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.

[El Gato]

So guilty until proven innocent? Yep, that's the good ole American way.

He's not being charged with a crime, unless there is fraud involved. He is applying for a job, he's been given a letter of acceptance, sort of, now he has to prove he meets the qualifications that he implied that he did by applying for the job.

I had show my BC to be commissioned as mere 2LT in the USAF. You have to be a citizen to be a commissioned officer in the military, as you do to be a Representative, a Senator, or President. (You can however be a legal permanent resident alien to enlist in the military, but you still have show a birth certificate or proof of that legal resident alien status.)

Was I guilty of being a non-citizen until I proved myself innocent of that "crime" of being a non-citizen?

No, I was just verifying that I met the requirements of the job/office, because the "offer" was contingent upon meeting those requirements.

Now in the case of "high office", unlike the lowly office I held, one's statements are taken at face value (although AFAIK, Obama has personally made no such statements) unless there is some reason, not necessarily hard proof, but cause to doubt. Then it's "Trust But Verify".

[2ndDivisionVet]

Google “Ex Parte Merryman.”

[El Gato]

That's it. It's hearsay and inadmissible unless she appears in court to say this on the record.

This is not a criminal trial. Yet anyway.

It's a matter of asking a job applicant to demonstrate he has qualifications for the job. Like providing a college or high transcript when the job requires a degree. Like providing a birth certificate when the job requires citizenship. (Or alternatively naturalization paperwork). We've all had to do one or more of those things, why should a Presidential candidate not do the same.

Yes no other such Candidate has needed to that, but then none of them had foreign citizens fathers and stepfathers either.

It's not as if providing the certificate need be a big invasion of privacy. The Certificate could be provided to an appropriate court, preferably the Supreme Court, who could then verify that he does, or does not meet the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement. No need to release any other information on the BC.

[El Gato]

You can't seriously expect me to believe that overturning this not-even-close election on the basis of flimsy evidence would not dramatically increase the scope and power of the judiciary.

If the election were to be "overturned" as you put it, it would not be on the basis of "flimsy evidence", but rather on solid evidence, official documentation from the State of Hawaii, possibly the US State Department. All certified and tied up with a bow. The current round of court action is an attempt to get at that solid evidence, which up to this point is hidden. The "Evidence" that Obama is a natural born citizen is, at this point, just as "Flimsy" as that tending to indicate that he is not, although it is of a different nature.

[El Gato]

I think that if a secretary of State had sued the Obama campaign to produce the certificate, the court would have found sufficient standing because it is that person duty to certify electors.

You realize that the electors are not officially certified, by the Governor of each State, with the "Certificate of Ascertainment" to be received by the Archivist of the United States as late as December 16th, although the electors themselves must be receive their copy of the "Certificate of Ascertainment" for their state, by December 15th, and preferably as early as possible after the popular election, the results of which must be finalized by December 9th, allowing 6 days to prepare the Certificates and get them to the electors. See Electoral College Information for State Officials

[El Gato]

he issue is - where is the incontrovertible evidence?

You don't need "incontrovertible evidence" in order for a court to order further evidence produced. In a criminal case, that's what Search warrants are about when it's the state that wants the evidence. They only need "probable cause" to believe that such evidence exists and may be found in the place to be searched, and that includes records repositories. In a civil trial, this process is called "discovery". While it is subject to somewhat different rules, the principal is the same, you have to have probable cause to believe a record or document exists and contains information pertinent to the case. Or that a particular witness may have such information, in which a "deposition" may be taken, rather than requiring the witness to appear in court, at least in the early stages of the process.

Where is this evidence? In a vault in the Hawaii Department of Health Statistics. Officials of the State have said they have it, but as a matter of their state law, cannot reveal the content of the document, without a court order, or without a request from the "registrant" a close relative, or a short list of others.

[DaveTesla]

ping

[El Gato]

It was a rhetorical question. Hawaii, like all staes only keep birth certificates created by itself.

