Hugh Downs and Obama

Contrairimairi forwarded an e-mail taken from some other blogs. It is an essay by Hugh Downs, the libertarian news commentator who used to appear on 20/20 and who, in 1985:

"made it into the Guinness Book of World Records for having logged more hours on television than any other person in U.S. history. By May 1994, he had spent 10,347 hours in front of the television camera."

The Advocates quotes Downs as saying:

"This country is a one-party country. Half of that party is called Republican and half is called Democrat. It doesn't make any difference. All the really good ideas belong to the libertarians." (Politically Incorrect, March 31, 1997.)

"From a historical perspective, all Americans are libertarians, even those who are not registered as such. Libertarianism was a prominent political development that distinguished free Americans from those subjected to the British Crown." (Perspective radio commentary, September 19, 1998.)

The article is good and I reproduce it below. In it, Obama is called a flake. I use the passive voice because there is some controversy as to whether Mr. Downs actually wrote it. According to David Emery of the Urban Legends site, Mr. Downs did not write it. As with the Abraham Lincoln/William Boetcker quote, the article may be falsely attributed to Mr. Downs, but I agree that Barack Obama is a flake!

Subject: OBAMA WILL LOSE

OBAMA WILL LOSE E-mail | 26 August 2008 | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:11:14 PM by ShadoAce

It's time to throw my hat in the ring as regards predicting the election results. So here it is: Barack Obama will be defeated. Seriously and convincingly defeated. Not due to racism, not due to the forces of reaction, not even due to Karl Rove sending out mind rays over the national cable system. He will lose for one reason above all, one that has been overlooked in any analysis that I've yet seen. Barack Obama will lose because he is a flake. I'm using the term in its generally accepted sense. A flake is not only a screw up, but someone who truly excels in making bizarre errors and creating incredibly convoluted disasters. A flake is a "fool with energy", as the Russian proverb puts it. ("A fool is a terrible thing to have around, but a fool with energy is a nightmare".)

Barack Obama is a flake, and the American people have begun to see it. The chief characteristic of a flake is that he makes choices that are impossible to either understand or explain. These are not the errors of the poor dope who can't grasp the essentials of a situation, or the neurotic who ruins things out of compulsion, or the man suffering chronic bad luck.

The flake has a genius for discovering solutions at perfect right angles to the ordinary world. It's as if he's the product of a totally different evolutionary chain, in a universe where the laws are slightly but distinctly at variance to ours. When given a choice between left and right, the flake goes up -- if not through the 8th dimension. And although there's plenty of rationalization, there's never a logical reason for any of it. After awhile, people stop asking.

Obama's rise has been widely portrayed as a kind of millennial Horatio Alger story -- young lad from a new state on the outskirts of the American polity, a member of once-despised minority, works his way by slow degrees to within arm's length of the presidency itself. That's all well and good -- we need national myths of exactly that type.

But what has been overlooked is the string of faux pas marking each step of Obama's journey, a series of strange, inexplicable actions, actions bizarre enough to require some effort at explanation, through such efforts have rarely been offered. It's as if the new Horatio made it to the top by stepping into every last manhole and open trapdoor in his path. And we, the onlookers, the voters who are being asked to put this man in the White House, are supposed to take this as the normal career path for a successful chief executive.

What are these incidents? I'm sure many of you are way ahead of me, but let's go to the videotape.

Here's a young man who graduated from Columbia with high marks, with a choice of positions anywhere in the country. He comes from a state generally held to be a close match to Paradise. One, furthermore, that can be characterized as the most successful multiracial society in the world, with harmonious relations not only between whites and blacks, but also Japanese-Americans and native Hawaiians as well. To top it off, a state controlled in large part by a smoothly-functioning Democratic machine. So where does he choose to go?

