0 comment Thursday, November 20, 2014 | admin
Kissing Cousins, which is a post at the WTPOTUS blog, discusses this article, which makes more genealogical claims about the president. The article says, based on the word of a genealogist, that the president is related to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and ex-President George Bush.
It seems to me that we saw these same claims back during the campaign of 2008 and also during the Henry Louis Gates story, and I scoffed at them then as being propagandistic. To me, these kinds of articles try, firstly, to establish distinguished ancestry for favored presidential candidates and their wives. I am sure there have been focus groups run which have shown that the gullible public are impressed by reports of 'noble ancestry'. This seems paradoxical in a country like ours where many people are defiantly populist and anti-royalty, but it seems there is some having-it-both-ways being done here; people worship certain royals like the late Princess Diana and now her sons, primarily William, and we also have our own ''home-grown'' pseudo-royals like the Kennedys and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis, while she was alive. It seems part of us still looks up to royalty and aristocracy. And for many people, sleazy celebrities, provided they have enough ''glamor'' and media coverage, fill in as substitute royalty.
So the media lackeys work at giving candidates and politicians of their choosing some kind of cachet by linking them to illustrious ancestors.
Is it true? Well, as the blogger linked above notes, online genealogy can be notoriously unreliable, and in my experience, sometimes laughably inaccurate and error-ridden. There are some absurd things to be found in online family tree information. It can't be taken at face value; a lot of additional research is needed to discern what is accurate and what is not.
Still, the genealogist of the AP article reports this information as unimpeachable truth. And her political leanings are nakedly obvious, as she mentions some supposed ancestor of the president, a dissenting minister from England, as being very ''socially conscious'', meaning liberal. So it's all right then. I mean, if the president were (supposedly) descended from some hellfire-preaching minister, we would not hear a word about it, I am sure.
The article mentions that Stanley Ann Dunham claimed, like many Americans, to have a Cherokee ancestor (a full-blooded one, of course; that's absolutely de rigueur). I've met relatively few people who don't make this claim. I remember a New York Times article from a year or two ago, in which DNA testing was examined, and the results of some test subjects were discussed. One of those who claimed American Indian ancestry (full-blooded Cherokee, no doubt) was apparently crestfallen when the tests showed nothing indicative of that claim. Recently there was the spectacle of Jessica Alba learning on TV that she was more European than she thought. Her disappointed reaction was amusing in a sad way.
There is a lot of confusion and so much propaganda on matters of DNA and genealogy. The propaganda, of course, is meant to confuse people and to foster the idea that ''we are all one big family'' or ''we are all one race'', etc. Six degrees of separation and all that. How are we who are not scientists to separate the nonsense and lies from the facts? Most of us are not equipped to do so.
And unless we have some solid information about our family history, we begin to fall for much of this propaganda.
In the president's case, it seems that the court genealogists are trying to establish the president's legitimacy as ''one of us'': he is descended (supposedly) from colonial ancestors. He is related to many presidents and public figures. He has long roots in this country -- this is probably supposed to counter the increasing perception that the president is just not American in his experiences, his knowledge, his background, his attitudes, his behavior. So out come these stories about his ancestry and roots.
It's telling that they are trying to tie him to those who are perceived as his bitterest critics: Palin and Limbaugh.
But ultimately it will not work. Even if we had the word of a highly reputable genealogist with no discernible agenda, it would not work.
As Miri at WTPOTUS says, the biggest stumbling-block is that if the original information, the starting point, is not verified, then the rest of it is of very dubious value. Because, when you get down to it, we don't know where we are starting from, without documentation and primary sources, witnesses. It's all just supposition if not outright confabulation.
Think about that. It's pretty unsettling.
It seems to me that we saw these same claims back during the campaign of 2008 and also during the Henry Louis Gates story, and I scoffed at them then as being propagandistic. To me, these kinds of articles try, firstly, to establish distinguished ancestry for favored presidential candidates and their wives. I am sure there have been focus groups run which have shown that the gullible public are impressed by reports of 'noble ancestry'. This seems paradoxical in a country like ours where many people are defiantly populist and anti-royalty, but it seems there is some having-it-both-ways being done here; people worship certain royals like the late Princess Diana and now her sons, primarily William, and we also have our own ''home-grown'' pseudo-royals like the Kennedys and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis, while she was alive. It seems part of us still looks up to royalty and aristocracy. And for many people, sleazy celebrities, provided they have enough ''glamor'' and media coverage, fill in as substitute royalty.
