Down with the Birthers (Just open the kimono, Obama!)

Front Page Magazine ^ | July 29, 2009 | Jamie Weinstein

[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.

[DaveTesla]

“Well, we have a Democratic Republic (or a Republic with Democratic forms, as someone said).”

No we don't. We live in a Constitutional republic.

And all I want is to be left alone to live out my life.

Unlike you I don't wish to control anyone.

[DaveTesla]

FYI

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of
the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over
citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into
distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights
so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's
power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather
than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.

[DaveTesla]

As you can see even the Republican party does not meet the definition of Republic.

[SteveH]

This is murky legal water to me. I think what you are saying is that Obama can be declared a NBC by ex post facto legislative fiat. The ex post facto part worries me. It seems clear that no legislature would have passed such a statement had not Obama been elected, but there would be no need for such a statement if Obama had been elegible on the date he ran and was elected. If a candidate of questionable legitimacy is declared in effect elegible by ex post facto decree of the legislature, it seems to me that our government becomes indistinguishable from a banana republic and that a fraud upon the public trust has been perpetrated by the collective actions of the legislature and the beneficiary of the decree. The legislature by passing an ex post facto decree with the intent to block legitimate judicial challenges becomes an accessory to that fraud upon the public trust. At a minimum it would set a precedent that the end justifies the means. I remain less than convinced that ex post facto qualification is sufficient for quo warranto proof of authority (for example). I suspect that case law precedent is weak (if it exists at all).

The notion of a legislative legal bailout of Obama from any prospective need to prove his elegibility for the presidency, for me, conjures up notions of the Duke and the King in Huckleberry Finn, and especially the notion of tarring and feathering anyone who creates lies to deceive the public trust.

[buwaya]

You know what I mean. That Democracy part is critically important, not an optional extra or afterthought.

Constitutions do not maintain themselves, nor can you comfortably hide behind them in spite of what they promise, if you do not have the votes. Laws without belief in them can be amazingly insubstantial. And you cannot just demand belief.

That way lies an irrelevant hermit-existence. Eventually you fellows might become like species of political Amish, quaint characters off in the hinterland. See the California Republican party.

We have an unsatisfactory situation that will only be remedied by plain politics, not constitutional argument. Plain politics requires persuasion with disciplined messages. You fellows are off-message. We need you to get with the program.

[buwaya]

There is no doubt that these could easily become murky legal waters.

Thats because we are dealing with one of the few sections of the Constitution without a structure of law. There is no case law here.

There was no doubt in most peoples minds that he was constitutionally qualified, and NBC, for the position at the time he was elected. There is no formal process to validate these qualifications at this time, besides this public perception.

I am not saying that Hawaii has declared him an NBC at all, much less by legislative fiat (though that has happened). What we have here is a statement of fact by an appointed official responsible for keeping public records, which is evidence of qualification. This seems to have been considered necessary because of some subsequent controversy over the issue. This answers some interpretations of the qualification as NBC.

My personal opinion on this is that the consitutional requirement is very vague as it stands and Obama has a defensible claim to being considered NBC under many reasonable understandings of the terms (born to a US citizen and not having been required to be naturalized, declared to be of Hawaiian birth, and having exercised all the rights of a US Citizen so far). A case challenging his qualifications that creates specific requirements that denies his qualifications would in itself be creating an ex post facto situation. The Supreme Court would be extremely wary of doing something like that. The political consequences would be extremely serious (and I have no sympathy for “let the heavens fall !” Gotterdamerung thinking) and poisonous in the long term.

All in all, this birth controversy is, first, highly unlikely to succeed, second, if it were, the results would be constitutionally and politically destabilizing, and third, it is of no use, and even negative value, to the pursuit of our current political objectives.

[DaveTesla]

“That Democracy part is critically important, not an optional extra or afterthought.”

The hell it is. It is the what the enemy uses to rob us of our liberty.

“Constitutions do not maintain themselves, nor can you comfortably hide behind them in spite of what they promise.”

I like ours just fine. And I will defend it with every thing I have.

Including asking our public officials to follow it.
Including Article II section 1.

It is obvious you have no regard for it.

“You fellows are off-message.”
Who's message might that be, Dear leaders perhaps?
Unlike you I am a Free Man and think for myself.

“We need you to get with the program.”
Again who's program might that be?
You sound just like a collectivist marxist.
No I am not trying to be rude. Honest.
Your trying to instruct me in the program and you don't
even know what type of government we have.

Read this:
Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution,
in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government
the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, “A
Republic, if you can keep it.”
Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know
what it is.

http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm

Republic vs. Democracy

[gramho12]

Don’t have to get snippy. I just wanted to know, since people are making it seem like a “Certificate of Live Birth” is somehow not a real birth certificate. And, of course, I have not seen anything from Obama so I was interested in what the fuss was about, that’s all, Mr. Expert.