To Chicago. One of the windiest, coldest, most brutal cities in the country. One that is also infinitely corrupt in a sense that Hawaii is not. One that remains one of the most racist large cities in the U.S. (Cicero, Al Capone's old stomping grounds, a suburb that is effectively part of the city, is completely segregated to this day.) It would be nice to learn which of these aspects most attracted young Obama to the city. But if you'd asked at the beginning of the campaign, you'd still be waiting.

And what does he do when he reaches the city? Why, he joins a cult. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church has been turned inside out since the videotaped sermons appeared early this year, without anyone ever quite explaining exactly what Obama was thinking of when he joined up in the first place. Street cred, so it's claimed. But there are a plethora of black churches that would have provided him that without the taint of demented racism that Wright's church offered.

Obama apparently had to swear an oath of belief in "black liberation theology" when he joined the church. (It is the little touches of that sort that make it a "cult", and not simply a "church".) Did the thought of his career ever cross his mind? Didn't he realize that church would inevitably cause him trouble somewhere down the line? That he'd be required to repudiate it and its ideas eventually? We can ask -- but we won't get an answer.

Back at school, Obama got himself named editor of the Harvard Law Review. This is a signal achievement, no question about it. The kind of thing that would be mentioned about a person for the rest of his life, as has been the case with Obama. But then... he writes nothing for the journal.

Now, let's get this straight: here we have one of the leading university law journals in the country, one widely cited and read. Entire careers in legal analysis and scholarship have been founded on appearances in the Review, including some that have led to the highest courts in the country. Yet here's an individual who, as editor, could easily place his own work in the journal -- standard practice, nothing at all wrong with it. But he fails to do so. And the explanation? There's none that I've heard. We can go even farther than that, to say that there is no explanation that makes the least rational sense.

We follow Obama down to Springfield, where as a state legislator, he voted "present" over 120 times. What this means, as far as I've been able to discover, is that he voted "present" nearly as much as he voted "yes" or "no".

Now, statehouses work very simply: a member approaches his colleagues and asks them them to vote for his bill. Some comply, some do not. Some ask, "Is it a good bill?" and some don't. Either way, they customarily, except in unusual circumstances, vote "yes' or "no". All except for Barack Obama. And how did get away with it? How did mollify his colleagues? How did he square himself with the party bosses? Echo answereth not.

(A good slogan could be made of this: "You can't vote present in the Oval Office." I hereby commend it to the McCain campaign.)

We turn eagerly to learn what his term in the U.S. Senate will reveal, only to be disappointed. But it's not surprising, really. After all, he was only there for 143 days.

And there lies one of the keys to Obama's rise. David Brooks pointed out in a recent New York Times column that Obama spent too little time in any of his positions to make an impact one way or another. This is what saved him from the normal fate of the flake: he was never around long enough for his errors and strange behavior to catch up with him.

But a presidential campaign is a different matter. A man running for president is under the microscope, and can't duck anything, as many a candidate has had reason to learn. If Obama is a flake in the classic mode, now is when it would come out. And has it?

The case could be made. Here we have a campaign with everything going for it -- the opposition party in a shambles, a seriously undervalued president, the media in the candidate's pocket, the candidate himself being worshiped as nothing less than the new messiah. And yet the results have comprised little more than one fumble after another.

First came the Wright affair. Obama apparently thought he was above it all -- a not-uncommon phenomenon with flakes -- and allowed the revelations to take on a life of their own before bothering to respond. Even then, his thoughtful and convincing explanation (that he hadn't been listening for twenty years) did little to settle the crisis, which instead guttered out on its own after nearly crippling his campaign. Even months afterward it threatens to pop back up at any time. The latest word is that Wright -- now a deadly enemy of his onetime protege -- has written a book. I can't wait.

Obama learned his lesson, and confronted the next threat immediately, tackling The New Yorker cover with the avidity of a man having discovered zombies in the basement. A development that could have been defused with a chuckle and a quip (the customary method is for the politician to ask the cartoonist for the original) was allowed to explode into a major issue. The campaign's relentless attacks on one of the oldest liberal magazines extant merely perplexed the country at large. After all, any Republican has had to endure far worse.

