Sharon Rondeau over at The Post & Email recently posted an interview with Quad City Pictures filmmaker Brent Bateman concerning his upcoming piece, “Fraud.”
Before I get into my analysis of what Mr. Bateman is doing, I wanted to contrast two different YouTube trailers that he has on his site regarding the intent of the “documentary” that he has put together.
And before I do that, let me say at the outset that I probably am going to make some people mad by creating this posting. However, I think it’s important to remember the maxim:
The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.
The first trailer is the “Theatrical Trailer:”
The second trailer is the “UNCENSORED Teaser:”
You probably raised your eyebrows more than a little bit in the differences in the videos, right?
When Mr. Bateman’s work was confronted by numerous commenters to Ms. Rondeau’s interview posting, he had the following to say in response:
I’m not an OVOMIT Obot, and I support the Tea Party 100%. Anyone in this country who does not believe that the Bush regime and the CIA together carried out 9/11 is just fooling themselves in understanding the depths of what these DEVILS in Washington are capable of. Like it or not, if we are to see and experience a TRUE REVOLUTION in America, we must expose all of the CRIMES against our people. and that includes the OIL and WAR Lords, the Bush regime.
My first reaction to both of these issues is the title to this posting:
Eligibility can be determined; 9/11 “inside jobs” cannot.
Notice that I did not say that one is not entitled to one’s opinion; clearly, we all are. However, I think it would be much more appropriate to wisely choose one’s battles instead of jumping feet first into the proverbial pool of debate without evidence.
On the face of it, I don’t particularly understand why it is that anyone is trying to convince the media or other power brokers about Mr. Obama’s eligibility. That’s not the issue. If it were, then what is anyone doing with the Tea Parties? Don’t you already know that this movement is quintessentially dismissed by the Ruling Class?
This is like saying that the Judiciary should make a categorical ruling on a purely Legislative process — exactly how is that going to help the situation? The Judiciary in this country doesn’t impeach Presidents; Congress does that.
Instead, it is my view that those of us who question the President’s eligibility should be gearing up for 2011/2012 when the campaign process officially kicks in once again. That is the time to legitimately and officially demand results.
And movies that closely intertwine “Truthers” with “Birthers” is not, in my opinion, a brilliant marketing move. OK, so Mr. Bateman may be a “Truther;” that’s his view. Yet if you hit up masses of people with this kind of work, don’t be surprised if they immediately turn you off because they think you’re loony.
It’s nothing personal (to most); it’s just the way it’s perceived. And perception is half the game.
Why not come up with a true documentary that raises questions some of us have been raising for about 2 years (or longer)? I have an entire site chock full of such questions — questions that can be answered today if the data were available.
If you’re so inclined, support the movie. I just don’t think you’re going to get the kind of positive results you really want from it.
Some days I have to wonder why it is that some politicos are bringing up allegedly “fringe” theories. Is it a means to do something positive for themselves while also attempting to be “shut-down”-negative to the opposition?
You would think that House Minority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) would get a clue after all of the railing against the Tea Party movement by his own party:
Going negative and calling “us” names or using FUD [Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt] tactics is just as likely to backfire against you as it is to hurt “us.”
It certainly hasn’t worked against the Tea Party and I doubt it’s going to work against the “birthers,” those individuals who align themselves with questioning President Obama’s presidential eligibility.
TheHill.com published the following quote from the third highest-ranking Democrat as a rhetorical response to the House Oversight panel’s ranking GOP Member, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)’s assertion that a potential GOP majority would issue “subpoenas everywhere:”
“The White House will be full-time responding to subpoenas about where the president may or may not have been born, whether his mother and father were ever married, and whether his wife’s family is from Georgetown or Sampit…
That will define the next two years of the president’s administration.”
Rep. Issa is denying the “birther” threat:
“The Democratic Caucus doesn’t take Jim Clyburn seriously – Americans shouldn’t take his ridiculous claims seriously either,” said Issa spokesman Kurt Bardella in an e-mail.
The Hill went on an interesting little editorial rant:
Obama was born in Hawaii, and the White House released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate. But that has failed to silence arguments that he was not born in the U.S.
While it could be true that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, nobody knows exactly who released the alleged photo of a document on a third-party web site, because nobody’s ever been forthright even with this bit of information.
Furthermore, even if Mr. Obama were born geographically in Hawaii, sites like FactCheck.org plainly admit that, at birth, he was, at best, a British subject, by law, according to Kenya’s constitution in 1961.
Part of the reason that The Hill correctly notes that this [sic] “has failed to silence arguments” about the President’s eligibility is because nothing definitive about the President’s past has ever been substantiated; most of it has mostly been a quest of guesses.
The rest of the piece talks about how Rep. Clyburn essentially wishes that the Fairness Doctrine were back in place, because then sites like mine would effectively be moderated into silence (I would, in theory, have to give equal time to the opposition — some would say I have in the past), because individuals such as myself engage in allegedly “hate” speech against the President (by daring to question him).
I think Rep. Issa is right: I do not expect the GOP to go after substantiating Mr. Obama’s background; that will remain up to the citizens to do. However, I do expect the next presidential campaign to be fraught with eligibility questions, as even the Judiciary has agreed, practically en mass, that then will be the appropriate time to pursue the question.
