HUGH FITZGERALD, THE MYSTERY SCHOLAR OF ISLAM, has written about this tactic of da'wa apologists quite well, and we again strive to honor Hugh in a snippet from a comment we clipped from Jihad Watch. Hat tip goes to Proud Kafir:
The one who really gave himself away was the odious and stupid and remarkably ill-informed William Dalrymple. He went on and on about how, near to where "I live in Delhi" there is some spot connected to the reign of Akbar. And then he proceeded to tell everyonethank god it has been preserved on tape, for all timehow Akbar, the "Muslim emperor," had called together Shi'a Muslims, and Sunni Muslims, and Jains, and Christians, and even Jews from Cochin, for a colloquy. And he went on and on about how splendid Akbar was. Of course, Akbar was splendid, when he became syncretistic, when he ended the Jizyah, when he essentially stopped being a Muslim in every important way. The British historian V. A. West, in his "History of India," notes that Akbar demanded that those in his inner circle had to abjure the Qur'an -- not exactly the sign of a Muslim.
So his entire speech was all about Akbar, and he apparently did not know that Akbar, the Akbar he praised, is remembered today fondly by Hindus and despised by Muslims. And at one point he even described "Ashoka and Akbar" as Muslim leaders. Ashoka was no Muslim. Could I really have heard him say that? Not possible. No, I suppose anything is possible, especially if Dalrymple shows he has missed entirely the main point about syncretistic Akbar, has not understood the whole point of his later rule, and why he is revered by Hindus and despised by Muslims, though some may now invoke his name to show that “Muslims are tolerant.”
No, Dalrymple’s idiocy about Akbar will live on forever, on the tape made of the other evening, forever made available online with a single click, to haunt him, to mock him, to serve as proof that Dalrymple the historian of Mughal India, “internationally-acclaimed,” is unsteady when it comes to possibly the most important figure in Indian history during the entire Mughal period.
Ibn Warraq, in one of later replies, notedtoo quickly, alasthat Akbar was no Muslim, and it was clear, according to observers, that Dalrymple was nervous, that he knew he was out of his depth.
[Dodging Islamic Apologistics Of Classic Bait And Switch]
The next three articles are written and distributed freely by a Norwegian chap writing under the name of Fjordman, who once kept a well-received blog covering Islam, Scandanavian affairs, and global politics. We thank him for both his insight and his generosity. He has since closed down that blog but writes that he occasionally contributes to other blogs or websites such as Gates of Vienna, Viking Observer, and Jihad Watch.
UPDATE: The announcement above, and the articles which follow are reposted from several sources, including Jihad Watch and the Project Scenewash, the latter on October 20, 2006. What follows below will be dated appropriately, consigned to this update.
Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (born 11 June 1975) is a Norwegian far-right anti-Islamic blogger who writes under the pseudonym Fjordman. Jensen wrote anonymously as Fjordman starting in 2005, until he disclosed his identity in 2011. He has been active in the counterjihad movement, which argues that multiculturalism, particularly Muslim immigration, poses a threat to Western civilization. According to The Independent, Jensen "has written numerous screeds accusing Muslims of secretly planning to take over Europe." Notably, he has advocated the 'Eurabia' conspiracy theory in a self-published book titled Defeating Eurabia, and argued that all Muslims should be deported from Europe. The Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik quoted him extensively in his manifesto. According to the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, Fjordman is "considered a 'hero' among the bloggers and debaters constituting the new far right.
I decided to write this essay after a comment from a journalist, not a Leftist by my country's standards, who dismissed Eurabia as merely a conspiracy theory, one on a par with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I do not disagree with the fact that conspiracy theories exist, nor that they can be dangerous. After all, the Protocols and the Dolchstosslegende, or "stab in the back myth"the idea that Germany didn't lose WW1 but was betrayed by Socialists, intellectuals and Jewshelped pave the way for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before WW2.
However, what puzzles me is that it is a widely-held belief of many (not just in the Islamic world but in Europe and even in the United States) that the terror attacks that brought down the Twin Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001 were really a controlled demolition staged by the American government and then blamed on Muslims. I have seen this thesis talked about many times in Western media. While it is frequently (though not always) dismissed and mocked, it is least mentioned.
In contrast, Eurabiawhich asserts that the Islamicization of Europe didn't happen merely by accident but with the active participation of European political leadersis hardly ever referred to at all, despite the fact that it is easier to document. Does the notion of Eurabia hit too close to home? Perhaps it doesn't fit with the anti-American disposition of many journalists? Curiously enough, even those left-leaning journalists who are otherwise critical of the European Union because of its free market elements never write about Eurabia.
...explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France’s waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960′s to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.
Because of this, I am going to test whether the Eurabia thesis is correct, or at least plausible. I have called this project The Eurabia Code, alluding to author Dan Brown's massive bestseller The Da Vinci Code. Brown's fictional account "documents" a conspiracy by the Church to cover up the truth about Jesus. I'm not sure my work will become equally popular, but I'm pretty sure it's closer to reality.
The next time Mr. Brown wants to write about massive conspiracies in Europe, he would be well-advised to set his eyes at Brussels rather than Rome. It would be a whole lot more interesting. What follows is a brief outline of the thesis put forward by writer Bat Ye'or in her book "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis." My information is based on her book (which should be read in full). In addition I have drawn from some of her articles and interviews. I republish the information with her blessing, but this summary is completely my own.
In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Bat Ye'or explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France's waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960's to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.
