Monday, August 31, 2009


A combination of events over the last few years has led me to think about "racism". Barack Obama's permanent campaign, to which virtually every criticism is labeled as "racist" is the most obvious. Janeane Garofalo asserts that the "tea-baggers" are "straight-up racist" because we oppose the radical agenda of a man who happens to have darker than average skin. (We don't know what she thinks about Ken Gladney, beaten by white union members who hurled the n-word at him in the process.) Even more bizarrely, Contessa Brewer and her posse use video of a black man armed with a semiautomatic rifle, carefully cropped to hide any of his exposed skin, while tut-tutting about the people who hate having a black POTUS, seeming downright giddy with the prospect that one of them will attempt a violent act.

But there were others.

  • Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have been subjected to the ministrations of the Canadian Political Correctness Police.
  • A lifetime achievement award recognizing Bob Grant's trailblazing career in talk radio has been revoked, because of comments some have interpreted as racist.
  • Don Imus returned to radio after his proverbial 40 years in the wilderness for his racially-charged remarks.
  • People have been suspended from, and in some cases lost, jobs covering golf, because of a metaphor that evokes anger from the Black Community.
  • An elderly member of the Kansas City, Missouri Park Board was hounded out of office because of her membership in the Minuteman anti-illegal-immigration organization, described as "racist" by Hispanic activists.
  • Glenn Beck is the target of a boycott because he turned the "opposition to Obama is racist" charge on its head, and said that he thinks Obama himself is racist.

That last one cleverly exposed the double standard of what is defined "racism", and will be of great help in analyzing how the word is used. So, let's touch the Ultimate Third Rail: Racism.

First, we need to define our terms. The word "racist" has been operationally redefined to the point where it means "disagreeing with a leftist". It's tiresome. The danger is that by pretending that too many things are "racist", the word will lose its meaning, and we won't have a name by which to distinguish the real deal. I'm going to describe (if not precisely define) it briefly thus:
Racism is the belief that membership in an ethnic group determines individual behavioral characteristics, often to the point of deeming the entire group "superior" or "inferior" to others.
Even that is open to some misinterpretation, so I'll give a series of statements, and show where I think The Line is crossed:
  1. Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ significantly higher than that of humans as a whole.
  2. People with higher IQ tend to be more successful in intellectually-demanding professions, leading to substantial financial reward.
  3. The average annual income of Ashkenazim is higher than the average of the population in general.
  4. Rita has to decide whether to hire Moshe or Malik for a job in which intelligence will be important.
  5. Since Moshe is Jewish, Rita assumes he's smarter, and chooses him.
The Line is literally drawn in above. I think it's time to make clear something with which I'm afraid many people will disagree: Factual statements about statistics cannot be "racist". That they are true trumps all -isms. I am certain that many people will say that any statement about ethnic groups is inherently racist, at least when made by a member of The Oppressor Class. (Since I am a White Heterosexual Anglophone Male [WHAM], I am consigned to that class, although economically I don't feel like I belong with The Boss Man. I personally find that characterization to be racist, but Leftists cleverly define it such that it can only be applied to The Oppressor Class!)

Those who say it's racist to even go to Step 1 may have noble intentions: Perhaps they're concerned that merely acknowledging these facts will cause people to think like Rita the Racist. But those facts won't stop being facts just because we pretend they aren't true, and not dealing with them won't help us deal with racism. Rita has committed a horrible logical error, which needs to be addressed head-on. Trying to sidestep it, by pretending that the statistical differences in various groups don't exist, is dishonest, and empowers the true racists by letting them attack that dishonesty. It cedes to the racist the moral high ground of having the truth on his side! If we lie (even to spare some people's feelings) in arguing against actual racism, it taints everything else we may say on the subject.

Others are concerned that these statistics will breed resentment among ethnic groups that aren't as blessed as the Ashkenazim. Perhaps that's true, but only to the extent that people insist on thinking of themselves first as members of tribal groups, instead of as individuals. The variation within each group is larger than it is between groups. Those with higher IQs in any group will tend to do better economically than those on the lower end. Statistical differences in ethnic/gender group economic or educational status are the basis of the "de facto" argument behind quotas, which have perverse effects that can actually worsen the economic position of those it overtly "helps". As we've seen in Ricci, the fact that an insufficient number of applicants from protected groups pass a test is often deemed sufficient to prove that the test is somehow biased.

