Safe to say that Van Jones will never be president.
Hanging out with a 9/11 Truther, people who are not sure that 9/11 was an act of terrorism by Bin Laden and company, is a good sign you are not fit to serve. Similarly the right has been plagued by people unsure whether President Obama was born in the United States.
For the life of me I cannot grasp how people can believe that such an issue could have any merit and not have been raised by the Clinton machine, the McCain campaign, or mainstream conservative outlets like National Review. There is no conservative case for it.
No credible conservative organization takes the Birther charge seriously. It has been investigated and found baseless. Any leader has an obligation to explain this to anyone who is confused about the issue and any leader who indulges it without apology is unfit to lead the GOP.
Here is an inviolable rule of current politics: if Glenn Beck thinks an issue a distraction and a waste of time, then it is really, really fringe. (See Malkin and Beck here. Are they RINOs?)
Evidently Palin said the following in an interview today about doubt regarding Obama’s citizenship:
“I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records — all of that is fair game,” Palin said. “The McCain-Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area.”
The most charitable possible reading of this interview is that Palin is saying “turn about is fair play” and if irrational questions are going to be asked about the birth of her baby, then she will ask irrational questions about the birth the president.
First, President Obama did not ask those questions and so it would not similar for the Republican nominee to ask “birther” questions of him. Andrew Sullivan is not running for president and to engage at his level is unworthy of a serious candidate for office.
Second, for a Christian two wrongs not only don’t make a right, but actually are just more wrong. There is the whole issue of, well, the Golden Rule as well.
Third, asking whether Obama is born in the United States is not a “fair question,” because there is no credible evidence he was not born in the United States. You cannot ask a fair question when your questions is based only on a desire to do damage equal to that done to you by another.
The conservative movement must reject a populism that amounts to mob rule. Our founding fathers believed in reason and hated demagoguery. The notion that it there is any fair way to questions the President’s place of birth is beyond the pale.
Birtherism is insanity and if embraced by our nominee will destroy the party of Lincoln, McKinley, Roosevelt, Coolidge, and Reagan.
Palin should clarify this quote quickly, repudiate birtherism, and birtherism as a tactic, or I predict she will be finished as a serious presidential candidate. And she should be.
Added December 4: Sarah Palin writes:
Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask… which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
- Sarah Palin
This is very good news . . . making her interview a pile of easily misunderstood sludge or (uncharitable reading) a dog whistle to indicate to the birther community (wink nudge) that she is really with them.
In any case, the very sane Jim Geraghty says she is no birther and so I am willing to hold my fire. Jim is right that this is not the worst conspiracy theory ever, but I still think anyone who believes it is disqualified from being the GOP nominees since:
1. the issue would do them enormous damage in the general election
2. there is no evidence for it, thus making his or her judgment highly questionable.
If Palin is just fed up with those claiming her baby is not her own (equally crazy) and was imprudent, then she should chillax. She is a presidential possibility and the bloggers are . . . well, bloggers.
(This major news has caused me to break my Palin free posting promise for the Holidays . . . I will try to refrain in the future.)
December 4th, 2009 | 12:58 am | #1
Here is the full transcript for that segment of the interview, and I think it is pretty clear she is hinting that it’s a genuine issue and not just a case of “fairness”:
HUMPHRIES: Sarah Palin here on the Rusty Humphries Show. One of the questions Jason asks is would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?
PALIN: I think the public rightly is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue because I think there are enough members of the electorate that still want answers.
HUMPHRIES: Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?
PALIN: I think it’s a fair question just like I think past associations and past voting records. All of that is fair game. You know, I’ve got to tell you too, I think our campaign, the McCain-Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area. We didn’t call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don’t think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we’re seeing manifest in the administration.
HUMPHRIES: I mean, truly if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama’s past should be. I mean, we want to treat men and women equally, right?
PALIN: Hey, you know, that’s a great point. And that weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son, and a lot of people that went “Well, you need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he’s your kid,” which we have done, but yeah, so maybe we can reverse that, and use the same [inaudible] thinking on the other one.
December 4th, 2009 | 1:06 am | #2
That would be worse and simply disqualifying. I hope this is not so, but this was a horrific interview.
December 4th, 2009 | 2:09 am | #3
[...] am glad to see that I am not the only one that feels the way. It appears that even Theocratic Blogs like this one agree with me: The most charitable possible reading of this interview is that Palin is saying [...]
