Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

The "Birthers" in Obama’s strategy

Obama will promote, or even raise, bizarre claims to discredit his opponents. He has done this before, to good effect. It is a more aggressive version of law school debating technique, which gives opponents a minor point that they go nuts on, eating up their debate time, while the debater cleans their clocks on more important points.

Obviously, only someone confident in a lead can afford such a strategy, but the guy is audacious. When the lead dwindles or disappears, such a person may be at sea, though--at least for a while.

Discussions - 42 Comments

But Obama hasn't cleaned much of anything after being sworn in. Pelosi/Reid wrote the first "stimulus," {which Camille Paglia accurately identified as a disaster}. The manner in which he introduced his first Supreme Court nominee was a flat-out disaster, forcing him to rapidly back away from his big push for "empathy." And now we see him trying to go to bat for his health care "reform." But polling indicates that his barnstorming is actually dragging down support for the bill. The Democrat candidate for Governor in Virginia declined to be seen with Obama, TWICE, within the last few weeks.

Obama's personal approval numbers are moving South fast, and the internals are becoming positively nightmarish not just for him, but the party he leads. If anybody is getting "cleaned" right now, it's him, despite his numerous townhalls, despite his multiple prime-time pressers, despite a media desperate like they've never been desperate before to help him.

"Audacious?" Rather inflexible, incapable of thinking outside and moving beyond that little, leftist box he's been in for decades. And his prime-time pressers are snoozers that increasingly fewer Americans are even bothering to watch.

Nemesis has arrived, and she's making a bee-line for a man who styled himself a quasi messianic figure.

Obama will promote, or even raise, bizarre claims to discredit his opponents. He has done this before, to good effect.

I'm not sure what this means in the context of the birth certificate stuff, since Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, for example, have been pushing this story on their own. Since they're the ones making these bizarre claims, aren't they discrediting themselves without Obama's help?

Why hasn't he released his college transcripts? This was a guy who didn't make honours at Columbia, yet somehow gained admission to one of the top five law schools in the country. Now who here has a persuasive read on that, does anyone care to throw some light on that one? He never published anything of note, had no real professional accomplishment to boast of, yet somehow gained a tenure track position at another top five law school in the country. Do I really need to add that such positions don't just grow on trees?

This guy's entire academic and career trajectory is what's truly "bizarre." And future generations are going to conclude as much, and it's not going to be long now when the whole cult of personality is seen for the vast social pathology that it is, and always was. The one skill that he has, if "skill" it is, is being able to riff off of the speaking style of MLK. But it's already going stale. His prime time pressers are being viewed by fewer and fewer Americans, who increasingly find themselves less moved by his penchant for pregnant pauses every 3d to 5th word, while he gazes off into the middle distance somewhere. His stumblings away from his teleprompter, which is clearly his crutch, is already the subject for mirth, and mirth even amongst his most ardent of supporters. Won't be long now before mirth morphs into outright ridicule. Yet still we see Republicans and Conservatives speaking of him as if he were the political equivalent to Rommel, able to pull a tactical rabbit out of his hat even amidst the flash of the guns and the roar of the cannon.

Newsflash, without that media, which carried him over the finish line against Hillary, and has always artifically inflated his poll numbers through their unseemly and naked boostering of him, this guy wouldn't be anyone that we would need take cognizance of. He has commanding majorities in the House and the Senate, --------- a media positively covering for him, --------- yet he's experiencing all kinds of difficulties in pushing his agenda. And he's going against a Republican party made up of guys like Lugar, Voinovich and Graham, and women like those Senators from Maine. And even with all of that working to "make straight his paths," he's still floundering.

Cease and desist from all of this unworthy inflating of this guy. And just go after him. Here's a little bit of political news. There was a state seat in Delaware that Democrats have held for the last 40 years, which was up in a special election the other day, which they just lost, and lost by over 30 points, and lost to a guy the Democrat outspent by 2 to 1. The Democrat candidate in Virginia is avoiding being seen with Obama. Now just think about that one, the Democrat candidate is avoiding a guy who was sworn in just months ago!

