Fighting for the Right: The WorldNetDaily story continues

The reaction to the WorldNetDaily story has been remarkable and I appreciate those that have offered support.  I would encourage people to continue contacting me about which organizations on the Right are, or are not, working with WorldNetDaily.

[1] Let's start with good news: WorldNetDaily will not be at CPAC next year.  I exchanged emails with the CPAC organizer earlier today and she told me this:

[WorldNetDaily founder Joseph] Farah asked if he could speak on the issue (birther movement), but that isn't something we're interested in.

Rejected.  Well done.  There are a couple other demagogues who appeal to our baser instincts that I would like to see CPAC decline to host, too, but this is a very positive step.  Kudos, CPAC.

If any other organizations wish to let it be known that they also reject or renounce association with WorldNetDaily, please email me.

[2] Almost everybody seems to have a misconception about what I'm doing here. I have not called for a reader boycott of WorldNetDaily.  I don't think that would do much good, anyway.  Like Alex Jones, Joseph Farah and WND will have readers; there's a market for the bunker mentality and criticism only rallies them. (shrug) It's not my goal to persuade the true believers.  If they didn't reason their way into it, they probably won't reason their way out of it.

What I have argued is that credible organizations on the Right should not be supporting or encouraging the fevered swamps. If they do, the Right should not support them.  Most coverage seems to have misunderstood this.

[3] After my post on the RNC's non-response to my questions, I had hoped the RNC might do the right thing and provide answers - hopefully, the right answers. Integrity can be difficult in the short term, but it's important...and it's better than letting the world watch you try to hide in plain sight. Unfortunately, I have not heard a word from them. Nothing.  That is disappointing. 

[4] I very much appreciated Patrick Ruffini's thoughtful comments.  He is right.  The Joe-The-Plumberization of the Right is dangerous.  Echo chambers reinforce and magnify errors. We need more Bill Buckley and less Bill O'Reilly.

[5] I always appreciate Robert Stacy McCain's blogging - he really is a terrific writer - but he misunderstands my argument about WorldNetDaily.  I'm not calling for a "purge" of the grassroots and I certainly hope we don't have to choose between "grassroots" and "reality". If we do have to choose between the two, we lose.  William F. Buckley's rejection of the John Birch Society is a very important precedent, so it's worth remembering how Buckley responded to criticisms of his editorial.

It was precisely my desire to strengthen the ranks of conservatism that led me to publish the editorial. Our movement has got to govern. It has got to expand by bringing into our ranks those people who are, at the moment, on our immediate Left - the moderate, wishy-washy conservatives; the Nixonites… I am talking… about 20 to 30 million people… If they are being asked to join a movement whose leadership believes the drivel of [the Birch Society leadership], they will pass by crackpot alley, and will not pause until they feel the warm embrace of those way over on the other side, the Liberals."

My view is this: If Republicans don't clean up their own house, they cannot govern.  They may win elections again, but they won't be able to do anything with it; they won't know what to do with it. [See: 2001-2009]  We can't have a two-party system composed of Democrats and Not-Democrats.

Beating Democrats is not enough.  We need to actually have something worth beating them with.

[6] Conor Friedersdorf makes an important point.

One problem on the right is that loyalty to the grassroots is defined by how shamelessly one panders to them. Thus a talk radio host who crafts an inaccurate news narrative that plays to the prejudices of his audience is deemed a loyal player advancing the movement’s ends, whereas a blogger who points out how his words mislead listeners about reality is considered an obstacle to the cause who is overly concerned about playing fair.

Unlike some in the media, I don’t regard the grassroots on the right as uniquely insane. I’ve done enough reporting at that level to know that most Americans on the right and left are reasonable people acting in good faith. The right’s fringe problem at this moment in time is one that elites have created as much as any crazy fringe righty. Outfits ... deliberately play on the worst impulses of the conservative base, stoking their paranoia and misleading them about reality, all for the sake of bigger audiences and greater revenues. That ought to outrage anyone who actually respects the grassroots, and has their best interests at heart.

This is not a problem unique to the Right.  After all, "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."  Next, one hopes, comes regeneration.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (10 votes)


speak for your self

where do i begin? your long winded liberal talking points rant has my eye balls shooting blood.

you admit to listening to liberal PBS and anti american BBS. that saids it all!. so i will not argue point by point.

just a few.    rush said  he wanted obama to fail if he tries to socialize us.  Bravo-- any conservative agrees to that.

racist,  Palinized mob? Any one who disagrees with obama is racist?oh please grow up.  Palinized mob? your derogatory liberal/msm term for true grass root movement protesting big goverment that does not listen to the people nor follow the constitution is insulting.

Obama is just doing what is good for us?  hahaha  oh please save us from the condescending liberal who thinks we do not know whats best- he does.

what frightens people is not the term socialism but the real socialist that is obama and his very real socialist agenda  and policy already implemented. The real conservative has been warning this for 2 years based on obama very real socialist past as a member of socialist party in the 1990's, his admitted marxist preoccupation and friendships, his 20 yr indoctrination of racist marxist black liberation theology. now add 33 unelected czars with marxist or anti capitalist ideas a huge debt increase and people have aright to be afraid.

your attempt to mislabel the fringe is  pathetic


Care to name them?

"There are a couple other demagogues who appeal to our baser instincts that I would like to see CPAC decline to host, too, but this is a very positive step.  Kudos, CPAC."

I'm just curious as to whom else may be on your hit list.


From tne Miami Herald today  Why "Resentment Politics" Hijacked the Right

Good read

Farah,Henke,RSMcCain,Ruffini - All,Please Grow up...

