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

here is some food for thought on this

http://tribes.tribe.net/killthebuddha/thread/4c66053c-2ea8-41c2-9f56-f954a66c9534

The septic line of thinking proposed by the "go along" type of pundit, aka David house-of-horowitz, leads to fascism.

It seems the Obama bodysnatchers have neutered many in the conservative movement.

“...the Supreme Court who allowed it on the docket”.

Well, not quite. Clarence Thomas pegged it for discussion and it will only be “discussed” if other Justices agree to discuss it.

So far, it only merits a quick look, and we do not know for what purpose(s).

Further, we do not know why Thomas selected it. It could be to squelch it once and for all.

Or it could be what most people on this thread seem to want..to shine the light on the issue.

The birth issue will not keep him from being sworn in, but it will not go away. It will hang in the air, and in time it will be joined by all the other issues hanging over this invisible man in his empty suit.

As all the promised miracles fail to appear, as the Dims flail around and wreck the economy, as we face one international humiliation after another, the adoration will turn sour, and all the things that have now been swept under the carpet will finally see the light.

I don’t have alot of confidence that teh courts have the balls to force Obama to come clean, but you are right; I for one, will never let it go until he proves he is eligible. If he refuses, then he is not my president.

OK

I’m trying to counter some arguments my tin-foil hat ultra lib brother has. Do you have some info and/or link to the law firms or $$$ Obama has spent?

Thanks in advance.

I’m sure there are lawyers and law firms involved, but what is your source?

Again, not challenging your veracity, just want to find the details.

Unless it can be undisputably proven that Obama is NOT his mother’s son and/or was NOT born on American soil of a U.S. citzen, those with a hope of ever electing another conservative president should give up this foolish lost cause! It is far worse, and will have longer lasting negative effects, than the left’s “Bush stole the election” canard.

I’m thinking mainly of Limbaugh who to my knowledge has avoided the issue. Rush has a Buckleyite wariness of being dismissed a kook. Medved considers himself the ultimate anti-kook so it’s no surprise where he has come down. Malkin is in constant warfare with the kook left which which has her sensitized to any appearance of kookiness on the right. I don’t know about Hannity — probably playing it safe like a good boy.

I guess David Horowitz would prefer
a Coup d'etet by an illegal alien.

You’re right about Medved, and I presume, Malkin.

Rush, OTOH, I don’t think, would shy away from this issue.

What makes me pay attention is the fact that none of Townhall’s 60 commentators has picked up the meme. No one from NRO. And that includes Tom Sowell, Victor Davis Hansen or even Frank Gaffney.

It may be that they don’t consider it part of their area of interest, or they don’t see it going anywhere.

Again, I point out, the frenzy is on the free and easy blog, where there is no accountability. And I point out that even many of the responsible posters on FR are missing from the threads that take up this issue.

I think, but obviously do not “know”, the reason is there are too many people here trying to weave whole cloth out of thin cloth.

IOW, there is little of substance, outside of speculation and rumor.

Fair enough. I think, but obviously do not "know", that there is something to Obama's ineligibility. I don't buy the Kenya birth possibility, but his father was not a citizen.....ever. Also, it has not been clearly shown he was born in HI.

Now the other part of this game, is the political side. Politics never end and has lots of "speculation and rumor" at its core. The MSM and left bloggers are masters at the game.

The eligibility of Obama has begun to hit other sites beyond FR. It is being discussed, argued about, etc. Many had never heard about it prior to the last couple of weeks. Many never knew there was no "official vetting process", for this little, but oh, so important piece of our Constitution.

Until Obama proves he is eligible, he runs the risk of being considered an illegitimate President to more and more Americans. It's likely a risk he will take since he's vested in sticking with the life story he promoted in his two autobiographies. I don't think conservatives should be minimizing Obama's risk.....I say fight on.

