“ The Breitbart Crew are kind of like illegal immigrants — doing reporting Columbia journalism grads won’t do. And doing it quite well. ” The Breitbart Crew has done the world a very valuable service in finding a 1991 biography of Barack Obama from his literary agent claiming he was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” Our own Jeff Emanuel also pointed out a 2004 Associated Press article that began, “Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.” I do not believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya. I don’t think it matters even if he were born overseas because his mother was an American citizen. I’m not going to debate it with the cult of birtherism. But the Breitbart Crew has, only a few days after the Obama White House was caught editing the biographies of other Presidents on the White House website to insert Barack Obama into their Presidential legacies, done an invaluable service in highlighting two very important issues. First, as someone who has written a book, I find Barack Obama’s literary agent’s explanation not very credible. The literary agent explains, “This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii.” It was a fact checking error based on . . . no facts? Barack Obama never gave any information . . . suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii ? Well where the hell did this very huge extrapolation come from? It’s like the virgin birth of a legend — some lady and God alone were involved. That’s laughable. Miriam Goderich had to have gotten the idea from somewhere. But what is more laughable is that Barack Obama did not know and did not approve. When I wrote my book, I had to approve my biography multiple times. But more damning, this biography went to the press in 1991 and it circulated for more than a decade. Even the Associated Press picked it up and I cannot find anywhere suggesting Barack Obama tried to have the AP correct its reporting. The point is not that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. The point is that Barack Obama has repeatedly been perfectly okay embellishing and having others embellish his qualifications and biography to make himself someone unique instead of just another Chicago politician. The pattern goes back to his job as a “financial reporter”. A former colleague of his and Obama fan, way back in 2005, claims Barack Obama really embellished his resume describing his financial related reporting. Second, and the largest point, however, is that the media is yet again caught flat footed, claiming the story is no big deal, irrelevant, or that somehow the Breitbart Crew is in the wrong and peddling Birtherism. They are not peddling Birtherism. The Breitbart Crew are kind of like illegal immigrants — doing reporting Columbia journalism grads won’t do. And doing it quite well. In 2008, the New York Times ran a big story on John McCain having an affair with a lobbyist. It got picked up all over the place. Reporters were on the trail. There was no *there* there. It took most of the month of August in 2004 for the media to pay attention to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — men who served with John Kerry and had real problems with both his conduct in Vietnam and his conduct after he left Vietnam. The media did not want to cover the story. For a while, it was just Fox News. The clear demonstration of bias finally forced the New York Times and the big three nightly newscasts to play catch up as dismissively as possible. This story has been out there since Barack Obama ran for the United States Senate. Even now the media is dismissing it as frivolous. If it turned out Mitt Romney had not actually been a missionary in France, it would be headline news. Barack Obama embellishing his biography to make himself look unique? Hardly worthy of press attention. In fact, nothing Barack Obama has done suggesting serious character flaws — and that’s what this is about — is ever worth the media’s collective attention. Why? Because some people think Barack Obama was born in Kenya, but much of the press corps is pretty damn sure he was born in Bethlehem. One last point — a friend raised this on email. Could this be why the campaign screams bloody murder about racists and birthers every time someone asks about Barack Obama’s college transcripts? This would explain why Obama is so squirrely about the issue and waited until Donald Trump caused him measurable damage in the polls on this issue before responding. He’s not embarrassed that people will find out he lied about being born in Hawaii; he’s embarrassed they’ll find out he lied about being born in Kenya.