Of course, all of this still leaves my original question open:
What is Rep. Clyburn concerned about? Is he full of hot air? Is he trying to silence critics?
If you want to keep an issue from becoming an issue, the worst thing you want to do is go front-and-center with it and make it an issue!
We already knew that, in recent political history, the press took its role in helping the public to vet presidential candidates seriously by investigating the background of previous presidential contenders and winners.
But did you know that evidence exists much further back in history that there were protocols in place to vet a presidential candidate?
Via BirtherReport.com, Linda Bentley over at SonoranNews.com continues her responsible reporting by continuing to take the eligibility question seriously enough to compile yet another article, this time regarding President Eisenhower.
She reported a few days ago that a concerned citizen had forwarded her a copy of an online image from the Deseret News and Telegram, a long-since defunct newspaper, from 1952. In part, the following was discovered:
The article appeared on page 6A with a dateline of Sherman, Texas. It was headlined: “General’s birth certificate officially filed,” and stated, “A certificate recording Dwight Eisenhower’s birth in Denison on Oct. 14, 1890, was filed Wednesday [Oct. 1, 1952] in the Grayson County Clerk’s office.
“Nobody had bothered to make out a certificate when the Republican presidential candidate was born in a house at the corner of Lamar and Day streets in nearby Denison.
“A copy of the certificate filed Wednesday was mailed to Mrs. Eisenhower in Denver. Eisenhower’s older brother, Arthur, signed the certificate. It was also signed by the Grayson County Judge J.N. Dickson and recorded by County Clerk J.C. Buchanan.”
Assuming that the newspaper article was verified as legitimate by Ms. Bentley (Update: Linda commented below on its authenticity; thanks, Linda!), we could safely assume a few things regarding the history of presidential eligibility:
Regardless of any outstanding laws at the time, clearly a birth certificate was considered “enough” evidence to help in determining presidential eligibility (this has long since been a question individuals such as myself have asked in terms of the thoroughness to which a candidate ought to be considered eligible);
Such a birth certificate was “officially filed” (we’re not talking about third-party institutions or organizations here; we’re talking about being filed with the government, per se);
The official filing was executed at the County Clerk’s office (this suggests that the Secretary of State’s office is, in fact, the one who is accountable to be sure that all eligibility requirements are properly fulfilled);
Even though President Eisenhower was born outside of a hospital, the actual certificate was not only signed by at least one family member, but an official — a judge — at the local government extension (in this case, a local courthouse) also signed it and the paperwork was officially recorded by the clerk.
Where did the protocol go? Does Denison, TX still have this protocol in place?
Regardless, another presidential election season will soon be at hand, and I have a few ideas on how to get a head start on the eligibility issue.
In the meantime, the first wave of governmental accountability is coming soon to a ballot box near you.
The headline of the day today is that marketing consultant Christine O’Donnell re-routed Rep. Mike Castle’s chances at becoming the next Senator from Delaware by a greater than 6-point margin.
To me, it’s beginning to appear that races like this one are pointing towards a new political reality here in America.
You see, the reality of the local GOP establishment has been to keep Rep. Castle around at all costs; they’ve been operating under the assumption that only dear ol’ Mike can win in Delaware.
Then, she happened. She inserted herself into the race and, worse yet (for some), she is a conservative woman.
Apparently, “The Architect” Karl Rove has not liked this change of events one bit, even doubling-down on his previous comments on the race.
I don’t get why he’s doing what he’s doing, except that I don’t think even Mr. Rove totally understands what’s at play here.
People no longer want lip-service regarding the federal government’s role in our lives, and they don’t want the same-ol’, same-ol’ stuff that’s been going on for years.
You already know what I’m talking about — deficit spending, taxation in every conceivable form that any politician can dream up, passing bills without reading them, and a President — shall we say, practical Imam — who seems to be more willing to look after the rights of our enemies than he is the rights of American citizens.
Again, regardless of how much you may disagree (or agree) with what I post, the People are fed up.
And they’re by-passing the party establishment.
OK, so the NRSC has given Christine a check for $42,000. Big freakin’ deal. Have you seen her “money-bomb” site today (really, just a front page to her main Christine2010.com site)? She started out looking for $50,000 and, as of this posting, she’ll be breaking through 10 times that amount — $500,000 — by the end of the day.
This is likely also why Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has stepped up and created the Senate Conservatives Fund, a totally separate entity aiming to fund as many conservatives (defined on his site; check it out) in helping them win election to the Senate.
Let it be known: both parties are on full standby mode. The grassroots doesn’t need you. All that the grassroots needs a handy-dandy secure link by which funds can be transfered to a favorite candidate.
As a final tid-bit (and I mentioned this in comment over at Prof. Jacobson’s linked Legal Insurrection blog), notice that the left in America is not celebrating impending political victory.
Watch this, now: I didn’t say they weren’t making fun of her (and as the dear Prof. has already at least partially coined it: using the “nuts-n-sluts” ad hominem personal attack*); I said they weren’t celebrating her victory as being an easy win for the D column in November.
