Obama Derangement Syndrome ... Conservatives Need to Shut Up About the Birth Certificate

HNN ^ | December 6, 2008 | David Horowitz

[malkee]

The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, an unhinged demagogue on the political fringe who lost a senate election to the then unknown Obama by 42 points should be a warning in itself.

This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats' seditious claim that Bush "stole" the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. This delusion helped to create the Democrats' Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq War, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became "Bush's War" rather than an American War with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.

The Birth Certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)

[mkjessup]

Eff you Horowitz, if Comrade 0bama has nothing to hide, he wouldn’t be spending six figure sums by hiring three law firms to conceal his birth certificate, his school and medical records, and anything else that might give some clues about his bonafide to serve as POTUS.

You want to roll over and let the 0bamunists p*ss on the Constitution, you’ll have to deal with REAL Americans who believe that document is still worth fighting and dying for.

GTF out Horowitz, you coward.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Are we sure this is the same David Horowitz that was a radical and became a conservative? There is another by the same name who never matured from the ‘radical’ state.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

“The Birth Certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality...”

Umm, yeah. Essentially that his how things work in a constitutional republic that follows the ‘rule of law.’

And I'm trying to think, if W had had a similar issue, would the Left have just ‘let the technicality slide?’

I'm thinking no. So, whatever hell they have and would have put us through, that's what I want to put them through for the next 4 years.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

You signed up a couple weeks ago to tell conservatives to “shut up”?

[mkjessup]

Exactly, if this issue had cropped up in December 2000 about George W. Bush, and whether or not he had been born on U.S. soil or somewhere in Mexico, you can be sure that the lamestream media would have kept up an incessant drumbeat 24/7 questioning whether or not Bush was even eligible under the Constitution to serve as President, they would be calling upon every advocacy group to file lawsuits, begging the Supreme Court to "uphold our sacred Constitution" and every liberal rag from the New York Slimes to the La Rhymes would be editorializing that only one of the two candidates was eligible to take the Oath of Office, and of COURSE that candidate would have been the abysmal Al Gore.

I would bet every last cent I have on that scenario taking place if this sort of controversy had erupted 8 years ago.

[Finalapproach29er]

How do you explain the birth announcement in the Hawaii paper?

[nathanbedford]

I came away from reading David Horowitz's views saddened but somehow not angry.

I suppose the thing that disturbs me most is his argument that majoritarianism should trump the Constitution. The whole point of the Constitution is anti-democratic. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is anti-democratic. The whole point of the United States Senate is anti-democratic. The whole point of the electoral College is anti-democratic. The whole point of permitting the states to have a winner take all system is anti-democratic when considered in the context of the whole country.

The point of the Constitution is to protect certain values against the majority. That David Horwitz does not understand this is inconceivable. He understands it all right, he simply works around it.

Horowitz focuses on 64 million voters who chipped in for Obama saying. "The Birth Certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil." What would Horowitz, a committed warrior against Islamicists, say if 64 million Americans had voted for Osama bin Laden? Would they be disenfranchised on a "technicality"? No one can conceive of Horowitz holding to his view in the wake of the election of Osama bin Laden. The constitutional requirements for office would cease to be a "technicality" and would become a sacred bed rock law of the land. But Mr. Horowitz does not regard Barak Hussein Obama to be the equivalent of Osama bin Laden. In fact, Horowitz justifies brushing aside the Constitution in favor of Obama by saying, "What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil?"

Let's carry this along, if and when Mr. Horowitz sees no point to constitutional requirements in their application to a given individual, the Constitution should be disregarded in favor of majoritarianism. I do not think it is unfair to presume that if Mr. Horowitz does not approve of a candidate who is constitutionally unqualified, such as Osama bin Laden, he would be among the first to invoke the prohibitions of the Constitution. Thus, we have abandoned the rule of law and descended into the rule of men.

That is why the Constitution must not be trumped, even by majority rule, when it tinkles Horowitz's fancy.