Almost simultaneously, the birth certificate saga was unfolding. On no reasonable grounds, the campaign blew off requests for a copy of the document, at last releasing it through one of the least reputable sites on the Internet, and so badly copied that literally anything could be read into it -- and was. I'm not one of those who believes that Obama was actually born in Indonesia/Kenya/Moscow/the moon, but I still have plenty in the way of questions, almost all of them arising from how the matter was handled. Well played.

The latest pothole (or one of them, anyway) involves Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation". Corsi has been given the full New Yorker treatment, with the campaign hoping to avoid John Kerry's "error" in not challenging Corsi's
2004 book, Unfit for Command. What Obama missed was the fact that Kerry's major problem was not with Corsi but with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who were disgusted with Kerry's hypocrisy in running as an experienced military veteran, and set out to take him down. Corsi's effort dovetailed with the veteran's campaign and to a large extent was swept up with it. No such campaign is in operation against Obama. The smart method of answering Corsi would have been to allow the media to handle it, instead of drawing attention to the book and raising it to level of an issue. This appears to be a real talent for the Obama campaign.

We could go on. The victory tour of Europe, and the speech in which Obama declared himself "citizen of the world", a trope guaranteed to focus the attention of Middle America. His inept handling of Hillary, in which he wound up appearing frightened of the opponent he'd just beaten. Allowing Hillary (and her husband there, what's-his-name) a starring role in the Democratic convention is not a solution any sane individual would be comfortable with -- much less a roll-call vote. This threatens the near-certainty of turning the entire affair into BillandHillarycon, with the nominee winding up as a footnote. But it's all of a piece with the campaign Obama has waged up until now.

We've never had a flake as president. We've had drunks, neurotics, cripples, louts, and fools, but never a career screwup. (I except Jimmy Carter, whose errors arose from sincere, misguided goodwill.) And I don't think we're going to get one now. Another three months of flailing, incompetence, and a collapsing image will do little to assure voters concerned with terrorism, the oil crunch, a gyrating economy, and a bellicose Russia. (Anyone doubting that Obama will go exactly this route can consider the Saddleback church fiasco, which unfolded as this piece was being wrapped up. Evidently, the campaign goaded NBC news personality Andrea Mitchell into all but accusing John McCain of "cheating" by failing to take his place within the "cone of silence" during Obama's part of the program. The grotesque element here is that Obama's people and much of the liberal commentariat -- including Mitchell -- apparently believe that the "cone of silence", a gag prop for the old Get Smart! comedy series, actually exists and was in use at Saddleback.)

Many of us have dealt with flakes at one time or another, often in settings involving jobs and careers, and not uncommonly in positions of some authority. We all know of the nephew, the fiance, the boyfriend, whose whims must be catered to, whose reputation must be protected, who must be constantly worked around if anything at all is to be accomplished, always at the cost of time, money, efficiency, and personal stress.

In the fullness of time, we will inevitably see such a figure in the White House. But not this year, and not this candidate. Such acts of national flakery occur only when there's no real alternative. In this election, an alternative exists. Whatever his shortcomings, nobody ever called John McCain a flake.

Letter to New York State Board of Elections Re Obama Birth Certificate

The New York Secretary of State's secretary has informed me that the Board of Elections, not the Secretary of State oversees elections in New York. I had previously sent the following letter to the Secretary of State. I have therefore forwarded an e-mail and will send a snail mail letter to the Board of Elections in New York as follows:

PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
August 9, 2008
http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com
mlangbert@hvc.rr.com

James A. Walsh / Co-Chair
Douglas A. Kellner / Co-Chair
Evelyn J. Aquila / Commissioner
Gregory P. Peterson / Commissioner
New York State Board of Elections
40 Steuben Street
Albany, NY 12207-2108

Dear Messrs. Walsh, Kellner and Gregory and Ms. Aquila

I would like to file a public, formal complaint with the New York State Board of Elections requesting verification of the natural-born U.S. citizenship of Mr. Barack Obama, and revocation of the registration and recognition of Mr. Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States if that citizenship is not verified as described below within 7 days of your receipt of this letter. Mr. Obama has not shown that he fulfills the Constitutional requirement for president, to be a “natural born citizen”, Article Two, Section 1.