"This is a matter of a total transformation of Europe, which is the result of an intentional policy," said Bat Ye'or. "We are now heading towards a total change in Europe, which will be more and more Islamicized and will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world. The European leaders have decided on an alliance with the Arab world, through which they have committed to accept the Arab and Muslim approach toward the United States and Israel. This is not only with respect to foreign policy, but also on issues engaging European society from within, such as immigration, the integration of the immigrants and the idea that Islam is part of Europe."
"Europe is under a constant threat of terror. Terror is a way of applying pressure on the European countries to surrender constantly to the Arab representatives' demands. They demand, for example, that Europe always speak out for the Palestinians and against Israel."
Thus, the Eurabian project became an enlarged vision of the anti-American Gaullist policy dependent upon the formation of a Euro-Arab entity hostile to American influence. It facilitated European ambitions to maintain important spheres of influence in the former European colonies, while opening huge markets for European products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries, in order to secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe. In addition, it would make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by favoring Muslim immigration and promoting "multiculturalism" with a strong Islamic presence in Europe.
This cooperation would also included recognition of the Palestinians as a distinct people and the PLO and its leader Arafat as their representative. Up to 1973 they had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian “nation” simply did not exist.
The use of the term "Eurabia" was first introduced in the mid-1970s, as the title of a journal edited by the President of the Association for Franco-Arab Solidarity, Lucien Bitterlein, and published collaboratively by the Groupe d'Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), and the Middle East International (London). Their articles called for common Euro-Arab positions at every level. These concrete proposals were not the musings of isolated theorists; instead they put forth concrete policy decisions conceived in conjunction with, and actualized by, European state leaders and European Parliamentarians.
During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become "the fundamental basis of our foreign policy." By January 1969, the Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples, held in Cairo, in its resolution 15, decided "…to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance." Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric.
Bat Ye'or has highlighted this shared Euro-Arab political agenda. The first step was the construction of a common foreign policy. France was the driving force in this unification, which had already been envisaged by General de Gaulle's inner circle and Arab politicians. The Arab states demanded from Europe access to Western science and technology, European political independence from the United States, European pressure on the United States to align with their Arab policy and demonization of Israel as a threat to world peace, as well as measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Islamic culture in Europe. This cooperation would also included recognition of the Palestinians as a distinct people and the PLO and its leader Arafat as their representative. Up to 1973 they had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian "nation" simply did not exist.
During the 1973 oil crisis, the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries announced that, due to the ongoing Yom Kippur War between Israel and its Arab neighbors Egypt and Syria, OPEC would no longer ship petroleum to Western nations that supported Israel. The sudden increase in oil prices was had lasting effects. Not only did it create a strong influx of petrodollars to countries such as Saudi Arabia, which permitted the Saudis to fund a worldwide Islamic resurgence, but it also had an impact in the West, especially in Europe.
However, Arab leaders had to sell their oil. Their people are very dependent on European economic and technological aid. The Americans made this point during the oil embargo in 1973. According to Bat Ye'or, although the oil factor certainly helped cement the Euro-Arab Dialogue, it was primarily a pretext to cover up a policy that emerged in France before that crisis occurred. The policy, conceived in the 1960s, had strong antecedents in the French 19th-century dream of governing an Arab empire.
This political agenda has been reinforced by the deliberate cultural transformation of Europe. Euro-Arab Dialogue Symposia conducted in Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983) included recommendations that have been successfully implemented. These recommendations were accompanied by a deliberate, privileged influx of Arab and other Muslim immigrants into Europe in enormous numbers.
The recommendations included:
1. Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe, 2. Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals, 3. The necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans, and 4. The necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present a positive picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to the educated public in Europe.
These agreements could not be set forth in written documents and treaties due to their politically sensitive and fundamentally undemocratic nature. The European leaders thus carefully chose to call their ideas "dialogue." All meetings, committees and working groups included representatives from European Community nations and the European Council along with members from Arab countries and the Arab League. Proceedings and decisions took place in closed sessions. No official minutes were recorded.
The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) is a political, economic and cultural institution designed to ensure perfect cohesion between Europeans and Arabs. Its structure was set up at conferences in Copenhagen (15 December 1973), and Paris (31 July 1974). The principal agent of this policy is the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, founded in 1974. The other principal organs of The Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute and the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation, created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission.
The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.
In an interview with Jamie Glazov of Frontpage Magazine, Bat Ye'or explained how "in domestic policy, the EAD established a close cooperation between the Arab and European media television, radio, journalists, publishing houses, academia, cultural centers, school textbooks, student and youth associations, tourism. Church interfaith dialogues were determinant in the development of this policy. Eurabia is therefore this strong Euro-Arab network of associations -- a comprehensive symbiosis with cooperation and partnership on policy, economy, demography and culture."
Eurabia's driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred membersfrom all major European political partiesactive in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. France continues to be the key protagonist of this association.
A wide-ranging policy was sketched out. It entailed a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries that would endow Europeand especially France, the project's prime moverwith a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States. This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, and well outside of official treaties, using the innocent-sounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The organization functioned under the auspices of European government ministers, working in close association with their Arab counterparts, and with the representatives of the European Commission and the Arab League. The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.
On the cultural front there began a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to "The Contribution of the Islamic Civilisation to European culture." It was reaffirmed by French President Jacques Chirac in his address of April 8, 1996 in Cairo, and reinforced by Romano Prodi, president of the powerful European Commission, the EU's "government," and later Italian Prime Minister, through the creation of a Foundation on the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations. This foundation was to control everything said, written and taught about Islam in Europe.
The new European civilization in the making can correctly be termed a civilization of dhimmitude.
Over the past three decades, the EEC and the EU's political and cultural organizations have invented a fantasy Islamic civilization and history. The historical record of violations of basic human rights for all non-Muslims and women under sharia (Islamic Law) is either ignored or dismissed. In this worldview the only dangers come from the United States and Israel. The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media. This fabrication was made easier by pre-existing currents of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in parts of Europe, although both sentiments have been greatly inflated by Eurabians and their collaborators.
The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.ullquote
On January 31, 2001, with the recrudescence of Palestinian terrorist jihad, European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten declared to the European Parliament that Europe's foreign policy should give special attention to its southern flank (the Arab countries, in EU jargon), adding that he was delighted by the general agreement to give greater visibility to the Mediterranean Partnership.
Bat Ye'or thinks that "Our politicians are perfectly informed of Islamic history and current policies by their embassies, agents and specialists. There is no innocence there, but tremendous inflexibility in corruption, cynicism and the perversion of values."
In the preface to her book, she states that "This book describes Europe's evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post– Judeo-Christian civilization that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers."
The new European civilization in the making can correctly be termed a ''civilization of dhimmitude.'' The word dhimmitude comes from the Islamic legal designation ''dhimmi.'' It refers to the subjugated, non-Muslim individuals who accept restrictive and humiliating subordination to Islamic power in order to avoid enslavement or death. The entire Muslim world as we know it today is a product of this 1,300 year-old jihad dynamic, whereby once thriving non-Muslim majority civilizations have been reduced to a state of dysfunction and dhimmitude. The dhimmis are inferior beings who endure humiliation and aggression in silence. This arrangement allows Muslims to enjoy an impunity that increases both their hatred and their feeling of superiority, under the protection of the law.
Eurabia is a novel new entity. It possesses political, economic, religious, cultural, and media components, which are imposed on Europe by powerful governmental lobbies. While Europeans live within Eurabia's constraints, outside of a somewhat confused awareness, few are really conscious of them on a daily basis.
This Eurabian policy, expressed in obscure wording, is conducted at the highest political levels and coordinated over the whole of the European Union. It spreads an anti-American and anti-Semitic Euro-Arab sub-culture into the fiber of every social, media and cultural sector. Dissidents are silenced or boycotted. Sometimes they are fired from their jobs, victims of a totalitarian "correctness" imposed mainly by the academic, media and political sectors.
According to Ye'or, France and the rest of Western Europe can no longer change their policy: "It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued consistently through immigration policy, propaganda, church support, economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration. Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it."
Are Bat Ye'or's claims correct, or even possible?
Bernard Lewis has pointed out that, by common consent among historians, "the modern history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general called Napoleon Bonapartewho conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease."
In an unsuccessful effort to gain the support of the Egyptian populace, Napoleon issued proclamations praising Islam. "People of Egypt," he proclaimed upon his entry to Alexandria in 1798, "You will be told that I have come to destroy your religion; do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights, to punish the usurpers, and that more than the Mamluks, I respect God, his Prophet, and the Qur'an."
According to an eyewitness, Napoleon ended his proclamation with the phrase, "God is great and Muhammad is his prophet." To Muslim ears, this sounded like the shahadathe declaration of belief in the oneness of Allah and in Prophet Muhammad as his last messenger. Recitation of the shahadah, the first of the five pillars of Islam, is considered to mark one's conversion to Islam. Muslims could thus conclude that Napoleon had converted to Islam. In fact, one of his generals, Jacques Ménou, did convert to Islam.
The French were later defeated and forced to leave Egypt by the English admiral Lord Nelson. Although the French expedition to Egypt lasted only three years, it demonstrated that the West was now so superior to the Islamic world that Westerners could enter the Arab heartland, then still a part of the Ottoman Empire, at will. Only another Western power could force them to leave. The shock of this realization triggered the first attempts to reform Islam in the 19th century.
A positive result of Western conquest was the influx of French scientists into Egypt and the foundation of modern Egyptology. Most importantly, it led to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, which was later used by French philologist Jean-Francois Champollion to decipher the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, the encounter also left a lasting impact in Europe, and above all in France.
The French invasion of Algeria in 1830 marked another chapter in this tale. Later, the French ruled Tunisia and Morocco. Finally, after the First World War, the French gained mandates over the former Turkish territories of the Ottoman Empire that make up what is now Syria and Lebanon. After the Second World War, French troops gradually left Arab lands, culminating with war and Algerian independence in 1962. However, their long relationship with Arabs resulted in France's belief that she had a special relationship with and an understanding of Arabs and Muslims. Along with French leadership in continental Europe, this would now provide the basis of a new foreign policy. President de Gaulle pushed for a France and a Europe independent of the two superpowers. In a speech, he stated that "Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world." In 1966, he withdrew France from the common NATO military command, but remained within the organization.
Following the Six Days War in 1967, de Gaulle's condemnation of the Israelis for their occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip marked a significant change in French foreign policy. Previously, Franceas well as the rest of Western Europehad been strongly pro-Israel, even going to war together with Israel as late as 1956 against Nasser's Egypt. From 1967 on, however, France embarked on a decidedly pro-Arab course.
The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.
It has been said that English foreign policy has remained the same since the 16th century. Its goal was to prevent any country, whether Spain, France, or later Germany, from dominating continental Europe to the extent that it represents a threat to England. On the other hand, one could argue that French foreign policy has also remained the same for several centuries; its goal is to champion French leadership over Europe and the Mediterranean region in order to contain Anglo-Saxon (and later Anglo-American) dominance. This picture was complicated by the unification of Germany in the late 19th century, but its outlines remain to this day.
Napoleon is the great hero of French PM de Villepin. Several prominent French leaders stated quite openly in 2005 that the proposed EU Constitution was basically an enlarged France. Justice Minister Dominique Perben said: "We have finally obtained this 'Europe à la française' that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French." From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French political elite have never renounced the maintenance of their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the Iraq war.
President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic backed the US position "They missed a good opportunity to shut up," adding "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position."
Jean Monnet, French economist never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity.
Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author (with Christopher Booker) of The Great Deception: Can The European Union Survive, relates that for yearsat least from the 1920sJean Monnet had dreamed of building a "United States of Europe." Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an "anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty."
In their analysis of the EU's history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that.
The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in "Europe Day," contains phrases which state that it is "a first step in the federation of Europe", and that "this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation." However, as critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people are unaware of their existence.
A federation is, of course, a State and "yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. The EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws."
The EU founders "were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it." Booker and North call the European Union "a slow-motion coup d'état: the most spectacular coup d'état in history," designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so publicly.
The irony is that France is now held hostage by the very forces she herself set in motion. The Jihad riots by Muslim immigrants in France in 2005 demonstrated that Eurabia is no longer a matter of French foreign policy, it is now French domestic policy. France will burn unless she continues to appease Arabs and agree to their agenda.
The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.
Maybe there is some poetic justice in the fact that the country that initiated and has led the formation of Eurabia will now be destroyed by its own Frankenstein monster. However, gloating over France's dilemma won't help. The impending downfall of France is bad news for the rest of the West. What will happen to French financial resources? Above all, who will inherit hundreds of nuclear warheads? Will these weapons fall into the hands of Jihadist Muslims, too?
Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen(born 11 June 1975) is a Norwegian far-right anti-Islamic blogger. Jensen wrote anonymously as Fjordman starting in 2005, until he disclosed his identity in 2011. He has been active in the counterjihad movement, which argues that multiculturalism, particularly Muslim immigration, poses a threat to Western civilization.
MUCH DISCUSSION LONG AND WEARY, STRONG AND SCHOLARLY, sane and savage, still cloaking the profound audacity in this cover-up of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate has traded this nation's proud heritage for a handful of sand. The same simple burdens of proof that candidates great and small before him have had to answer still clutter the sandy beachhead along which this man walks three years after stepping into the light for a run at this nation's world's most revered office.
Let's review, shall we? Why has this son of a Kenyan and his minions spent millions of dollars stonewalling the cases piling up in courts around the country? Why has every document produced, and provided as proof of his birth place ended up being an easily detected fraud that no one in authority yet questions it, when basically what invalidates his presidency is much simpler and already admittedhe is NOT a natural-born citizen as understood by those that wrote that phrase into the Constitution regardless of where he was born.
The verified requirement for President of the United States as outlined in the Constitution and ratified by the States is the following:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of the President… ”
The Constitution does not explain the meaning of "natural born". On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's plan provided:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born
Now there are those who choose to obfuscate what the Constitution and its authors has, since its adoption in 1788, defined what the term “natural born Citizen” means, preferring to assume it means born within the physical United States boundaries. Big mistake, and an intentional one.
It is absolutely amazing how a "typical Obama supporter" will swiftly shift his outward demeanor when confronted with this eligibility issue, from winsome cordiality to a vicious attack spirit. I've witnessed it, and have had it directed at me personally, face to face, from a senior State Department anti-terror specialist, a self-professed Scoop Jackson Democrat, and let me assure you, it ain't pretty. It's as if they have suspected all along but cannot admit the truth has not been properly vetted, and have no other choice but to deal with the issue with violent outbursts designed to immediately cease the conversation.
Throughout the Constitution, the writers used the term citizen numerous times but only here did they offer a specific classification of citizen, differentiated even from the naturalized citizen identified elsewhere. The founders would not have inserted into the all-important governing document a quite specific designation, or type of citizen, except to insist upon a specific designation and purpose for its usage.
Admittedly, one of the few shortcomings of our founding document, highlighted by this controversy, is the lack of referential definitions for certain terms. As some terms were thought to be of common knowledge by educated men, it was thought unnecessary to include them. One such definition that has garnered much controversy was the well-regulated Militia; likewise is the term “natural born citizen.”
This document, however, has provided us a methodology and a roadmap to solving certain mysteries. Congress is the bi-cameral body charged with the handling of legislation. Within the Constitution the founders placed guides that may assist us in determining where we may find certain information.
Article 1, Section 8 defines the enumerated powers of Congress and within that we find: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”
Ah, yes. Those were the days. Not only where these great men of early America familiar with the “Law of Nations” but they consulted it frequently.
It should not be surprising that within Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations the term “natural-born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Notice the plural use for parentage.
Based upon the idea of a singularity of allegiance, the contrary position when a citizen whose father was born outside the US and the son inside the US arises due to a position of dual allegiance between his own birth country and the country of his father. Vattel stated it this way: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The implication that should circumstances place the nation at odds with the nation of a president’s father, the president may not be able to bring himself to wage war, if necessary, against that nation which he may empathize on his father's account.
Which brings us to the controversy we seek to resolvehow do we interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen?” Given that the Constitution is the basis of our law, and IS LAW, in and of itself, we should look at the Constitution through statutory construction.
First; a review of the “plain meaning” of the text has probably been the greatest cause of concern in determining the meaning, since the term is not used in general language today outside of this context, and obviously being overlooked by those in political power, it appears to be of little use.
This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
Second; should the “plain meaning” of a term not prevail then one must determine the original intentions of the person or people that wrote it. This is not always an easy task; as time progresses the nuances of language and even meanings of words change. A prime example is the word “welfare,” when used today most everyone thinks of grants from the government in the form of money, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. But back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s welfare meant simply “Happiness; Success; Prosperity.” (Now read the section in the Constitution that directs government to “promote the general welfare.” Takes on a whole new meaning doesn’t it?)
But having documentation from those who framed the Constitution telling us rather emphatically that they consulted a resource “frequently” and one of the few, if only, use was that of Vattel giving the meaning as that of a singularity of citizenship of the parents, and especially the father, we must (unless we are habitual Leftists) give weight to this meaning.
Third; should the prior two methods not be productive then one must look outside of that to the historical, and contemporary writings of the time to see if anything supports a particular point of view. And though there are very few writings dealing with the term “natural-born citizen” we do have a number of writings dealing with the concept of “dual allegiance” that aligns with Vattel’s definition of “natural-born.”
In 1794 President Washington in a letter to John Adams stated: “the policy…of its [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean settling them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word soon become one people.”
Here we see a distinct ideal of ensuring a nation that was not plagued with divided or dual allegiances that people coming to America should “in a word soon become one people.” This is the exact sentiment that Vattel was driving with the “natural-born citizen,” a single allegiance to the United States. And we know today, with transcontinental transportation and massive illegal immigration that this presumption of assimilation is no longer true.
Finally we must turn to any legal precedence that may aid us in our determination. In the case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) we find the following:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."
This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
If we contrast this with the total lack of evidence to the contrary then this evidence becomes overwhelming that Vattel’s definition must clearly be the defining voice.
So where is the deception you ask? The deception lies in that thousands of politicians and countless government and academic lawyers insist there is no way to determine the meaning of a phrase used by our founders in the Constitution of the United States, the basis of the Law of our Nation, and operative for over two hundred years.
Yet, scores of ordinary citizens, and dare we saynatural born citizensall around the nation have been screaming this simple truth and no one listens. In truth I totally believe they know exactly what is going on, but it does not serve their pernicious agenda and using Alinsky Rules, the end justifies their means.
Politicians astride the government purse do not fear what pockets of citizenry know because they have come to understand that unless an organized rebellion results they can simply dismiss each outcry as a the paucity of conspiracy theorists as in "Who are you going to believe, some kook or your own government?"
Or they simply vilify good people who believe in and wish to return to the United States Constitution, or voice displeasure with abortion, or advocate for gun rights, or belong to a Constitutional militia, or post Ron Paul bumper stickers, or become “natural-born citizen” adherents by depicting all these good American citizens as potential terrorists… oh waitthey’ve already done that!
So don't fret when you attract the typical ad hominem response from the left. Remember they don't examine the facts; they attack the messenger instead. That is how and why the left invented the name "birther" in the first place.
UPDATE: Here's the kicker. People on the left claim to embrace science. They claim to be better educated than their knuckle-dragging conservative opposites. So why not embrace the concept of scientific inquiry? Question everything, even your assumption that there is no way an announcement could be placed in a Hawaiian newspaper unless the event happened in Hawaii. Has anyone ever forged a birth certificate? Are all the birth certificates produced by the state of Hawaii 100% genuine? Has there ever been a state worker in Vital Records who has been willing to do a favor?
We have probable cause here. Obama's bio from 1991 claimed he was born in Kenya (and that bio was only "corrected" in 2007). The birth certificate coaxed out by Donald Trump last fall to be posted at the White House web site has numerous indications that it isn't genuine. This rather unmysterious fact (any first year Photoshop user knows which way the coverup blows) has been much circulated, so there's no reason the Left (and other obtuse career-savvy folks like Bill O'Reilly) should not know of these details. Why will they not put on their "objective" glasses and expose themselves to a little scientific inquiry, and see where that takes them?
MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...
An interesting comment to an AT article on the history of race inertia from the earliest beginnings of the United States of America caught my attention and will always seek to find adequate articulation, not because of my own consuming interest, but because of how urgent a question it seems to be for so many in the quest for survival who put all their marbles on the race card...
Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by heritable phenotypic characteristics, geographic ancestry, physical appearance, and ethnicity, and in some senses is a natural reaction to the other in a world of danger and obfuscation. In the early twentieth century the term was often used, in its taxonomic sense, to denote genetically diverse human populations whose members possessed similar phenotypes, but is it truly the final salvo in sorting out one's identity from that of another when developing hostilities between ethnic groups divided on the basis of racial group or skin color seem unavoidable. All too often the color of one's skin does trump so many other measures of a human being's faith, power, and glory.
WHITE WAS THE 19th century's way of saying "Euro-American in terms of culture, values, and behavior." Henry Ford wrote of "the White Man's Code" as late as 1922 even though he hired Blacks and paid them the same wages he paid Caucasians in the same jobs. No law at the time said he had to do that. At the time, however (e.g. when Kipling wrote "The White Man's Burden,") Japan was the only advanced nonwhite-majority nation on earth. Civilized therefore equaled "white" although it was recognized that not all ethnic Caucasians were advanced or even civilized. A Venn diagram would show "civilized" as a subset of "white" (Japan being the sole exception) and not the other way around.
This does not mean that people of nonwhite origins cannot and do not adopt Euro-American values. Japan made a collective decision to do that in the mid-19th century. African-Americans, Asian Americans, and so on have Euro-American values and are therefore what Kipling and his contemporaries would have called "white." Kipling's "Gunga Din" in fact recognizes that a nonwhite person can have these values and adhere to them better than an Englishman; the light-skinned Briton admits at the end, "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din." The poem in fact judges the characters not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, which was entirely consistent with Kipling's membership in a racially-diverse Mason's lodge in India (see "The Mother Lodge").
What stinks about the Third World is not the color of its skin (which includes all three races) but rather the content of its character. I refer very specifically to Sharia and other militant "Islamic" beliefs, and Europe ought to prevent their immigration and expel the ones already there.
Furthermore, other non-Caucasian countries are now highly civilized as shown by Freedom House's ratings for places like Taiwan and South Korea, while Caucasian-majority Russia along with the racially Caucasian Palestinians and Iranians (Aryans, in fact) are rated "Not Free." What stinks about the Third World is not the color of its skin (which includes all three races) but rather the content of its character.
The economically and socially advanced nature of Euro-American nations over the rest of the world, even regions with substantial oil wealth, is proof that our way of life is superior and theirs is inferior. A society that, for example, prevents girls from going to school (as is the case in parts of Afghanistan) denies itself half of its human potential up front and will therefore be inferior.
The proper conclusion is therefore that anybody who shares our (Euro-American) values, attitudes, and behavioral codes is "one of us" regardless of his or her appearance or ethnicity, and anybody who subscribes to an inferior Third World culturethe kind that keeps the people ignorant, squalid, and pooris "one of them" regardless of his or her appearance or ethnicity, and is therefore an undesirable. I refer very specifically to Sharia and other militant "Islamic" beliefs, and Europe ought to prevent their immigration and expel the ones already there.
AS QUIET NORWAY BEGINS TO bury its dead after a homegrown atrocity, the Leftist corporate media slips en masse into familiar gears spitted with gobs of war grease and irrational grievance once again...
The attacks on 22 July 2011 by Norwegian Anders Breivik, 32, were a shock to the nation. The mad man first bombed government buildings in Oslo, which resulted in eight deaths. He then carried out a mass shooting at a camp of the Workers' Youth League (AUF) of the Labour Party on the island of Utøya where he killed 69 people, mostly teenagers.
Breivik was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia by the court-appointed psychiatrists. According to their report, Breivik acted compulsively based on a delusional thought universe. Among other things, he alluded to himself as a future regent of Norway pending a takeover by a Templar-like organization. Imagining himself as regent, his ideas included organizing Norwegians in reservations and using them in breeding projects. Other psychiatrists disagree that he is psychotic or schizophrenic, and on 13 January 2012, after much public pressure, the Oslo district court ordered a second expert panel to evaluate Breivik's mental state...
Remember Pastor Terry Jones. Back then, our beloved media said that because the BAD BAD Pastor Jones burnt the Quran, Muslim innocents were spontaneously filled with the great spirit of righteous revenge and had no choice but to kill lying scheming Christians (or anybody else unfortunate enough to be caught in the path of their holy anger) found across Islam's pride of nations. This was lamentable but because they were "provoked" to lash out by the evil machinations of said pastor, the darling Left, from sea to shining sea, befitting the politically correct psychological mantra for the past generation or two, were only too pleased to announce that these irrational murderous outbursts by poor innocent Muslims were perfectly understandable and hardly mentionable.
Thanks goodness for rational thought...
Similarly, we should now expect our loving, intelligent, critically-prepared, and honest corporate media to proclaim the actions of Anders Breivik are to be squarely blamed on those hundreds of thousands of Muslim psychotics who have been noisy but thank goodness, bloody, vicious, and vile practitioners of global terrorism the past few decades or so.
But not so, read more carefully the tea leaves...
Locked into the moral relativistic matrix that passes for political reality these days, the paradigm of sticking firm to the preponderance of evidence is no longer likely, because coprporate media must at all times measure the moment against its agenda to upheave the entire social framework that only fifty years ago was understood by a greater portion of the planet to be the most humane and thriving system humanity had ever experienced.
If Terry Jones burning the Qu'ran is reason enough for Muslim pledges to indulge their fetishes for ritual murder, then certainly the thousands of terrorist attacks against the West and elsewhere are more than enough reason for this Norwegianwho wrote extensively impuning all possible detractors, constructing an image of one who is only trying to protect his homeland from the invasion of a foreign enemyto execute the horrific reign of terror he committed.
But of course, few among us can accept that tautology. Where would that take us? Tit for tat, eye for eye, and other laws of equivalency, have long been a persuasive but incindiary inducement to commit all sorts of awful, repugnant acts against God, Man, and Law.
The fact that the history of warfare is prefaced with just such rhetorical conclusions should not persuade us to thrown the baby into the bath, any more than we would throw the baby out with the bath water. And while we are not talking apples and oranges, we are still talking about fruit. Moral relativity is not to blame here. Suppression of ALL non-conforming thought is the problem, and it's a BIG problem.
Anders Breivik, whether we like all, some, or none of what he believed or not, had compiled more or less a political perspective, a manifesto, a creed, one man's point of view. Whether much of it was plagiarized and from whom misses the point, particularly since those with whom he is in disagreement, notably, the followers of Mohammed, are hardly the paragons of critical writing.
Despite the insulated rigors of politically correct, top down, either-or dichotomies that liberty embracing citizens once upon a time emphatically rejected as patently unsuited for the universal expression of a free people, an individual, even a condemned one, is entitled to have his or her position made known when under investigation by a free press. And isn't this what Breivik himself, in his own word, ultimately desired.
However, just as it perverts the privilege of truth in terms of Breivik by pronouncing him Evil Incarnate on one hand, and mentally deranged on the other by writing into his broad political portfolio associations which just don't exist, while condemning others whom corporate has dismissed as persona non grata who have little or nothing in common with his ideology, the media is unmasked as little more than a purveyor of snacks, small details, unconnected dots, blind alleys, annoying breaks in the action they require to keep the zoo animals fed. Zoo animals.
There are also tasteless witch-hunts going on in Sweden. Mostly against the Sweden Democrats and even against individual politicians from that party, one of the being Erik Hellsborn just for agreeing and explaining some points in ABB’s manifesto.
When corporate media systematically ignores not only the abhorrent acts of violence daily committed in the name of islam, it also ignores a genuine appraisal of the Islamic creed along with other self-organized rantings of the Muslim terrorists, and by doing so, it does its general readership a great disservice, and in fact is nothing more than the stifling of both free speech and the pertinent facts required for the free defense of liberty and justice in a nation at war with these ideologues and covertly, their host nations. Come clean, fight clean, we urge our leadership, whistling in and out of the halls of Montezuma and the shores of Tripoli.
By hearing all, we know more. More is bad, they say. Gotta keep the fascist trains running on time. And this is precisely why we are fed less, to know less, to work more, and to spend everything we've got so that we can be softened up by corporate media hacks and all its political and business cronies who know their fast-tracked Marx (concentrating all capital at the top) to better keep the zoo animals in check.
And the fact that Breivik gunned down native Norwegians, privileged children of the darling Left, not cold-blooded, Allahu Ackbar bellowing, run of the mill peace-loving Muslims, is hardly mentioned in this turf war for Breivik's eternal corpse. Does this choice of target, despite his explanations, make the Norwegian protagonist a coward, or somehow simply add to the confused mystique of this alleged racist?
There are also tasteless witch-hunts going on in Sweden. Mostly against the Sweden Democrats and even against individual politicians from that party, one of the being Erik Hellsborn just for agreeing and explaining some points in ABB’s manifesto. Everyone against islam is to be demonized now just because of ABB. It’s like blaming Paul McCartney for the Charles Manson murders just because he wrote Helter Skelter which happened to be one of Manson’s favourite songs at the time.Robin Shadowes
Yep, corporate media and the switchbladed Lefties continue to trump up marginal Islamic victimhood while ignoring the full unadulterated political manifestos of both the Muslims and their equally doctrinaire detractors.
THE NEW YORK MAGAZINE'S JOE HAGAN has done his level best to ingratiate himself with leftist media elites by championing Cass ‘ban free speech’ Sunstein as part of a smear piece on Alex Jones that recycles the same tired old clichés in a bid to make deluded intellectuals feel more comfortable about sticking their heads in the sand while a malevolent global elite that Hagan is intent on proving doesn’t exist masterminds America’s downfall.
Ah yes, THAT Cass Sunstein, the most dangerous man in America according to Glenn Beck. Not that I don't suspect he's a really nasty unAmerican type, but unless Obama gets that second term, or oversees the explosion of a few American cities just before the November polls and martial law, Sunstein may not get to implement his pernicious plan to dismantle the First Amendment.
Scary stuff. Entitled, A Strange Man Is Following You, Hagan's article seeks to dismiss concerns about the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve and the orchestrated economic collapse by characterizing Alex Jones as a paranoid crank who spouts paranoia for profit while inspiring mass shooters like Jared Loughner.
It's astounding to me that this lone wicked Loughner fellow continues to prowl the liberal mind, the able stooge for whatever ails the liberal forces, but then the Left is trying its best to ignore the fact that he was one of their own, as evidenced in his own fragmented writings.
According to Jones, Hagan spent the entire interview trying to get Alex to admit that he yearns and grovels for a show on Fox News. an important set up for Hagan’s final slap down when he quotes Fox News programming executive vice-president Bill Shine who states, “That’s not going to happen, so he should stick with trying to locate the black helicopters.”
In reality, Jones spent the whole discussion pointing out that Fox News is just the right-wing pillar of the crumbling corporate media, and that he had no interest in compromising his message merely to emulate the likes of Glenn Beck. But this answer didn’t jive with Hagan’s approach to the entire hit piece at the outset, which was structured around convincing the kind of pseudo-intellectuals who read New York Magazine that they should ignore Jones’ message because he represents little more than a ranting Glenn Beck wannabe.
By using sophomoric throwaway jibes and drive-by sound bites, Hagan attempts to reduce the exhaustively documented depopulation agenda down to paranoid drivel.
And he probably mocks Facebook as juvenile. True intelligence is that which recognizes patterns, complex patterns, patterns which reveal enough information for the plotting of accommodation or survival strategies. Language is mere wordsuck. Writers, mere moths to a flame. What us flutter in flight...
As we have exhaustively proven, the population reduction agenda is deeply rooted in the eugenics movement which began amongst the aristocracy in 19th century Britain and later manifested itself under the banner of Hitler’s Third Reich. As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film Endgame, Rockefeller’s father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race.
