Posted on 07/29/2009 5:19:16 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
Republicans and conservatives opposed to a rapid increase in the size and scope of government should be heartened by the American public’s gradual turn away from Obamaism.
But when we need Republican and conservative leadership the most, when we need our leaders and thinkers to clearly differentiate their vision for the country from Barack Obama’s vision, many of our leaders have failed us. Instead of taking the opportunity presented to proclaim the conservative vision to the American people, some Republican leaders have opted to latch on to wild conspiracy theories promoted by the fringes of the Republican Party. Or, at the very least, some of our leaders have allowed such wild theories to fester by not proactively combating and denouncing them.
Just last month, for instance, Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan Administration Defense Department official and conservative intellectual, wrote in The Washington Times that Barack Obama might very well be a secret Muslim. “[T]here is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself,” Gaffney wrote. Among Gaffney’s “mounting evidence” was the fact that President Obama referred to the Koran as the “holy Koran” during his June speech in Cairo, Egypt.
But of course this was merely pandering on Obama’s part. It no more helps prove that President Obama is a secret Muslim than President Bush speaking in Spanish to a Latino audience proves he is a “secret Hispanic,” or President Obama wearing a yarmulke at a gathering of American Jews (as he has) proves he is “secretly Jewish.”
How much resonance such conspiracy theories have within the Republican Party is unclear, but a YouTube video put up last week of a town hall meeting held by Republican Congressman Mike Castle is worrisome. A lady pressed the Delaware Republican about why Obama has not produced his birth certificate and then loudly declared that Obama was in fact a citizen of Kenya, not the United States. “I want my country back,” she shouted in her rant at the befuddled congressman, who could only respond, responsibly, that President Obama was in fact an American citizen. It’s impossible to tell how many people in the audience agreed with the woman, but there were certainly enough of them to make some noise.
These “birthers,” as they have come to be known, allege that Obama is ineligible to be president because he was not born in the United States. Despite overwhelming proof that Obama is in fact native born – including an official birth certificate from the state of Hawaii – the birthers movement persists in claiming otherwise.
Why stop there? With equal plausibility, one might suggest that 48 years ago, a group of Islamists conspired to take over America by making Barack Obama president. Having the incredible foresight in the 1960s too see that a black man would be the obvious choice for president of the United States in 2008, their strategy would be to hide his foreign and Muslim identity by having his parents name him Barack Hussein Obama. Somehow, they knew this child would be smart and talented enough to get into elite colleges and become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. The men behind this clever movement to take over America wisely encouraged a young Barack to take drugs in his youth and then to later write about his drug-taking days in a memoir because, presciently, they understood that writing about one’s drug-taking past is usually a successful presidential strategy.
That’s not all. Instead of having Obama be born in America, his mother’s native country, as most people trying to conduct a successful take over plot of America would do, they had Obama be born in Kenya. But in order to deceive the American people that Obama was an actual American citizen 47 years later, the men behind this plot made sure local Hawaiian newspapers published notices of Obama’s birth. The secret cabal behind Obama was also able to fool, evidently, the state of Hawaii.
One might go on and ask why someone who supposedly is a secret radical Islamist, determined to create a Sharia state in America, would add troops to Afghanistan to fight radical Islamists there; launch predator drone attacks against Islamist terrorists in Pakistan; and keep the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facilities open despite his campaign pledge to shut down the facility?
Yet another problem with the conspiracy theories is that they distract from more serious criticisms of the administration. I have written articles in opposition to Barack Obama’s policies and I will continue to do so as long as he pushes policies that I think are harmful. However, we have to have responsible leadership in the Republican Party that opposes Obama on the basis of principle and uses reasoned discourse, not idiotic falsities, to make its case.
Conservative commentators, leaders and thinkers have a responsibility to denounce idiocy put forward under the conservative banner. Republicans and conservatives have a real opportunity to take back the country in 2010 and 2012. But they aren’t going to do it by promoting outlandish conspiracies.