Dan's apocalypticism is well known on this site, just a shade lighter than Orly Tietz. But to say the stimulus is a disaster? The left has been having a field day with congressmen saying as much while hungrily accepting every stimulus dollar they can. Or forcing them to reject stimulus money. So let's see you guys in Ohio reject the 360 million in stimulus spending you just got, for industrial site renovation, new parks and trail conversion, high-tech medical facilities, road construction, etc. Let's see you stand up with Akron's police union and reject the 5.8 million in stimulus money they just received to hire new cops. I guess only tax cuts for the rich and no bid contracts to defense cronies are the only truly stimulative acts possible. That and shipping pallets of shrink-wrapped hundred dollar bills to war zones to buy off warlords, which is exactly what we did in the war on terror. When universal healthcare passes (which it will) even a birther alien autopsy video on Obama's father will not work.

Why is Dan so wrong, ren?

To your points, once the stimulus money is sequestered by the federal government, only a fool would not go after it, to get some his own back, or some his district's or state's back. Taxing the wealthy to pay for that pulls money out of private circulation for capital investment in business. That will not be enough, so there will be other taxes elsewhere, or "wealthy" will be redefined to spread the net wider, because the wealthy do not have money to pay for what the Obama admin. has done.

Of course, if you do not like capitalism, you will think that a good thing. However, then the only jobs are in government and only temporarily productive. Who pays for the Akron policemen when their stimulus $ is gone? Isn't that a good question?

Then there is universal health care, which converts that whole sector of the economy into government employees. If, as you imply, that is all about Obama and not about what is good in the future, then rejoice in it while you can. It is a major intrusion of government into our private lives, which is why people are upset.

Finally, yes, while money spent overseas in war zones and on foreign policy really does us little certain and immediate good, it might buy us peace, which does us lots of good. Or perhaps you do not like peace?

You surely do want a larger, more enveloping government embrace. Why?

To explain Obama's rise is relatively simple...he's a suave, well-spoken black man. Leftist academics swoon over such rare finds, and he was promoted well above his natural abilities. I think they call this lunacy "affirmative action," but what it really is is the Left's contrition for being white and prosperous (a contrition, by the way, that allows them to continue to be prosperous). Hypocrisy, they name is Liberal Democrat.

Dan is wrong according to ren, because ren can't stop drinking the kool-aid. Obviously hope n change is working for ren - at least .01% of the population of the U.S. is happy and that makes me happy.

I'd have to go through the archives to be sure, but I think this must be your most absurd blog-post ever, Mr. Thomas. So, has Obama himself put Orly Taitz and Co. into the limelight? Please. Also, the irony here is that if the media didn't give the birthers their more-than-fair share of airtime and print (as they're doing now), we would certainly be hearing constant bleats and moans of "liberal bias!" from the Right.

Say what you want about "Obama's rise" or whatever, Ken's post is about how Obama is using an apparently substantial sentiment on the right (apparently mostly concentrated in the south) to somehow discredit the right, and apparently doing so in a way that was prefigured in earlier, unnamed incidents.

The cryptic nature of Ken's post makes it difficult to tell, but he appears to want to take Andy McCarthy's Clinton conspiracy theory about birthers to a new level. It's a strange claim.

If you really want to understand the birthers, probably Peter Lawler's descriptions of the wandering and lonely mind are a better place to start. In a confusing world, it's a heck of a lot easier to latch on to a slice of a well-developed subcultural conspiracy claim than it is to do independent thinking. In fact, because it's such a fringe belief, you get some of the pride that comes from feeling yourself separated from the mass of sheeple. And you can even draw on some of the political soteriological claims that circulate whenever the text of the Constitution gets invoked in contemporary discourse. Extra bonus.