Furthermore, the mere possession of an ability doesn't automatically translate into performance. Everyone can learn to improve performance; hard work and sheer determination can compensate for a lack of native talent. But we have to be honest with people, and let them know that they may very well have an uphill battle to fight, rather than pretending that things will come equally easy to all. We also should admit that the task will prove too difficult for many. No amount of hard work has broken the dominance in the Men's 100m sprint by people of West African descent, and in the 10K by Kenyans and Ethiopians.

On the other hand, that can't be an excuse for giving up. It's up to each of us to be the best we can at whatever it is we do, no matter what handicaps we may have. For instance, I am near-sighted to the point that the tests optometrists normally perform to measure near vision are affected by my problems with far vision. So I wear contact lenses. But I don't complain that it isn't fair and demand that it is my right to have LASIK provided at government expense. I don't insist that the speed limit on streets and highways be reduced to the point where it would be safe for me to operate an automobile without my contacts. I don't consider it discriminatory that Major League Baseball won't hire someone with my lack of visual acuity to work as an umpire.

Rita isn't just a racist; she's also intellectually lazy, and stupid. The difference in group statistics doesn't mean that all members of one group have higher IQs than all members of the other. Rita's greatest crime is that she hasn't examined Moshe and Malik as individuals. Malik may be brilliant, and Moshe functionally illiterate, but in her prejudice she will never bother to find out.

Not only has she hurt Malik's opportunity to earn a living; she's also hurt her company's chance to hire the best person for the job. If Malik gets a job with an intelligent competitor, turns out to be better at the job, and they gain market share at the expense of Rita's company, the owners/stockholders will lose money due to her stupidity. Rita and her co-workers may not get the raises they may have gotten with Malik on the team, and some may lose their jobs. As competitive as some fields are, the whole company could ultimately go out of business, all because of one bad managerial decision.

I've deliberately chosen Ashkenazim for these examples so as to deconstruct some ideas that are easily conflated: "Jewish" refers to religion, ethnicity, and culture. Comedian and actor Rowan Atkinson discusses this quite seriously in his speech to the UK House of Lords opposing new "Hate Crime" legislation:
. . . Jews and Sikhs are protected from religious hatred on the basis of their race and that this Bill seeks merely to extend that protection to others. The problem that that ignores is that race and religion are fundamentally different concepts – you cannot choose your race, you can choose your religion – and even if for many the line dividing their race from their religion is blurred in the eyes of the law. A sharp line can and should be drawn.

If Jews and Sikhs are protected from criticism of their religious beliefs or religious activities, then that is a wrong and the idea of extending that to other religions is also a wrong. To criticise people for their race is manifestly irrational but to criticise their religion, that is a right.
Disagreeing with or criticizing Judaism (or related ideas such as Zionism) isn't anti-semitism, but hatred of people of Jewish ethnicity (which may be based on envy of their economic success) simply because of that ethnicity is. So it isn't fair for Malik to invoke "Islamophobia" as a parallel to anti-semitism. There is no such thing as the "Muslim race".

It also isn't reasonable for for those who complain that other ethnic groups don't do as well economically to conclude that "de facto discrimination" or some vague Zionist Conspiracy must be the cause. As much as we may like ethnicity and intelligence to be statistically-independent variables, the fact is that they are not. If we want to help Malik's ethnic group, we have to start with an honest assessment of the facts as they are, not how we'd like them to be. What part does the culture to which Malik belongs play in these statistical differences? Are there elements of Jewish culture that could help them to do better, were Malik's community to adopt them? We know that Jewish culture places a high value on education; scholars have traditionally had high status in Jewish communities, allowing them a better chance to attract mates, and pass their genes along to the next generation. Even if there is a genetic component to this phenomenon, it can be shaped by culture. (But we must tread lightly here; we are perilously close to talking about eugenic effects, which fact if noticed tends to cause brains to short-circuit due to some sort of Godwin Governor.) By contrast, Malik may have been accused of "acting white" if he did well in school, and been physically menaced for it.