The basis for this complaint is:

a) Mr. Obama’s refusal to produce a physical certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate, with the Hawaii file number visible, upon my previous repeated request and the requests of others.
b) Significant analysis of the electronically-displayed image displayed by Mr. Obama on his official campaign website as the certificate indicates forgery.
c) The electronically-displayed image displayed by Mr. Obama on his official campaign website has the Hawaii state birth certificate filing number blacked out, eliminating any objective information that links the image to an actual certificate on file (see http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html).

If Mr. Obama produces a certified, stamped copy of the original birth certificate with all information visible, I request as the complainant to see that document in person to examine its authenticity, including electronically, before you finalize its response; and the opportunity to verify the authenticity with the issuing state official. This process should require no more than two business days, and may take place in at your office.

If the certificate is not produced in 10 days and verified by you and myself within another 5 days, this complaint requests that Mr. Obama’s registration as a presidential candidate be rejected by the State of New York because he has failed to document his citizenship.

I ask for expedited formal response and resolution of this request, given that the national convention furthering the candidacy will occur in three weeks, and given that this document is easy to produce upon personal request of Mr. Obama to the Hawaii state government. Please note you can request it directly, as qualifying under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 338-18 has having “a direct and tangible interest in the record.”

This request is made with the utmost respect for New York’s laws, the presidential election process and the candidates involved, in the desire to resolve this question quickly and confirm their integrity. If a similar request is appropriate to be made to all presidential candidates it must not slow down this specific request.

If the you decide that you do not have jurisdiction in this matter, please respond within three business days of receipt of this complaint with the state agency or other governmental organization that is responsible for enforcing Article Two, Section One of the Constitution that requires natural-born citizenship for candidacy for the president of the United States. Please include the basis for such jurisdiction by that agency or organization. Please respond by email to: mlangbert@hvc.rr.com

Sincerely,


Mitchell Langbert
PO Box 130
203 Watson Hollow Road
West Shokan, New York 12494

Obama's Supporters Have a Moral Problem

After being down this evening Texas Darlin's blog is back up. TD analyzes the legal implications of Obama's multiple citizenship. TD argues:

"Prior to 2007 (and possibly earlier), Indonesian law did not permit dual citizenship. Thus, if Obama actively kept his Indonesian citizenship, his US citizenship could be challenged." With respect to Kenya he notes that "Under the Constitution of Kenya, he would have automatically forfeited his citizenship at the age of 21 unless he affirmatively “claimed” it. If he took some action to keep his citizenship, that’s a big problem because 1) Kenya prohibits dual citizenship and 2) the US does not recognize dual citizenship with Kenya."

TD adds: "Again, I don’t think that Obama has Kenyan citizenship. I think that the Rocky Mountain report and Andy Martin’s work are poorly sourced on this point."

TD raises a few points that amount to ethical as well as Constitutional problems for Mr. Obama:

1. The attempt to cloak his Indonesian citizenship
2. Constitutional problems because the conflict of interest may mean that he is not a "natural born citizen".

TD writes:

"The “natural-born” clause of Article II is commonly understood to relate to the place of birth, but more accurately relates to loyalty to country as Commander in Chief. That was the original intent of the founding fathers. In McCain’s case, there is no question because of his circumstances (born on military base to 2 US citizens, later joined the military, never had anything to do with Panama, etc.). In Obama’s case, it’s not nearly so clear, especially given his travels, relatives, and associations in some of these other countries."

He concludes:

"In my mind, however, the biggest problem is that Sen. Obama has intentionally concealed his background, Indonesian identity, citizenship, and the fact that he was at one time Muslim."

