Seekers of truth

Have you seen the picture of the lightning strike at a well-known residence?
I seem to remember that back in the summer of '09 there was a tree on the WH grounds that was blasted by lightning.
Speaking of the White House, WH spokesman Jay Carney blasted Rev. Franklin Graham for his comments in an interview about the eligibility issue.
Franklin Graham occasionally makes comments that get him into trouble, as when he called Islam an evil faith, and if I remember correctly he did not back down when challenged about it. Still, he seems to have a tendency, like his famous father, of trying to please and get along with everybody. Personally I don't think it's wise for a religious leader to try to be cozy with people in positions of power, especially given the fact that few people in public life today are especially moral or righteous men and women.
But as to the eligibility question, it seems that the media are going all-out to try to shut down the controversy. I read on the Internet that Shep Smith of Fox News has declared that it's all been proven, so the case is closed. CNN is reportedly saying the same -- based on what? Apparently on a digital copy of a Certificate of Live Birth, which is not the official document you or I need when we have to establish our birthplace or birth date, or our citizenship.
I wonder how many Americans will passively accept this, and believe it just because their favorite TV talking head or talk radio personality says it.
And it isn't just the liberal government media; it's the ''conservatives'' who populate talk radio and most of the TV pundit positions. So they are all reading off the same script.
Typical is this little diatribe, from the ''conservative'' mag Human Events.
The author writes this rather cryptic sentence:
''The Birther phenomenon confuses critics and believers alike into misinterpreting blind partisanship as philosophical purity. Birthers aren�t the most conservative Republicans. They are the most Republican Republicans.''
If anybody out there understands this, please provide a translation for me.
Then he says
''Conservatism isn�t about our guys. It�s about our principles. If exposing the president�s "hidden" origins has anything to do with conservative political philosophy, it has yet to be explained.''
Well, you might start by considering the Constitution, and its stipulations on the requirements for presidential eligibility. If you are willing to call that inconsequential, I don't know how you can claim to be 'conserving' anything. And what about the rule of law, generally? I realize those are mostly abstract principles in this lawless age, but no real 'conservatives' would sacrifice those principles for the sake of winning the next election.
And what about the conservative principles of honor, truth, justice, integrity ? I suppose those are considered trivial these days, especially by those who love their political party and being in power more than they care about real principles.
''In fact, harping on this cock-and-bull story will only detract from the pertinent reasons to reject the president: increased socialism in health care, adding instead of subtracting wars, spending us further into debt, the depressing stimulus, injudiciously appointing justices who aren�t blind, etc. Where will conservative credibility be on these issues after conservatives highlight a conspiracy theory about Obama�s African birth?''
Well, for a start, ''conservative credibility'' on these issues is already shot, considering that the Republicans, when in power, did a great deal of 'spending us further into debt' and 'adding instead of subtracting wars'', and increasing socialism in health care -- if you count the Medicare drug benefit. And who exactly are 'we' trying to win over by this credibility-building exercise? The Democrats? Not a chance. Ethnic votes? Laughable.
Courting ethnic grievance groups and liberals, or flaccid moderates, is a lost cause. Why pander to them or try to impress them? They have no respect for conservatives anyway.
''It�s easier to go along than to think.''
Obviously, as the people hyperventilating about 'conspiracy theories'' are doing now: going along with the 'respectable' consensus.
''Believing the president with an alien ideology is of an alien soil may be flattering. It may ingratiate you to comrades. It may seem to grant a sense of special enlightenment unknown to the benighted masses. The problem is that it isn�t true.''
Again, translator needed for that first sentence: ''believing the president with an alien ideology'' etc. What?
''The conspiracy theory imagining the president�s foreign birth doesn�t advance any conservative principle. It just aims to discredit a political enemy.
Ultimately, it just discredits us.''
Calling this question a conspiracy theory is easy to do, but hard to prove. Who is supposed to be conspiring here? The so-called 'birthers'? Do these scoffers think that the 'birthers' are fabricating all the conflicting information, or are they behind all the hidden documents and pieces of evidence? Are they persuading officials (such as state records departments) to conceal or scrub documents? How is it a conspiracy theory? Who is conspiring? From where I sit, it is the people who are the keepers of documents who are concealing and 'losing' information, or claiming that it never existed. It seems they are part of any 'conspiracy', not those who are just seeking the facts.
I can't believe how incoherent the scoffers' arguments are.
As for 'conservatives' being discredited by the search for the facts, I think that anyone who wants to just drop it, and let the facts continue to be obscured, is being discredited by their lack of curiosity, their lack of regard for our laws and standards, and above all, by their wishy-washy concern for 'going along to get along', as opposed to seeking the facts.
Above all, I don't like their tactic of trying to silence others and stifle any questioning.
Certainly the Republican party has discredited itself by this kind of dishonesty.
And one more thing: these people always say this issue keeps us from talking about the 'real issues'. How? How does it do that? Is there a limit on the number of things we can care about, or discuss? Can't we walk and chew gum at the same time?
People like Flynn (and Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, et al) are certainly spending their fair share of time blathering about what they call 'conspiracy theories' and fringe movements. They should follow their own advice and stick to talking about the things they declare most important.

Labels: Media Bias, Party Politics, Respectable Conservatism