Poisoned Fruit and Political Entrapment: “Birthers”and the Persistent Power of the Socialist Smear
“All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is opposed. Third it is accepted as being self evident.” -Arthur Schopenhauer
They must be laughing over at the leftist online website the DC Independent, other progressive circles, and in the liberal advocacy media (LAME).
Because one of their own, Dave Weigel, managed to cleverly plant the poisonous fruit of the “birther” controversy smack-dab in the middle of the Tea Party Convention in Nashville.
Right in the midst of a conservative uprising and popular movement that is primarily dedicated to defeating the Left, excoriating progressives, and confronting the LAME, a clever little journalist just happened to come across evidence that THE narrative-the “birther” controversy– that the Left has already floated as the fatal wound that will inevitably fall the Tea Party Movement (and conservative resistance to Obama’s agenda), is beginning to do just that.
Weigel, a reporter for the Washington Independent, got lucky and apparently was able to instigate what turned into a somewhat heated exchange between two of the invited (and best) speakers at the Tea Party Convention; Joseph Farah, the founder of World Net Daily, and Andrew Breitbart, the founder of Big Hollywood and Breitbart TV. As Weigel tells it, he overhead Andrew Breitbart criticizing Joseph Farah for dedicating a significant amount of his Friday night keynote speech to the issue of President Obama’s birth certificate. Weigel reports that Breitbart was being interviewed by World Net Daily’s Chelsea Schilling who asked him if Obama’s birth certificate was a legitimate issue. Weigel reported that the exchange went like this:
“It’s self-indulgent, it’s narcissistic, it’s a losing issue,” Breitbart told Schilling. “It’s a losing situation. If you don’t have the frigging evidence — raising the question? You can do that to Republicans all day long. You have to disprove that you’re a racist! Forcing them to disprove something is a nightmare.”
“Wouldn’t you say,” asked Schilling, “in this case, that Farah is asking Obama to prove something rather than his disprove it?”
Breitbart rejected the premise. “When has a president ever been asked to prove his citizenship?”
According to Weigel, he was the one that initially engaged Farah when he asked him if his speech was approved by the organizers of the convention. Farah explained to him that no one told him what to say and that’s when Weigel, referring to Breitbart’s criticism, informed Farah that his speech “was getting negative attention already.” This surprised Farah a bit and he then walked over to Breitbart in an effort to debunk the criticism.
That’s when the exchange on the question of the birth certificate took place. (For audio click here.)For the sake of brevity I will not repost the entire exchange here. If you want to read the entire thing, I suggest you go to the Washington Independent story I linked above, or listen to it on the audio I provided.
The actual exchange is worth analyzing a bit because there was more to it than just the question of the birth certificate issue. First, it is interesting to note that Farah’s original concern with Breitbart was not the “birther” critique, but the fact that he would openly criticize Farah and his speech to a reporter from the Washington Independent.
“Andrew is my friend,” Farah said. “He has the right to disagree, and he has the right to say anything to a socialist newspaper that he wants. And if he wants to criticize his friend to you, and he’s dumb enough to do that…”
Upon hearing this, Breitbart turned to Farah and then asked: “I’m dumb to do what?”
“Criticize your friend to this socialist newspaper.”
But Breitbart then had to correct Farah and pointed out that he was talking to Chelsea Schilling, a World Net Daily reporter (whose articles prove she believes the “birther” argument to be legitimate). After Farah then repeatedly tried to point out to Breitbart that they were in the presence of a hostile reporter, implying he should reserve his criticism, Breitbart finally said:
“I was talking to her..She was asking me if I thought it was wise to bring it up, and I said, no. We have a lot of strong arguments to be making, and that is a primary argument. That is an argument for the primaries that did not take hold. The arguments that these people right here are making are substantive arguments. The elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts were all won not on birther, but on substance. And to apply to this group of people the concept that they’re all obsessed with the birth certificate, when it’s not a winning issue–”
I think that this reveals something interesting and is one of the reasons that I said that the Left is laughing at this. Of course, in his main contention, Breitbart is correct. The elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts were not won by the “birther” argument. I don’t even think that it came up at all in any of those races. Republicans won because Americans have rejected, en masse, the leftist agenda of Obama and the Democrats.
However, I think that by Breitbart taking issue with the “birther” controversy publicly and criticizing one of the keynote speakers of the Tea Party Convention, he has unwittingly given some ground to the Left. The “birther” issue was intentionally poisoned by the Left in order for them to be able to use it as a form of political entrapment. I suppose that this technique of the” poisoned fruit” is easy to see from the sidelines, but difficult to fight in the midst of battle.
According to C. Edmund Wright at the American Thinker, the Left’s control of the “birther” issue (and others) is “naked political psych warfare.” The whole idea of the “poisoned fruit” (my term) is to “hitch a scarlet letter of craziness and extremism to the Tea Party and conservative movements” which will “keep the GOP apparatus scared of and embarrassed of their own base voter.” Eventually, this will drive a wedge between the party and its voters as it will become plain to ” the suits inside the Beltway that the party must not get too cozy with these crazies — or they will never win another election.”