So the media lackeys work at giving candidates and politicians of their choosing some kind of cachet by linking them to illustrious ancestors.
Is it true? Well, as the blogger linked above notes, online genealogy can be notoriously unreliable, and in my experience, sometimes laughably inaccurate and error-ridden. There are some absurd things to be found in online family tree information. It can't be taken at face value; a lot of additional research is needed to discern what is accurate and what is not.
Still, the genealogist of the AP article reports this information as unimpeachable truth. And her political leanings are nakedly obvious, as she mentions some supposed ancestor of the president, a dissenting minister from England, as being very ''socially conscious'', meaning liberal. So it's all right then. I mean, if the president were (supposedly) descended from some hellfire-preaching minister, we would not hear a word about it, I am sure.
The article mentions that Stanley Ann Dunham claimed, like many Americans, to have a Cherokee ancestor (a full-blooded one, of course; that's absolutely de rigueur). I've met relatively few people who don't make this claim. I remember a New York Times article from a year or two ago, in which DNA testing was examined, and the results of some test subjects were discussed. One of those who claimed American Indian ancestry (full-blooded Cherokee, no doubt) was apparently crestfallen when the tests showed nothing indicative of that claim. Recently there was the spectacle of Jessica Alba learning on TV that she was more European than she thought. Her disappointed reaction was amusing in a sad way.
There is a lot of confusion and so much propaganda on matters of DNA and genealogy. The propaganda, of course, is meant to confuse people and to foster the idea that ''we are all one big family'' or ''we are all one race'', etc. Six degrees of separation and all that. How are we who are not scientists to separate the nonsense and lies from the facts? Most of us are not equipped to do so.
And unless we have some solid information about our family history, we begin to fall for much of this propaganda.
In the president's case, it seems that the court genealogists are trying to establish the president's legitimacy as ''one of us'': he is descended (supposedly) from colonial ancestors. He is related to many presidents and public figures. He has long roots in this country -- this is probably supposed to counter the increasing perception that the president is just not American in his experiences, his knowledge, his background, his attitudes, his behavior. So out come these stories about his ancestry and roots.
It's telling that they are trying to tie him to those who are perceived as his bitterest critics: Palin and Limbaugh.
But ultimately it will not work. Even if we had the word of a highly reputable genealogist with no discernible agenda, it would not work.
As Miri at WTPOTUS says, the biggest stumbling-block is that if the original information, the starting point, is not verified, then the rest of it is of very dubious value. Because, when you get down to it, we don't know where we are starting from, without documentation and primary sources, witnesses. It's all just supposition if not outright confabulation.
Think about that. It's pretty unsettling.
Labels: Ancestry, Controlled Media, Dna, Genealogy, Political Correctness, Politics, Propaganda
0 comment Sunday, August 3, 2014 | admin
From the 24Ahead blog, we read that Rupert Murdoch of Fox News has testified in favor of ''comprehensive immigration reform'', which in English is 'amnesty for illegal aliens.'' This is no surprise, and it will also be unsurprising when the liberals/leftists continue to identify him as a ''right-winger''. Will any of the avid Fox News cult members finally realize that Fox is not a ''conservative'' news source? And that Murdoch is not on the side of majority White Americans?
Murdoch, with his extensive media holdings and concomitant power is almost the living example of what I envision in my mind when I think about the globalist elites. He and his soul-mate Soros. Speaking of the devil, there was. from 1997, this interesting article about Soros, linked on the WTPOTUS blog recently.
He and Murdoch seem to worship at the same altar on the subject of immigration.