If these allegations are true, there are serious ethical and moral concerns about Mr. Obama. I am not a constitutional expert and would want additional support for TD's interpretation of the concept of natural born citizen. As a professor of business and a former corporate manager, there are serious and obvious motivational, ethical and professional concerns about conflicts of interest, especially those that are as fundamental as dual or multiple citizenship. There have been cases of terrorists who claimed to be loyal to the United States for many years before committing murder.

Obama supporters' recent responses to allegations of Mr. Obama's longstanding deception about his birth certificate; his failure to disclose and reveal his adopted name which allegedly is on the only birth certificate available to him; and fundamental questions about his citizenship and loyalty suggest a moral breakdown. Whether these allegations are true will remain to be seen.

But instead of questioning and asking Mr. Obama to do the right thing, to reveal information, to behave in an ethical and open fashion, the response of a number of Obama supporters, all with whom I have corresponded, has been to defend his lying, to lie themselves, to concoct specious arguments, to quibble, to deflect and to feign.

Obama Supporters: You have a problem. Your candidate has been lying, covering up and may have serious conflicts of interest that could prevent him from doing the fundamental Presidential job of protecting these United States. You need to demand that he explain the deception, explain the dual citizenship and reveal any and all documentation. Concocting specious arguments, lying and hoping that things will turn out all right is not the right approach.

The Democrats Should Challenge McCain's Citizenship

The issue of candidates' identity disclosure should work both ways. Both Democratic and Republican candidates ought to be required to file birth certificate, drivers' license, criminal record and similar information with the state boards of elections. In the presidential election filing with the Federal Elections Commission would make sense to avoid duplication. A number of people have written to me with this argument: why do you raise the question of Mr. Barack Obama's birth certificate when Mr. McCain's citizenship is in question.

I do not believe that Mr. McCain's citizenship is in question, but I do not deny the importance of openness in government. I therefore urge Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party to file a de novo complaint in the US Supreme Court concerning John McCain's citizenship. The Democrats and Mr. Obama will have to publicly argue that military children born overseas while their parent is fighting on behalf of their country are not citizens. As a Republican, I urge Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party to make that argument publicly.

It is obviously fair that both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama reveal their birth certificate and other identification information. It is also fair that any and all questions concerning eligibility be raised, and I urge the Democrats to raise the qualifications of military children to be citizens openly.

Request for Obama Investigation by New York's Secretary of State

Texas Darlin has proposed a state-by-state inquiry as to Mr. Barack H. Obama's eligibility to be president. Good idea, TD. I have adapted my earlier letter to the FEC and forwarded it electronically to Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez, Secretary of State for New York in Albany. I live within an easy drive, so I would not mind meeting with her representative.

PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
August 9, 2008
http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com
mlangbert@hvc.rr.com

Lorraine Cortés-Vázquez, Secretary of State
One Commerce Plaza,
99 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231-0001

Dear Ms. Cortés-Vázquez:

I would like to file a public, formal complaint with the New York Department of State requesting verification of the natural-born U.S. citizenship of Mr. Barack Obama, and revocation of the registration and recognition of Mr. Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States if that citizenship is not verified as described below within 7 days of your receipt of this letter. Mr. Obama has not shown that he fulfills the Constitutional requirement for president, to be a “natural born citizen”, Article Two, Section 1.

The basis for this complaint is:

a) Mr. Obama’s refusal to produce a physical certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate, with the Hawaii file number visible, upon my previous repeated request and the requests of others.
b) Significant analysis of the electronically-displayed image displayed by Mr. Obama on his official campaign website as the certificate indicates forgery.
c) The electronically-displayed image displayed by Mr. Obama on his official campaign website has the Hawaii state birth certificate filing number blacked out, eliminating any objective information that links the image to an actual certificate on file (see http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html).

If Mr. Obama produces a certified, stamped copy of the original birth certificate with all information visible, I request as the complainant to see that document in person to examine its authenticity, including electronically, before you finalize its response; and the opportunity to verify the authenticity with the issuing state official. This process should require no more than two business days, and may take place in at your office.