[MortMan]

I work in the certification of aircraft systems. The primary focus of my job, naturally, is to make sure that the systems that run an aircraft are safe.

I enforce the rules for a living.

If I allow other people’s opinions to sway me from doing my job, then the systems I work on would lose some of their safety margin. It is possible that the first software-attributed aircraft incident could result.

It’s not always about winning friends or influencing people. Sometimes it’s about doing the right thing.

[Uncle Sham]

Your semantic, word-game “argument” is that of an idiot. Mine is stated PLAINLY in the Constitution and is founded in case law and COMMON SENSE, not the nonsense you spew.

[Star Traveler]

I have no doubt that when the State of Hawaii speaks on Obama being born in Hawaii that they know what they’re talking about, since they are the keepers of the documentation. If they don’t know the answer to that one, then no one can ever find out (should be obvious on that one... LOL...)

That’s one reason why if they say this, then you’re going to find all but the birther realizing the facts of the matter...

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‘i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

So... 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.

[buwaya]

Semantic, word-game arguments are much of the “game” in constitutional law. You may not like it, but thats how it really is. I’m showing you a tiny taste of what your real opponents will do. The real thing will not be run your way.

You can assert your opinion of the meaning of the Constitution all you like, but that would be irrelevant and useless in a genuine case before a Federal court. Your chances of success in this are very slim.

You have a choice - do you address reality, or a righteous fantasy ?

[buwaya]

Politics is not the certification of aircraft systems.

These things are complex and messy, and there is no one right way, nor are rules fixed and clear, nor is there a management that will back you if you insist on the rules, nor is there clear sccountability for anything. Thats also how it has always been btw.

That understandably upsets many people, but its so anyway.

The process of politics is all about winning friends and influencing people. Thats all that politics is.

[buwaya]

“It is the what the enemy uses to rob us of our liberty.”

So it is. Its also your only means to defend liberty, or the Constitution. You can assert things like - “And I will defend it with every thing I have” but they are meaningless, unless you imply a recourse to personal violence. You can ask and petition until you are blue in the face, if you don’t have the public behind you. You just simply have to persuade people, thats it, thats your only real tool.

“Unlike you I am a Free Man and think for myself.”

Good. So am I. We should freely decide to cooperate on a winning strategy.

[SteveH]

In fact, so far I am reading only that the legislature has chosen to state “whereas” Obama was born in Hawaii. I am not convinced that is even the same as a statement declaring that he was born in Hawaii— the declaration is actually not a declaration but a subordinate clause preceded by a subordinate conjunction (”whereas”):

“Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii...”

A subordinate clause does not stand on its own. Isolated, it is regarded as expressing a thought fragment in contrast to a complete thought. The thought fragment expresses a presumption or assumption.

Let’s compare this wording with U.S. Sen. Res. 511 of April 30, 2008:

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

[...]
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

The introduction clearly declares the intent of the bill.

The body indicates it was passed with certain presumptions and is intended not to establish fact but to establish a point of law (mccain is a nbc) presuming a condition (mccain was born in the panama canal to US parents, an ambiguous situation in the contemporary definitions of nbc).

Here is the introduction to the Hawaii bill:

Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.

This declares the intent of the bill, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Hawaii (*not* to declare Obama a US NBC).

So I am not convinced that the Hawaii bill has any force in law if and when push comes to shove. Obama’s buddy Ambercrombie (the guy that read the alleged letter from Obama in the alleged hospital of Obama’s birth) added the verbiage as an amendment to a bill that originally had nothing to do with Obama. I think it is legitimate to say that at least the McCain bill addressed the problem in a straightforward manner and by comparison, the Hawaii Anniversary bill with the Obama amendment appears devious, ambiguous, and ultimately evasive... like almost everything else he has produced concerning his past before his entry into public service.

If Obama wanted to take the high road he could at least do what McCain did, and show his birth certificate to Congress so they could pass a resolution... but he did not do that, leaving it to his buddies like Ambercrombie to sneak amendments into state bills instead.

The latest effort courtesy of Dr. Fukino only adds to the contradictions since Dr. Fukino proclaims Obama a NBC while not defining what criteria she used to arrive at that conclusion given that Obama claims a UK citizen was his father, disqualifying him from being a NBC under many contemporary definitions of the term.

Obama’s chronically devious, ambiguous and evasive efforts to defuse the nbc issue leave the impression that he is running as hard as he can away from his own past.

Even presuming that Obama is a NBC, there is still no paper trail that indicates he was such on the day Congress ratified the Electoral College vote. Meanwhile the controversy has reached the armed forces via Cook v. Obama, and this internal controversy is arguably a real and present danger to the security of the United States.