I think the party establishment sees another Scott Brown (albeit she’s significantly more conservative) in Christine O’Donnell.
What — some of you don’t think she’ll win in November?
For you legitimate doubting Thomases (and Thomasettes), give it a few weeks — you’ll come around.
You might start turning sooner rather than later. Check out the Prof.’s posting, “He Discovered Marxism in Kenya” — and no, it’s not about “Imam” Obama, at least not directly
(phil at therightsideoflife dot com)
* “Nuts-n-sluts” is a phrase that describes, essentially, the process by which a threatened politico (not to be confused with the online news organization) claims something to the affect of, “Well, her only problem is she’s a bit [nutty|crazy|fringe|<insert favorite verbiage here>] with some of her views and, worse yet, she has some moral issues [affair|gay|guilt by association|<insert favorite verbiage here>] that she really needs to deal with in order to be electable” for the purposes of creating Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (in technical parlance — especially when MSFT was king of the computer hill — otherwise known as “FUD” tactics) in the minds of the electorate in hopes that the electorate will not take this [typically outsider] candidate seriously enough to actually win elections.
This coming Saturday, September 11, 2010, will mark the ninth anniversary of the Islamic terrorist attacks against America, culminating in approximately 3,000 civilians losing their lives in arguably the largest attack in United States history.
Let’s just make one thing clear. A small church, in a small town, down a back road, burning copies of its own books, on its own property, is not responsible for the violent actions anyone may take in retaliation to our protest. Remember, Paul did not make the snake, the fire drove it out and he was bitten. If violence happens in reaction to this, the violence was not caused by us, it has just been exposed.
To me, this is where the illogic of Rev. Jones’ premise begins to show. They want to engage in an inciteful act (what could be construed as an act of violence) but don’t want to be held responsible if someone reacts to their reaction of a book burning. Then, if such a reaction occurs, they want that reaction (presumably, by Muslims [of any sort?]) to be construed as violence that would have happened anyway. The presumption is that whatever violence would occur based on the reaction to their act of violence was going to happen regardless of what this church was going to do.
In other words, what they’re saying is that Muslims are inherently violent people when confronted with their own holy book being burned, despite the fact that they themselves would probably — no “probably” about it: the book burning is premeditated! — react in a violent manner if their holy book were being burned.
Other folks have weighed in on this issue (e.g.: Erick Erickson, All American Blogger, and the above-referenced links, to name a few), but I want to bring this full-circle to where I think the right side of this issue really ought to be.
As a Christian and a believer in Jesus as God’s son, I am compelled (while I am still very much a flawed human, I still have a choice to do right or wrong in any given matter!) to seriously consider what the Bible — Christianity’s holy book — might have to say on the matter. In fact, it does have something related to this very thing, something that I think God brought to my attention while perusing Drudge’s headlines this morning.
Luke 22:47-53, New American Standard Bible:
While He was still speaking, behold, a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him..
But Jesus said to him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”
When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?”
And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
But Jesus answered and said, “Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him.
Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against Him, “Have you come out with swords and clubs as you would against a robber?
“While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours.”
For the Koran burning issue, two negatives only make a positive in mathematics; returning evil for evil is never condoned in holy writ.
A number of points can be extrapolated from the above passages, including (1) God’s timing; (2) our reactions to said timing; and (3) God’s reactions to our carnal nature within the scope of his plan.
The purpose of this posting is to show that I think there may be better ways to handle grievances that many of us have with Islamic terrorism.
What is the point of burning the Koran? How does this improve the situation, assuming that it is we who have a problem with Islamic terrorism? Is this becoming a part of the problem or a part of the solution?
When you’re reaching your allegorical hand out to a rank-and-file Muslim, is that action for the purposes of strangling them (making you no better than a terrorist) or is it a willingness to shake hands under the auspices to agree to disagree?
From a Christian perspective, aren’t we, as Christians, actually commanded to go into all the world, share the Gospel, and help provide opportunities for the lost to receive Christ? Can you honestly say that burning a Muslim’s holy book would move them towards this goal?
I also realize that there are those reading this posting who think that my opinion is really a subjugation of my will to that of Islamic terrorism, or that somehow I’m “giving in” to the evil that is this terrorism.
Some would say we need to “do something” tangible in response to the imminent construction of the Ground Zero Mosque or other apparent threats against America.
How many times has Dove World Outreach Center promulgated the concept of their membership joining the military to actually be doing something on the front lines in the battle against Islamic terrorism?
What if General Petraeus is correct and such a book burning would make his job that much harder? Isn’t the point that most conservatives are glad that “we” are fighting “them” over there, and not here?
What if, as a Christian, you’re tasked with being nice to all people, no matter the circumstances?
Want scriptural back-up for that last question?
Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.
“BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.” [Proverbs 25:21-22]
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Remember, it is the Islamic terrorist who is being evil in their actions against others. Yet, it is by God’s grace that the Christian ought to respond in a completely different manner.
When you get into an argument with someone, you do realize that it takes two to fight, right? If you shut up, the other person can keep going, but they’re not going to get very far, because you’ve stopped reacting in kind, right?