Yes and no and yes and no. The problem with Obamis politics is that they have been driven forward, so far, by the force of his personality and popularity. People keep saying that we need to stop this "birther" stuff and start trying to oppose his policies. DUDE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING!!! Right now, the more doubt we can cast on this guy, the less effective he will be. Conveniently, this can be accomplished by simply seeking documented evidence of the truth. The goal here is to hurt him and weaken him. It's just like in boxing; you may not score a knock-out punch, but if you keep landing enough body-blows, eventually they will have some effect. Whether or not he was "legally" born in Hawaii is, quite frankly, irrelevant to me. If mamma and grandmamma "stated" that he was born there, then he was legally born there (under the laws at the time).What I care about is seeing the signature of the doctor on the document. If it is not there, it means that Obami has lied. THAT'S the goal. If we can show that, the floodgates will be opened. That's the ULTIMATE goal.
I remember Horowitz's rant about low income loans and
Ginnie and Freddy did not cause the housing crisis.
Perhaps he would like to take that up with Thomas Sowell
who says it most certainly did.
Haven't read his website since.
I can deal just fine with differing opinion but when
they become rabbid and demand that we think differently
I become suspicious of their motives.
Your tone is, shall we say, not conducive to productive discussion. However, I am a forgiving man, so I shall proceed.
These are not necessarily my arguments, but a lawyer would be quite likely to make them or similar ones if it came to a case -
“How”
- “shall have failed” is not “how” failed. This statement assumes that failure has already been determined. What logic is to be used to determine failure ? What you have in the Constitutions are conditions, not a process of determination. Law is about process, not declarations.
“Whom”
- Congress cannot in fact be the party that determines that there has been a failure to qualify, they are merely tasked with handling the consequences thereof. Which still leaves the “who”, which from all I know of constitutional law (and thats a lot less than I should), would be a court.
“Proof”
- The Constitution does not determine what documents and attestations are required to constitute proof of either eligibility or a challenge to eligibility. This is NOT a trivial matter. Citizenship determinations are in the hands of a bureaucracy working according to a mass of laws and even bureaucratic rules that are not in the Constitution. And the documents they use are in the hands of other bureaucracies still, even further from Constitutional auras. Hence, among other things, the argument about what constitutes a valid Hawaiian birth certificate. The Constitution says nothing about the document already provided by the State of Hawaii not being sufficient proof.
“burden of proof”
- “shall have failed to qualify” does imply that there is some act required on the part of the President; on the other hand, if failure is determined by some other party that is not necessarily the case, as it may be some other party that “caused” the condition of failure. Lawyers would have endless fun with the semantics of this. If you don’t believe that, you don’t know lawyers.
- other matters
The question of “natural born” for one. If it came to it (and the stakes were genuinely high, should this become a true consititutional crisis), would have to be defined. You can assume your definition, but the other side would have theirs, and it won’t be you who gets to decide.
You could generate a whole literature of legal argument on “natural born” representing every strain of Constitutional law. Just think about it.
Er, rebellion is no longer a matter of normal politics.
I have been in those situations, and let me tell you, that is not something you want to get into until every other option has been truly exhausted.
I suggest that this country is very far from the desperate state that would justify such a conclusion. Think it over, work on perspective. There is more to life than political argument.
Their outs are -
“except as authorized by this part”
and
“or by rules adopted by the Department of Health”
And I am betting that there is a bit there somewhere that permits the “owner” of the record to authorize disclosure.
Or a lawyer can be found to cite some relevant case if not.
So your Idea of me exercising the first and my right to petition the government is rebellion?
Pretty strong words there.
Why are you so interested in shutting people up about Mr. Obama's eligibility under the constitution?
Perhaps I misunderstood, but why were you citing rebellion against British rule ?
You certainly have the right to petition, but I think it is politically unwise if your object is to stop Obama&co., as is mine.
It makes it more difficult for people on the fence or who have formerly backed Obama but who have begun to doubt to associate themselves with our side, because of strong negative associations with this strain of thought. Changing the attitude of those people is the path to success.
In many ways political success depends on putting oneself in the head of the person one wants to persuade. It is not about whats in your mind, but whats in someone elses mind.
