The Crooked Referee

I’m starting to blog again, in the hope that I can write something that goes viral enough to have some influence.

Those of us on the political right concluded long ago that the mainstream media (MSM is the abbreviation I will use) are working hand in glove with Obama and the Democratic party to ensure the election of Democrats. I also figured out many years ago that Fox News is not going to challenge this, because they enjoy their very large market niche as the officially designated opposition network, and they won’t rock the boat. National Review confirmed this weekend that they covet the same status in the print and Internet media markets that Fox has for TV news: they let liberals set the boundaries of acceptable opinion for them. And while talk radio isn’t neutered yet, the recent attacks on Rush Limbaugh have put them on the defensive.

What’s harder to understand is the attitude of Republican candidates. They are practically all media-whipped. The GOP disgracefully allowed the MSM to manipulate and control its nomination process this election cycle, rarely challenging their unfair coverage, the assumptions insinuated by their “gotcha” questions, or their complete dominance in setting the agenda. The spectacle of each candidate for the Presidential nomination being raised up in turn, in order to be batted down, made them all look like puppets.

Furthermore, they have completely failed to criticize Obama and the Democrats in the appropriate way, because they don’t want to scare the voters, and are afraid they will be punished as bearers of bad news often are. I think this is a mistake for 3 reasons:

1) There are tens of millions of voters who have tuned out because they recognize that we are heading off a cliff economically and fiscally, and the Republicans act like reducing the car’s speed from 80 mph to 60 mph without changing its direction will save the country.

2) Obama’s extraordinarily suspicious and incomplete background are being blatantly covered up by the MSM, and by failing to challenge this the Republicans show themselves to be either complicit, stupid, or cowardly. They’re afraid of being called racists, but the premeditated hysteria over the Trayvon Martin case, courtesy of the racial arsonists in the MSM and the Democratic Party who have made it clear that they don’t care about the facts of any case but only about the narrative they can make it support, indicate that they are going to be damned as racists no matter what. Once they accept this they will be free not only to criticize Obama personally, but to talk sense about immigration and race in a way they have been afraid to.

3) Even if the Republicans win, they need a mandate to make radical course corrections which can only come from the total discrediting of Obama, the Democratic Party, and the MSM.

Therefore Mitt Romney should conclude his acceptance speech at the Republican convention with the following paragraphs:


My fellow Americans, in the course of this campaign, there are several important but unpleasant truths that I will need to persuade you of. I ask that you consider them fairly. Two I have already mentioned are that we are in much worse shape financially and economically than we have been told or that we would like to admit, and that our current President and his administration are endangering our freedoms with their corruption and their radical leftism.

The third unpleasant truth is that almost all the information you will receive about news and public affairs, for the rest of this campaign, is going to be massively slanted, distorted, fabricated, and filtered by the media in order to make the Democrats win on election day, and that this process has already been going on for many years. It is an unpleasant truth because you have let yourselves be fooled, and I know I will be ridiculed for saying this; therefore I address my final words directly to the media.

To the reporters, editors, and producers of all the newspapers and television news programs in America: I accuse you of being a crooked referee. A boxer who is in a fight where the referee calls everything against him no matter who is actually violating the rules can still win, if he knocks his opponent out, and I intend to. But even if his opponent knows that the referee is on his side and fights dirty knowing that he will get away with it, he is much less reprehensible than the corrupt official, who has a responsibility to be, and pretends to be, neutral.

You want to prove me wrong? I’ll give you a chance. I’m going to make it very simple for you to prove me wrong, because I am going to ask you a simple question. It’s a yes or no question, and I insist that you answer it in your editorials tomorrow. Any attempt to evade it with an answer other than “Yes” or “No” will be interpreted as a “Yes”, because the question doesn’t depend on any facts which are still uncertain, it is a question purely about your attitude. In asking the question I am making no specific accusations against my opponent; rather I am picking the most egregious example of your failure to behave as reporters, editors, and producers properly should.

The question is: “Should it matter whether or not the documents released by Barack Obama concerning his birth, his draft registration, and his social security numbers, are faked?”

I am not in a position to evaluate the findings by Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County Arizona that they are faked; but I am certainly not so idiotic as to fail to notice that Arpaio’s findings have been neither pursued by you nor rebutted by the Obama campaign. You are acting as if whether they are fakes doesn’t matter; therefore I challenge you to answer tomorrow, in your editorials, YES or NO. Should it matter whether the documents are fakes? YES or NO? If you want to persuade Americans that you are not crooked referees, and that I am wrong to accuse you of this, here is your chance.