People have seriously described Bill Clinton as the "first black president", and questioned the "blackness" of Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Michael Steele, and even President Obama! In the last case, it's not his white mother that is of concern; most people identified as "black" in the US have some European ancestry. He's actually excluded from being "black" based on his African father! According to this definition, "black" isn't about ethnic origin, but about family experience; someone without ancestors enslaved in the United States doesn't qualify.
"Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics.
I made similar points about the difference between voluntary and involuntary immigrants myself. That definition of "Black" excludes not only Obama, but also Powell, whose Jamaican parents came to the US long after their forebears were freed from slavery there.

While Rice and Steele don't share Obama's and Powell's pedigree problems, like Powell they belong to the "wrong" political party (although Powell's endorsement of Obama may have helped him to gain some cred). Perhaps the best-known epithet applied to such people is "Oreo" (black on the outside; white in the middle). Again, they "act white". "Black" and "white" in this context clearly refer to culture, as well as (instead of?) ethnicity. Dr. King's Dream of a day when his grandchildren would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, has become a nightmare, in which people who have a certain color of skin are told that they must behave in a certain way as a result thereof, lest they lose their "authenticity".

We expect Political Correctness from the entertainment, political, and educational elites. But there is also a civil war between Anti-Idiotarian factions involving charges of racism. As part of his effort to distance himself from "right-wing extremists" such as "Nirthers" and advocates of Intelligent Design, Charles Johnson has gone after various people as racist-by-association, for the sin of appearing at anti-jihadist conferences attended by representatives of organizations he has decided are "racist". In my opinion, many of those groups do indeed have racist members, (virtually every large group will have one sort or another) but also have many others who would more accurately be called "culturalist". But the "mainstream" is afraid of being labeled "racist" by the Johnsons, Garafolos, and Brewers of the world, so people must either choose to work with "racists" or with those who walk on eggshells lest they have that tag applied to them.

It doesn't help that some of the "racists" involved have used racially-loaded terminology. Some of them explicitly decry the assaults on "white culture" by immigrants that refuse to assimilate into it, or a President who hates it. But before we declare these people to be actual racists, we ought to try to understand what they mean. Then we might even helpfully suggest better ways of expressing themselves on the subject.

If "Jewish" and "Black" can refer to culture as well as ethnicity, isn't it possible that some of the "racists" who wish to defend "white culture" aren't racist after all? When we paint them with the same broad brush as the actual racists, we aren't helping out. We're abandoning the people who want to defend what they believe are positive cultural values, to be lumped in with the true racists. This may come back to haunt us. When the populace of a country finally tires of politically-correct multi-culturalism, perhaps due to widespread economic troubles that a politician can blame on the outsiders, they may react as the Germans did in the 1930s, by installing an actual fascist, racist, and ultimately murderous regime. That would be a huge step backward for us all.

Let us take care that when we identify specific individuals, who have made specific statements that are demonstrably racist, that we limit the criticism to those items. Let us be clear that we don't support judging people by their ethnicity, but we may find ourselves on the same side of some issues with those who do, when it comes to defending ourselves from another threat. That doesn't mean we endorse their entire platform.
If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons. -Winston Churchill
To attack an entire political faction by association is the same sort of intellectual laziness that Rita the Racist committed by ascribing to the individuals attributes of others in their groups. We can do better than that.

[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Saturday, August 29, 2009

DBD Nails It (Again)

If you are reading Day by Day already, you don't need me to tell you how well Chris Muir nailed the latest outrage brewing in Congress:

If you aren't, what in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is wrong with you?

Wednesday, August 26, 2009


When South East England's MEP Daniel Hannan speaks, we should listen:

Here he talks about the Anglo-Saxon heritage of freedom and decentralized political power that was exported to America, then forgotten in the UK. He warns us against following that same road, and we ignore his advice at our peril.

Monday, August 24, 2009

Whittle vs. The Narrative

I don't normally bother to comment on just every "Afterburner" episode Bill does on PJTV. The link is over there in the sidebar, and I figure most people who come here go there. Insty links to most of them too.

But this one is a must see. Bill eviscerates MSNBC and the rest of the MainScream Media as the dishonest scum that they are. Set aside 15 minutes, pop yourself some popcorn, and enjoy a good old-fashioned ass-whoopin'. (Bill is the one doing the whoopin'.)

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

So why are we here......again?

Got this from a friend. Don't know who sent it to him but I do know it's worthwhile...