Have you not read any of my responses to you at all? There is definite doubt. Please see my earlier responses. Dr. Fukino's statements are rife with obfuscation. Remember: she has had two shots at clarifying the situation (not one). Why do you think she is making a second statement when she already made another one, four days before the election? If Dr. Fukino has the last word as you contend, why did she need two last words on the issue? Obviously to everyone except apparently you, neither Dr. Fukino nor any lawyer working under her are obligated to be accurate or clear on matters of federal Constitutional law (please cite your source(s) if you disagree). This is what the federal courts are for... A state department of health statement on an issue of Constitutional law is worth exactly as much as a state department of health statement on the price of tea in China: nothing.
So, I have no problem with their expertise...
You have a problem with basic common sense and repeating your arguments without responding to simple questions. You also have a tendency to submit to any authority on any subject over common sense. It is clear you place high value on submissiveness and compliance. LOL. You might be better off in a different, less intellectually challenging forum. Maybe somewhere where someone can just give you commands and you can just perform the commands for them. I think you have demonstrated that you have a flair for that. LOL. Repeating your arguments while not responding to simple questions is not advancing your cause, whatever it is.
[...]
So, yes..., I figure they know what they’re talking about... LOL...
I'm sure you think you do. LOL. ROFLOL.
Unlike you I am not interested in controlling others.
I am interested in Mr. Obama’s credibility. If he has been untruthful about his past he will be untruthful about his plans.
None, which is the point.
No courts means no legal recourse means no normal politics which means rebellion, war, etc.
We are not anywhere near that point I hope, so we have courts, unsatisfactory as the often are.
You certainly are interested in “controlling” others - you want your preferred outcome in electoral politics don’t you ? If you desire the ends it follows that you should logically desire the means, which is by necessity persuasion.
You were saying — Why do you think she is making a second statement when she already made another one, four days before the election?
—
Well, since their phones have been ringing off the hook for almost a year, and their e-mails filling up, and since last year’s statement was criticized for not saying the birthplace (in the statement), the State of Hawaii would have to get permission from President Obama to answer what they did (in addition to their previous statement). And they would have never been able to release the information if President Obama had not given his permission.
It seems pretty obvious to me that they’re tired of useless calls and decided to ask Obama for permission for them to release what they did.
And as far as the statement is concerned, it’s not a person’s statement made up on their own, but one from the State of Hawaii, since it’s on official letterhead and released on the State’s official website. For that reason, no one person in a department is going to be responsible for what the State of Hawaii says about the President of the United States on an issue that many have made known is important to them. Thus, it’s vetted by the State of Hawaii and carries the full weight and power of the state in that pronouncement.
And furthermore..., on this issue of the birth certificate, they are the *owners* of the issue. The birth certificate *is* in the control of the State of Hawaii.
It’s a State of Hawaii document, it was originally recorded by the State of Hawaii, the State of Hawaii has kept it all these years, only the State of Hawaii can make anyone a “certified copy” of the original birth certificate, and it’s the State of Hawaii that has kept it safe and under their control for the entire time that Obama has been alive — so... when the State of Hawaii speaks on the issue — I know they know what they’re talking about...
And if the State of Hawaii can’t speak to the issue, then no one can, because the *only place* that *anyone* can get the information from (judge, Supreme Court, lawyer, Obama, or anyone) — is — the State of Hawaii itself.
So, yes..., I figure they know what they’re talking about..., especially since they have all the lawyers they need access to for anything that the State of Hawaii is concerned about.
“No courts means no legal recourse means no normal politics which means rebellion, war, etc.”
Wrong.
Many times in my life the government and the courts turned
a blind eye ....
Until there was a PUBLIC outcry.
If the courts hear enough public outcry they will address
the issue, no rebellion needed..
Because they are ELECTED.
Of course YOU want the public to shut up.
A question of interpretation of constitutional law arises in a simple reading of Dr. Fukino's response. I repeat my original question to you and expand on the form of a meaningful answer.
Please cite the jurisdictional authority of (Hawaii state official) Dr. Fukino on legal interpretation of the (federal) U.S. Constitution. What federal appellate decision did Dr. Fukino preside over that allows you to presume a red cent should be bet on her legal competency and say-so?