Link:
Barack Obama: A Composite Kenyan
RedState Morning Briefing May 17, 2012 Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge. 1. Cleaning Up the GOP Moves to Texas 2. Will the South Carolina Democrats Tolerate This Racism? 3. How to Astroturf an Online Cause: the Story of “I Stand with Bill Powers” 4. The Club For Growth’s Depressing Study: Failure and Lies of the Tea Party Congresscritters ———————————————————————- 1. Cleaning Up the GOP Moves to Texas Late last evening came word that House Republicans intend to keep parts of Obamacare. Even if the United States Supreme Court throws the whole law out, House Republicans intend to resurrect portions of Obamacare. House Republicans publicly say the story is wrong. I’ve talked to several House Republicans who tell me the story is actually on the money and the Republicans now denying it are really playing at semantics. These House Republicans tell me these denials about the accuracy of the story are equivalent to the House GOP semantically arguing it was living up to its Pledge to Nowhere requirement for $100 billion in cuts that actually amounted to something like $34 billion. Conservatives in the House of Representatives tell me explicitly to go with Politico on this and be very wary of the House GOP Leadership when it comes to repeal. It is a sad time for the Republican Party. The base must treat its leaders as if they are Soviets — trust but verify their statements. And lately, it is harder and harder to verify their statements. The work of the Tea Party must continue or within a decade I honestly do not believe the GOP will be one political party. In both Indiana and Nebraska, the Tea Party has continued to make gains. People have flat out rejected the establishment favorites for U.S. Senate – Dick Lugar and Jon Bruning, respectively – in favor of candidates who offer a challenge to the status quo. Will Texans prove what they’re made of and do the same? I love Texas. But let’s face it – the Texas congressional delegation is mediocre at best and leaves much to be desired. Now, Texas has the chance to get it right – by sending Ted Cruz to the U.S. Senate. But will they? Maybe. But we have a lot to do and the Republican Primary in Texas is only 2 weeks from today. Please click here for the rest of the post. 2. Will the South Carolina Democrats Tolerate This Racism? Phil Bailey sat next to South Carolina State Senator Jake Knotts when Knotts called Governor Nikki Haley, then a candidate for Governor, a “raghead.” Phil Bailey did nothing. Phil Bailey is the Executive Director of the South Carolina Senate Democratic Caucus. It seems he is now intent on one upping Jake Knotts. Bailey, who had no problem with Knotts’ “raghead” comment when even the First Vice Chairman of the State GOP, Patrick Haddon, was calling for Knotts’s resignation, seems determined to one up Knotts with racism. Bailey has been on twitter referring to Nikki Haley, a Methodist of Indian descent, as the “Sikh Jesus.” Governor Haley’s parents are sikh, but she and her husband attend a Methodist Church. Not content to do it just once, Phil Bailey did it a second time, complete with a picture of a dog. Please click here for the rest of the post. 3. How to Astroturf an Online Cause: the Story of “I Stand with Bill Powers” Texas is ground zero in the national higher education reform movement. While the Washington crowd tends to fixate on President Obama’s piddling slap fight with Congressional Republicans over government-secured student loan rates, the real action on fixing higher ed is happening in Austin, Texas. The battle between Rick Perry and the higher ed reformers on one hand versus UT-Austin President Bill Powers and the Ivory Tower status quo on the other hand has been marked by years of grueling and often dull trench warfare that was punctuated last week by a flurry of bombs, beginning with a tuition freeze, followed by rumors of the UT President’s termination, and culminating in a textbook social media public relations campaign that deserves serious examination. And the consequences of this fight? Well, what happens in Texas won’t stay in Texas. This is the story of “I Stand with Bill Powers,” a remarkably well-executed example of online astro-turfing. Please click here for the rest of the post. 4. The Club For Growth’s Depressing Study: Failure and Lies of the Tea Party Congresscritters There have been many studies out on the “tea party congress” and just how tea party it actually is. One study last year noted that 70% of candidates who went to Congress under the tea party banner were voting just like the Republican Leaders they ran against. Probably one of the best places to get a sense of this is the Club for Growth. Why? The Club ignores social votes and focuses only on fiscal votes — spending issues more than anything else. The tea party candidates went to Congress not just to repeal Obamacare, but were really motivated by out of control government spending, bailouts, etc. Please click here for the rest of the post.
