Obama's Eligibility:
It is not an obligatory section of the conservative catechism to profess belief that Obama was not born in the United States or is otherwise ineligible to serve because he is not a natural born citizen.
I have posted long and devoted considerable time to finding plausible explanations for the mystery of Obama's birth and I have concluded that it is possible but highly unlikely that he was born anywhere but in Hawaii in August 1961. It is possible because there is an intricate chain by which he could have been born abroad and returned with his mother end either his mother or his grandparents filled out the requisite forms permitted under Hawaii in law in those days to secure a Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Obama. It is possible that the generation of that document automatically generated the hospital announcements which the left gleefully cites as evidence of a conspiratorial might on the Right which they paints us as actually believing that 40 years before his inauguration Obama's parents knew that he would run for president and so jobbed the system.
Further, it is possible that when the officials of the Hawaii government viewed the documents on file, those documents supported the issuance of a Certificate of Live Birth and there is nothing in the file which suggests in any way that he was not born in Hawaii because the certificate was issued upon nothing more than an affidavit or form supplied by parents or grandparents which so recites. Therefore, the officials were truthful when they said evidence is that he was born in Hawaii because that was the evidence they had.
Unfortunately, that is the only evidence we have. There is no evidence that Barack Obama was born anywhere but in Hawaii. I repeat no credible evidence that Barack Obama was born anywhere but in Hawaii. There is plenty suspicious inferences which can be drawn from his secrecy and some other anomalies, but there is no contrary proof. The Birthers still have only conjecture upon which to base their suspicions and so they remain only suspicions. I would be among the first to rejoice if it were otherwise, but it is not.
Ann Coulter is an attorney with a constitutional law background. She knows that the odds of getting any court to declare Barack Obama ineligible, especially based on a record which consists of nothing more than conjecture, are insurmountable. When she believes that the birthers do more harm to conservatism than good by pursuing their claims, she is staking out a position that is perfectly reasonable. I believe that the birthers can and should continue their quest but they must be absolutely scrupulous in their claims and much more professional in their lawsuits. I have been predicting for more than a year that the lawyers for the birthers were entirely unprofessional and even unbalanced and their unprofessionalism would do their cause and conservatism great harm.
Global Warming:
I do not believe that the Earth is being warmed by human activity and if it is I do not believe that humans can reverse the process. I believe that the science marshaled in support of global warming is partly fraudulent and partially speculative computer models. But this is a question of science and not of conservative dogma. There is no conservative position on whether e=mc2 is true or not. It is true or false whether or not I think the Bible tells me so. It is true or false whether or not it is convenient or inconvenient for our election cycle. Science is not a matter of politics.
Newt Gingrich is entitled to believe in the science of global warming based on the data and still be a good conservative. Especially if that belief was formed before the damning e-mails were made public. There is precious little distinction being made on these threads between accepting science or rejecting science on the one hand and what the political implications one draws from that science on the other hand. Gingrich, for example, has always made it clear that free-market solutions for the science of global warming should be found and, if they are not found, the Democrats will find "solutions" which will impose socialism. That is a perfectly sound conservative point of view.
Homosexual Marriage:
I have been writing on these threads for years that The History of the Frankfurt School clearly shows that the left, especially the radical left which is given intellectual cover by the Frankfurt School, intends to tear down the barriers to socialism by destroying the institutions in society which stand against it. These include the church, the family, marriage, the role of the father, education, the military, and the very way we think-our eschatology. So I readily accept that the left would gleefully destroy the institution of marriage if they could.
One more institution the left which are fully undermine is the rule of law especially as it is applied in a federal system. The California ruling over turning the will of the people of California respecting gay marriage is destructive of the federal system and destructive of the rule of law itself. It is destructive of the federal system because the will of the people of the state is set at naught on the whim of a federal judge whose citation of constitutional support is thoroughly dubious. It is destructive of all the rule of law because it is illogical as it certainly opens our entire social construct to the slippery slope disintegration which would be caused by polygamy, bestiality, incest etc. There is no logical reason to permit homosexual marriage and prohibit polygamy. There is certainly no logic in law to permit homosexual marriage and prohibit incestuous marriage between gays.
On that basis I oppose homosexual marriage. But I must also say that I have never seen a case demonstrated that homosexual marriage itself is destructive of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. It is analogous to the absence of proof advanced by the birthers. I believe that no-fault divorce is a far greater threat to the institution of marriage than homosexual marriage and I believe that my position is a perfectly sound conservative position.
Much of the reflexive catechism I hear advanced on this thread as proof positive of declensions from the conservative orthodoxy, are not supported in logic. They are destructive to the intellectual foundation of conservatism. Nobody on these threads gets to declare proper conservative doctrine except Jim Robinson.
It is through this forum and the give-and-take it offers for conservatives that we ultimately grapple our way to a consensus. Attacking personalities ad hominem, or declaring acid tests, is destructive of that process.
