David Horowitz: Obama Derangement Syndrome- Conservatives Need to Shut Up About the Birth Cert.

HNN ^ | 12/6/08 | David Horowitz

[pissant]

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.)

What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?

Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to 5 Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the 4 liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?

It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country's economy and defending its citizens, and -- by the way -- its Constitution.

[Kevmo]

What is “provable” is that a majority of credible conservatives have avoided this issue like the plague.
***Well, aren’t you the lucky one? I see your argumentation has tightened up, a little bit. You should be grateful to me... At any rate, you are correct about provability, majority and credible conservatives... but that’s only one thing you happen to be right about. Downthread are some examples where the majority of credible conservatives didn’t lend weight to something that turned out to be true, so I don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Except I note that Paula Jones isn’t on the list, and it’s because of her that Clintoon was impeached. So you might want to just start using that newfound critical thinking skillset you’re developing and look into this high-leverage constitutional crisis, using your God-given brain instead of letting some paid tongue waggers do your thinking for you.

Oh, and you blew it by returning to the vomit of your original argument from silence. Like it or not, that’s how it is: It’s still a classic logical fallacy, so learn to stop using it.

[Windflier]

Suppose for the sake of argument that Obama really was born in Hawaii and really has an original and true birth certificate attesting to that fact which he could easily produce. If he were to do so, do you honestly think that would end the controversy?

I ask you. Look around here and tell me if you really see any loons in the house? Take a good look. That's right...there aren't any. You've got to spend some time at DU to experience some real insanity.

That being said, the answer to your question is Yes, nearly all of the controversy would disappear overnight. Of course, there will always be a fringe element that can't let go of even the most crackpot conspiracy theory. If Obama were to end this by producing his original birth certificate, you'd then be able to spot the real loons, because they'd be the only ones left talking about it.

So from Obama's point of view, he gains no advantage by producing the original birth certificate even if he has it. Rather, he just draws attention to the controversy and gives it credibility.

This really isn't a "controversy" as we normally think of them. Lots of controversies are manufactured, or cooked up attacks against political opponents to injure them in the press. This is a whole different kettle of fish.

So, where is the press? No press, no controversy, right? If it's not on the boob tube day and night, then it's something else. Just the fact that the MSM is silent on this, or gives it snickering short shrift, indicates to many Americans that something almost sinister is happening.

This is about as simple an issue as one could ever see in a presidential election. The DNC and the Secretaries of State across the nation did not check Obama's credentials before they allowed him on the national ticket. Apparently, there's no mechanism in place to do that, so it's a sudden and glaring error discovered in the process. Well, the Constitution says that a President must be a Natural Born Citizen. Ok. Mr. Obama, sir, we're very sorry about this, but we'll have to ask to see your ID, if you don't mind.

Obama gets his people to procure a copy of his original BC, and it's over in 72 hours.

That's what an honest man would do in these circumstances.

You say there's no upside for Obama in this? How about being able to begin his presidency without the suspicion of illegitimacy hanging over his head? How about knowing that he won't be continuously challenged in the courts about this for the next four years? How about knowing that this controversy won't be constantly sucking the life away from everything he attempts to accomplish? How about knowing that he'll be recognized as the legitimate President of the United States by every world government, without question, and that treaties and agreements he signs will be looked upon as valid because of that? And, how about knowing that he won't provoke half the citizens in the country to openly rebel against what they see as illegal usurpation of their government?

There's a lot of upside for Obama in ending this controversy.

[Political Junkie Too]

In other words, better safe than sorry?

I'm interested in having the Constitutional questions answered, such as:

1. Who has authority to test the qualifications clauses in the Constitution BEFORE the candidate runs for office?

2. Who has standing to contest the authorization of a candidate's qualifications, that is, the check and balance against item 1?

The Constitution has references to the process that happens when a president-elect fails to qualify (Amendment XX Section 3). Why is that? What could cause a failure to qualify after an election? If the Constitution has a process for dealing with it, why should we look away if we suspect it?

The requirements are there in the Constitution. We can't just ignore them. We have to answer the questions of responsibility for determining and validating the determination of Article II qualifications, once and for all. We can't let a candidate use privacy laws to shield against Article II inspection. Article VI says that the Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." That means that the Constitution trumps Hawaii privacy laws, if it comes to that.

-PJ

[TigersEye]

That sounds sane and well-reasoned to me.

[Political Junkie Too]

Are you calling me "sane" and "well-reasoned?" Them's fightin' words!!! ;-)

-PJ

[dpwiener]

There's a lot of upside for Obama in ending this controversy.

I respect your opinion, although I happen to disagree with it. I think a plausible argument can be made either way.

The fact remains that Obama has chosen a different path. One possible explanation is that he was born in Kenya and hence must go down this path in order to become President. Another possible explanation is that he has weighed the advantages and disadvantages, and has concluded that he's better off politically by treating the entire matter as frivolous and ignoring it.

In the latter case his political judgement (or that of his advisors) may turn out to be wrong, but it nevertheless explains his actions. And from a practical viewpoint his present course of action will not prevent him from becoming President, and it will not matter to the vast majority of the public.

It will matter to his most vociferous right-wing critics, but I don't think Obama is concerned about appeasing them.

[Katarina]

Well said April, I agree with you.

[Political Junkie Too]

In the latter case his political judgement (or that of his advisors) may turn out to be wrong, but it nevertheless explains his actions. And from a practical viewpoint his present course of action will not prevent him from becoming President...

