Thoughts on The Certificate

I had previously written about David Horowitz's important Frontpagemag editorial concerning the birth certificate. Unlike most conservatives, I admire Saul Alinsky, and one of Alinsky's "rules for radicals" is that tactics that drag on too long become a drag. At the same time, variations on the birth certificate theme might be useful, but not everyone agrees. I solicited comments from some brilliant and insightful friends, and here they are:

Raquel Okyay writes:

The facts so far are "foggy", but what if the fog was lifted, and indeed Obama is shown not to be a natural born citizen, does he receive immunity from the constitution's requirement simply because he is a black man, and his election is historic? What you are proposing is to ignore facts and possibly permit a person to lie to the American people, and violate what is clearly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution (whether outdated or minor).

If you have an argument to change the Constitution to remove this requirement going forward, fine. But, for me changing the rules after the game is unfair and undemocratic. I do not think it is wrong for the electorate to question Obama's eligibility after the fact. Obama can simply produce the proper documentation and this controversy is over.

The very fact that the pissant media are completely ignoring this story is the most disturbing aspect and I think that in itself is a major point. And this is the essence of the argument -- liberty has to do with freedom from oppressive governments. When the government and their pissant media friends are hiding or confusing the truth, it is in fact, our liberty that is being ignored. True democracy only exists in truth of liberty!

Notwithstanding, David, you are still one of my favorite authors!

Cortes de Russy writes:

As Mitchell and I have discussed, I fall down on David's side of this argument for the primary reason that he states.

Where there are wrinkles to be ironed out in process, these can be readily managed through the tools at hand. Oklahoma's legislature, for example, has already proposed legislation that would require adequate proof of a candidate's legal and constitutional eligibility prior to a candidate being included on the ballot in that state. If only one state passes such a requirement, I believe, this issue will be put to bed forever.

Regarding the development of a political system and electorate that is more respectful of the original intent of the Framers regarding devolution of powers among the states, etc., the solution is not any "quick fixes" but rather a serious education effort that will convince and reinforce the principles which uphold individual liberty. For example, there was no discussion in the recent campaign regarding the appropriate role of government in the lives of its citizens. McCain had a perfect opening to ask the question when Joe the Plumber inadvertently prompted Obama's "spread the wealth" comment but he either missed it or he doesn't contemplate the question at any level.

Keeping this issue alive will only harden positions and make it all the more difficult to convince the majority of citizens that conservatives are not "kooks" but rather thoughtful and concerned actors on the American political stage.

David Horowtiz replies to Raquel:

What I am proposing is not to make further inquiries into the facts in this case. It's too late and the consequences of this debate are destructive to our nation and our constitution when we are fighting two wars and in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in our history. You say I am proposing to "possibly permit a person to lie to the American people." What president, legislator, political leader etc has not lied to the American people? This is a question that the 64 million Americans who voted for Obama will be asking if 5 unelected political appointees on the Supreme Court decide to disqualify him.

Second, when you say that "changing the rules after the game is unfair" you need to think about the fact that more than half the nation which still believes in Obama will be asking the same question.

Third, concerning your distress at the bias of the media. What else is new and why should its support for Obama on this minor issue be the point of your distress?

I apologize for speaking so bluntly -- and I do appreciate your graciousness in allowing me the latitude to be wrong -- but I really think this whole issue is an emotional one that boils down to conceding that we lost the election and now have to live with Obama as president. But I think the beginning of a conservative political revival lies precisely in accepting this fact.

Raquel adds:

Ok, David, I have tried to persuade you to the far side of the moon, and I have failed. :(

You are proposing that concerned citizens do not make further inquiries and I am proposing we inquire, inquire, and keep inquiring!

I concede to the fact that we lost the election, and whatever the outcome of this controversy, I agree that a new conservative revolution is in the workings. I have little doubt that Democrats will ultimately hang themselves, they don't need me and my silly questions.

A quick observation: both the mayor of Honolulu and the Chief Clerk (or whatever her title is) have stated that they have seen Obama's birth certificate and that it is valid. Unless they are criminals, that should suffice to settle the matter.

I, frankly, understand why the Obama people ignored this issue for, had they rushed to respond his interlocutors would have been encouraged to come up with other issues forcing him to respond further, etc. It would never have ended and would have done just what was desired: create an aura of doubt surrounding his candidacy.

I, too, am distressed at his victory but do not want to win by such means.

Phil Orenstein writes:

My comments are two words: cognitive dissonance. I've been avoiding this for the past week or so, but now I have to cough it up. When I first read David's 3 blogs arguing that the birth certificate issue was nonsense and conservatives should move on, and the hundreds of emotional responses that followed, I decided to put it on the back burner and not deal with it. To me and to those who had done their homework regarding the facts of the issue, we found it a straightforward issue of Obama's obfuscation and lying to the American people about his birth certificate as well as numerous other documents (college records, medical records, etc.) and by implication everything that he stands for including change, hope and transparency. Due to the legal hieroglyphics and intellectual gymnastics one had to go through to sort out the wheat from the chaff, even many conservatives just avoided it and admonished us to move on to the real issues. Mitch has done a yeoman's job in simplifying the issues. To put it simply, no document the Obama camp has so far revealed to the public is proof of his legitimate "natural born" status as required by the Constitution, including his COLB (Certification of Live Birth) which is not proof he was born in Hawaii. It is a stunning admission of guilt that Barack Obama would not, simply out of respect for the people he was elected to preside over, disclose the sealed "vault copy" of his birth certificate, which would have ended the debate for me, Mitch and others.