About Polymath

Discoverable with effort
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The Crooked Referee

  1. Alvis Velthomer says:

    This is a profound post. I have been feeling and thinking many of the same sentiments you wrote in your blog post for a long while.

    I am personally very pessimistic about the current socio-political climate, and I think things will take a turn for the worst for those who have traditionalist sympathies. I have been saying for over a year that Obama will be re-elected, barring a sharp economic downturn prior to the election. However, in his second term, Obama will have much more political mobility to exercise his true beliefs and no longer give the pretense of being a centrist (though the media will no doubtedly shift the Overton Window his way).

    I know there have already been some rightist commentors who have said that the Travyon Martin affair was partly orchestrated as a means to re-ignite black tribalism for Obama months before the election. However, there is a second dimension to it that is part of the general meme of liberals utilizing politics as war by another means.

    Second amendment rights have not only found increasing support, but even the repeal of current gun control laws and expansion of gun owner rights. It is the one issue in the past 30 years, where liberals have steadily lost ground. It is also the thing that gives families the right to protect themselves from violence (most of the time these families and individuals being victimized being undesirables in the eyes of the leftist elites).

    A criticism of the Travyon Martin case was that Zimmerman was not jailed due to the Stand Your Ground law in Florida. There has been much criticism of this law as a result of this case with even the Republicans who wrought the law backpedaling. I think liberal elites hopes to use future examples of gun owners exercising poor judgment and/or racial agitation to get voters to turn against the idea of gun rights, and begin to reclaim the ground they lost on gun restrictions within the last 30 years. However, I think if the liberal elites and Obama do mount an offense on gun rights and the Second Amendment, they will find far more rightist animosity and resistance to it (it may even blossom into a broader political movement that the Tea Party failed to do). There already exists an anticipation by Middle America that Obama will do a siege of gun rights in his second term, seeing as there have been records smashed for gun owner registrations, and ammunition purchases.

    With the last point in the previous paragraph, exists a key point, and possibly a silver lining for our darkening horizon. I recently saw an article about how gun and ammunition sales in Texas were partiallly accredited to an expectation that Obama will win re-election in November, this despite knowing that there exists widespread discontent for him and his policies. The conception to the collapse of a present regime and a revolution begins with people becoming cynical with the current political structure and climate, later hopeless, and finally having contempt with it. The cynicism about our government (and possibly many other liberal democratic goverments) has already existed for a long time. The possible relevation that people anticipate an Obama win this early in what even the MSM labels as a close election, shows the beginning of the people losing hope. When it becomes apparent to the “losers of liberalism” that they they simply do not have the votes to oppose liberalism at the national level, they will become hopeless of elections. The dangerous part here, is that hopelessness in the current socio-political climate can quickly metastatize into outright contempt. By contempt I am not talking about a violent resistance to the government, but rather a general feeling that the federal government is alien to their interest and even outright hostile to them. When a large portion of country’s citizenry believes that its government is hostile to their existence and interests and no longer a represntative of them, you will have mass disenfranchisement, which will lead to an assortment of undesirable consequences for not only the government in power but the current nation (at this point, empire) as a whole. There will be a push, de facto and de jure, for more local autonomy and power by the disenfranchised.

    Liberalism may seem to be winning (and at the present time they certainly are), however, I feel the tyrants of Western Liberal Democracy will make the same mistake before with the collapse of rightist electoral resistance in the empire’s heart (United States). They will want too much, too soon, and underestimate the will and souls of men to fight back even when pushed to the ground and de-humanized. We are not guaranteed a victory against this modern heathenry by any means, and it will ultimately come down to how many good men take the appropriate actions at the appropriate time, and how many will still cower at the thought of their decrepit master’s power. The times are interesting, we are truly blessed.

  2. You know, when Dan Rather aired what he did, it took about five minutes before credible experts revealed the documents to be forged, and about five days for Rather to get fired, despite the very same “MSM” running the show. In the Obama case, some five YEARS after his campaign first released his birth certificate, none of this has happened. No one takes the easily-refuted claims of the self-declared-but-not-really document experts seriously because they’re just not serious.

    Birtherism is electoral poison. If it weren’t, Orly Taitz would be California’s Secretary of State and/or its next United States Senator.

  3. Polymath says:

    RR, you are simply mistaken. The release “five years ago” was not of the original birth certificate, but of a “Certificate of Live Birth” which contained much less information and was not contemporaneous with the birth, and criticisms of it were immediately raised and just as quickly ignored. The document I am talking about was released just last year, and with five DAYS many people put on the Internet videos or articles showing the same kinds of suspicious features that Sheriff Arpaio’s team talked about.

