I subscribe to a few daily newsletters. One of them is the Wall Street Journal newsletter edited by James Taranto. A pretty smart guy. Ever since Obama’s Birth Certificate issue has been smouldering away, James has been lampooning the issue. He hated it. He’s one of those right wingers who mistakenly think this is an issue that the right should stay away from. Like Ann Coulter and many others.
James reckoned it was just a ploy to distract from more important issues. I never got the meaning of that word distract. Whatever the issues are, lets just go with every damn one of them. I also think this was an important issue for two other reasons. One, it is a constitutional requirement. Two, the intent of that requirement is to help to ensure loyalty to the US and the US alone. Obama has shown he is often prepared to put the US second. Even apologizing for America in Europe. Bowing and scraping to foreign dictators. He’s got no pride in the country. He is not living up to the intent of that Constitutional clause. He is a danger to US security and a threat to the exceptionalism that has made America great.
Those of us who have kept hammering away at the issue , and who have not given up on asking that Obama remove the many serious doubts that exist regarding his eligibility, have been encouraged by recent developments. At long last we have broken through the massive propaganda wall that protected the completely incorrect claim that Obama has produced his birth certificate. Long term defenders of this lie have been forced to admit it is a falsity.
Recently the newly elected Democrat Governor of Hawaii announced that he wanted to make more information available regarding Obama’s birth. Thereby admitting the online COLB was insufficient. MNSBC television commentator Chris Matthews, a slavish supporter of Obama, has on two separate programs of his show “Hard Ball”, requested that Obama release his real birth certificate to the public. The mainstream media boycott is showing huge cracks.
All of a sudden James Taranto is subtly changing his tune. In a recent newsletter, he said this-
“Our view has long been that the birthers are playing a sucker’s game – that they are aiding Obama by making it easier for his supporters to depict his critics as wackos and divert attention from real questions about his political character. This change in liberal attitudes may be a sign that the game is no longer working to Obama’s advantage. It could be that his baneful policies have led more Americans to harbor doubts about his very legitimacy.”
That is right Mr. Taranto. The end game here is that Obama will, (leaving aside present Supreme Court developments) likely fail any future tests regarding his legitimacy for the 2012 ballot. He’ll be gone. If you don’t think that getting this treacherous anti-American unconstitutional President out of the White House is important or worth fighting for, then what the hell is??
It was never going to be a distraction. The only thing that might have made it so is people like James Taranto buying into the left’s false argument. Repeating the slander that the issue was crazy. Using the contemptuous and mocking term “birther”. Since when did we ever need the left’s approval on what issue we were able to attack them on? We don’t need it on any issue, and we sure as damn hell don’t need it on this one. Obama is ineligible for office, elected by fraudulent means, brazenly confronting the intent of an important Constitutional clause, and he needs to go. End of story.
TrueblueNZ 
4 responses to “Right Wingers Who Scorned Obama BC Issue Now Backtracking”
The path to getting your conclusion accepted has been blocked by those allegedly on our side. There would be no need for your commentary were blindered editorial policies not in evidence. You bypassed that 800 pound gorilla so as to not go off point. But that monster has long been an institutional fact of life inevitably leading to the problem you raised becoming as bad as it has.
How bad is such poliicy? It has caught in its claws some really smart people.
For instance you write “James Taranto. A pretty smart guy.” Yes, he may well be. But there are loads of writers who are smart and can’t make it to where James is. Luck of the dice? Maybe. But I bet he is in his current position because he is smart in a manner differing that those others: he is smart enough to know it is in his short term interests to follow orders. To remain where he is, he accepts the editorial decision “The birth certificate is out of bounds,” and writes accordingly. Anyone who has much personal experience in other business models surely understands this. “James has been lampooning the issue,” because it is editorially desired. Period.
I, and probably you too, have worked with people who make executive decisions from time to time. That’s a decision for which the reason is not clear and for which the boss need not give you a reason.
In an advisory role, you let him proceed without making an issue. If you’ve been given an order, you do it, you quit, or you get removed.
What does “smart” mean when you are faced with a such a dilemma? The “smart” money boils down all arguments to essentially this: “You go along to get along.”
The pattern has been repeated in science. You want a grant? Is global warming as a fact? The not-so-smart hedge the catastrophic-anthropomorphic part at their own risk. The truly “smart” go along with CAGW without reservation, and when confronted by dissenters, with no-holds-barred.
If science scholars are so easily swayed, what chance do graduates of Journolism schools have of knowing what words like integrity mean? But — of course– they’re well trained at attacking off-the-reservation messengers so as to avoid exposing their boss to each an every of his lies.
Both the WSJ and FNC are NewsCorp properties. They have identical editorial positions on the birth certificate and illegal aliens. What do you want to bet is Rupert Murdoch’s official position on the two? Who’s the boss?
The “birther” word is editorial acceptable. Do I think “birthers” was a deliberate attempt to associate you with 911 Truthers? Does the sun rise in the East? The phrase “illegal alien” isn’t acceptable (because it associates them with criminal activity). The WSJ prefers — like the Left — “undocumented immigrants.” That propagandizes a tie to legal immigrants. These are all editorial decisions.
The making of all questions about Obama’s documents out-of-bounds, and all questioners subjected to intellectual abuse, is an underlying enabler as to how Obama’s documents are and remain a problem. That you and the rest of us have to deal with it is INDEED a distraction. They have the money and the time to force us to deal with it. It’s akin to the state prosecuting someone without legitimate cause — it forces the persecuted to waste resources that could be otherwise useful.
This again demonstrates why we have got to replace the 4th Estate or we are finished.
The press should have vetted Obama on this when he first started running, and they did not. The SKUNC McCain campaign also refused to do it ( Any who tried, McCain fired.) And Murdoch’s FNC and WSJ also refused to take it seriously (editorial decision the same at both NewsCorp companies increases likelihood of a high end editorial policy influence) — even about Obama’s efforts to block his papers. Even failing to make an issue out of how all of it could have been a ploy by Obama’s handlers for the purpose of distraction stinks. The efforts to block access to his papers needed to be exposed for that reason alone. To clear the decks and keep the issue as a side one.)
The Ministry of Truth was not built overnight. It took decades. Top down editorial policy making made it possible and became the target of infiltrators. Once the top echelons were taken over by SKUNCs, the current state of propaganda became inevitable.
(I’m sorry if any of this was repetitive. I’ll attempt to neaten it up at my blog.)
LikeLike
Great comment Pascal. Extremely thought provoking. Funny how in the mainstream media, its the left today who are giving this issue some air. (Except for CNN, who fired that journo because of it. )
LikeLike
Red,
What do you think of Ron Paul’s statements that the US military complex is far too big and US military bases world wide are now too costly and need dismantling.
LikeLike
A good question W, and something I was thinking on this morning after reading a couple of articles. One was a discussion forum for the Chinese military. The degree of belligerence displayed on that forum towards America and the west was astonishing and alarming.
The other was this article here detailing the recent massive buildup of Chinese sea power.-
http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/2011.htm
LikeLike