From the discussion of the Soros article:
THE EMMA LAZARUS FUND
It might strike a person as odd that one of America�s richest men would decide to take a leading role in calling for a more tolerant, open attitude toward immigration. But when one learns the man is George Soros, perhaps this is not surprising. Soros, profiled earlier this month on the popular television newsmagazine 60 Minutes, has a reputation for being a tough businessman, but also one of the world�s leading philanthropists. Until recently, he was best known for giving money to help promote open societies in Eastern Europe.
But recently Soros chose to tackle the issue of immigration. Soros knows first hand the importance of an open immigration policy. He is, after all, a Hungarian Jew who survived the Holocaust and knows that for many, the right to immigrate can be a matter of life and death.
Recently Soros created the Emma Lazarus Fund, an initiative of Soros� Open Society Institute. Emma Lazarus was the 19th Century Jewish-American poet whose famous words from her poem "The New Colossus" welcoming impoverished immigrants to American shores are on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty. The poem, beginning with the famous words "Give me your tired, your poor�" is one of the most famous in American literature and is now synonymous with America�s welcoming historical attitude to immigrants.
According to Soros, the Fund has the following goals:
"First, in appropriate instances, it will pay the cost of applying for citizenship for legal immigrants who wish to become naturalized Americans; second, it will assist community and social service organizations that help legal immigrants by providing English-language instruction and other services that help them qualify for citizenship; finally, the Fund will assist organizations conducting efforts, both in the courts and through public education campaigns, on the issues of naturalization and immigration."
Soros does not intend the Fund to promote open borders. Rather, he says the issue is one of justice � equal treatment and the rule of law, regardless of immigration status.''
Compare the above with the comments of Murdoch on immigration, quoted in the 24Ahead blog entry:
''It is nonsense to talk of expelling 12 million people," testified Murdoch. "Not only is it impractical, it is cost prohibitive."
Murdoch cited a study that gauged "the price of mass deportation at $285 billion over five years," which amounts to $57 billion per year, adding that "there are better ways to spend our money."
"A full path to legalization--requiring unauthorized immigrants to register, undergo a security check, pay taxes and learn English--would bring these immigrants out of a shadow economy and add to our tax base," said Murdoch.
He continued, "According to one study, a path to legalization would contribute an estimated $1.5 trillion to the Gross Domestic Product over 10 years."
One thing these men have in common is that they are both men of no fixed allegiances; they breathe the rarefied air of those above common loyalties such as the rest of us share. Neither of them seem to have loyalty to any particular country, though they are happy to profit from, and use, and manipulate Western countries.
Soros is the darling of the left, and their biggest money patron, while many on the ''right'' think that Murdoch is on our side. It's clear that Soros, Murdoch, and the rest of the lesser-known elites are on nobody's side but their own. Even the illegal immigrants they are advocating for and lobbying for are not of any real concern to them, merely weapons to be used or fodder for some plan to benefit themselves and their own little group.
Murdoch, with his extensive media holdings and concomitant power is almost the living example of what I envision in my mind when I think about the globalist elites. He and his soul-mate Soros. Speaking of the devil, there was. from 1997, this interesting article about Soros, linked on the WTPOTUS blog recently.
He and Murdoch seem to worship at the same altar on the subject of immigration.
From the discussion of the Soros article:
THE EMMA LAZARUS FUND
It might strike a person as odd that one of America�s richest men would decide to take a leading role in calling for a more tolerant, open attitude toward immigration. But when one learns the man is George Soros, perhaps this is not surprising. Soros, profiled earlier this month on the popular television newsmagazine 60 Minutes, has a reputation for being a tough businessman, but also one of the world�s leading philanthropists. Until recently, he was best known for giving money to help promote open societies in Eastern Europe.
But recently Soros chose to tackle the issue of immigration. Soros knows first hand the importance of an open immigration policy. He is, after all, a Hungarian Jew who survived the Holocaust and knows that for many, the right to immigrate can be a matter of life and death.
Recently Soros created the Emma Lazarus Fund, an initiative of Soros� Open Society Institute. Emma Lazarus was the 19th Century Jewish-American poet whose famous words from her poem "The New Colossus" welcoming impoverished immigrants to American shores are on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty. The poem, beginning with the famous words "Give me your tired, your poor�" is one of the most famous in American literature and is now synonymous with America�s welcoming historical attitude to immigrants.
