Friday, February 19, 2010

Ban of the "Birthers" and Redefining Reality

On February 12, 2010, Erick Erickson of declared that “Birfers and Truthers” would be banned from, I can only assume, posting comments on the site. O.K. fine, go ahead and ban people, whatever floats your boat. The problem that I have is that Mr. Erickson equates those who know that Barack Obama has not provided a long form birth certificate, with those who believe the U.S. Government plotted 9/11. He is equating those displaying an unpleasant fact, with those rendering a more deeply unpleasant opinion. For me, it is difficult to swallow and carry on quietly while the self-professed conservatives aim to define the boundaries for which freedom loving Americans express their opinions and form arguments. They therefore limit argument in a similar way that those on the left do, and many times, without knowing it, ally themselves with the opinions of the American left wing.

The comments board at now features the unbridled ridicule, once reserved for Code Pink types and cheerleaders of socialism, directed at anyone who questions the opinions of Erick Erickson, or entertains the possibility that a man who spent multiple years as a child in another nation (Barack Obama) might have been born in another nation and doesn’t meet the requirements of the constitution to serve as president. I don’t believe that it has been proved otherwise. Many of the commenters fear that the presence of “birfers” will cause the site to be, “taken off message”, as if that blog is actually going to lead the conservative movement with its anonymous bloggers and poor user interface. I personally don’t put a lot of effort into studying the matter of Obama’s citizenship or talking about it, but I don’t get the least bit upset if someone else does. The 9/11 conspiracy does upset me, but I’m willing to put up with hearing about it, as long as someone offers a little detail with elements of sanity and absent the appearance of an axe to grind. From what I’ve learned about the Kennedy assassination, I’m more inclined to believe Oswald had accomplices, but I’m not going to spend any extra time investigating it. If someone wants to, good. All three of these national questions, may be better unsolved, at least for now.

However, Erickson acts as if his own personal credibility depends on who views his site and posts comments. The move he has made with this ban is a purge to hide the rubbage, while the new and more elite viewers browse his postings. Another way to increase credibility might be ban those bloggers of who post full articles using aliases such as Haystack. Come out secret identity bloggers, and let us know who you are. Some, such as Allahpundit on have so many frequent postings throughout the day, I don’t see how they could actually have a real job to jeopardize.

Update: Red State continues digging the hole they are stuck in.

Erick Erickson assures readers in his latest post, that this is his last word on the Birfer and Truther issue. To argue in defense of Obama’s official Erickson Seal of Natural Born Citizenship, Erick tries to impress us with his knowledge of 14th Century British law defining natural born citizenship as having been born anywhere in the world by two parents who are citizens of Britain. So, Erickson refers to foreign law to make his case. I hope Erick doesn’t later bemoan Justice Breyer’s support of using foreign law in U.S. Supreme Court cases, when the issue again presents itself. Also, it seems that Erickson personally re-writes the U.S. definition of natural born citizen to read, “anyone born anywhere, who has parents who are U.S. Citizens”. By Erickson’s definition, one could conceivably be born in Iran by a U.S. businessman and his wife, attend Iranian schools and spend years of his life in Iran, only to later move to the U.S. in his 30s, begin a political career and become an Iranian sympathizing President of the United States. That is O.K. by Erickson’s standards because his parents were U.S. Citizens after all.

The question that is not asked by Erickson or his enlightened readers, is “Why does the Constitution require that the President be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen?” Is there a reason for this provision? Also, we simply need to know the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” as defined by the U.S. Constitution and/or Supreme Court Case. That is all.

Erickson instead focuses on his ridiculous assumption that those questioning Obama’s citizenship, believe that there was a cover up from the highest places of government since the day of his birth. I challenge him to find someone who believes that. Instead, the question should be asked, “how would Obama’s U.S. Citizenship benefit him and/or his parents at the time of his birth?”, and the other germane question is, “how many years of Obama’s childhood were spent in Indonesia?”

With the world becoming smaller and smaller, this is an issue that is likely to come to life in the future. It raises a question of sovereignty when the qualifications for a U.S. President become so skewed and more and more people like Erickson re-write history and make false claims regarding the meaning of imperative laws.

Erickson seems to be trying to play up his fame, and wants to be seen as a "reasonable conservative" by the likes of the conservative elite. Those who comment on his site even want him to bullet proof from the liberal likes of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. Erickson falsely believes that he will be judged according to the small number of birthers or truthers who comment on his site. This is weakness grounded in the “perception is reality” fallacy. Reality is reality, perception is temporary and the longer a perception lasts the more harmful it can become. This is a recurrent problem of the conservative media. They give up and give in.

They bought into the perception that the Bush administration’s Hurricane Katrina response was akin to immoral. This was a perception created by the liberal media, and it lasted long enough that most conservatives eventually decided to confirm the perception and adopt it as reality, even without newly born facts to persuade them that the Katrina response was indeed botched and careless. The reality of the Katrina response is something different than the perception that the liberal media transmitted, and conservative media should be chastised by their audience for lazily accepting, simply because of the passing of time, the liberal media’s invented reality. Erickson is doing the same thing here with the birthers. The birther’s questions have not been answered, but time has passed, and the perception created by the liberal media has eaten into Erickson and now he is crying uncle. Not only that, but he is now inventing facts himself to defend his actions. Good bye Where will you be in 5 years?

No comments:

Post a Comment