Basically Rep. McClintock wants to end the conversation without a debate by resorting to a STFU defense, even though he didn’t actually say it in those terms.

When did truth become unproductive?

By Mara Zebest | June 21, 2012

Recently, Congressman Tom McClintock spoke at a local Tea Party meeting. McClintock praised the impact and influence the Tea Party has had on elections and politicians. The Congressman went on to offer encouragement to continue confronting and engaging representatives. And if the representative is resistant, McClintock offered the following advice [paraphrasing]:

Don’t just make calls to the congressional offices, but challenge representatives in person whenever the opportunity presents itself by attending town halls and meetings. When a representative is being interviewed on the radio, call the radio station to ask challenging questions. Voice your concerns by writing Op Ed articles or take the time to frame your concerns in an effective manner through posted comments. Don’t be discouraged if after you take the time to write a comment, it is instantly met with an angry response or name calling. I’m told this is sometimes referred to as flaming. When this happens, you may wonder why it was worth making the effort to type out a well-framed idea in a comment. It was worth the effort because others will read that comment and you may have helped to articulate the idea in a manner that others find reassuring. Remember, if the only response an opponent has to offer is anger and name calling; then you’ve already won the argument.

When it came time for Q & A, I decided to take McClintock’s advice by confronting him face-to-face with a couple of concerns.

The first concern mirrored Mark Levin’s idea to replace Speaker of the House (Boehner) with Scott Walker since there’s no rule that states the Speaker of the House has to actually be a member of the House. Rep. McClintock’s appeared irritated by the request. He replied in a crisp and abrupt tone, “I think Scott Walker is plenty busy.” Determined not to be discouraged, I expanded, “We won’t know unless the idea is formally presented. I think Walker would be the perfect choice since he clearly has a spine of steel, he lives outside of the D.C. bubble influence, and he’d be a great conservative candidate to hold Romney’s feet to the fire, which we’re going to desperately need. Boehner has a horrible habit of drawing the line in the sand and then, throwing a bucket of water on his own line.” McClintock was not happy with a possible Boehner revolt brewing. The next question absolutely ruffled his feathers more.

In moving to the next concern, I offered a brief bio and explained that I had participated in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation. My report to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office dealt with the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate document. This prompted a splatter of applause. I continued, “The PDF file Obama released is absolutely fraudulent and can be proven down to the metadata and object code buried within the file. However, if Congress members are uncomfortable in discussing the birth certificate, there’s additional proof that other documentation is equally fraudulent. Obama’s Selective Service card is obviously forged. By law, if the Selective Service card is fraudulent, Obama is not allowed to hold any executive public office position. Therefore, when will there be a Congressional hearing to evaluate the evidence on this issue?”

The response was essentially identical to one elicited from Rep. Dan Lungren. The representatives must get the same talking point memo. The strategy seems to be to ignore the question focusing on the Selective Service card. Instead, the Congressman made a beeline for the O’Reilly narrative that “citizen” is sufficient to trump the Article II “natural born citizen” requirement. Along with the idea that proof of Obama’s eligibility rest in the two birth announcements from Hawaii. My request to respond was shouted down by Rep. McClintock. In a tone that rose to a crescendo of anger, he shouted, “No, you need to sit down and be quiet. This is not productive when there are more important issues to focus on.”

This parroting of a Liberal media line never fails to force an equally kneejerk response to snap back, “I’m perfectly capable of multitasking and going after all of Obama’s misdeeds. No issue should be off the table.” McClintock did not hear these words and became more agitated as he drowned out the dissent by repeating his stance that “It is not productive. Stop! I will not listen to another word you have to say.”

The response and vitriol of the Congressman is not unusual or unexpected, but I find it troubling when other conservatives buy into silence for fear of being labeled “unproductive.” Are people so easily persuaded to stand down and adopt apathy as the norm? A few people approached me to suggest that we wait for the courts to decide the issue. I explained, “If you’ve ever read Frederic Bastiat’s The Law, you will realize that our Founder’s did not trust the judicial systems any more than the power grabbers in government. This is why they are an equal branch of government with limited powers. Courts, like governments, are motivated by a sense of elitist power and thus likely to be equal opportunists in plundering. The courts are merely using a strategy to be self-serving and run out the clock at this point. Instead of waiting for the courts, I prefer to have faith in the people, in individuals, as the Founders did. I’d be willing to bet that if the people melted the phone lines of our congressional offices with a united concern on the eligibility issue, it would have a profound impact on advancing the discussion.”

READ MORE...