According to Soros, the Fund has the following goals:
"First, in appropriate instances, it will pay the cost of applying for citizenship for legal immigrants who wish to become naturalized Americans; second, it will assist community and social service organizations that help legal immigrants by providing English-language instruction and other services that help them qualify for citizenship; finally, the Fund will assist organizations conducting efforts, both in the courts and through public education campaigns, on the issues of naturalization and immigration."
Soros does not intend the Fund to promote open borders. Rather, he says the issue is one of justice � equal treatment and the rule of law, regardless of immigration status.''
Compare the above with the comments of Murdoch on immigration, quoted in the 24Ahead blog entry:
''It is nonsense to talk of expelling 12 million people," testified Murdoch. "Not only is it impractical, it is cost prohibitive."
Murdoch cited a study that gauged "the price of mass deportation at $285 billion over five years," which amounts to $57 billion per year, adding that "there are better ways to spend our money."
"A full path to legalization--requiring unauthorized immigrants to register, undergo a security check, pay taxes and learn English--would bring these immigrants out of a shadow economy and add to our tax base," said Murdoch.
He continued, "According to one study, a path to legalization would contribute an estimated $1.5 trillion to the Gross Domestic Product over 10 years."
One thing these men have in common is that they are both men of no fixed allegiances; they breathe the rarefied air of those above common loyalties such as the rest of us share. Neither of them seem to have loyalty to any particular country, though they are happy to profit from, and use, and manipulate Western countries.
Soros is the darling of the left, and their biggest money patron, while many on the ''right'' think that Murdoch is on our side. It's clear that Soros, Murdoch, and the rest of the lesser-known elites are on nobody's side but their own. Even the illegal immigrants they are advocating for and lobbying for are not of any real concern to them, merely weapons to be used or fodder for some plan to benefit themselves and their own little group.
Labels: Amnesty, Controlled Media, Corporate Elites, Elites, Globalism, Immigration, Open Borders
0 comment Tuesday, June 24, 2014 | admin
I recently read this excerpt from a Kenneth Minogue book, The Servile Mind. I have yet to get hold of the book, but I hope to read it soon. Meantime Minogue's words seem to apply very much to our society, and to the West overall. I hope to comment on the excerpt later.
What is on my mind now, in connection with what Minogue wrote, is this upcoming, much-hyped and much-vilified 'rally' in Washington, D.C., featuring Glenn Beck and his PC "revival" show, or whatever it is. Somebody (and I would like to credit that person, but I can't recall where I read it) described Beck as a weeping TV evangelist of the political right, or words along those lines. I think he is just as much a huckster as the show-biz 'ministers', playing on people's emotions and on their gullibility.
Beck seems to be shilling for a new religion, sort of a Politically Correct cult where MLK and the Founding Fathers are co-venerated.
I was checking the posts on Free Republic as I often do, to 'take the temperature' of the Republican faithful, and they are eager for this rally to take place. When I read that forum these days, I truly do wonder about the future of this country because I keep hoping for any sign that the mainstream ''right'' will wake up, and sometimes it seems as if they are doing that. Some of the politically incorrect comments there make me think that the critically ill patient is showing signs of recovery, but then they lapse back into the febrile babblings, the obsession with 'racism' on the left, and with sniffing out racism among their fellow FReepers.
I've thought a lot about what is wrong with our people, and that's really the theme of this blog, since 2006 when I first began. I've spent a lot of time discussing the symptoms and their possible etiology, and I've looked for that magic bullet, a remedy for this sickness-unto-death that seems to be gripping the entire West. I keep taking the patient's vital signs, and sometimes he rallies a bit, but goes on languishing.
I've written about Beck and his counterparts on the Republican side: media personalities like Rush, Hannity, Mark Levin, et al. Politicians are part of the problem, too, but I think the root problem of all this may be something that is more and more common in the character of Americans and other Westerners: the tendency to be followers. That is at the heart of Minogue's piece, which I hope to blog about later in more detail. But the thing is, Americans in particular have become too besotted of individual personalities, whether it be Beck, Rush, Sarah Palin, or their favorite politico. Some people from Arkansas are fiercely defensive of their guy, Mike Huckabee. Some fawn over Bobby Jindal because they see in him some kind of hope. Herman Cain is a recent darling with the FReeper crowd. Lately there has been a furor over Ann Coulter's remarks about conservatives who oppose homosexual 'marriage', with many of Ann's devotees fiercely defending her.