I’m sure Rush is watching the BC issue closely and has an opinion, but he’s not going to lead the charge. The problem is there’s a good chance that there’s nothing there, that Obama is legit. The best argument for pursuing the BC issue is about process, not about outcome per se. It’s a subtler argument but it’s enough to get you grouped with the people who are white knuckles positive that Obama is hoaxing the country. It’s not worth the risk, so everyone’s going to sit back and watch while those with nothing to lose, like Alan Keyes, do the dirty work.

"...it is sore loserism..."

Is that description a copyright infringement, or a compliment? Methinks I'll ping the person who knows...

5.56mm

In regard to David Horowitz's latest vicious ad hominem attack on Dr. Alan Keyes:

Horowitz calls Alan Keyes "unhinged" and "a demagogue."

I am going to link Dr. Keyes' public comments on this case, and challenge the reader to find anything unhinged or demagogic about a single word of it.

One comment first about Horowitz: He's a radical secularist who at times shows his true stripes. This is just the latest example.

From the press release announcing the CA Keyes case:

Alan Keyes:

"I and others are concerned that this issue be properly investigated and decided before Senator Obama takes office. Otherwise there will be a serious doubt as to the legitimacy of his tenure. This doubt would also affect the respect people have for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I hope the issue can be quickly clarified so that the new President can take office under no shadow of doubt. This will be good for him and for the nation." - Alan Keyes

Anyone see anything there that is "unhinged"?

From his interview with Essence Magazine:

ESSENCE.COM: What exactly do you want to accomplish with this lawsuit?

ALAN KEYES: I had read a little bit about the issues that were being raised about Obama back during the primary season. At first I thought, like a lot of people, "There's nothing to this. It's just a matter of fact. You can establish what the facts are." The Constitution specifies that a citizen who is naturalized, rather than born into the status of being an American citizen, cannot be president. That was done in the beginning because people feared a foreign takeover of the United States government by the process of immigration. Staid as it is, we again are in a situation where a lot of foreign entities have influence or control over U.S. policy.

The reason an issue has been raised about Obama is because of the simple question, which can be answered with a birth certificate that shows he was born in the United States, or born to parents who had the capacity to transmit U.S. citizenship. When the question was asked, he danced around it. If the most important office of the federal government can be occupied by someone who is not qualified under the United States Constitution, that destroys the authority of the Constitution. I think it's something that needs to be dealt with in a clear, straightforward way. Eventually the case will get to the Supreme Court, establish the facts, and clear the air. It's really all very simple.

ESSENCE.COM: The Obama campaign responded to these questions months ago by posting a birth certificate on his campaign Web site, showing that he was born in Hawaii.

KEYES: A lot of questions have been raised about what they posted. It has to be established by a matter of fact, not by some Web site. The state of Hawaii needs to share the birth certificate with the Supreme Court, so they can take a look at it. When I went into the government as part of the United States foreign service, you had to submit an original copy of your birth certificate. People have been dancing around Obama's certification instead of going straight to the answer.

ESSENCE.COM: What's wrong with the birth certificate on his Web site?

KEYES: Part of the problem is, at the time he was born, the state of Hawaii was issuing certificates of live birth. That's what he has on the Web site. They would issue that certificate verifying you were born, but not necessarily in the United States. And there is question that, at the time that he was born, his mother was not yet of age to transmit citizenship. You had to be 19, I think. If he was born in Hawaii, then he is a natural born citizen. If he was born somewhere else-and a question has been raised if his birth was in Kenya-then his mother would not have transmitted citizenship. One needs to verify that the certificate verifies the birthplace.

ESSENCE.COM: State officials from the health department of Hawaii have verified that they have Obama's birth records, and that he was indeed born in Hawaii. Do you think they're lying?

KEYES: I don't think anything. Just let it be verified. This is not something that should be taken on hearsay. This is the most important office. Everything should be done without controversy, in such a way that the Constitutional requirements are met. If something is contrary to the Constitutional requirement, then you have to do away with that. It's not on Obama to do this. The folks with whom this burden presently rests are the officials who are now responsible for the process, who sit on the Supreme Court and other areas. They have to abide by their oaths to preserve and defend the Constitution, and not have him entering into office with a question they refuse to resolve.