OK, as we all know I'm not the big history buff type person, but... with the homeschool thing I have to learn this stuff, so... we're reading about the Declaration of Independence. We bought reproductions of the Declaration as well as some other historical documents when we were in DC last year. I went outside to smoke and brought the Declaration with me to read it. OMG folks! OK, I had a fairly decent education as a child but chose NOT to pay any attention to history, so I was essentially reading this for the first time...

As we all know, (even I knew this) it starts:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Then the often quoted:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Then... the part that we have obviously forgotten all about in the past 233 years.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

This is so true! We sit in our own shit because it's warm and soft even though it stinks... (I know that was kinda crude, but true)
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

So, what we have to do is....
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

The rest of the document goes on to detail the abuses by the King, then to declare the independence of the states as I'm sure everyone else knows about the document, but it was all news to me!!! So this is why we study history, so we're not doomed to repeat it, right?? Then WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE HERE AGAIN!!!!!!!

Am I insane, or is today a time in the course of human events that it is necessary for us to dissolve the political bonds that have connected us to another???

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Why I voted Democrat...

I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever
I want. I've decided to marry my boat.

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a
gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job
of spending the money I earn than I ever would.

I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is
offended by it.

I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad
guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I
know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and

I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it
will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in
ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of
millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed
to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest
away to the government for redistribution as IT sees fit.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite The
Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would
never get their agendas past the voters.

I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my rear that it
is unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own.

And no, I did NOT really vote Democrat!

Of course you can keep your coverage...

Our old buddy Don tipped us off with this analysis of ObamaCare. I normally rely on Muscle Daddy to dig through lengthy legislation, because he can do that without reflexively grabbing an icepick to stab his eyes out. What's a mere Monster to do? Well, I can whip out my digital hi-lighter and see if I can connect some dots.
This particular provision grabbed my eye:


(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
This sounds troubling. If you don't have "acceptable health care coverage", you get stuck with an extra 2.5% marginal income tax. But what does "acceptable health care coverage" mean? Subsection (d) lists Medicare, Medicaid, Armed Forces, and VA, as well as these:
(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009).

(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
. . .
(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.
So what's in 100(c)?
(1) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- The term ‘acceptable coverage’ has the meaning given such term in section 202(d)(2).
Good grief. So what does section 202(d)(2) say?
(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan.

(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER CURRENT GROUP HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102) or under a current group health plan (described in subsection (b) of such section).
. . .
(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage, such as a State health benefits risk pool, as the Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, recognizes for purposes of this paragraph.
It's déjà vu all over again! Nowhere does anything define "a qualified health benefits plan".

How about that "grandfathered" business in 102(a)? Check out the reassuring title, then the gory details:

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
. . .
Note that the only coverage "grandfathered" is individual coverage, which is explictly not group coverage (like most employer-based plans are) according to the prior 101(c)(2):

(2) INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE- The terms ‘individual health insurance coverage’ and ‘group health insurance coverage’ mean health insurance coverage offered in the individual market or large or small group market, respectively, as defined in section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act.
The way I read this definition, when President Obama says "you'll be able to keep your existing coverage", he's hiding the fact that for most Americans with health insurance today, the coverage they'll be allowed to keep won't prevent them from paying the 2.5% tax for "freeloaders" who don't have "adequate coverage".
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]
I've barely begun to read this bill. I think the average person who manages to read the whole thing will be begging for a "death panel" to put him out of his misery. MuscleDaddy, I have no idea how you do it.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Clunking Insanity

My parents grew up in the Great Depression, and told us kids stories about how they had to scrimp and save to get by. General Mills would print dress patterns on flour sacks, which Grandma sewed into clothing for the girls after the flour was used in making food. Grandpa would save tires that were beyond repair, and cut out new soles for shoes, because they couldn't afford to buy new shoes just because a sole was worn out. I saw firsthand how my mother had learned those lessons, raising eight children on Dad's paycheck. We marinated in the idea that you just don't throw away something that still has any use in it.

Just yesterday, The Bride of Monster and I dropped by a new thrift store in our area, picked up some bargains, and helped out some good causes. We've always shopped that way. I bought my first computer modem from a second-hand shop. I've bought a lot of books, as well as some computer software, from Half Price Books. Between the two of us, we've only bought one brand-new car (and that was a subcompact). The rest have been used. We're probably fairly normal in that respect.

Watching what might be the only automobiles that some folks can afford to buy, instead be taken off the market and destroyed, just offends my sensibilities. How can destroying things that still work be a good thing?