The right has been flirting with the birther phenomenon for some time now, in part because they need to work on constituency development. Thus, approaches to the phenomenon are sometimes circumspect, often couched in something like concern trolling ("well, all he has to do is release the long form and this will all go away").

At the very least, then, Ken should probably be clearer about what the "bizarre" claim is and who is raising it.

Ren, don't believe me then. Don't take my word for it, just look at the internals, because those internals tell a tale.

Obama will promote, or even raise, bizarre claims to discredit his opponents.



If Obama really wanted to "discredit" them, he could simply release his birth cert. That would, presumably, make them look like idiots. But for some reason he cannot release it. Which leads reasonabe people to wonder what it is he is hiding.


gives opponents a minor point that they go nuts on

I had not noticed that people on the right were "going nuts" over this story. In fact the only prominent political figures raising this issue are Democrats.

since Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, for example, have been pushing this story on their own. Since they're the ones making these bizarre claims

Rush has done a lot less to "push" this story than has the White House. And what is bizarre about pointing out that Obama is a cipher wo still has released vitrually zero documentation about his past? He only gets away with this because the media see themselves as his Praetorian Guard.

Bush, to pick but one example, was forced to release evey last scrap of informaton about his National Guard days in order to refute baseless accusations.

if the media didn't give the birthers their more-than-fair share of airtime


Ah, the media! Perhaps the media can pry their lips from Obama's ass for five minutes and ask him why he is refusing to release his birth certificate, along with his medical and educational records. Peraps they could ask hm why he is so much less forthcoming with information about his past than was George W Bush.

This is an unwinnable issue that will only be used to discredit critics. If he was born elsewhere, its not going to matter in our Orwellian 2+2=5 super state. BTW, check this out: Let it begin

Wow, John - thanks for making my point for me!

Jonah nails this.

Wow, Scanlon, thanks for being the empty headed little fool you are!

If you could have repled substantivly to my points, you would have.

Did Robinson miss the 9/11 truthers?

Never mind the 911 truthers, what about the "Bush Lied Us Into the Iraq War" truthers? What about the "Bush was AWOL from the National Guard" truthers?

The moonbat left, which includes people like Scanlon and ren, spent the last several years concocting elaborate fantasy scenarios about Bush based on a lot less smoke than a hidden birth certificate.

This is very similar to the lefts sputtering outrage over the Obama as Joker posters. It's all "do as we say, not as we do".

Art, I just saw something the other day that stated that Obama DID have a "tenure track" spot, and I also recall reading that him being offered such a spot caused quite a stir in the faculty lounge at the University of Chicago. But regardless of whether he was indeed in a "tenure track" or not, he had no business being retained by so pretigious an institution, not when he had NOTHING to claim as a bona fide accomplishment.

ren can't stop drinking the kool-aid.



cowgirl - that's the second time I've seen you use that phrase. At Jonestown they drank Flavor Aid. It always bugs me when people say "kool-aid" (although it's probably made Kool-Aid tons of cash . . . ).

While, as usual, Jonah's column is loaded with problems, the biggest one is his failure to recall that the 9/11 Truther movement was/is populated by people from all over the political spectrum. It's hardly difficult to combine fear of big government with a delusion that it's complicit in horrible crimes against its own people. The 9/11 Truthers are almost in a category of their own, conspiracy-theorist hobbyists, who can be almost beyond politics at times. Perhaps the 9/11 Truthers do tend to come more from the left of center than right, there's a good mix within the group. The Birthers, on the other hand, are almost exclusively conservatives.

Also, who here has seen even a photo of either Bush I's or Bush II's original birth certificate?

This is interesting.

John M: "The moonbat left, which includes people like Scanlon and ren, spent the last several years concocting elaborate fantasy scenarios about Bush based on a lot less smoke than a hidden birth certificate.

This is very similar to the lefts sputtering outrage over the Obama as Joker posters. It's all "do as we say, not as we do."