    Your comment makes three blunders which show that you didn’t read what I wrote carefully.

    (1) The Rather analogy is inapplicable because in that case there was a directly injured party, George W. Bush, who would have sued CBS’s pants off if they hadn’t recanted their forgeries, while the people responsible for the documents in question here, if they forged them, would be more damaged by admitting a fraud than by stonewalling.

    (2) You failed to justify your statement that Arpaio’s findings are “easily refuted” and did not notice my statement that they are UNREBUTTED. Who refuted Arpaio’s findings? Are you saying I overlooked the places where the errors in Arpaio’s work were demonstrated?

    (3) You totally overlooked my MAIN point, which is that I am not recommending that Romney be a “birther” and directly accuse Obama, but rather that he say he is not making an accusation against Obama but rather pointing out an obvious failure by the media that proves their bias. My suggested language is quite clear that Arpaio’s claims are not being accepted but merely noted and raised as deserving of a response other than name-calling.

    I will ask YOU the very same question I recommend Romney ask the media. SHOULD IT MATTER whether the documents are forged? This is not a question about whether they WERE forged, but about whether it matters IF they were. You apparently believe that it DOES matter or you would not think it important to insist that the claims are “easily refuted”. Would you please confirm that your answer to my Yes-or-No question is therefore “Yes”?

  4. First of all, the “certificate of live birth” nonsense is offensive, as someone whose kids have them. I don’t know how it works where you are, but around here, you go to the town clerk in the town where your kid was born, fill out a form, pay something like $15, and get a “certificate of live birth,” which looks a lot like Obama’s from five years ago. It’s the only option; there’s no way to check another box or pay an additional fee and get something else. What they hand you is good enough to get your kid registered for school, get a passport, get on sports teams, and eventually, get a drivers’ license, too. Are you telling me my kids can’t run for President unless they first get a hold of some super-special version of their birth certificate, which, for some reason, will then have to meet the muster of a dentist/lawyer from California and a county sheriff from Arizona?

    No, of course you’re not, because for one thing, unless something’s been signed into law that I missed in some state, there’s no requirement that anyone running for President show any particular document to prove they’re eligible to run.

    In any case, I don’t believe either of Obama’s documents were forged, and I object to the entire premise of a handful of random conspiracy theorists declaring a document invalid and demanding (yet more) proof that they’re not, apparently based almost entirely on the fact they don’t understand how layers work. ( gets it, though.). If Barack Obama has been presenting a forged birth certificate for all these years, there are entities with standing to sue or press charges — the US government, which I assume issued him a passport; the Illinois government, which I assume at some point issued him a drivers license; etc. Why is it that those entities, presumably routinely handed false documentation, didn’t object to whatever forgery pre-Presidential Barack Obama must have been presenting? Did he register to vote or get his drivers’ license using this current “forgery” that’s only detectable by the Arpaio “experts” and Orly Taitz’s friends? Did he somehow have this document all the way back then? Did he have some other forged document? Why didn’t anyone object then, in the pre-computer forgery era, when he must have been producing other forgeries?

    Only conspiracy theorists seriously think these are forged documents. It doesn’t matter what conspiracy theorists think. Period.

    (But, yes, I’d love to see Mitt Romney address this at the convention; I think that would be fantastic. I can only hope he also demands access to search Area 51 for alien corpses and Fort Knox for gold, too. And if he promises to make Orly Taitz his running mate, I’ll even send him $20.)

  5. Alvis Velthomer says:

    Personally, I think the issue of Obama’s birth certificate is a dead end issue, the majority of the electorate already thinks of conspiracy theories surrounding Obama’s birth certificate as nonsense.

    I think Obama does have a lot of skeletons in his closet and a very shadowy past, but I don’t think any of it will be getting out while Obama is still in office. We are seeing the perfection of the liberal political machine before our very eyes.

  6. Jehu says:

    Obama has been allowed to have pretty much his entire past shrouded in mystery. This allows voters to basically project whatever fantasy they want onto him, and they did it in spades in 2008. I can’t think of another candidate for Presidency that got anywhere near this level of deference from the MSM.

  7. Polymath says:

    RR, stop ignoring my question. I am specifically saying YET AGAIN that I’m not trying to argue whether or not the three documents I mentioned (birth certificate, social security, draft registration) are fake. I am asking DOES IT MATTER? Right now, I have seen a PRIMA FACIE case that they are fake, look the words “prima facie” up please. That does not mean I accept or believe that they are fake. It means that the question of whether or not they are fake should be addressed. Your link to Goulding’s post is a good start but I have seen Arpaio’s presentation and I can tell you that much more is needed than what Goulding said to rebut it.