Sunday, August 2, 2009

I turned Charles into a newt, or something.

Ever wonder what it takes to be purged by Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs? Well, wonder no more. I have demonstrated it.

You see, Charles doesn't like being lumped in with Rabid Reich Winger RethugliKKKans. So he's drawn some lines in the sand. He doesn't much like "Intelligent Design", nor "racists" (a term that includes as guilty by association anyone who ever attends any event at which anyone else he considers a "racist" attends, but we'll get to that one in more detail later), nor <dramatic music>"Nirthers".

He is so freaked out by the controversies over Barack Obama's birth, the possibility of his ever having citizenship of the UK, Kenya, and/or Indonesia, that he will not tolerate anything that faintly resembles advocacy of "Nirtherism". Well, the other day, Charles decided to take another shot at that particular punching bag:

Even among people who accept that Barack Obama is a US citizen, a sort of “spinoff” idea keeps coming up in our discussions of the Nirther craziness: that Barack Obama “won’t release” his original birth certificate (some people refer to it as a “long form” certificate) because there’s something on it he wants to hide.

The two most common explanations suggested by LGF commenters for this “hidden info” are that the birth certificate: 1) lists Obama’s religion as “Muslim,” or 2) lists his race as “black” or “white” (both possibilities have been argued).
Note that there is no space on the form for any kind of religion, and no space for either the religion or the race of the baby, although the race of both parents is listed.
Status: debunked.
Let's boil his argument down to its essentials:
  1. There is a meme floating about that Obama won't allow people to see his "long-form" birth certificate because "has something to hide"
  2. He might be trying to hide how his race or religion is listed. (Note that Charles' commenters helpfully supplied this nose and hat.)
  3. There is no place on a Hawaii "long-form" birth certificate to list a child's race or religion.
  4. ???
  5. Therefore there can't possibly be anything at all on his "long-form" birth certificate that he wants to hide, and anyone who thinks there might be is looney.
It seems to me that last step is a doozy. Let's try an equivalent argument:
  1. Alice thinks Bob has a book from the library.
  2. Carol wonders if it's is the eighth in the Harry Potter series, and Dave opined that it could be the ninth.
  3. J. K. Rowling has only written seven Harry Potter books.
  4. ???
  5. Therefore Bob doesn't have a book from the library, and Alice is cuckoo, at least according to Carol and Dave's friend.
Does that make any sense to you? Me either. But I've noticed LGF changing over the last few years. As Charles has excommunicated people for various heresies, the remaining lizards have become an echo chamber, unwilling to challenge such logical fallacies.

It's really a shame, because I remember the halcyon days when he stood up against the faked TxANG memo (aka "Rathergate". In fact, I find it ironic that the Left used similar logic to "debunk" the arguments we made. Yes, I contributed to those discussions:
I just heard a talk jock take ONE call on the forgery issue. He erected the straw man of 'proportional', found the reference that IBM was selling proportional typewriters in the '40s, and declared the issue closed.

The words 'Times New Roman' were never uttered.
The point I made then was eerily similar to what I make now: We in the Dextrosphere were saying that no typewriter in a TxANG office in 1973 would be able to do all of a list of things, and the Lefties thought they "debunked" our reasoning by pointing to a list of machines, each of which could do some of the things in the list, but none of which could done them all.

It's also the same kind of twisted logic as they use to oppose the Iraq War: The Bush administration outlined a list of reasons to go to war, one of which was that Saddam Hussein was trying to build WMDs. Because our troops never found huge stockpiles of WMDs armed and ready to fire at them, there was therefore no threat that there would be any WMDs, so not only does that reason fail, but all of the others with it. It doesn't make any sense when they say it, and it doesn't make any sense when "one of ours" says it either.

One of his pet lizards went so far as to make this bizarre statement:
The burden of proof is not on Obama- it is on the nirthers to provide reasonable evidence he was not born in the United States. What Obama is doing here is upholding the rule of law. He is innocent until proven guilty.
That final sentence is a particularly nasty bit of logical gymnastics. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. the private person is not accused of a crime. No one has threatened to imprison him, confiscate his property, deny him the right to go about public places as he pleases, nor even to detain him temporarily and question him in connection with the investigation of suspicious behavior at his home. He is the one who claims to hold power over our lives, including the power to do those very things to us (or to order others to do them) should he or his subordinates deem any of them necessary.