The first time I'd even seen an Obama-as-Joker poster (t-shirt, in this case) was when I clicked on the link offered by Brutus (who certainly strikes me as some sort of conservative) in comment 14, at Alex Jones' PrisonPlanet - I've seen nothing about those posters on any liberal or lefty site that I frequent. [Note: Brutus didn't link to the Obama-as-Joker shirts, but it's offered on the same SITE; we're NOT talking about six degrees of separation here] And I certainly wouldn't call the posters/shirts "dangerous" - "mean-spirited"?? Well, that's really beside the point. But I'm sure those terms help to market them to conservatives (another right-wing shirt shop seems to maintain irking liberals as its primary reason for existence - just me, or is that childish?).

If you look at the link (the shirts are being offered directly by the libertarian-paleocon Alex Jones (Infowar) site) for the Obama-as-Joker t-shirt sales, you'll find several varieties of them, with "fascism," "socialism," and the classic conspiracist phrase "new world order" under the picture. Keep scrolling down and you get the "Don't Tread On Me" shirt and, what's this??? A "9/11 Was An Inside Job" shirt! Of course, this shouldn't be a surprise, as Alex Jones was the executive producer for the mother of all 9/11 Truther films, Loose Change. He's also got another 9/11-oriented conspiracy site which can be found directly from the link that Brutus provided.

So, again, neither Lucianne's Son nor John M know what they're talking about.

Rush and Savage aren't exactly discrediting themselves--as even ultra-groat "journalists" such as Lou Dobbs have now joined in asking he show his eligibility (admittedly, they believe it and wish him to discredit the conservatives, ...).

What he's attempting to hide is akin to Communists currently trying to hide Stalin's pogroms, forced famines and other atrocities (nevermind, they still are in denial of these).

Keep scrolling down and you get the "Don't Tread On Me" shirt and, what's this??? A "9/11 Was An Inside Job" shirt!
Very funny. If you were Glen Reynolds, you could say that the pro-Obama-as-Joker crowd was objectively pro-truther as well.

The phenomenon of extremism and alienation is very interesting. Sometimes it bubbles up into electoral politics as parties look for an expanded constituency. In a distributed media world, the alienated can make themselves visible much more easily than when the mass media was more centralized (we've all seen the video of that poor woman in Delaware who wants her country back).

That also means that parties need to be more careful about approaching these groups, however because the associations can backfire more easily. It was easier to flirt with the Klan or the Birchers than with the birthers. Blaming the other party for promoting the associations is a predictable but secondary phenomenon.

This issue will not go away because Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen (NBC).
To be a NBC both parents MUST be US Citizens so that new born does not have divided loyalties at birth.

Here is what the First Congress wrote
in Sess. II Ch 4 (dated 1790):

And the children of citizens of the United States, ... shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

Note to be natural born you must have both parents be citizens of the US. You could even be born overseas as long as both parents were US Citizens and your Father had been a resident of the US for so span of time before you were born.

Obama was born to a British [later Kenyan] Citizen Father and therefore Obama was NOT a natural born Citizen as required by the US Constitution.

End of Story. The US Supreme Court can declare 5-4 that an apple is really an orange or that Obama is magically a natural born citizen. But that doesn't mean that the people who actually wrote the US Constitution would agree with those 5 men or women who can just make up things out of thin air.

We are either a Nation of Laws or a Nation of Rulers. Which one do you want to live under?

Brett B - unfortunately the people who wrote the Constitution are all dead now, so who should we ask about this Obama matter if you don't like a given Supreme Court ruling? God?

Brett B. - The Fourteenth Amendment renders that understanding obselete. The Supreme Court has recognized being born in the US as entailing automatic US citizenship since 1898 (there are grey areas but none would seem to come into play in the Obama case).