ESSENCE.COM: Why didn't you bring this up earlier, during the campaign? Why wait until two months before the inauguration?

KEYES: The election is the time when the people make the judgment, not government officials. The problem in this case is, Obama was not properly vetted-by the media, or other individuals-during the campaign. They refused to look at it. People went to the polls with the issue unresolved. Once the electoral process is done, then the responsibility for certifying the results and making sure it's all according to the Constitution rests on the officials. So we're at a different stage of the process. I don't believe it would be a good idea to turn to the government to establish the qualifications of people who are running for office. That could be abused to limit the options of the people. If people are behaving with integrity, these facts would come out and then people would be able to make their judgment. This didn't happen.

ESSENCE.COM: To a lot of people, your lawsuit looks like a case of sour grapes because you lost. Your response?

KEYES: I think politics is irrelevant to this, actually. I don't see how it is showing fondness for Barack Obama to let him enter into office with a question that could be raised. He should not have to operate under that burden. I think the officials need to clear the air for his sake. From my point of view, it is a bad idea to have a president of the United States enter office with a cloud hanging over his head, where every time he tries to do something, he would end up frittering away time because of that objection. So let's get it over with. Let's resolve it and move forward with a clear an undisturbed mandate for the new president.

ESSENCE.COM: For argument's sake, let's say Obama is only a naturalized citizen, and was raised by Americans and grew up in the United States. What difference does that make to you?

KEYES: It makes a difference to the Constitution. The Constitution has to be obeyed. If we get into a position where it is somehow regarded as dispensable then this country will fall apart. Black people should be the first folks to remember that. Without adherence to the Constitution our battles would have never been won. I don't want to live in a country where we are suddenly back in a world where the force of majority rules. I don't think any of us do.

ESSENCE.COM: Would you be in support of amending that section of the Constitution?

KEYES: No, I would most certainly not. Today we are in more danger as a people of being subverted by foreign powers than we were when it was founded. It is possible, under our present rules in America, for folks from another country to come visit America, to have a child here, to take that child back to wherever, raise that child there, and that child would be an American citizen. Do we really think it would be right to have a person who has not lived in America, does not identify with our people, to run here as president of the United States?

ESSENCE.COM: That's a different situation from what's being questioned about Barack Obama.

KEYES: Rules have to be written in general. You can't write a rule in every particular case. The rules established in the Constitution are general rules that have been abided by people throughout the history of this country. People have been excluded from running for president, people like Arnold Schwarzenegger. One has to think of the common good. This isn't a question of individuals anymore. The key thing about the presidency, in my opinion, is that the person above all takes responsibility for the common good of the country. Our public officials do not swear allegiance to a country; they swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That's something to be taken very seriously. Those are the rules.

The voice of reason. If anyone is "unhinged" in this case, it is Mr. Horowitz.

This week, Alan Keyes laid out the broader issues here. I hope folks will read it and give what he says serious consideration.

They gave up those particular body parts awhile ago. Circumstances are just making it more apparent to more people.

Could be. I certainly am not privy to Rush’s thinking.

But to ascribe such attitudes as fear, wanting to be liked, afraid of the Fairness Doctrine, etc, ad nauseum to his motives is to mischaracterize and fail to understand him entirely.

I have no problem with Dr. Keyes petition. It has been filed properly, the Electors have been served, and we’ll see where it goes from here.

Certainly, Dr. Keyes had every right (standing) to file this suit.

I have also stated that I believe Horowitz’ article is flawed.

Oh, and incidentally, I have also stated that my opinion, like everyone else’s here, is worth squat.

Excerpt...