For whatever reasons, Obama obviously places a higher value on his personal privacy than on the safety of the United States. For this reason alone he is morally unqualified in my opinion to remain President. The US is placed in danger when the commander in chief of the US armed forces permits the employment of deviousness, ambiguity and evasiveness on his behalf as a substitute for honesty and self sacrifice in public service. Anyone that aids and abets Obama by means of deviousness, ambiguity and evasiveness to hide his constitutional elegibility for the presidential office should ask themselves why it is more important to shield a person’s personal privacy through deviousness, ambiguity, and evasiveness than to ensure the safety of the United States. With the issues raised in Cook v. Obama and similar lawsuits, and in recognition that the controversy was clearly predictable to the public at large including to potential enemies of the United States, I contend this is not a political issue— it is a national security issue.

[buwaya]

The resolution by the Hawaii Leg. is not relevant in any way, agreed.

Fukino does state as a fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. And Fukino is the official who would be responsible for obtaining and checking that information. That is the only significant point here. His assessment of NBC is irrelevant.

As for your other points -

Obama is morally unqualified for his office, he is devious and secretive and untrustworthy, and his actions point to having a lot to hide, all points gladly granted - but these are not significant on this narrow Constitutional point.

NBC is not accurately defined in law. Obama indeed had a paper trail for many reasonable definitions of NBC, including a Hawaiian certification of birth that is acceptable by all government agencies. You want the law clarified and a definition adopted that is stricter than that which is being assumed by the general public; that is going to be very tough sledding.

This controversy is in no way a “clear and present danger” to anyone. The last military case is no more significant than the couple of desertion cases were concerning the legality of the Iraq War. It is a trivial distraction from genuine issues.

[SteveH]

Thanks for responding and conceding my main points.

You stated:

His assessment of NBC is irrelevant.

I contend that the manner in which Dr. Fukino determined NBC is relevant to the question of whether she (Dr. Fukino is female, not male) is correct and also as to whether Obama's writings correctly or incorrectly specify the identity of his father. See here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2304248/posts?page=30#30

From Dr. Fukino's statement and an FOIA request citing the Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act we should be able to determine the answers to these questions and advance progress on the nationality of Obama's father as indicated on his birth certificate and whether or not he is a NBC.

Courts and Congress do not operate in a vacuum. Courts serve the public via lawsuits by individuals and Congress serves the public via receiving petitions by individuals. If you choose not to know about a topic germane to the public interest, you may do so, but declaring arbitrary information "irrelevant" seems itself relevant only for yourself.

As to your other points, clearly one person's opinion on the morality of actions of government officials does not constitute anything near sufficient grounds for a federal case. I was just sayin'.

[buwaya]

I’m glad we have agreement on so many points !

It narrows the contentious matters to a manageable sphere.

I read Fukinos statement as saying two things - one was a point of fact, the other was an unqualified opinion. The accuracy of the point of fact has no dependence on the validity of the opinion.

No, courts and Congress do not operate in a vacuum. That is very much why I don’t think this business of the birth record is going to be productive. As far as the public is concerned at best it is cranky pettifogging, at worst it is petty and unfair. Either way, it hurts the image of Obamas opponents and gains him sympathy.

I would indeed like to know whats in the proper birth certificate, no doubt it would make fine headlines for the National Enquirer as well. But it is not necessarily something we have a right to demand.

[Uncle Sham]

"You can assert your opinion of the meaning of the Constitution all you like, but that would be irrelevant and useless in a genuine case before a Federal court. Your chances of success in this are very slim."

Very slim? Your fake President seems to think HIS chances are rather slim in court. Otherwise, we'd all have seen his documentation. I'm ready. My argument against your word games. The simple writing of the sentences in the U.S. Constitution against your made-up straw man arguments. Historical case law against your imaginary opinions. Lets go. Why are you not there, in court, with that AWESOME, Highly probable, Winning argument of yours? I can't wait.

[SteveH]

As far as the public is concerned at best it is cranky pettifogging, at worst it is petty and unfair.

Sure. Until it hits the military. Or foreign policy. Or the stock market.

Imagine you or I opening the window and shouting "where is the birth certificate!"

Response: maybe crickets chirping.

Now imagine Hu Jintao (President of PRC) calling Obama and saying "I just bought a copy of your birth certificate from one of your State Department officials."

What is Obama going to do, simply blow off Hu Jintao as another conspiracy nut, and risk wholesale confusion in the US armed forces or a NYSE stock meltdown when Hu Jintao holds a press conference and says he's got info on the US president that the US does not know?

I contend Obama has something he is desparate to the tune of US$1M in legal fees and growing to hide. He is pulling strings like it is going out of style to prevent the questions from being answered. Whatever it is seems to be a weakness of some sort that can be exploited (and probably already has been exploited) by enemies of the US. Maybe it is nothing I personally can directly affect but it seems apparent that it will eventually affect all of us and not for the better, at least if we do not brace ourselves for the worst.