The law in which you cite is an example of the Congress defining natural born citizenship versus citizenship by naturalization. The Congress still has the discretion to pass laws to define someone as a natural born citizen or not under certain circumstances. Congress could I guess pass a law that denied US "natural born" citizenship to the children born outside the US even if both of the children's parents were US citizens. The 14th Amendment withdrew much of the discretion of both Congress and the state legislatures over citizenship laws for people born within the US. The Supreme Court has not ruled on it, but my reading of the 14th Amendment and the case law indicates that Obama is a natural born citizen under current law.

Craig: Interesting take on things. RCP had a pretty cool little article on conspiracy theory a couple days ago here

Interesting article at RCP, thanks. While true that both "sides" have their fanatics, that author, also, makes the error in calling the Truthers a Dem/liberal phenomenon, which isn't really accurate.

Someone sent me this screed, which I confess I have not listened to in full before handing it over to you guys. I am sorry. I just couldn't listen or more than a couple of minutes, but I thought it proved a point or two. The person who sent it to me was passing it on with a "Have you encountered anything like this? What do you make of it?" I suppose I pass it on to show that this kind of anger on this topic is not just a white phenomenon. Also, to agree that there are people on the right getting a little unhinged about all of this. When you start getting such stuff in your email from otherwise sensible friends adding notes like "This is guy is on top of things!" then you do not find yourself thinking, "Boy, this is a well-organized movement." No.

Those folks I know who are birthers are so in a hopeful way, like that there might be a relatively easy way to get out of what they see as a deepening, frightening mess for America that we will be stuck with for a long time, no matter who gets elected in upcoming contests. Frightened and angry people are not always rational.

Wow, Kate, that link really proves something. There are crazy, delusional black talk-show hosts too! Who could've guessed that? Next thing you'll tell me that Sylvia's Restaurant in Harlem is just like any restaurant with primarily white staff and patrons.

When you start getting such stuff in your email from otherwise sensible friends adding notes like "This is guy is on top of things!", perhaps you should reconsider just how sensible they really are.

FWIW, that was more authentic than the president's incantations! -- not saying that it wasn't misdirected. But on the other hand, it was unfair to Kate to twist this into an episode of her naivete: in my experience, its more jaw-dropping (almost offensive) for a lib to imagine that a minority buys into conservative 'canards' (cf. Boxer & Alford [covered on this blog], etc).

And, at any rate, based on what we've seen in the news the fellow in Kate's link might just be right about what is to come! (Let's hope not.)

Thank you for your defense, T-Hag. My jaw had dropped, but at the rhetoric of the rant rather than at the guy's color. If I was showing my naiveté about anything, it was about conservatives and what they might say or how they might say it. I know a lot of black conservatives and they do not talk like that guy, though they might not disagree with a lot of what he said -- at least not what he said in the first three minutes. Did it get any better? Is he delusional or just really angry? I will note about race that in my experience, black conservatives are much harder on Obama than white conservatives, as in that they will say things about him that no white of my acquaintance would feel at all comfortable saying about a black. Much of their anger is that Obama and others on the Left presume they think one way, because of the color of their skin, as if skin determined politics and principles.

Craig, I wasn't really trying to prove anything about race in the way you put it. I know you probably picture a nice little old white grandmother from a small town in Ohio, (which I am) but I lived in Harlem just a few years back and Bed-Stuy. when it was not so nice, thirty years ago. I am not all that naive about race, although I do have my naive moments about many things, mostly by choice. That rant was my means of agreeing that there are people on the right who are just as extreme as those people we conservatives freak out about on the left.

I will pass your caveat about my friend's friend along to my friend.

If I was trying to say anything to you or others of the left who write on here, it was that the "This is not a grassroots movement," stuff is just baloney. Don't buy it.

Really? I mean you def. could be right -- I have no idea about that. I know the Loose Change guy is sort of an equal opportunity crackpot. I think more interesting is the phenomena that cospiracy theory itself has really risen in the past generation: this from a rational group of young people who deny anything without empirical data...

It really isn't -- everytime I see someone "connected" its either someone formerly involved in county-level politics, or if it is someone whose name you might recognize, it is of their own volition.