If he has that power, it is because he has been given it by the Electors in conformance with the Constitution of the United States of America. Some people have raised various overlapping questions about whether he has done so. He is not entitled to the presumption that those questions are without merit. The burden of proof belongs on the person who wishes to exercise the power to limit another's freedom, whether that be the prosecution in a criminal proceeding, or the candidate for any office that carries such power.

Besides, it is logically fallacious to insist that someone produce evidence they have been legally forbidden to obtain. So, I responded, initially to the above comment, but also to the larger issue:
That makes no sense at all. His records are sealed, requiring him to release them. Since he controls access to the information that would prove his place of birth, it is impossible for anyone else to prove anything without his cooperation.

The new-style CertificatION Of Live Birth does not carry any signature, nor does specify which hospital, the name of the attending physician, or a great deal of information that the original "long-form" CertificATE Of Live Birth shows.

Nor does this view of someone else's long-form CoLB debunk the idea that there is something on it that Obama doesn't want us to see. It merely debunks the idea that the religion of the child is the particular thing in question.

The fact remains that Obama himself has refused to allow anyone to see his original birth certificate, his school records from Indonesia, Princeton, or Harvard, and the passport information that would show whether he used his US passport to travel to Pock-EE-stohn, or perhaps instead used an Indonesian passport.

Because if he travelled as an adult on a passport issued by some other country, he may legally have renounced his citizenship, and regained it later when he decided to enter into a political career. As a re-naturalized citizen, there is a reasonable argument that he therefore isn't a natural-born citizen. These are interesting legal questions, which have never been answered, because no court has allowed the questions to be decided. Instead, the courts that have had suits come before them have all insisted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to do so, as if a mere citizen has no right to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for office.

By wrapping up all of the questions being asked into the single package called "Birtherism" or "Nirtherism", it becomes possible to take the statement by a HI official that the records do in fact indicate that Obama was born there as a refutation of all of the other questions.

But that's not the worst rejection I've heard of the Nirthers. The most disgusting of all goes this way: "He won the election, and you can't just invalidate the election on a 'technicality'; there would be riots if that happened."

In January, Obama took (and later retook, to make sure the words were in the right order) an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. The qualifications for his office clearly stated therein are not a "technicality"; they are the legal basis for the oaths taken by every other USGOV employee to follow his executive orders, including the military. If you have never taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, maybe you just don't understand how important it is to those who have.

And that's who filed the most recent suit; uniformed servicemen, who need to know that the orders they are following are lawful, no matter how popular the person giving them, may be.
I attracted a few non-sequitur responses, and 10 down-dings on my comment, which put me on Charles' radar screen for my auto-da-fé from the Lizard Kingdom:
I'm not going to tolerate idiots who promote Nirtherism at LGF.

"The Monster" is blocked.
Now, Charles is entirely within his rights to ban me from his site. And I am entirely within mine to respond. But even though I would be within my rights to ban him here in retaliation, I won't. I'll let him come over here and explain why my comment was so noxious that he simply couldn't tolerate my participation on his site any further. But if he does, I ask that he also explain why debunking one particular idea of what President Obama is trying to hide on his long-form birth certificate somehow invalidates the notion that he's hiding something else.

And by the way.... Is National Review Online's Andrew C. McCarthy a "Nirther" now?
The point has little to do with whether Obama was born in Hawaii. I’m quite confident that he was. The issue is: What is the true personal history of the man who has been sold to us based on nothing but his personal history? On that issue, Obama has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source and, sadly, we can’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it. What’s wrong with saying, to a president who promised unprecedented “transparency”: Give us all the raw data and we’ll figure it out for ourselves?

UPDATE: Someone who still has posting privileges over there quoted McCarthy in another thread, (discussing a purported Kenyan birth certificate that is likely to be a fake) prompting Charles in Charge to call him a Nirther. Since he was responding to McCarthy's words, I think that means Charles has officially classified McCarthy as a Nirther too, despite the fact that McCarthy says he's "quite confident" that Obama was born in Hawaii. This stretching of "Nirther" to include anyone who asks why Obama refuses to disclose information proves my point that Charles has conveniently packaged together a diverse collection of questions and contentions under a single umbrella, and tars them all with the broadest brush imaginable. Argumentum ad stramentam.

[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]