December 4th, 2009 | 8:58 am | #4
[...] we are on the subject, here is a late addition. Our old friend John Mark Reynolds penned this about a comment Palin made in an interview Thursday: …for a Christian two wrongs not only don’t make a right, but actually are just more wrong. [...]
December 4th, 2009 | 9:14 am | #5
In terms of political insight and ability to communicate, Sarah Palin is Barack Obama without a teleprompter. Yes, her political views are at the other end of the spectrum. But as president, she would populate her administration with an equally odd assortment of cronies, hacks and yes-persons.
December 4th, 2009 | 9:37 am | #6
The most charitable possible reading of this interview is that Palin is saying “turn about is fair play” …
… for a Christian two wrongs not only don’t make a right, but actually are just more wrong.
I’m with CM. I heard a more extended clip of this same interview and there was no hint in it at all that Palin was looking for any kind of payback. So be careful about charging her with that kind of thing.
Of course, that leaves the probability that she actually does think this whole thing has merit in and of itself, which, as much as I like her, I just don’t get.
December 4th, 2009 | 10:10 am | #7
Bob,
That is my point. If she is a birther (or thinks birtherism has merits), then she is beyond the pale for a Burke conservative like I am.
Say it aint so,
John Mark
December 4th, 2009 | 10:32 am | #8
See my addition on December 4 at the end of the post.
What a mess. . .
December 4th, 2009 | 2:17 pm | #9
It seems Palin raised other important issues about Obama’s credibility which got lost with the focus on the “birther” issue. Things like Obama’s ties to ACORN, Bill Ayers and anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi before the election. Plus Obama’s tolerance of infanticide as a state Senator.
After the election we have an assortment of Marxist sympathizers, and one Kevin Jennings who is Obama’s Safe School Czar that is pushing homosexuality on our children. I think we need to focus on this for 2010 and 2012 and make sure no Christian, worth their salt, votes for Obama in 2012.
December 4th, 2009 | 7:28 pm | #10
Todd,
Yes, the odds of my voting for Obama are roughly equal to Frank Turk saying a “Hail Mary” with me this weekend.
December 4th, 2009 | 7:44 pm | #11
So, John, why exactly do you hate Obama so much? Because he wants to see that even the poor don’t die from lack of healthcare? Or is it because he believes in equality for everyone, like equal pay for women doing the same job as a man? Maybe you are anti-education and you disagree with his strong focus on improving education and expanding access to higher education? Is it because he recognizes that atheists are people, too, and that we are a country of many faiths and even people with no faith? Was it his decision to expand unemployment benefits, help people with COBRA payments, and increase funding for cancer research?
I’m just having a really hard time figuring out what Obama has done that is so terrible. He has not infringed on anyone’s second amendment rights in any way, so that cannot possibly be an issue. Although he personally opposes DOMA, his attorney general has filed a brief defending it, and he does not support gay marriage. Of course, he does recognize gay people as equal human beings instead of people worthy of death (like Uganda).
Sorry, I’m just having a really hard time figuring it out. He’s also cut taxes, so far, and unlike his predecessor, he does not believe in just going and bombing people who haven’t done anything. I would think that is a lot more in line with Christian values.
He’s never been caught cheating on his wife, he’s never been divorced, and he refuses to attribute the unreasonable hatred directed at him to racism.
Yet Sarah Palin has consorted with witch doctors, scammed her state, offered vicious lies without compunction, has said some of the most stupid things, insults people based on their race (like “Falafel lady”), disparages community service (she is even charging people to have their picture taken with her on the book tour and not allowing them to take their own pictures), practices egregious cronyism, has accomplished nothing of significance, neglected the poorest people in her state, and you think she is wonderful.
She was not misunderstood or misinterpreted in the interview above. She simply realized it might not be a good political move to say what she did and, in typical Palin fashion, backtracked. She is a hateful person, and the interview was an illustration of that hate. She hates Barack Obama for being everything she is not–intelligent, broadly respected, well educated, well-spoken, and president.
December 4th, 2009 | 7:58 pm | #12
I cannot recall ever hating my President.
I don’t support his:
a. spending plans
b. his health care plan which has all the liabilities of socializing medicine and fewer benefits
c. his policies on abortion.
If you read the blog, then you will see I don’t give Palin a pass.