If someone criticizes one of these 'personalities', his or her followers will react as if their own mother or beloved spouse were being attacked, or perhaps, more aptly, as if their faith and their God were being blasphemed. If only we could defend our kin and our people as aggressively as some defend their favorite personality.
I don't know if there are more of these blind loyalist individuals around these days; I have generally thought that our society has declined in the character of the people since our colonial and founding generations. I still think that to some degree, but perhaps there have always been these people who are 'respecters of persons', in the Biblical sense, people who will fix their loyalty and devotions on some individual with charisma or with glib answers and a good spiel. Beck seems to be the most successful of these types at the moment.
I don't know what will happen at this rally tomorrow, which has been so much 'cussed and discussed'. I do hope that he will not continue to lead 'conservatives' down the rabbit hole of political correctness as he seems to be doing.
Americans talk a great game about individualism and independence, but I am afraid I see far too many people willing to be led up the garden path by some snake-oil salesman. I don't know where all our discernment has gone, or if there is any regaining it.
Perhaps it is natural for people to follow leaders, but woe be to us, as we have no leaders of character and courage to stand up today, it seems.
As the old saying goes, in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. How else can we explain the grasping at straws that causes people to follow these media shills and charlatans?
What is on my mind now, in connection with what Minogue wrote, is this upcoming, much-hyped and much-vilified 'rally' in Washington, D.C., featuring Glenn Beck and his PC "revival" show, or whatever it is. Somebody (and I would like to credit that person, but I can't recall where I read it) described Beck as a weeping TV evangelist of the political right, or words along those lines. I think he is just as much a huckster as the show-biz 'ministers', playing on people's emotions and on their gullibility.
Beck seems to be shilling for a new religion, sort of a Politically Correct cult where MLK and the Founding Fathers are co-venerated.
I was checking the posts on Free Republic as I often do, to 'take the temperature' of the Republican faithful, and they are eager for this rally to take place. When I read that forum these days, I truly do wonder about the future of this country because I keep hoping for any sign that the mainstream ''right'' will wake up, and sometimes it seems as if they are doing that. Some of the politically incorrect comments there make me think that the critically ill patient is showing signs of recovery, but then they lapse back into the febrile babblings, the obsession with 'racism' on the left, and with sniffing out racism among their fellow FReepers.
I've thought a lot about what is wrong with our people, and that's really the theme of this blog, since 2006 when I first began. I've spent a lot of time discussing the symptoms and their possible etiology, and I've looked for that magic bullet, a remedy for this sickness-unto-death that seems to be gripping the entire West. I keep taking the patient's vital signs, and sometimes he rallies a bit, but goes on languishing.
I've written about Beck and his counterparts on the Republican side: media personalities like Rush, Hannity, Mark Levin, et al. Politicians are part of the problem, too, but I think the root problem of all this may be something that is more and more common in the character of Americans and other Westerners: the tendency to be followers. That is at the heart of Minogue's piece, which I hope to blog about later in more detail. But the thing is, Americans in particular have become too besotted of individual personalities, whether it be Beck, Rush, Sarah Palin, or their favorite politico. Some people from Arkansas are fiercely defensive of their guy, Mike Huckabee. Some fawn over Bobby Jindal because they see in him some kind of hope. Herman Cain is a recent darling with the FReeper crowd. Lately there has been a furor over Ann Coulter's remarks about conservatives who oppose homosexual 'marriage', with many of Ann's devotees fiercely defending her.
If someone criticizes one of these 'personalities', his or her followers will react as if their own mother or beloved spouse were being attacked, or perhaps, more aptly, as if their faith and their God were being blasphemed. If only we could defend our kin and our people as aggressively as some defend their favorite personality.