Liberal patrons have made a very deliberate attempt to mirror the policy and advocacy groups on the Right. In spite of this, Krugman scoffs that conservatives think “it’s all a big conspiracy funded by George Soros, because well that’s the way their movement works.” At this, a nearby audience member loudly whispered, “Soros funds this place.”

Alright Kate, fine, you lived in Harlem and Bed-Stuy. Great. Did you ever go as far as O'Reilly, though, and venture to Sylvia's? That guy is a real trail-blazer for race-relations (even though, like so many conservatives, he's completely color-blind!).

A couple of points:

- You might know a "lot of black conservatives" - and I know they exist - but can you show me any evidence that they're participating to any significant degree in these town hall protests? Everything's recorded these days, by friend and foe alike, on camcorders and cell-phones, so where's the YouTube vid with an angry town hall group/mob that's composed of even, say, 3-4% blacks? Even 2%? Good luck finding it!

- Just because "black conservatives are much harder on Obama than white conservatives, as in that they will say things about him that no white of my acquaintance would feel at all comfortable saying about a black" - that doesn't mean that they are in any way correct, on the facts of the matter. Any given black person's opinion about Obama isn't automatically more (or less) correct than anyone else's.

- If this is a "grassroots" movement, I've never heard of one so mediated, orchestrated, and coordinated by corporations and DC-based corporate lobbies. It stretches the idea of "grassroots" beyond all credulity. This notion that it's grassroots has been thoroughly debunked in many places. Take 20 mins. (hey, I watched your clip!) and watch a couple of clips from Rachel Maddow (this one is a must-see as well) for a good intro into how this has all been deconstructed.

These town hall protests are just as grassroots as the "Brooks Brothers riot" that took place in Florida in 2000 to stop the election recount(s) - remember that one, where the WashPost published the photo (it was in their light-hearted, DC-insider section, not on the front page, sadly) and asked people to ID those in the pic. Turns out that a whole bunch of lobbyists and congressional aides were actually bussed down to Fla. for that one. How authentic!

Craig, never mind. I knew as soon as I had clicked off on my comment that I might as well have said, "Some of my best friends are black," which is true, but pointless. My point was, you just can't be comfortable living in those neighborhoods if you have skin issues. I have friends who wouldn't visit me when I lived in Harlem because of the neighborhood. It doesn't matter.

Poor Frank Schaeffer. I don't have time to watch all your recycled TV stuff. The one I did watch was of a young mom, who apparently left or stopped supporting the Rep. Party about the time McCain became the candidate of the party. Why do you find that kind of thing a big deal? Yes, you will find lots of people like that going to those meetings. They are aware of what happens in the world around them. Concerned citizens, who get politically involved. Why is that wrong?

Maybe I have news for you, Craig, Republicans are people, too. When you and the Left say there is no "grassroots" movement, I figure you are saying that people are being paid to go to these meetings, that the anger and concern for the future of the country is somehow being manufactured or paid for. That's not really what you are saying, is it? You are saying that conservative opinion is invalid, because it is conservative. Round and round we could go on that one. If having a political point of view or if having or having have had affiliations with conservative political groups disqualifies people's opinions -- come on. You are being stupid and willfully so. So, apparently, is the president and Democrats in Congress. That's why people are getting angry at those meetings. People know their futures and the futures of their children are at stake and you expect them to stay home and be quiet? They are trying to find groups to join to find a way to have an impact. If that disqualifies them as citizens -- Sheesh!