December 5th, 2009 | 10:01 am | #13
So Palin wants people to be consistent in what kinds of questions they ask to candidates of both parties and from different walks of life. Her original statement isn’t grammatically a hypothetical, but I thought it was obviously intended that way. I’m not sure why you thought this was major news, even before her clarification. The clarification just makes it clear that the most charitable reading is the one she intended, but the idea of equal treatment was pretty clearly there, and we know she doesn’t think she was actually treated fairly. Doesn’t that give us strong reason to take her comment as sarcastic, even before she clarifies that it was?
December 5th, 2009 | 2:34 pm | #14
@CM,
I am not completely sure where you are coming from but let me point you to arguments I have made about President Obama. First, he is more like King Manasseh than Jesus Christ as many have tried to compare him to. Second, he as surrounded himself with people who despise Christian morals and truth, just read about his Safe School Czar who is pushing homosexuality on kindergartners.
We can learn about someones true beliefs based on what they are willing to tolerate and even promote. When President Obama was a state Senator he tolerated outright infanticide. He supports Planned Parenthood, a group which hides instances of infanticide to this day. His promotion of a sin like homosexuality will bring persecution to Christians. The tolerance of sin is no virtue and if President Obama and his Administration is willing to tolerate and even propagate such things now, I cannot fathom what evil he will tolerate if his power is not checked.
December 6th, 2009 | 1:00 am | #15
Blue Collar Todd,
Your response is full of utter fabrications. First, I do not want a president like Jesus Christ. I am looking for a political leader, not a messiah.
Second, your assertion that he has surrounded himself with people who “despite Christian morals” is unfounded. He has included several Jewish people among his cabinet, but I have seen no indication that they despise “Christian” morals. And what are “Christian” morals? Morals like “Do not kill”? Almost every major religion holds that perspective. Or do you mean morals like “Hate homosexuals and carry signs to their funerals saying they will burn in hell” and “Refuse to refute the Ugandan death law”? Or is it the Christian moral that says, “Don’t worry about people dying from lack of health care if it might cost more out of *your* pocket”?
I am sure regarding the senate “infanticide” reference, you are talking about the Beck-esque claim that he opposed legislation that would make it a crime to kill a baby born alive during an attempted abortion. The truth is that there was already a law against this in Illinois. Period.
Planned Parenthood supports abortion, not infanticide.
Ah, there you go with “promotion of homosexuality.” I have never heard President Obama encouraging people to become homosexuals. He does encourage people to tolerate homosexuals and treat them as equals. I find it hard to believe that Jesus, he of turn the other cheek fame, would not have held the same position. In fact, Jesus did tolerate sin. I thought, being a Christian, you would know that. He was all about hate the sin, love the sinner. He said we are all sinners, and while you may consider your sins more trivial than others’, God does not. Do you really imagine that God hates what you call the sin of homosexuality more than the sin of dishonesty? Or the sin of adultery? Or the sin of hate?
The notion that Obama has some sort of far-reaching power beyond that of ordinary presidents is laughable. He is subject to the same checks and balances of every president. It was George Bush Jr., actually, who pushed the boundaries of what power a president possesses, with no small encouragement from Dick Cheney.
Your assertion about Jennings’ supposed desire to promote homosexuality to kindergartners is also false. Teaching children that some children have homosexual parents and we should not ostracize them for that and we should accept this is not teaching children homosexuality.
I have taught my children to be tolerant of homosexuals and even that homosexuality is a genetic difference that harms no one and fears like yours are unfounded and border on the same hysteria Mideival citizens held toward “witches.” All my children are good people with good morals.
You do not even know what evil is; it is what is ooozing out of your fingers as you type those words of intolerance and bigotry. I will pray for you.
December 6th, 2009 | 1:17 am | #16
To John Reynolds:
I have read your blog. You frequently praise Palin as a person of personal virtue who has reaped unfair criticism. You praise her political experience, her “intellect,” and even her public speaking, none of which are meritorious.
You write that you oppose the president because of his…
a. spending plans
So, you are okay with trillions in tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest Americans but you are not okay with a healthcare bill that costs substantially less than that to benefit the poorest Americans?
Did you know that the Bush/Republican tax cuts included reductions in the capital gains tax? This means that when rich people gamble their money on the stock market, if they are big winners, they pay less taxes on those winnings. Yet he maintained the Social Security tax, which disproprotionately affects the lower and middle classes. Every one pays Social Security Tax on the first $80k or so of income, which means grossly rich people (who can still claim Social Security) pay a far smaller percentage of their income on Social Security taxes than the poorest.