Read more here:
Morning Briefing for May 17, 2012
Yesterday, I posted to these pages a blog note of 619 words on the subject of the politics of Obama’s flip-flop-flip on gay marriage. Of these, four words were “as we should be” which I used in reference to the nation’s getting more comfortable with homosexual relationships. To be perfectly clear, I am neither gay nor willing to learn. But not being gay doesn’t cause me to automatically dislike gays anymore than not being black causes me to automatically dislike blacks. Of course, I’m perfectly willing to dislike any individual based on his or her own merits. When I wrote those four words, I knew they would generate some controversy on the blog pages, but I did not expect that of the large number of comments to the note nearly 90 percent would be in reference to four words rather than to the other 615 words (in which I argued that Barack Obama’s rapid “evolution” on gay marriage was not turning into political success, though it was bolstering his Manhattan and Hollywood fundraising). Since you, esteemed readers, were so interested in those four words, I thought it only fair to respond. A few specific replies. I won’t mention commenters’ names. You know who you are, or you know if you agree with those who made the initial points: Libertarian is not the same as libertine. I presume you know that and are intentionally misrepresenting what you know, or should know, I stand for. If you don’t know, then stop using terms you don’t understand. (Beyond that, I am more Objectivist than libertarian, though some consider the difference subtle. Certainly Ayn Rand didn’t…but that’s a story for another day.) I did not say “celebrate” homosexuality, nor did I say people should become comfortable with (much less celebrate) “homosexual acts.” It is perfectly natural to feel uncomfortable with something so outside of one’s own inclinations. What I talked about quite specifically was tolerance of two people’s relationship, and I stand by my assertion that such tolerance is better than its opposite. It is better morally and better politically; the former is more important. I understand that some people believe the bible says that homosexuals are going to hell. With you I have an unbridgeable gap; we will never convince each other and I am not trying to talk you out of your deeply-held religious beliefs. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice for most gays and lesbians. Therefore, I do not believe it is moral to hate homosexuals for whom they fall in love with (or whom they have sex with) any more than it is moral to hate blacks for their color. I never said that morality is an “oppressive device.” I said that oppressive devices, i.e. the federal government, should not be used to impose morality. If any of you can convince others to follow your moral code by explaining it to them, by telling them why you think you’re right and why you think your prescription is good medicine for our nation or culture, more power to you. But government is force and it must not be used, either by a majority or by a minority, to impose morality beyond those fundamental natural rights understood by our Founders and already protected by them, at least theoretically, in our Founding documents. Thanks to the person who said that Objectivists are not liberals or “secular humanists.” You are quite right. As you are right that I object to altruism as the left uses the term, though I do believe strongly in giving VOLUNTARILY to charities. I certainly don’t believe in “social responsibility”, again the way the left uses the term, but that does not mean I do not place value on helping others VOLUNTARILY. Feel free to read Ayn Rand’s short non-fiction book “The Virtue of Selfishness.” What exactly is a “homosexual public display?” If it’s two guys holding hands, I admit that makes me a little uncomfortable (though much less than it used to). If it’s two guys kissing, it makes me more than a little uncomfortable. But it doesn’t make me hate them. I don’t suggest you/we (straight white guys) join in a Gay Pride parade any more than I suggest we join in an MLK Day parade or that non-Italians join in Columbus Day parades, waving the Italian flag. I do suggest you avoid literally or rhetorically bashing gays any more than you bash blacks or Italians, even if you are none of the above. “Spouses” was in quotes because 60 percent of our United States (or somewhat less than 60 percent if you believe there are 57 states) don’t allow gay marriage. Therefore, one state’s spouse is another state’s ___ (you fill in the blank; I don’t know the answer). As for orgies in the back yard that neighborhood kids can see, that is improper (and I presume illegal) no matter the gender or sexual orientation of those participating. I don’t want to pay for higher health care costs for any group because of their behavior. So get the government out of health care costs. And let private companies discriminate, i.e. permit higher (health and life) insurance premiums for gay people. If they don’t really cost more to insure, competition will bring prices down. If they do cost more, they should pay more just as smokers often do for insurance. People should live with the costs of their own behavior. I’ll bet you that gays in committed relationships have little