So the outcome of the Supreme Court conference, if they choose to hear the case, might be this:

1. The Court hears arguments about how a Nicaraguan-born candidate was allowed on the ballot of New Jersey. The question is why, and how many other states allowed this candidate onto the ballot, and why?

2. The Court hears arguments as to what evidence would be sufficient to prove Article II qualifications. The Court hears the difference between a hospital birth certificate signed by delivering doctors, and certifications of live birth given by states up to a year after a birth. They also hear arguments on how to handle non-hospital births.

3. The Court rules that authority to determine Article II qualifications begins with state Secretaries of State as they certify candidates. The Court lays out what evidence a candidate must present in order to qualify. That evidence is a) the original birth certificate signed by the delivering doctor, then b) a certification of live birth filed within 24 hours of a non-hospital delivery, with a doctor's signature attesting to the medical examination of the baby.

4. Here's the tricky part -- does the Court offer a remedy in this situation, being that the candidates must provide such evidence before either the Electoral College votes or Obama is sworn in (McCain has, Obama has not), or does the Court pass on this election and stipulate that this ruling is for elections from 2012 and beyond? If it is the former remedy, then Obama may be in trouble; if it is the latter remedy, then he wins by holding out.

-PJ

[MPJackal]

Why would he spend close to ONE MILLION dollars to keep the full Birth Certificate locked up? Why not pay 10 bucks and put this issue to bed. That said, the ONLY logical conclusion is that he is hiding something. I think we have a right to know, and he has an obligation to be honest and open. When did this become a country where that is asking to much?

[browardchad]

Clarence Thomas’s view was that even though Souter rejected Donofrio vs. Wells, he said there’s a constitutional issue at stake. He risked the ire of his colleague. So that signals he thinks it’s important, which it is.

Kevmo, please don't mischaracterize Justice Thomas that way. He hasn't made any statements, and so we don't know his opinion on this issue.

The fact is, he followed standard practice, as described in the SCOTUS publication "A Reporter's Guide to Applications Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States" --

There are several possible scenarios for the disposition of an application:

• A Justice may simply deny without comment or explanation.

•  If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may reapply to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until a majority of the Court has denied the application.
  

• In practice, applications usually are referred to the full Court by the second Justice to avoid such a prolonged procedure.
  

In other words, the second Justice routinely refers applications to the full Court, to avoid having a petitioner re-submit it four more times. If Donofrio had resubmitted the app to Ginsburg, it would likely have obtained the same results.

Even Donofrio, who, in his enthusiasm, originally believed Thomas' action was some sort of affirmation, admits that he was mistaken in that belief.

There's nothing wrong with discussing this issue; certainly everyone's entitled to their opinion, and concern.  It's when theories that haven't been proven are stated as facts, and those who disagree are attacked (such as the ad-hominems aimed at Horowitz on this thread) that the discussion crosses over to the emotion-based irrationality that has chararacterized the left for the past 8 years.

[Political Junkie Too]

I'm afraid that what Horowitz (and others) might be saying between the lines is that the issue is a legitimate Constitutional issue to resolve, but not with the case of the first African-American elected president. They see that as the bridge too far. In my opinion, they would rather see an ineligible African-American president, than the first African-American elected president disqualified on Constitutional grounds, even if the candidate himself knowingly committed fraud on the electorate in order to win.

They just don't want to go there. Like Obama himself who wrote of not wanting to research his mother's marriage for fear of what he might find, people like Horowitz don't want to research this for fear of what they might find.

-PJ

[RSmithOpt]

Re #30...... and that law does not convey the requirements for natural born.

[Alia]

Thank you for explaining the procedures and process. I did not know this; and yes, it makes sense.

It's when theories that haven't been proven are stated as facts, and those who disagree are attacked (such as the ad-hominems aimed at Horowitz on this thread) that the discussion crosses over to the emotion-based irrationality that has chararacterized the left for the past 8 years.

Yeah.. that's a problem I have about all this, as well. It amounts to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and later lamenting in wondering what happened to the baby.

[TheCipher]

and that law does not convey the requirements for natural born.

Exactly and as far as BHO is concerned, he wouldn't even have citizenship so "natural born" isn't even an issue.

[Bullish]

The Constitution either rules this country to the letter or soon it will mean nothing at all.

If it can be proven that Obamanation is not natural born, then it is worth every bit of crisis it causes to deny him his election.

Deal with it David.

[TigersEye]

Well, I’m just an FR kook so don’t take it too seriously. ;^)

[alexander_busek]

Even if you are right this is such a strange technicality that it means squat.

Yes, you're right. What a "strange technicality," requiring that the candidate be a "native-born citizen!"

Regards,

[mono]

No problem. The Dems will just pass a law retroactively making it ok. After all, it is only fair(sarcasm).

[alnick]

So, appealing to the cooler-headed FReepers: look, is this a non-issue or not? Is it what Horowitz calls it, the conservative version of the unhinged "stolen-election" rant?

The side making the accusation has the burden of proof. There is no evidence to support the claim against Obama.

I HATE that Obama has been elected, but he has been elected. Let's work on getting him unelected in '12 rather than spinning our wheels on this -- yes -- non-issue.

[voveo]

“a strange technicality that it means squat”

I guess if it’s a just technicality, then it must be a technicality that I pay taxes.