If the certificate is not produced in 10 days and verified by you and myself within another 5 days, this complaint requests that Mr. Obama’s registration as a presidential candidate be rejected by the State of New York because he has failed to document his citizenship.

I ask for expedited formal response and resolution of this request, given that the national convention furthering the candidacy will occur in three weeks, and given that this document is easy to produce upon personal request of Mr. Obama to the Hawaii state government. Please note you can request it directly, as qualifying under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 338-18 has having “a direct and tangible interest in the record.”

This request is made with the utmost respect for New York’s laws, the presidential election process and the candidates involved, in the desire to resolve this question quickly and confirm their integrity. If a similar request is appropriate to be made to all presidential candidates it must not slow down this specific request.

If the you decide that you do not have jurisdiction in this matter, please respond within three business days of receipt of this complaint with the state agency or other governmental organization that is responsible for enforcing Article Two, Section One of the Constitution that requires natural-born citizenship for candidacy for the president of the United States. Please include the basis for such jurisdiction by that agency or organization. Please respond by email to: mlangbert@hvc.rr.com

Sincerely,


Mitchell Langbert
PO Box 130
203 Watson Hollow Road
West Shokan, New York 12494

We Need a McCain-Obama-Clinton Sit-Up Contest

The Web is abuzz with Barack Obama's embarrassing mistake(see John Amato's Crooks and Liars post here and Michael Goldfarb's Weekly Standard post here , hat tip Larwyn). Mr. Obama said that there are 57 states. Just prior to his confused statement he had attempted to smear Mr. McCain by suggesting that Mr. McCain had "lost his bearings", due to his age. But it is Mr. Obama who is less mentally and physically fit.

I am not a wellness fanatic and even wrote a small book years ago attacking the idea of wellness programs in labor-management administered Taft Hartley Plans. But I base my prediction on a 2007 wellness report in Seek Wellness.com, which asks whether as a smoker Mr. Obama is qualified to be president:

For the record, Senator Obama claims to be a "moderate" smoker who wants to quit. That's good. He has stated many times that he HAS quit, often, but tends to lapse, due to insufficient resolve. A member of AA might suggest, "That ain't quitting." The candidate made this statement in an interview published by the Chicago Tribune: "It's an ongoing struggle. I've been chewing Nicorette strenuously." Well, chew on this, Senator: We all have ongoing struggles. Lose the smoking habit!...Americans haven't elected an unabashed, out-of-the-closet cigarette-smoking president since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The matter ought to be resolved with a sit-up and push-up contest. Instead of televised debates that skirt important issues, the three candidates should be lined up to compete to see who is physically younger. Chronological age can be quite different from physical age. My prediction:

Sit ups: McCain: 550, Clinton 80, Obama 14
Push ups: McCain: 40, Obama 18, Clinton 2
Jogging: McCain: 1 hour, Clinton 1/2 hour, Obama, 8 minutes.

Let the contest begin!

Why a Bloomberg Presidential Run Will Help Republicans (or else conservatives are very dumb)

There has been debate about whether a Bloomberg presidential run would help the Democrats or Republicans. Unless conservatives are very dumb, Bloomberg will help the Republicans. The argument that Bloomberg will help Democrats because the conservatives and libertarians have been frustrated with President Bush involves an odd logic. It is like saying: "I opposed fascism and Mussolini, so I voted for Hitler" or "I disagree with Norman Thomas because I dislike government, so I voted for Gus Hall." As well: "I disliked Eisenhower's spending, so I voted for Stevenson." How about "I thought Landon was too liberal, so I voted for Roosevelt." You can probably think of a few more examples.

I doubt that conservatives will support him, unless they are very dumb. They would have to believe the media claims of Bloomberg's being a good manager. But conservatives are the ones who are suspicious of the media, so I doubt they'll fall for it, unless they are very dumb.