The state may create them, or merely register them. In the normal course of affairs, a child born in a hospital in the state. The BC is a form provided by the state, but filled by clerical staff of the hospital, or other facility, signed by a parent, usually the mother, the attending physician or nurse midwife, etc, and the "local registrar" of the facility. However that is not the only way. A birth not occurring in a hospital can also be registered on the certificate form, but that requires some explanation in a space provided on the form for such purposes. A birth occurring outside the state can also be so registered if the parents have been Hawaii residents for one year prior to the birth. Again that requires an explanation and further documentation. It's also possible to do a "late registration", one occuring more than a year after the birth, and again an explanation and documentation are required (Documentation can be witness statements).

So it is quite possible for their to be a Hawaiian birth certificate on file for someone not born in the state or even in the United States.

The BC can also be amended, as upon adoption. For a child born in a foreign country, and adopted in Hawaii, an original birth certificate will be prepared and filed. Again with an explanation (block 23 on the form below) , and documentation (the adoption order).

This a 1963 version, which should be similar, or identical in form to Obama's (unless it was created a lot latter than 1961) :

[El Gato]

IMHO, BHO was indeed born on US soil,

Then what is he hiding in denying access to his certificate of live birth?

[XenaLee]

This country is based on rules of law and the constitution. And we expect the person in the highest office of the land to comply with those rules and laws....even IF that person is a DemocRat. The people have a right to know. Especially since we’re the ones (the middle class) whose wealth he will be “spreading around”.

Earth to David: Why is Obama fighting this so hard? Why has he spent almost a million dollars to keep this document from being forcibly, through the courts, released? Why doesn’t he release his REAL birth certificate? What is he hiding?

These questions aren’t going away until or unless the USSC rules that he must provide the proof of his eligibility. That’s the reality of the situation.

[CharacterCounts]

This is not a criminal trial. Yet anyway.

Its never going to be a trial. The Supreme Court will deny each and every one of these case.

Further, the hearsay rule applies to civil as well as criminal trials.

[steve-b]

Is it what Horowitz calls it, the conservative version of the unhinged "stolen-election" rant?

Yes.

[steve-b]

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.

Indeed. If you try to sell this argument to 100 people, 99 of them will ask you if you're on drugs, and the more quick-witted of them will ask if you bought the drugs from the queen of England.

[steve-b]

Why waste time on it? Do they devote shows to arguing that John F. Kennedy was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald, that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did go to the moon, that the 9-11 attacks were done by al-Qaeda, etc?

[fr_freak]

Why waste time on it? Do they devote shows to arguing that John F. Kennedy was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald, that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did go to the moon, that the 9-11 attacks were done by al-Qaeda, etc?

What's your point? That we shouldn't be bothered to question our presidential candidates, or that he shouldn't be bothered to respond?

Here are two scenarios:

1) John McCain was born in Panama to American parents. Someone brought up the question of his eligibility, McCain repsonded by producing all of his documentation, and Congress passed a (meaningless) resolution stating that McCain was eligible.

2) Obama was born in an undocumented location to one American parent and one foreign parent. Someone brought up the question of his eligibility, Obama produces an abbreviated form that is not even acceptable as proof of birth in the state that it is issued (Hawaii) and may or may not have even been a forgery, then when asked to produce the original, immediately lawyers up, and stonewalls all efforts to get the original.

As far as I'm concerned, the Obama camp is responsible for this controversy, such as it is. If one cooperates fully with those doing the questioning and people still hold on to conspiracy theories, that is one thing. But to stonewall completely, engage in shady doings, and then deride the questioners as being kooks is another. Anyone who can't recognize that, is missing the key part of what it takes to be a vigilant citizen.

[DaveTesla]

If you look on the Delaware Election results you
will notice Dr. Keyes is not even mentioned even
though he was on the ballot.
However Caero is.

Amazing is it not?