject of national security.  Getting back to the law again, the law has always recognized the difference between “insanity,” which is a complete disconnect from reality, and a “monomania,” which may simply be an intellectual blind spot in the knowledge and intelligence of an otherwise highly able individual.

In any event, you just know the Democrats have a weak argument when the best person they can find to drag out in front of the cameras is . . . John Kerry.

“Born in Kenya” — not a claim from the Birthers, but from Obama’s own literary agents, back in 1991 dropped a bombshell:

Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama’s then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

The booklet, which was distributed to “business colleagues” in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.

Read the whole Breitbart report (which is very detailed) here, including photos of the entire promotional booklet.

Does this mean Obama was in fact born in Kenya?  Who knows.  I doubt that the literary agent came up with this biographical data on her own, or that it went by Obama without his approval.  Either Obama fed this information to the literary agent, or he happily accepted the statement because it gave him a commercial advantage.

Assuming Obama fed the information to the agent, it still doesn’t answer whether Obama was actually born in Kenya or if he was re-making himself to obtain a monetary advantage (cool internationalist versus garden-variety American guy).  The one thing we know with absolute certainty, though, is that Obama lies, and then he lies again, and then he lies about his lies.  He’s remade himself so many times that, absent reliable documentation from August 1961,  it’s still not possible to separate truth from fiction when it comes to Obama’s personal history.

Hat tip:  Everyone!  This one went off like a bomb in my in box.


All the good stuff that’s fit to publish on the internet *UPDATED*

For the last two days, I haven’t been blogging much, but I’ve been collecting stuff to read and share with you.  In no particular order, my collection:

Are you an old fart?  I certainly am, and proud of it.

There are several expressions that cover the need to make a decision in the face of uncertainty (e.g.,  “Fish or cut bait.”  “S*** or get off the pot.”)  Bruce Kesler explains that, in the face of Obama’s panicked inertia, Israel had better fish or . . . do other stuff.

Ben Shapiro has, bar none, the best post I’ve seen explaining what Critical Race Theory is and why it should matter to those who, this year, will be given the opportunity to examine candidate Obama once again.

Even in these unhappy times (and the world is struggling), Dennis Prager reminds us that happiness is a possibility and, morally, an imperative.

I am not a birther.  Really.  But this one surprised me.  Is Adams for real, or is he a conspiracy theorist who conveniently presented himself when the opportunity arose?

Finally.  A clear, logical, comprehensive explanation for our current very high gas prices, prices that are higher in real dollars than they were during the Carter years.  I’m not sure Obama has enough speechifying in him to explain this away.

The disturbing racial/eugenicist implications of unlimited abortion.

Spengler (i.e., David Goldman) has been writing for some time about the problems inherent in Muslim population decline.  And no, I didn’t make a typo.  Despite the proud boasts and misleading data about the way the Palestinian population explosion will inevitably overrun Israel, the fact is that the Muslim world is in decline.  The MSM has finally noticed, but they’re getting the wrong message from the facts.

Here, we talk about impeachment.  In Iran, they do something about it.

Please add anything you think is interesting.

UPDATE:  I wasn’t planning on updating this post, but Victor Davis Hanson hit one out of the park, right into must-read territory.

Two more things to check out *UPDATED*

Conspiracy thinking is an interesting thing.  We know that conspiracies really can and do exist.  We know that even paranoid people have enemies.  But how do we know whether any given theory points to a legitimate plan, goal or movement, or simply reflects our own fears and biases?  Two conspiracy theories have been in the news lately:  the 911 Truthers and the Obama Birthers.  Because both have assumed a great deal of importance within certain segments of the Left and the Right, the problem of distinguishing between real and crackpot theories is legitimate and important.  Over at David Horowitz’s Newsreal, a companion site to FrontPage Magazine, David Swindle takes a crack at separating wheat from chaff when it comes to conspiracy theories.

Also, you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that Barack Obama is governing from the Mae West script (and no, I’m not talking about those rippling man boobs he likes to flex and wave on the beaches of Hawaii).

UPDATE:  Now it’s three things to check out, and I suspect the list will grow.  Lorie Byrd takes umbrage at being accused of racism for being disinterested in all the glamour details of the Obama’s anniversary dinner.

If it seems too good to be true….

Is it a coincidence that, as the birther issue reaches an ever larger audience, a purported Kenyan birth certificate, complete with raised seal, suddenly pops up?  My suspicion is that the birth certificate is about as reliable as those emails I routinely receive from Nigeria, assuring me that, if I just hand over my bank account or credit card numbers, I’ll receive millions of dollars . . . very soon.  Much as it would be rather fun if it were the real birth certificate, even if I were a wild-assed gambler, I’d bet against this one.

Speaking of the birther issue, Dave Freddoso makes a very good point about the media’s collective guffaw when it comes to the birthers:

Twenty-eight percent of Republicans believe President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and 30 percent are “not sure,” according to this poll.

But before liberals begin to smirk, here’s a poll from 2007, in which 35 percent of Democrats said that President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks, and 26 percent were not sure.

So if 58 percent of Republicans are living in a delusional fantasy world because they are out of power, then 61 percent of Democrats were doing the same thing until just recently (perhaps they still are). It’s a clean, apples-to-apples comparison with a clear lesson: People get a bit kooky when they’re out of power, Democrats about 3 points kookier — which is probably within the margin of error.

The only real difference between the birthers and the truthers is that the birthers’ claim is actually susceptible to proof.  If Obama releases his long form certificate it’s all over.  By not doing so, he waves a red flag in front of the birther bulls so that the media can target them for public ridicule.

Andrew Sullivan is right — the President has very limited privacy

I would have thought the earth would reverse its rotation before I’d find common ground with Andrew Sullivan.  Apparently nothing so extreme had to happen.  All Sullivan had to do was advocate precisely the same point I’ve been making forever which is that Obama needs to stop being so secretive.  Here’s Sullivan:

So many readers are furious that I have dared to ask the president to show the original copy of his birth certificate. The reason for demanding it is the same reason for demanding basic medical records proving Sarah Palin is the biological mother of Trig.

Because it would make it go away and it’s easily done.

I’m tired of these public officials believing they have some right to privacy. They don’t. It’s the price of public office. If you don’t like it, don’t be president. And for goodness’ sake, don’t run for president on a platform of transparency.

And then once Obama’s cleared the air as to his birth, how about if he releases his Occidental College transcripts, his Columbia U. transcripts and his Harvard Law Transcripts?  As Sullivan so pithily (and correctly) said, “I’m tired of these public officials believing they have some right to privacy.  They don’t.”

Andrew, you are completely right.  Obama could make all of this go away in a single second.

Of course, right now, Obama doesn’t want the birth certificate issue to go away.  Because the press has figured out how to turn it against the conservatives who are troubled by Obama’s many secrets, it’s in Obama’s interest to keep waving the birth certificate red flag in front of charging Birthers for as long as possible.

I therefore humbly suggest that Birthers stop focusing on the birth certificate, which is a double edged and pointless sword, and instead begin demanding that Obama release all of his records so that the American people can to know more about this hyper-secretive man who is guiding our destinies.  That’s a much better and more interesting sell to ordinary citizens, and it doesn’t expose conservatives to the risk of being characterized as wackos with tinfoil hats.

The new mantra:  “Release your records, Mr. President.  All of them!”

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)