    I’ll say this one more time. Even if I’m not competent to settle the question for myself, I am competent to recognize that one side has made claims backed with evidence, and the other side has called names. Please stop arguing that such a fraud could never happen because it’s just too big, and instead give ms a direct answer to the yes or no question I keep asking. Your refusal to answer it with a clear “yes” or “no” is getting ridiculous.

  8. Polymath says:

    RR, one other point, for the record, since it’s been a long time since I blogged here and you may have forgotten. ***I think it is likely that Obama is legally eligible to be President, despite the possibility of the birth certificate being fraudulent.***

    I won’t bother explaining this again, it’s a technical legal argument you can find in the archives here. I am criticizing the indifference with which the possibility of these documents being forged is being treated, not arguing that Obama is ineligible. If he is guilty of failing to register for the draft, or using a fake social security number, or procuring a fake birth certificate, he is still probably legally eligible to be President, but he is also guilty of things which ought to disqualify him in a practical sense.

  9. Does it matter? I don’t know, how do you mean? Legally? That birth certificate was released to satisfy skeptics (or, if you’re more cynical, to both satisfy skeptics and to drive conspiracy theorists crazier), and I don’t tahink there are any legal ramifications if it’s actually a forgery. Politically, obviously it’d matter, and quite a lot, if it could be conclusively proven to be forged, though given the reception Arpaio (and Taitz) have received, it doesn’t seem many people are willing to buy that story.

    As with everything else, one must consider the source, and the real answer to “does it matter” is similar to the answer to questions like “Does it matter if Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed” and “Does it matter if the moon landings were faked?” Yeah, those things would matter … but no serious person really gives either of those things much thought, do they?

    The media isn’t “acting as if whether they are fakes doesn’t matter;” it’s acting as if the people calling them fakes are a bunch of foil-wearing lunatics. Name-calling? Sure, but that’s the company being kept here.

    So does it matter? Sure, it matters. Is it worthy of serious investigation? Sure doesn’t seem to be.

    Here are some other questions: do you really, really think this is the way to win the 2012 presidential election? Do you really think Mitt Romney should not just touch this issue, but touch it at the convention? Do you really think aligning oneself with Orly Taitz – and yes, I know you’re saying he’s not going that far, he’s only playing the “as far as I know” and the “let’s just look and see what’s there” cards that have worked so, so well for every public official whose said Obama is, as far as he or she knows, a Christian – but do you really think lining up with Orly Taitz, Queen of the Birthers, is a winning move in 2012?

  10. I don’t want to go hunt for why you’d think he’d still be eligible — maybe it’s the never-really-defined “natural born citizen” thing, or the jurisprudence that suggests pretty much everyone born in America other than the children of diplomats or occupying forces are natural born citizens — but in general, I have to ask: if he’s eligible either way, WHY WOULD HE HAVE RELEASED A FORGERY?

  11. Polymath says:

    Because 1) it wasn’t certain the courts would find in his favor and 2) even if they ultimately were going to rule him eligible, his contest with Hillary for the nomination was such a tight race that he couldn’t afford even a few percent of the Primary voters having another reason (his possible ineligibility) to vote for her.

  12. Polymath says:

    It has been pointed out to me that the MSM being a crooked referee is an important enough thing to establish that it shouldn’t be tied to the birth certificate issue, since the distinction between saying the media should look into it and saying Obama faked it may be difficult to maintain. I’m open to other suggestions for challenging the MSM in Romney’s acceptance speech; but a requirement is that he can pose a pointed question that he may plausibly insist they give an explicit reply to, and can’t avoid committing themselves.

  13. elviajador says:

    I don’t get why the Obama thing is so important? in the end he’s still a liberal-Democrat. If it wasn’t him, someone else would’ve clobbered McCain and the result would’ve been the same! They’re alll following Krugmann’s advice on the economy – larger government budgets.

    I can’t see why Obama’s certificate is important – he is American, and a Democrat, and was beat McCain soundly, mostly due to his incredible oratory skills and the media’s unwillingness to question his economic logic. Relating to the last point, the MSM media will NEVER question the logic of a liberal candidate for the same reason Fox News are such a godawful channel to watch. They just do what they do.

    And man… I’m republican, but I HATE Fox News and the way they don’t even pretend to be a serious news channel, interrupting guests. If I ever run for, and win office, I will publically slap the presenter who interrupts me.

  14. Polymath says:

    Elviajador, I think that technically Obama is probably eligible anyway. That’s not the point. The point is that he is hiding his past very thoroughly and we don’t know basic things about him that we know about every other President.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s