or no actuarial difference in health/life risks. Here is one example of a benefit from encouraging committed relationships among gays. Another example would be that, just as with heterosexual couples, if one hits a financial rough spot, the other can help out and keep an American off welfare, food stamps, and the government dole generally. For the person who suggests that gays will “roast on Beelzebub’s spit,” I suggest a long look in the mirror when considering what God really thinks is OK. For those name-callers out there (i.e. those going after me personally because of a disagreement of philosophy/religion), I can only think of this worst-possible insult: Your behavior reminds me of what I would expect from liberals, who routinely take political disagreement as personal attack. Now, one thing I could have made clearer: I did and do mean that I believe we should be getting more comfortable with those in same-sex relationships…with those people as individual human beings or as couples. I did not say and did not mean we should necessarily be more comfortable with “gay marriage” per se (and not with particular sexual acts, though that is no more your business than your sexual acts are anyone else’s business). Even Barack Obama, in 2004, noted that marriage has a specific meaning with thousands of years of history behind it. I am among those who think that part of the problem with this debate is the use of the word marriage. My wife asks rhetorically: if the majority of us have to suffer through marriage, why should gays be exempt? I concur except for the use of the word marriage. I understand that civil unions and domestic partnerships may be perceived, and may be intended by some, as the camel’s nose under the tent — a giant step toward gay marriage. But having spoken to a few gays about this, I know that a substantial percentage of them don’t care about the word marriage as much as they care about equal treatment under the law. And in that a least they have a reasonable argument. I maintain my view that we should get government out of marriage, allow any two people to make any contract they want to (which does not infringe on the natural rights of others), allow any house of worship to decide whom they will or won’t marry, and only have government involved insofar as contract enforcement. Lest my conservative friends and readers on these pages think I am a full-fledged apologist for “gay rights,” allow me a couple more points: Some gays wildly exaggerate the “rights” that they don’t have. But more importantly, “gay rights” crusaders, just as many other crusaders for other “victim groups” that the left likes to create in their permanent divide-and-conquer strategy, misunderstand and misuse the word “rights.” Our rights are inherent in our being human beings. Our Founders said that our rights come from God. It is in that sense of us being equally human — no matter your view of God — that we have equal rights. But we are a nation of negative rights, which is to say that our fundamental law, the Constitution, is a code which says what government may NOT do to us. Neither the Constitution nor any politician gives us rights. (In fact, this was part of the original argument about the Bill of Rights: James Madison, among others, initially opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights as potentially implying that rights not spelled out were rights not retained by citizens; thus the inclusion of the 9 th and 10 th Amendments.) No group has a claim to special “rights” that others don’t have. (One example of the government violating this precept is the existence of “hate crime” laws. There should not be a bigger penalty for beating up a gay or black than for beating up a straight white guy.) Furthermore, I believe that private businesses and private citizens have a First Amendment right NOT to associate with people just as much as we have our rights of association as normally considered. Thus, those who dislike gays or blacks or Jews or left-handed people or people who enjoy the sport of curling should have the right to exclude them, or anyone else they don’t like for any reason whatever, from their private property. The other side of the coin, however, is that the government should not be able to discriminate at all. Government’s picking winners and losers in no more appropriate in society or culture than in business; I say this in complete realization that today’s government does all of the above. Because, I repeat, government is force. This means that government must not treat gays, blacks or any others worse than they treat members of society’s (then current) majority; but it means just as importantly that government must not treat them better than they treat others. One commenter got something right yesterday: When I deleted those four words – not because I was backing away from my position, but because I wanted people to focus on the other 615 words – someone suggested I should have left them. I probably should have. After all, the virulent reaction of several commenters, both against gays and against me, says at least as much about them as my words said about me. In any case, I am appreciative, as always, of the conversation and of those who engage in a civil discussion on issues, regardless of whether we agree or disagree.