Kate, I love how in the same post that you wrote you "don't have time to watch all your recycled TV stuff" (pretty sure I hadn't posted those links before; and they weren't old, maybe 72 hrs. at the max. Or are you just trotting out some anti-TV elitism? ;)) you accuse me of being willfully stupid. Well, I took the time to watch your crazy black guy talking about how angry whites are going to take to the streets, I figured you could watch a calm, rational woman explain in step-by-step fashion how the town-hall mobs are largely manufactured and are not, by and large, a spontaneous grassroots movement - for the most part. Yes, of course, there are a few people there (who aren't being paid, bussed in, or showing up at town halls outside their own districts) who are genuinely there of their own volition. It seems crystal clear that they're operating primarily on hatred of Obama (the Commie Kenyan terrorist) and ridiculous FoxNews talking points (i.e. not fact-based for the most part - killing your grandparents, killing your Downs Syndrome baby, etc.). They're certainly not coming with any genuine ideas, willingness to discuss, or even a basic grasp of the facts. They know they're supposed to use their democratic right to free speech and holler and shout down the fascist/socialist/Commie/Obama pawn, etc. and stop the Stalinism, etc. These are the people who are willingly stupid, Kate. The ones who show up at town halls (like Rep. Inglis's [R-SC]) and scream "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

Oh, wait, I know, that guy must have been an agent provocateur, sent by the Obama White House, right? (I guessed I picked the perfect time to read Gore's book The Assault on Reason.

Also, the young mom you were talking about just happened to work for the most recent political opponent of the town hall speaker AND, importantly, falsely claimed to have no political affiliation. But that is far, far from the biggest case at issue here - it is small beer.

And what's with the "poor Frank Schaeffer" remark? Why do you pity him so?

Do you mean there is no legitimate, intellectually honest reason to oppose those health care proposals? The opposition to that is not all from screamers who are willingly (or unwillingly) stupid and you must know that.

So what if the young mom has (or had) a political affiliation and all the rest. Are you going to tell me she was not at that meeting of her own volition? Whose baby was she carrying? Do you doubt that she is a mom, too? Did she look and sound like some sophisticated political operative to you?

I really cannot stand people like your TV show host discussing the "good journalism" of that reporter doing an expose of that young woman and trying to make look like a fool and a liar. The poor kid looked like deer in the headlights and that reporter ran her right down with all the insight I have come to expect from that kind of TV show. It was a cheap shot and I did not want to watch more.

Besides, I am supposed to be working and should not be googling around as I am about to.

I feel sorry for Frank Schaeffer as I do for any son who comes to despise his father. I liked the work of both of his parents. when I was a young Christian their work was helpful in finding a way to accommodate myself to my new way of life. I was a reluctant housewife and found it impossible to turn away from politics. Schaeffer the senior was one of the people who offered a principled rationale for being a Christian engaged with politics. Folks who think we have no right to bring our theological precepts into public probably would disapprove.

This is what I can find on the family division, though you might not approve of the source. Schaeffer the younger has written about it, too. His stuff should be easy to find if you are interested. Here, his sister writes about home schooling.

Please don't call me conservative, I am done with right and left; they would not want to claim me anyways. I just left that link because I thought it was interesting. Did you have any thoughts on the story? Some of the stuff they do on that site is over the top, but it really is the only place to get some of the stories like the one I linked too, its not as if the stories are fabrications. I really don't think the whole birther thing matters that much, its not like either way the issue will get resolved. Imagine the "evidence" being found, what is Obama going to do? Say, you got me, and resign? It just does not matter. It reminds me of Clinton with Lewinsky, the "right" trying to win by not having to stand up for anything. It is a good distraction.

The problem with the current movements is that the parasites in washington will try to co-opt manipulate or take over any legitmate thing to push their own selfish ends. There are a lot of honest people who are just wanting real answers. It is a sorry state of affairs when you can't get straight answers, the internet and the whole flip flopper mentality has aided this. It's good we can see the nervous spin, but I wonder if the fact we get to see it is the reason it is so nervous. It would probably still be lies though, just not as awkward. Craig, there are republicans getting hassled too. Not trying to catch you or anything but do you have thoughts on that?

The obama healthcare plan !! Why do I (being on social security) Have to have a consultation with a government representative every so often? I don't want big brother in my business! I have enough comon sense to know my rights. this (Consultation) is designed to ration my healthcare.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/14236