I don't know if there are more of these blind loyalist individuals around these days; I have generally thought that our society has declined in the character of the people since our colonial and founding generations. I still think that to some degree, but perhaps there have always been these people who are 'respecters of persons', in the Biblical sense, people who will fix their loyalty and devotions on some individual with charisma or with glib answers and a good spiel. Beck seems to be the most successful of these types at the moment.
I don't know what will happen at this rally tomorrow, which has been so much 'cussed and discussed'. I do hope that he will not continue to lead 'conservatives' down the rabbit hole of political correctness as he seems to be doing.
Americans talk a great game about individualism and independence, but I am afraid I see far too many people willing to be led up the garden path by some snake-oil salesman. I don't know where all our discernment has gone, or if there is any regaining it.
Perhaps it is natural for people to follow leaders, but woe be to us, as we have no leaders of character and courage to stand up today, it seems.
As the old saying goes, in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. How else can we explain the grasping at straws that causes people to follow these media shills and charlatans?
Labels: Conservatism, Controlled Media, Death Of The West, Propaganda
0 comment Saturday, June 14, 2014 | admin
I've only touched on this subject a time or two, in passing. But as someone who is intrigued by unanswered questions and deliberate obfuscation, I am curious as to what the real story is. And, as always, I am interested in what others are saying in online discussions of this.
I find the reactions to this issue rather maddening, for example, the people who invariably pop up wherever this is being discussed, saying that ''this is all a non-issue; you conspiracy-mongers are crazy" or ''you are being duped and used; this is just meant to bait you into following this down a rabbit hole, and making all conservatives look crazy."
The really ironic response is this frequently-heard one: ''this is a big waste of time! Why do all you people spend your time on this?" Meanwhile the people who write those dismissive comments are themselves spending time endlessly saying 'this is a waste of time. Give it up.' Evidently, it is not a waste of time to chide others about wasting time. And why does anybody object to others trying to solve a mystery? What's it to them?
So the Governor of the state in question suddenly remembers that the parents (putative parents) were 'his friends'? I seem to remember in Jack Cashill's articles, or perhaps elsewhere, that this governor said he knew the 'father' but did not know of a wife or child. But now he "knew them" both.
And first he said he was sure the documents could be produced, to refute the doubters, then he says 'I can't lay hands on them, but I have learned they are there, written down' or words to that effect. Strange wording -- that the proof is 'written down.'
It all gets curiouser and curiouser, as always when you go down a rabbit hole.
I really don't understand those who are quick to dismiss this out of hand. I don't understand those who are content to just repeat what the MSM says, and say 'well, I believe he was born where he says he was born.' Believe, based on what? This attitude seems to me to be Bill O'Reilly-esque, this proclamation that one 'believes' something which has not been established with any certainty -- just because. Incidentally, BOR is one of those who says that he 'believes' in the official birth story, as do Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and other such stalwarts.
As for me, I don't have a 'belief' on this issue; I am simply interested to see what does turn up. It does seem to be to be generally true in life that where someone goes to great lengths to conceal something or at least to make the facts hard to determine, that there is in fact something being concealed. What it is, I don't pretend to know. I do know that the mainstream media lies and conceals, as do those in authority when they believe it is justified.
Another argument used by the scoffers is that 'this is all a red herring; it is not important. What's important is his deeds, and this is a distraction that keeps us from focusing on the important things.' I just don't see that this is true. One can care about both issues. And anytime our electeds are concealing things, especially when those things involve issues of the Constitution and our rule of law, that is important. We are allowing a precedent to be set in which we will no longer 'vet' our candidates as to their eligibility. And the question of nationality by birth is important; our Founding Fathers were explicit that dual citizens or those not natural-born could not serve as our highest public official. And for good reason.
Even if an 'official' document just handily turns up in Hawaii, there are all those other documents which have not been made public. Is that just an act of defiance toward us, or a demonstration that we are not the repository of power in this supposed representative Republic anymore? Of course we are reminded every day that we are not; we have been made irrelevant as far as the powers-that-be are concerned.