Which spending plans, specifically, do you oppose?
b. his health care plan which has all the liabilities of socializing medicine and fewer benefits
Do you even know what socialism is? I’m not trying to be rude, but most people do not. In fact, most people do not realize there are many types of socialism.
What are those liabilities of “socialized” medicine? The fact that everyone can see a doctor and ZERO people go bankrupt due to medical expenses? (Medical expenses are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US.) Is it a liability that people with “socialized” medicine do not die in the waiting room?
Are you going to give me the mantra about the longer wait times and poorer outcomes? I wish I had more room to post, but I could demonstrate to you how false those claims are. I really wish people would read more and become more informed. It is not enough to read/watch opinion journalism. Read books on it, talk to real people who live with it. Visit those countries (I have).
Did you know that older people in the US have better outcomes for cancer than people under age 65 and are less likely to have to skip treatments? It is because they have “socialized” medicine. I assume by your opposition, you are going to refuse Medicare when you turn 65?
As to the health care plan offering fewer benefits, fewer benefits to whom? First, you will be allowed to keep your own plan if you desire. Second, many states do not have provisions requiring insurers to cover some of the most basic services, like mammograms, autism screening, and even pregnancy. Republicans want to allow health insurance policies to be sold across state lines so that insurers can go to the state with the most lax restrictions and offer policies from there.
And of course, any insurance is better than no insurance. I say this having grown up without insurance as a child. I lived with a broken bone for 2 weeks once because my parents, who were poor, hoped that it was just a “pulled muscle.” My family lost our home when my younger sister broke her leg. I have had insurance my entire adulthood, but I would not wish my experiences on anyone, especially children. And I always keep in mind this statement, “There but for the grace of God go I.” It is easy to pooh-pooh the idea of universal healthcare when you can count yourself among the insured or the financially sufficient.
c. his policies on abortion.
Ah, it always boils down to this, doesn’t it? This is the truth of the matter. Sarah Palin talks about how she considered having an abortion with Trig because “No one would know.” Amazing, because she counts herself among the “abortion is murder” crowd. I have never considered murdering anyone. Ever.
As long as abortion is here, why not support someone who believes we should work together to make it as rare as possible? The truth is that most abortion foes also oppose birth control, which makes it hard for them to compromise on provisions to decrease the demand for abortion. It really does depend on expanded access to birth control and better financial situations.
How odd, though, that you oppose abortion but you’re also opposed to legislation that would insure even pregnant poor women have access to free good prenatal care.
There are so many problems right now that we could be working together on instead of fighting over that one issue.
Christians who support the right always astonish me. I have never seen a group further away from Jesus’ values than the conservatives and the conservative party.
Would Jesus have said “Kill them all and let God sort them out” about the Muslims? Neither would democrats, but republicans did. Would Jesus oppose free healthcare for the poor? Would he favor tax cuts for the rich–the usurers? Based on his reaction to the Philistines in the Temple, I doubt it.
Maybe you should learn more about Jesus.
December 6th, 2009 | 1:39 am | #17
@CM,
Let me try and take some of this point by point.
1. I think I cite numerous resources to back up my claims.
2. Many do think of President Obama as more than a political leader, it is good that you do not.
3. There are many avowed Marxists or Marxist sympathizers in the Obama Administration, meaning Socialists or radical Liberals. All beliefs that stand in total antithesis to biblical Christianity. Some include: Van Jones, cited in this article, John Holdren who believes in eugenics and population control, Carol Browner who is Obama’s Climate Czar are just a few.
4. The logic of Obama’s vote to tolerate infanticide is flawed as is your dismissal of it. Obama did in fact oppose a law that would protect the newborn infant from infanticide and I found the video to prove it. By your view if a law is on the books in not sufficient to stop murder then we ought not do something to rectify that. I suspect there was a law against killing in Nazi Germany but that did not stop the killing of Jews. And yes, Planned Parenthood covers up infanticide.
5. Preaching the repentance of sin honors Jesus, not embracing sin. Liberals who are pushing homosexuality on us are also attacking marriage and saying adultery is no big deal as well. Jesus died for our sins and called us to repent from them. It seems to be an act of love to tell someone the truth about their sin. The people with signs are clearly not doing things from a proper perspective and are wrong in what they are doing. Having said that, Kevin Jennings is absolutely pushing the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality on our children, even praising the founder the NAMBLA, that is perverse.