Claiming Hawaii is a state, or specifying what stationery a statement is written on, does *not* determine jurisdictional authority or legal precedent. (Wake up Star Traveler and read the previous sentence twice.) The kind of cite I am looking for is the kind on a legal argument filed with a court. You are not providing any such citation.
And if the State of Hawaii can’t speak to the issue, then no one can, because the *only place* that *anyone* can get the information from (judge, Supreme Court, lawyer, Obama, or anyone) — is — the State of Hawaii itself.
With all due respect, I decline to agree. Obama can speak to the issue by instructing the state of Hawaii to release his long form birth certificate and all other relevant vital records that Dr. Fukino alleges she used to determine Obama's natural born citizenship status. For over a year, Obama has declined to speak to the issue. That is the problem. Dr. Fukino's statement is irrelevant to the legal issue because a state official has no legal jurisdiction over determining who is or is not a natural born citizen. You can huff and puff about how wonderful the Hawaii state government is and how powerful and all-knowing wizards the Hawaii state officials are, but it does not change their lack of jurisdiction, unless someone (you?) can provide a legal citation to the contrary.
It seems pretty obvious to me that they’re tired of useless calls and decided to ask Obama for permission for them to release what they did.
Speculating on Dr. Fukino's motivation is just that-- speculation. You do not know the motivation from the facts in evidence, so you speculate on the motivation to support your (non-responsive) arguments. Again you may want to consider joining a forum where debate is eschewed and submissiveness to authority is welcome. I think you might be quite successful there.
LOL. ROFLOL. ROFLMAO.
Here we have a matter of judgement -
What you expect to happen is that there will be a public outcry as a result of agitation on the subject of the birth certificate, and that you will eventually get your day in court, and eventually be rewarded with a constitutional crisis that delivers us from Obama.
What I expect to happen is that there will be no such public outcry, that the partisans of the birth controversy will remain marginal, and that instead there will be some negative results in terms of persuading important groups of voters towards our political objectives.
I think your expected scenario carries a very low probability.
“What federal appellate decision did Dr. Fukino preside over that allows you to presume a red cent should be bet on her legal competency and say-so? “
What Fukino said (or what I understood him to say) was in part simply that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is a statement of fact entirely within his competence, and really the only relevant point here.
The elements of his statement concerning “natural born” status certainly is as you state not within his authority to determine as he has no authority to interpret the Constitution.
If it comes to it it would certainly be the Supreme Court that would have to weigh the question of the meaning of “natural born”, and flesh out the details concerning the rules thereof, required proof, burden of proof, etc. Given that, its certainly not obvious that they would not accept the attestation of a responsible official of the State of Hawaii as to the facts of Obamas birth as per their records as satisfying the constitutional requirement.
Again, there is the issue of the doctrine of “best evidence.” Are you suggesting the Supreme Court would settle for the vague statement of a third party appointed official over an original document? That is in contravention of the doctrine of best evidence, which would apply in federal court to all cases in general.
I think they might indeed accept such a standard.
It need not be a vague statement. The Hawaii government fellow could simply say that Obama was born in Hawaii according to all existing records.
This is not a matter of evidence but of qualification, which do not necessarily go by the “best evidence” standard. The INS would accept the Hawaii certification of birth for instance.
That is a very reaching assumption.
Where in ANY of my posts did I say That?
I want to know if he meets the Constitutional requirements
required for the office.
No master plan here.
I could care less about herding the masses.
Quite frankly the idea repulses me.
Republican, Democrat, I can barely tell the difference between them.
There are a few out there, ones who believe in limited government but the pickings are slim.
Well, we have a Democratic Republic (or a Republic with Democratic forms, as someone said). Democracies can be frustrating, because if you want to get what you want, you have to get most people to agree with you, to some extent anyway.
Tough to do. It requires discipline and focus on the objective, and severely discourages purist ideologies.
Even limited government has to be won by political persuasion among the messy masses, it won’t come from sticking with the few with the right ideas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.