I think Breitbart took the bait when he criticized Joseph Farah, which is all the more ironic, because Breitbart gave one of the most rousing speeches against the media, the Left, and their diminishing monopoly on political information that has ever been heard. (“It’s not your business model that sucks; It’s you that suck!”) It was also surprising, because many of the writers on his own site, Big Hollywood, either defend the “birther”” argument as legitimate, or are outright “birthers” themselves.
So, I think that at this point, it is not only disingenuous for the Tea Party or people like Breitbart to distance itself from the “birther” argument (I don’t even know if there is actually a “birther” movement per se) but it is wholly unnecessary.
Because, as I indicated in a previous post, concerns about Obama’s birth certificate and whether he meets the constitutional requirements as a natural born citizen to be eligible for the presidency, are perfectly legitimate and reasonable. And, as I also maintained in that post, the “birther”issue is only one issue amongst many (like it was in Farah’s speech). It is now running its course through the courts and the only rulings against it have been on standing alone. Obama’s citizenship and eligibility have not been decided on in a court of law and probably never will be. But the only thing that can be done on a policy level about it now, is to wait and see what happens. That’s it.
I have no problem with individual citizens putting up billboards asking the president to show the country his birth certificate and assuring it that he is an eligible constitutional officer.The legitimacy of the issue should be-er, should have been self-evident by now a long time ago, as none of the cases pending in court have been dismissed as frivolous, and Obama has spent nearly $2 million in an attempt to get the various cases dismissed or to prevent release of the documents that prove his eligibility.
But every conservative should recognize that it was the Left that first poisoned the “birther” issue and every time a conservative backs down from defending its reasonableness, they are acceding ground to authoritarian minds. When accused of being wacky for believing reasonable things, can there be any other interpretation of what is happening in the realm of politics?
As many know, the Daily Kos recently commissioned a poll in order to prove that Republican voters are wacky. They found that a minority percentage of Republicans, 36 percent, felt that Obama was not born inside the United States. In the same poll, the Daily Kos also found that 63 percent of Republicans believe that Obama is a socialist. In other findings from the same poll, a significantly smaller minority of Republican voters felt Obama was a racist (32 percent), the he “wants the terrorists to win” (24 percent), and believe that ACORN stole the 2008 election (23 percent).
These quite unremarkable findings prompted Daily Kos founder Markos Malitsas to write:
This is why it’s becoming impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country. They are a party beholden to conspiracy theorists who don’t even believe Obama was born in the United States, and already want to impeach him despite a glaring lack of scandal or wrongdoing. They think Obama is racist against white people and the second coming of Lenin. And if any of them stray and decide to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Given what their base demands — and this poll illustrates them perfectly — it’s no wonder the GOP is the party of no.
Why hasn’t anyone called him out on his wacky interpretations of that poll? Has anyone asked Malitsas why having legitimate questions about the president, despite the information firewall that has been put up around Obama by people like him and the LAME, all-of-sudden makes one a “conspiracy theorist”? And how can anyone, especially those who are major figures on the Left, like Malitsas, continue to deny Obama’s Marxist influences with a straight face?
Just look at his associations- and I’m not even talking about the typical rogue’s gallery of those inside his administration who have publicly declared their affinity for Marxist ideas and Marxist historical figures. Why don’t they talk about people like Dr. Quentin Young, the founder of Physicians for a National Health Care Program, who is a longtime friend of Barack Obama according to Democracy Now!. Dr. Young who has been a Marxist all of his life, remains a major influence of Barck Obama’s thinking on health care reform, and this is freely and openly admitted.It is intellectually dishonest, pure and simple, to deny this and do deny it repeatedly, which the Left has done.
But if this little known, but important influence on Obama’s policy thinking isn’t convincing enough, how about taking the word of someone who went to Occidental College with him in the 1980s? Dr. John Drew has been writing in his blog about discussions he had with Obama when he knew him in college, where they were both radicals and participated in the Anti-Apartheid Movement together. According to him, Obama understood Marxism from a pretty simplistic perspective, which did not change much over time. Don’t believe me? Dr. Drew himself has begun to publicly explain what he knew of Obama and his ideology in college: (Click here for his video.)
Anyway, there are worse things about Obama out there, but you don’t see any of his opponents using that information against him. For instance, Larry Sinclair, a former homosexual prostitute, claims to have witnessed Barack Obama smoking crack cocaine in the back of a limousine in Chicago in 1999. At the same time, Sinclair claims, Barack Obama was receiving oral sex from him, because, he claims, that Obama is a bi-sexual.
The same guy, Larry Sinclair, also claims that Obama is somehow implicated in the death of Donald Young, the Choir Conductor for Trinity United Church, Obama’s former church in Chicago. Young was murdered in his Chicago apartment in 2007. His murder remains unsolved.
So, if this stuff is out there, why aren’t Obama’s opponents using it? I mean if the “birther” issue has been so discredited and is such “poisonous fruit” to the Tea Party and conservatives, and they still see fit to have a major proponent of it speak at their first convention, what is preventing them from using the Larry Sinclair story against Obama? If their intent is just to bring Obama down regardless of whether the charges are baseless or not, why not use the story of Larry Sinclair and Donald Young?
Perhaps the answer is integrity. And that is something the Left did not show to George W. Bush at all when he was the President. They should be grateful, for the resistance to Obama will continue to grow and the chickens of the Left are only now just starting to come home to roost.