6. Evil is a violation of God’s Commandments and whatever justifies them being broken. When sin becomes an unquestionable public right, then God’s Ten Commandments have been turned upside down, thus evil is called good and good is called evil. Then those who preach the Gospel will start to suffer for calling people to repent from their wicked ways by turning to Jesus Christ, the exclusive Savior of mankind and the only Lord that we ought to obey.
December 6th, 2009 | 6:40 pm | #18
@CM,
Let me try and take some of this point by point.
1. I think I cite numerous resources to back up my claims. None of which refer to Glen Beck.
2. Many do think of President Obama as more than a political leader, it is good that you do not.
3. There are many avowed Marxists or Marxist sympathizers in the Obama Administration, meaning Socialists or radical Liberals. All beliefs that stand in total antithesis to biblical Christianity. Some include: Van Jones, cited in this article, John Holdren who believes in eugenics and population control, Carol Browner who is Obama’s Climate Czar are just a few.
4. The logic of Obama’s vote to tolerate infanticide is flawed as is your dismissal of it. Obama did in fact oppose a law that would protect the newborn infant from infanticide and I found the video to prove it. By your view if a law is on the books in not sufficient to stop murder then we ought not do something to rectify that. I suspect there was a law against killing in Nazi Germany but that did not stop the killing of Jews. And yes, Planned Parenthood covers up infanticide.
5. Preaching the repentance of sin honors Jesus, not embracing sin. Liberals who are pushing homosexuality on us are also attacking marriage and saying adultery is no big deal as well. Jesus died for our sin and called us to repent from it. It seems to be an act of love to tell someone the truth about their sin. The people with signs are clearly not doing things from a proper perspective and are wrong in what they are doing. Having said then, Kevin Jennings is absolutely pushing the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality on our children, even praising the founder the NAMBLA, that is perverse.
6. Evil is a violation of God’s Commandments and whatever justifies them being broken. When sin becomes an unquestionable public right, then God’s Ten Commandments have been turned upside down, thus evil is called good and good is called evil. Then those who preach the Gospel will start to suffer for calling people to repent from their wicked ways by turning to Jesus Christ, the exclusive Savior of mankind and the only Lord that we ought to obey.
December 7th, 2009 | 6:13 pm | #19
For some reason my attempt to reply to CM’s response to my comment has failed twice now. CM and others can go here to read it.
December 7th, 2009 | 6:39 pm | #20
CM: “You do not even know what evil is; it is what is ooozing out of your fingers as you type those words of intolerance and bigotry. I will pray for you.”
The positive aspect of this is clarity. It is clear that short of someone substantially changing their mind, CM and Blue Collar Todd vigorously disagree with each other.
Nothing wrong with that.
December 8th, 2009 | 2:13 pm | #21
Palin’s response to the “birther” charge may show that the issue is so unimportant to her that she hasn’t looked into it.
December 8th, 2009 | 10:34 pm | #22
Dealing specifically with the charge of the Obama Administration pushing the acceptance of homosexuality on our children: the blog, also here at First Things, Gateway Pundit has done extensive work on the past of Kevin Jennings. It should also be noted that the Gateway Pundit blog was instrumental in the resignation of Van Jones, a “truther” in the Obama Administration.
Again, I think we have a legitimate concern about the type of people one surrounds himself with. Good is intimately connected to God’s holiness and His Commandments. Things that justify the breaking of them is evil and a society that has become so idolatrous as our own will call good evil and evil good.
December 18th, 2009 | 11:38 am | #23
“Horrific”? Holy exaggeration, Batman! I think Ed Jordan has a point: It’s quite clear that if the issue were genuinely important to Palin, she’d have indicated so long before this. She certainly has never been shy about saying which issues were important to her.
And if she should “chillax” about the wild conspiracy theories being spread about her baby — conspiracy theories being spread by major journalists, mind you — why shouldn’t Obama and his supporters do the same about birtherism? And let’s not even get started on the deliberate public insults to “the retarded baby,” as one protester recently referred to Trig Palin in my hearing.
December 18th, 2009 | 11:40 am | #24
Oh, and I forgot to mention, Obama has very publicly supported those Trig Truthers — remember his White House invite to Andrew Sullivan, almost immediately after his inauguration? Is he now automatically disqualified for his office?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact