Is Jonah Goldberg now a "Birther"? (in addition to being confused as usual)
By the very rules established by the Democrats, the mainstream media, and their Republican allies, Jonah Goldberg of the National Review might now qualify as a "Birther". In order not to be a "Birther" - as defined by the aforementioned groups - one must believe to the core of one's being that not only was Barack Obama born in Hawaii, but that he's told the complete truth about his past and he's not trying to cover anything up. Expressing any doubts will not be tolerated; one must confess that any deviation from the narrative provided by Obama is impossible. I didn't make those rules: they did.
But, now Goldberg offers "A Ring of Truth(ers)/Truthers vs. birthers" (peekURL.com/zx5dilg) in which he admits that - while he doesn't believe it - it's possible that Obama is lying about where he was born. Once again: according to the very rules established by the
witch hu, er, anti-Birthers, simply admitting it as a possibility is enough to get Goldberg tarred as a dreaded "Birther".
Note also that later on in the article, he implicitly admits that Republican leaders are aligned with the anti-Birther groups against a good segment of the GOP base. And, in the following he builds a large strawman and shows he doesn't understand the arguments of his opponents; neither of those are much of a surprise from someone like Goldberg. Some of those who are tarred as "Birthers" base their argument on Obama not being a Natural Born Citizen as used but famously not defined in the U.S. Constitution. Goldberg doesn't mention that; actually understanding someone's argument is too difficult for him.
Herewith, two scenarios.
Scenario A: The supposedly inept president of the United States carefully planned and orchestrated the worst terrorist attack on American soil in our history...
...Then there’s Scenario B: An ambitious and extremely clever politician, who has at best been selectively forthcoming about large chunks of his youth, lied about his place of birth so he could be eligible for the presidency.
To further this scheme, he has arranged for the full and/or original version of his birth certificate to remain under lock and key. At most, a handful of supporters and lawyers are in on the whole thing.
Now, which one is more believable? For the record, I don’t believe either. But it seems to me the "birther" hypothesis is vastly more plausible than the "truther' hypothesis. Politicians lie to advance their careers. You can look it up. Whole governments rarely orchestrate incredibly complex acts of physics, logistics, and mass murder all the while pinning guilt on others (who boast that they acted alone).
Just for clarification: "Truthers" believe Scenario A. "Birthers" believe Scenario B.