Relying on the results of the recent election, some will say "by the authority of the people," which is to say the majority of the people which elected him. But until now, the United States has not been simply a democratic republic (that is, a regime in which the sovereign power follows the will of the simple majority) but a constitutional democratic republic (in which the sovereign power follows the will of the constitutional majority, and is bound by the terms and conditions specified in the Constitution.) The best illustration of the difference may be taken from the very history Obama's election is supposed to culminate – the history of black Americans. In 1954, when the Supreme Court announced its opinion in the famous Brown v. Board desegregation case, the simple majority of the American people had repeatedly and continuously accepted or tolerated segregation, both in their election of representatives and in the legislation passed by those representatives. The Court held segregation to be contrary to the Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land) and therefore unlawful. Its authority to do so rests on the clear logic of judicial review succinctly articulated by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers:

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both: and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decision by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. (Federalist 78)

Though the results of any given election also represent the will of the people, the validity of those results rests on the substantive and procedural understanding arrived at by the people and expressed in the provisions of the constitutional compact. In it, the people have agreed that, first in its adoption and then in the adoption of any changes in its terms, a more comprehensive majority is required than that which decides the outcome of any other election prescribed by it. The need for this more comprehensive majority makes the Constitution a more permanent and durable expression of the will of the people than any subsequent action by a simple majority. In this context, those who compose the simple majority are, like the members of the legislature, subordinate agents of the constitutional majority.

Almost all the great advances of the civil rights cause in the 20th century depended upon this argument as to the authority of the Constitution. The concept of constitutional review has also been crucial in the protection of individual rights, including the property rights of those who might otherwise be despoiled by intemperate majorities, roused to injustice by ambitious demagogues.

If Barack Obama is allowed to assume the office of president without positively establishing his eligibility under the Constitution, it will set a precedent for exempting the allocation of executive power from constitutional restrictions on the pretext that majority support overrules constitutional authority, popularity supersedes the fundamental law. Obviously, this is a recipe for the establishment of democratic dictatorship, like that which characterized the revolutionary first republic in France and licensed its murderous excesses. It is the counterpart of the "democratic people's republics" in whose name countless millions were imprisoned and killed by oppressive party dictatorships in the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, etc.

In an era when the insecurity implied by the threat of terrorist attack already overshadows our liberties, only one thing may be more dangerous to our freedom than such a precedent – the fact that it comes about because of the ignorance, fear, or selfish ambition of those sworn to uphold the Constitution. If they lack the character to do so now, before abuses of executive power create an environment of physical fear and intimidation, what must we expect once those abuses produce their inevitable effect? The people mesmerized by his tinsel rhetoric may expect Obama to resist the temptations of demagogic tyranny, but if he assumes office knowing that in doing so he has already successfully set aside the Constitution, no reasonable person could agree with them. As Shakespeare wrote, "Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill." ("Macbeth," Act 3, Scene 2)

Since every government official in the United States is sworn to uphold the Constitution, all of them, at every level, have a positive obligation to make sure its provisions are implemented. With regard to the issue of Obama's eligibility to serve as president, a special responsibility falls upon the Supreme Court of the United States. Though in the end, the actual implementation of the Constitution must at this stage be left to the members of the Electoral College (who will also be bound by oath to respect the Constitution), the Supreme Court has the duty that falls to the judiciary in every case, to make sure the provisions of the law are clearly understood, and that relevant facts are presented and have not been falsified or fraudulently withheld. Since the case involves a general election, in which millions of citizens participated, prudence dictates that this be done in a way that assures those millions that the law has been respected, which means that relevant facts and evidence must be publicly presented to the fullest extent possible.

A failure of statesmanship in this matter could obviously have the gravest consequences. It would be inexcusable dereliction to permit a situation in which the putative authority of a sitting president is plainly contradicted by the authority of the Constitution from which the whole government derives its legitimacy. Citizens, sworn officials of government at every level, members of the military – all would be put in a position where their sworn duty to the Constitution is in opposition to their inclination to respect the decisions and actions of the president of the United States. Both intellect and conscience recoil at the prospect of such conflicting claims. I pray that the justices of the Supreme Court, and other officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, will do and be seen to do their duty. Otherwise Obama's vaunted promise of change will portend the demise of America's peaceful liberty.

- Alan Keyes, The end of the constitutional republic? - December 04, 2008