Read the rest here:
Four Words
Guest post from Rep. Louie Gohmert, Rep. Jeff Landry, and Rep. Scott Rigell This week, the House will fulfill our most important constitutional duty by debating the FY 13 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In accordance with the framer’s intent, this act is the primary check that Congress can apply to the Executive Branch on defense and national security policy. Last year, constitutional conservatives raised the alarm bell about some provisions in the FY 12 NDAA; provisions that many were concerned would grant President Obama far reaching powers to detain American citizens without trial. The bill ultimately passed, but has become the subject of countless town hall meetings, tweets, and Facebook posts in the months since. The debate has become so heated that many believe that the NDAA is a bill that deals strictly with detaining terrorists. It is much more than that. Aside from dictating how the military can handle any al Qaeda terrorists they capture, the FY13 NDAA deals with the full scope of national security issues. There is much in it, from a rejection of the Obama administration’s effort to raise health care fees on military retirees; to making sure the President doesn’t trade our missile defenses away to the Russians, that Conservatives can be proud of. The real question before us is how to adjust the language from last year that has made so many so uncomfortable while still ensuring that we can fight and win the War on Terror. The base bill has already made important steps in the right direction. It includes the Rigell / Landry reassertion of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. This language firmly states that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the FY 12 NDAA detainee provisions do not allow for the detention of any person in the United States without the right of redress. Under this provision, all Americans have access to the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The underlying language is being further strengthened by the Gohmert / Landry / Rigell Amendment which further states that no citizens’s constitutional rights will be denied in an Article III court pursuant to the AUMF. The best way to protect our rights is to put simple and clear language in the NDAA that lays those rights out. Between the new language in the base bill and our amendment, we are confident we have done that. Rep. Adam Smith (D-MA) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) have a competing amendment that simply goes too far. Their bill extends constitutional protections beyond U.S. citizens to any terrorist who is captured in the United States. We share the concerns of legal experts who worry that by granting terrorists greater rights if they are captured in America than if they are captured overseas, we are actually giving terrorists a profound incentive to attack us here at home. The Smith/Amash amendment grants foreign terrorists or foreign soldiers rights our own military do not have in court under the Constitutional Uniform Code of Military Justice. Our approach is the better alternative. It protects our constitutional rights, but does not extend them to the very men who have been fighting for a decade to tear that great document down.
The rest is here:
The FY 13 NDAA Keeps Terrorists Off U.S. Soil without Compromising Civil Liberties
Today is May 15th. On this date in 1618, Johannes Kepler discovered the Harmonic Law, or the Third Law of Planetary Motion. This law governs where and when a person can play a harmonica unironically. On this date in 1768, France purchased Corsica from Genoa. But only 18 grams, any more than that and France could have been charged with possession with intent to distribute. On this date in 1756, the Seven Years War began. Tragically, only 3 years survived. Also on this date, in 1856, L. Frank Baum, author of the Wizard of Oz books, was born. The L. stood for “Love Me Some Obama”. #ObamaInHistory And finally, today is National Sea Monkey Day , a horrifying day marked by the traumatic singing of the traditional holiday song “Sea Monkey See, Do, Monkey, Do”. Consider this an Open Thread . The Left Is Getting Clobbered On Twitter | PowerLine “In the skirmishing so far, one perhaps surprising media advantage has become clear: the right is clobbering the left on Twitter.” Blogger Confronts Newspaper that Stole His Article with $500 Invoice | PJM “As both his editor and a peer in the new media world a sense of pride sweeps over me while watching Duane calmly, professionally LAY DOWN THE LAW and GET PAID” The Facebook effect | The Economist “But back-of-the-envelope calculations by Mr Sisney suggest that California might get a windfall of $2 billion over the current and coming fiscal years, and possibly billions more if the shares trade well.” Air Force Eliminates Test Flights for New Light Attack Plane | PJM “Would you buy combat airplane without knowing whether it can even fly? The guys on Pawn Stars wouldn’t do that — but apparently the United States Air Force will.” Inside The Secret Miami Meeting Of George Soros’ Liberal Conspiracy | Free Beacon “A secretive network of left-wing billionaires and their political operatives descended on the luxurious Biltmore Hotel in Miami over the weekend to discuss strategy for the coming elections.” The Left’s War on Wisconsin ” from briansikma . altiloquent (awl-TIL-uh-kwuhnt): noun High-flown or pretentious language. (Via Thesaurus.com)
See more here:
Daily Links – May 15, 2012