I am glad that somebody is following this issue and trying to bring the truth to light. Would it make any difference, though, if the truth is established? It would assuredly not deter the blind followers; people like that need deprogramming, as with cult members. And would anything be done? Probably not, but isn't it best to know the truth, and to at least try to ensure that the law is not to be openly flouted by those who are elected to enforce and execute it? The cynical side of me knows that our laws and our Constitution are already irrelevant, as we see what is happening with our one-time 'borders' and so many other violations. But we don't want to reach such a peak of cynicism that we just turn a blind eye and shrug, as we fall into utter lawlessness.
I find the reactions to this issue rather maddening, for example, the people who invariably pop up wherever this is being discussed, saying that ''this is all a non-issue; you conspiracy-mongers are crazy" or ''you are being duped and used; this is just meant to bait you into following this down a rabbit hole, and making all conservatives look crazy."
The really ironic response is this frequently-heard one: ''this is a big waste of time! Why do all you people spend your time on this?" Meanwhile the people who write those dismissive comments are themselves spending time endlessly saying 'this is a waste of time. Give it up.' Evidently, it is not a waste of time to chide others about wasting time. And why does anybody object to others trying to solve a mystery? What's it to them?
So the Governor of the state in question suddenly remembers that the parents (putative parents) were 'his friends'? I seem to remember in Jack Cashill's articles, or perhaps elsewhere, that this governor said he knew the 'father' but did not know of a wife or child. But now he "knew them" both.
And first he said he was sure the documents could be produced, to refute the doubters, then he says 'I can't lay hands on them, but I have learned they are there, written down' or words to that effect. Strange wording -- that the proof is 'written down.'
It all gets curiouser and curiouser, as always when you go down a rabbit hole.
I really don't understand those who are quick to dismiss this out of hand. I don't understand those who are content to just repeat what the MSM says, and say 'well, I believe he was born where he says he was born.' Believe, based on what? This attitude seems to me to be Bill O'Reilly-esque, this proclamation that one 'believes' something which has not been established with any certainty -- just because. Incidentally, BOR is one of those who says that he 'believes' in the official birth story, as do Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and other such stalwarts.
As for me, I don't have a 'belief' on this issue; I am simply interested to see what does turn up. It does seem to be to be generally true in life that where someone goes to great lengths to conceal something or at least to make the facts hard to determine, that there is in fact something being concealed. What it is, I don't pretend to know. I do know that the mainstream media lies and conceals, as do those in authority when they believe it is justified.
Another argument used by the scoffers is that 'this is all a red herring; it is not important. What's important is his deeds, and this is a distraction that keeps us from focusing on the important things.' I just don't see that this is true. One can care about both issues. And anytime our electeds are concealing things, especially when those things involve issues of the Constitution and our rule of law, that is important. We are allowing a precedent to be set in which we will no longer 'vet' our candidates as to their eligibility. And the question of nationality by birth is important; our Founding Fathers were explicit that dual citizens or those not natural-born could not serve as our highest public official. And for good reason.
Even if an 'official' document just handily turns up in Hawaii, there are all those other documents which have not been made public. Is that just an act of defiance toward us, or a demonstration that we are not the repository of power in this supposed representative Republic anymore? Of course we are reminded every day that we are not; we have been made irrelevant as far as the powers-that-be are concerned.
I am glad that somebody is following this issue and trying to bring the truth to light. Would it make any difference, though, if the truth is established? It would assuredly not deter the blind followers; people like that need deprogramming, as with cult members. And would anything be done? Probably not, but isn't it best to know the truth, and to at least try to ensure that the law is not to be openly flouted by those who are elected to enforce and execute it? The cynical side of me knows that our laws and our Constitution are already irrelevant, as we see what is happening with our one-time 'borders' and so many other violations. But we don't want to reach such a peak of cynicism that we just turn a blind eye and shrug, as we fall into utter lawlessness.
Labels: Constitution, Controlled Media, Identity Politics, Rule Of Law
0 comment Tuesday, June 3, 2014 | admin
Recently we discussed the idea of the Northwest redoubt, and on the other end of the spectrum, the downside of city life, the conditions that have caused many people to seek some refuge where they may still live free, outside the oppressive system that has been imposed on us.