Here's a perfect example of the monumental over importance that Henke, RSMcCain, Farah, Erickson, Ruffini, Hawkins etc and the whole lot of center<right bloggers place upon what they do.  All effected including writers, editors, publishers and readers - the sum of which are not going to sway any election one way or the other. They're all legends in their own mind.  The priority of every last one of them is to protect and promote their own little patch of turf.  How can they all be exalted once again to a place of importance? A good dose of humility will do wonders. What we're seeing now amounts to nothing more than squabbling/infighting among a bunch of brats over filled w/their own importance.  This is just a game of backnforth  one-up-manship that is not helping the dysfunctional, anemic Concervative Movement whatsoever.  Darvin Dowdy

The issue SHOULD BE NBC not BC

I understand why some people think they have a winning issue with the Birth Certificate. It's a relatively simple concept.  However, what really delegitimizes Obama is the fact that his father was not a American citizen. 

Obama's father being a Foreign National means Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen.  Obama being born in the United States does make him a citizen at birth per the XIV Amendment.  A XIV Amendment Citizen is not automatically a Natural Born Citizen.. otherwise the language of the XIV Amdendment would have used that term.

This has nothing to do with his place of birth or birth certificate. It has everything to do with the fact that his Father was not an immigrant nor a US Citizen. This has to do with the US Constitution and the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" The Constitution requires the President be a Natural Born Citizen

Article II - Constitution No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Many people think anyone born in the US under any Circumstance is a Natural Born Citizen because of Amendment XIV

Amendent XIV Says All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

Notice that the text does not say "Natural Born Citizen"... just "citizen". The author of the amendment says:

" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..." - John Bingham

So the guy who wrote the XIV Amendment clearly distinguished between being born a Citizen and being a Natural Born Citizen. The XIV Amendment does not use "Natural Born Citizen" because it would have redefined what NBC meant. The Constitution does not define what a NBC is. That is becaue the term was in common use at the time and did not need to be defined. This is the definition of NBC at the time of the Constitution

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN." - Emmerich de Vattel , Law of Nations 1758

John Jay had "The Law of Nations" when the Constitution was being drafted. He wrote:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Senator Leahy and Homeland Security Secetary Chertoff affirmed the "having two US Citizens as parents" definition last year when they tried to resolve the question about McCain being a NBC.

Chairman Leahy. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law pa*sed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

Secretary Chertoff. My a*sumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

Chairman Leahy. That is mine, too. Thank you.  

Then there is a Law Review article on the very subject of Natural Born Citizen written in 1884 , by its own definition Obama is an illegitmate President.


If that makes me mentally imbalanced, so be it.


I've said this on a different thread.

We already had a president who had a non-American parent; Chester A. Arthur. He was president in 1881-1885.

Someone else did it toooo waaaaa

There was a murder down the street here... I guess I'll start doing that. It must be ok now.


[picture of face rolling its eyes]


If that makes me mentally imbalanced, so be it.

I hear accepting that you have an illness is a major part of staying on your meds.

This CZARSmanship is Alarming!

It's one thing to express your opinion that any one particular issue is non-relevant. But unfortunately, there is a case that can be made for the issue that Obama is ineligibile to hold the office of the President of the United States. It stems from the fact that an original birth certificate has not been produced.

Sure, there was a birth announcement. Sure, the clerk stated that he saw the birth certificate...but could not produce it. Sure, the speaker of the house certified his eligibility....even after she blatently lied about being briefed on CIA interrogation methods. But at the end of the day....there still is no birth certificate.

One doesn't have to be a policy wonk to understand this issue. The constituition has a pre-requisite to be a natural born citizen such that one can hold the office of president. In current times, being a natural born citizen is documented by the original birth certificate. The issue is plain as day.

If one has to show my 5 year olds birth certificate to sign up for Tee Ball, then why shouldn't a winning candidate document his/her eligibility to hold the office by physically producing the certificate.

Whether any one feels this issue is of significance is immaterial. It is an issue and it certainly differs from "conspiracy theorists" in that there is constitutional support. To cheer the silencing of one component of our conservative/republican party at CPAC stinks of CZARSMANSHIP.

In these times, while we are in the midst of a fundamental change in the political and economic structures of the United States, we should and MUST be keenly aware of our need to PRESERVE FREE SPEECH. And that starts at home.

LET THEM HAVE THEIR 15 MINUTES AT THE PODIUM. It is the right thing to do.

Great Gifts

The birthers and the teabaggers and the deathers are the greatest gift reactionaries ever gave to progressives.  It makes you all look completely nuts and turns off younger, educated independent voters.  Please start ranting about flouride in our drinking water.  I really miss that one.  It's a laugh riot.

Athwart History


Is that even a word?

I see zombie William F. Buckley standing athwart history yelling WTF?


rbottoms, it wouldn't be Buckley, it'd be...

another conservative GOP writer of extraordinary talent, William Safire.  He is the conservative's grammartarian.

Of course, if you read rather than colored books, you'd probably know that.

nice post

Thanks a lot for nice article. looking forward to read more in future. i just bookmarked this.

Dermitage Reviews

Van Jones

I bet if you ran a poll asking Americans if Van Jones was a government official or a moving company, the moving company would win, hands down.

Jon Did Great on Rachel

Hey Jon,

I'm not sure why you're not tooting your own horn a little bit. You were good. You look like Conan O'Brian's conservative brother .

For those who missed it because they can't stand MSNBC.

Visit for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy


Rachel allows guests to finish their comments unlike the blow-hards on Fox.

After the GOP's atrocious behavior during President Obama's speech to Congress, I wonder if the GOP is beyond help.

Liberal ToddLuvsLounging