Horowitz makes a secondary argument: if five Supreme Court justices overturned the votes of 64 million Americans, the Constitution will lose "viability." If, contrary to the 14th amendment, 64 million Americans have voted to deprive Jews of their franchise, does Mr. Horowitz think that the Constitution would lose "viability" if those 64 million Americans were deprived, or in his words "disenfranchised", by a ruling of only five Spring Court justices that such a referendum were unconstitutional? I think not. Horowitz would be praising the constitutional system and the concept of the rule of law to the heavens.

Why is it that Mr. Horowitz gets to pick and choose when the Constitution should apply? Why don't I have that right? After all I'm a much nicer person than Mr. Horowitz and unquestionably better looking. I think I should have that right. It would tickle my fancy.

[mkjessup]

How do you explain the birth announcement in the Hawaii paper?

a.) ANYbody and their dog can place an announcement in a local paper ANYwhere.

b.) That so-called 'birth announcement' has all the legal standing of Confederate money, in fact the Confederate money has more.

NEXT brilliant question?

[Cringing Negativism Network]

IMHO even in the 1960s Dunham recognized the importance of American citizenship, and made sure someone called it in.

The paper’s policy if I have read correctly, was to publish birth announcements on the say-so of *one* relative.

All that had to happen is one family member say “Obama was born a couple days ago”.

For crying out loud. For several decades women have been risking dehydration, arrest and even death in the mountains and deserts of the US Southwest just to have a baby in America.

American citizenship is golden.

Don’t think people haven’t learned how to scam the system.

Immigration lawyers entire careers are built on it.

[Sharrukin]

How do you explain the birth announcement in the Hawaii paper?

I would say that it indicates Obama was born, and then that birth was announced in the paper. Two papers actually. The Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin.

We are not suggesting he wasn't born. We are not suggesting the announcement wasn't made in a Hawaiian paper.

The question is where was he born? The announcement doesn't indicate that in any way.

[Tublecane]

“’Organic’ implies disorderly and disorganized: rather the same way a fungus or mold develops”

True, but why is that so bad? I prefer disorderly over chaotic. Why should we expect existence to be clean and simple?

This is one of those apparent contradictions that intellectuals love. Burke (who would probably hate my calling him an intellectual), the father of modern conservatism, hated the rationalist utopians who praised nothing but order. He predicted that their attempts to organize society from above would in fact bring more chaos than existed in the first place, and the prevailing historical judgement of the French Revolution cannot escape this view altogether. I think you’d probably be able to find plenty of examples of traditional regimes carrying out, in similar periods of time, more violence the Terror. But we now have the commies to point to, so that’s beside the point.

The point is, Burke didn’t imagine that traditional society, justifiably skeptical of change, was perfectly peaceful. That’s okay. Experience can be messy. So long as it’s less messy than the authoritarian/utopian alternative, we win!

[Always Right]

There are some good arguments.

Good arguements for what, a troll?

[Robert DeLong]

I am beginning to believe it is the other David Horowitz after seeing some of the other items on this website.

[Beckwith]

Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation.

So is respect for the U. S. Constitution.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

And I'm sure you're right. Their hypocrisy is nauseating and infuriating.

And the MSM does an excellent job of their own in disenfranchising the votes of millions of Americans by slanting their news, sliming conservatives, and worshipping leftists. By not providing an equal voice, they are, de facto, disenfranchising the right of millions to vote for the candidate that best represents their views and forces an ersatz substitution upon them, just as they did this past election cycle.

[Paige]

Show the Certificate of live birth and then people will shut up.

David needs to read the Constitution and understand the Democrats could have possibly created the ultimate
“Coupe D Etat”.

But hey, maybe there are only a few of us left who believe that Pesky oh Consitution is the law of the land.

[Sharrukin]

It isn’t just Horowitz. It is Michelle Malkin, Michael Medved, Rick Moran, Ed Morrissey, and others.

It honestly seems like a concerted campaign of some sort. The arguments presented are absurd in the articles I have seen. These are not otherwise unintelligent people, but as the above article indicates, their justifications for ignoring this seem rather strained.