Coincidentally, from the Daily Mail (UK) here is a piece about Kalispell, Montana, which we are informed is a 'haven for extremists'. When I read the headline, I thought of the recent article by Chuck Baldwin, wherein he explained his reasons for relocating to that part of the country. And seeing this headline, I thought, surely, the media won't be brazen enough to include Pastor Baldwin in the 'extremist' category. But sure enough,
''Others include patriot leader and former Constitution Party vice presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin, who believes the U.S. is headed for a fight between big-government globalists and independent patriots...''
Shamefully, the Daily Mail article quotes the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center, as the authority on 'hate groups' and extremists. This is the prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. I don't know whether the Daily Mail's British readers know that the SPLC is not to trusted, being itself a far-left, hate-mongering group which has somehow insinuated its way into the position of arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not. If the SPLC had its way, there would be no free speech; the only ideas permitted to be expressed would be those which agreed with their own.
As for the other 'extremists' named in the article, I am not familiar with most of them, but I never take the media's word for it when they label people in this fashion; if they call someone an 'extremist' I take it that the person so named is probably someone who is a sane and normal person who hasn't submitted to an insane system. The truth is 'extremist' today.
This article does illustrate very well that there seems to be an ironclad rule: you can be just as careful and respectable as you like, avoiding all controversial language and inflammatory rhetoric, but if you take exception to the party line and the orthodoxies of the day then you are a dangerous extremist. Pastor Baldwin's very reasonable, non-extremist views have him painted as some sort of dangerous fanatic, and his community, by extension, tarred with that brush. That's an injustice.
The comments to this article are moderated, and there are only four there as I write this. I have a feeling that posting comments critical of this article or the SPLC would be a waste of time.
The unquestioning 'journalists' who write these pieces are never challenged on their facts, and they, in turn, never seem to question the authority of the SPLC . Neither the media nor these witch-hunting leftists are called out for being openly biased and bigoted. The game is rigged in their favor, and people remain blind, thanks in part to this one-sided media machine.
Coincidentally, from the Daily Mail (UK) here is a piece about Kalispell, Montana, which we are informed is a 'haven for extremists'. When I read the headline, I thought of the recent article by Chuck Baldwin, wherein he explained his reasons for relocating to that part of the country. And seeing this headline, I thought, surely, the media won't be brazen enough to include Pastor Baldwin in the 'extremist' category. But sure enough,
''Others include patriot leader and former Constitution Party vice presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin, who believes the U.S. is headed for a fight between big-government globalists and independent patriots...''
Shamefully, the Daily Mail article quotes the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center, as the authority on 'hate groups' and extremists. This is the prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. I don't know whether the Daily Mail's British readers know that the SPLC is not to trusted, being itself a far-left, hate-mongering group which has somehow insinuated its way into the position of arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not. If the SPLC had its way, there would be no free speech; the only ideas permitted to be expressed would be those which agreed with their own.
As for the other 'extremists' named in the article, I am not familiar with most of them, but I never take the media's word for it when they label people in this fashion; if they call someone an 'extremist' I take it that the person so named is probably someone who is a sane and normal person who hasn't submitted to an insane system. The truth is 'extremist' today.
This article does illustrate very well that there seems to be an ironclad rule: you can be just as careful and respectable as you like, avoiding all controversial language and inflammatory rhetoric, but if you take exception to the party line and the orthodoxies of the day then you are a dangerous extremist. Pastor Baldwin's very reasonable, non-extremist views have him painted as some sort of dangerous fanatic, and his community, by extension, tarred with that brush. That's an injustice.
The comments to this article are moderated, and there are only four there as I write this. I have a feeling that posting comments critical of this article or the SPLC would be a waste of time.
The unquestioning 'journalists' who write these pieces are never challenged on their facts, and they, in turn, never seem to question the authority of the SPLC . Neither the media nor these witch-hunting leftists are called out for being openly biased and bigoted. The game is rigged in their favor, and people remain blind, thanks in part to this one-sided media machine.
Labels: Biased Media, Controlled Media, Cultural Marxism, Leftist Bigotry, Leftist Intolerance