After falling out of favor as a consequence of Hitler’s embrace of the pseudo-science, eugenics was then reborn in the United States in the 1950′s under the umbrella of “family planning”.
We questioned establishment media spin which portrayed the attendees as kind-hearted and concerned philanthropists by pointing out that Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west. In China, the one child policy is enforced by means of taxes on each subsequent child, allied to an intimidation program which includes secret police and “family planning” authorities kidnapping pregnant women from their homes and performing forced abortions.
Of course, Ted Terrific completely fails to follow his own rules on how everyone else should live their lives, having five children and owning no less than 2 million acres of land.
In the third world, Turner has contributed literally billions to population reduction, namely through United Nations programs, leading the way for the likes of Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet (Gates’ father has long been a leading board member of Planned Parenthood and a top eugenicist).
Well, BIG money DOES have its privileges. And they can prove it.
The understanding that the elite have been obsessed with population control and eugenics for hundreds of years is a matter of historical fact, but Hagan hastily dismisses the whole notion in his myopic pursuit to portray Jones as an eccentric opportunist.
These hacks cannot tolerate a free marketplace of ideas, so they have to try and strangle independent voices. It would be tragic if it were not so dangerous.
With the sands of the media landscape shifting as distrust in authorities plays itself out in terms of audience share, establishment entities are becoming increasingly frightened about the fact that they, as Hillary Clinton recently acknowledged, are “losing the information war,” and are increasingly lashing out at Jones in the form of hit pieces as they try and devise more sophisticated methods through which to silence the alternative press.
This is where Obama information czar Cass Sunstein comes into the equation. In his article, Hagan lauds Sunstein as the man with the plan to stop the likes of Jones from gaining any more media traction. Hagan seamlessly throws disturbed, skull-worshipping mass shooter Jared Loughner into the mix, implying that Sunstein’s efforts to stop the spread of conspiracy theories are commendable because they can prevent the Loughners of this world from being influenced by “information cascades on the Internet” that leave psychologically unstable people, “unable to distinguish fact from fiction.”
We heard about the skulls, but did he really worship them? The media does tend to whip out this "ghastly" cliche far too often to convince me that this particular bad guy's fascination with skulls was anything more than an aesthethic impulse. Does the skull and crossbones flag of the old European flag indicate that these sailors worshipped skull imagery? What about the youthful Steven Jobs, who hoisted the pirate flag above the Apple campus in the early days of the computer wars? No? Didn't think so. Let's face it, nearly all chippy writers fling arrows to make their point, no matter how frivolous the kill.
Hagan’s implication is thinly veiledso-called “conspiracy theorists” like Alex Jones are creating legions of violent lunatics who will act out violently as a backlash against the paranoid world view with which Jones has brainwashed them, unless of course the likes of Sunstein are empowered to combat this growing threat.
What Hagan chooses not to mention is the fact that Sunstein also wrote of his desire to ban free speech, while advocating a myriad of deceptive, completely unethical and borderline illegal ‘cointelpro’ style methods with which to crush the alternative media.
On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” the man who is now Obama’s head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures “will have a place under imaginable conditions” according to the strategy detailed in the essay.
1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
One of the examples Sunstein gives of what would be banned under this new thought police regime is skepticism of man-made global warming, a belief shared by the majority of the American people.
Sunstein even characterizes as “false and dangerous” the idea that exposure to sunlight is healthy, despite the fact that top medical experts agree prolonged exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of developing certain cancers.
We soon begin to unravel the fact that Sunstein’s idea of a “conspiracy theory” is anything that disagrees with the establishment orthodoxy.
Along with a host of other clichés, Hagan’s article also makes generous use of the pejorative term, “conspiracy theory,” which has come to symbolize the disguise behind which control freaks like him and Sunstein hide their feverish contempt for the freedom to dissent against the myriad of real “conspiracy theories” cultivated and circulated by mainstream media such as:
a. weapons of mass destruction
b. humanitarian wars
c. troubled asset relief programs
The final goal, and one that Hagan evidently embraces, as Sunstein makes clear on page 20 of his paper, is outright government control of public discourse.
“We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable,” Sunstein writes. In Sunstein and Hagan’s world, disagreeing with the dogma of man-made global warming would be classed as heresy and subject to state censorship, a prospect far more alarming than anything that could be attributed to “conspiracy theorists”.
Hagan’s piece is symptomatic of the trend we are now seeing unfold in American media. With both the establishment left and the establishment right losing their audience to people like Alex Jones, both are busy trying to use Jones as a tool with which to demonize the other.
People like Hagan need to ingratiate themselves amongst the liberal media aristocracy by smearing independent voices that threaten that elite like Alex Jones because they know the peanut gallery is getting increasingly smaller, and it’s the same for those on the right.
While people on the right like Glenn Beck dream up vast conspiracies run by 9/11 truthers to discredit the establishment left, leftist groups like Media Matters simultaneously cite Jones’ advocacy of 9/11 to demonize Beck. Both the establishment left and the establishment right feed off each other, and without that parasitical relationship, they would both cease to exist.
In the meantime, people who just want the truth are tuning out, and like Hillary Clinton conceded, are turning off the likes of MSNBC and Fox News and flipping over to Russia Today, or God forbid the Alex Jones Show.
Yes, the truth, the birth certificate, the college records, friendships fresh out of hiding, a believable paper trail, Islam unmasked, ah wouldn't that be nice...