FrontPage is my computer's homepage, and I read David's blog every day. I respect him as my major intellectual hero, for having advanced the Academic Bill of Rights, taken the fight for our country's values and self defense directly into the schools with the IslamoFascism Awareness projects, wrote "the Party of Defeat", the only author I am aware of who unmasked the treasonous actions of the Democratic Party to sabotage our now victorious war in Iraq, and many more. To me David, having been on both sides of the political divide is a true visionary and great conservative voice for Americas future.

But when I read David's arguments for dropping the whole ball of wax, I was stunned...Or on the other hand am I missing something? Am I just obsessing over a silly issue that has no relevance to reality. If a terrorist struck on our soil tomorrow, would we still carry on over the vault copy? So I thought about David's main point that Obama had already won and that the continued frenzy of a fringe of us trying to point out the obvious truth to a majority of American's who don't do their homework and are seduced by ephemeral images, via the pissant media and academic indoctrination, is tantamount to banging our heads against the wall. So David's point, truth be dammed, is that we'll only be hurting ourselves by continuing along this road.

Now I am busy planning and promoting a great conservative event event in NY for Feb 2009 to rebrand the GOP as the true "Party of Lincoln." The key is to re-establish the image of our greatest leader, Lincoln in the American memory which has declined in the past few decades, since the guiding premise of teacher education is that members of minority communities are marginalized when national heroes are recognized. So Lincoln and our great heritage has been stripped from the curriculum. This is the travesty that is poisoning the Obama generation to be disconnected with our great past heritage and only find relevance is the messianic images Obama projects. Also, postmodernism has already made a mockery of everything sacred in the world including religion, our American heroes and the Constitution. So truth, history and facts to these majority of our fellow Americans schooled in progressive indoctrination, has little or no relevance. So in the end, while I agree with Mitch that Statism and lies have taken over both political parties, the addiction is so complete, that cold-turkey prescriptions for truth will be rejected by the body politic. Basically what I am saying is to move on. Obama will be haunted by the entire foul Chicago political machinery of Emanuel, Rezko and now Blagojevich following him into the White House to claim a piece of the filthy pie that Obama was groomed in. Let's put our heads together now and save our country!

David, I wrote this to get a load off my chest. However, I cannot in good conscience tell others to "move on" although I myself am too tied up to pursue the case further. I have to agree with my friends Raquel and Mitchell, that as long as their conscience compels them to pursue the truth, they should do so. Whether it gets to the justices or not, either the sealed vault copy shows he is natural born or not and the American people have a right to know. Take the Duke Lacrosse rape case. Now it's Blagojevich's and his connections to Emanuel and possibly both their resignations rather than staining Obama's record. So I applaud those who are still fighting since the same process of lies and cover-ups will continue for the next 4 years. Sorry, I can't honestly concede on this.

David Horowitz replies:

That last line is exactly right, and we need to be positioning ourselves to take maximum advantage of their mistakes...Well, the search for information is one thing, and I certainly am all for finding out the truth in these matters. The political act of seeking to void an election is quite another on a matter as de minimus as this, and that's what I object to...My point is not truth be damned, but with the election over there's no feasible way to establish the truth in a way that will persuade a majority of Americans, let alone a majority of the Obama voters that this is indeed the truth and Joe Biden should be president. Joe Biden???!!!! Are you sure you would want to go through with this even if you could which (I am convinced) you can't?

Vasos Panagiotopoulos writes:

David, I agree. As president of Columbia GOP 1982-83, Obama and I often debated at Ferris Booth Cafe, and I found him to be fair, decent and intelligent, even if he was persistently wrong and unable to stop talking. This issue makes conservatives look nasty and small. I think Dole, Giuliani and McCain are nasty and small and the big reason we were so badly defeated. Bush Jr, for all his failings, would have been an even match for Obama. Romney would have defeated him. Don't forget Bush was elected twice. McCain made the same mistake as Faso '06, Gore'08 and Nixon'60 and precisely the mistake Bush'88 avoided. Americans voted for Obama the decent chap, not the black, not the liberal. As a son of immigrants (and a grandson of illegals) and a Columbia alum (and a fellow student of Brzezinski) I am darned proud of Obama. I don't think it is a coincidence that those here in Queens who hate CPAC board member and national conservative icon Serf Maltese with a passion also hate Obama. They only betray their own nastiness and help Obama.

In 1996 my assemblyman, Jim Buckley's former driver, Doug Prescott, was defeated by a pretty young attorney who happened to be the niece of a powerful judge. No one took her seriously because she was a "little girl." So our older volunteers didn't work much. A week before elections, the campaign office was closed for lack of staff. (In fact when our state senator correctly sued the feds for the local cost of illegals, our district's influx of Italians saw this, in combination with Andy Beveridge's study of Italians being NYC's top illegals, as an assault on them and voted for the Italian-surname "little girl" as the senator was running unopposed.)

I kept arguing all along, if you make Obama to be Jimmy Carter (thanks to Brzezinski) you can defeat him. If you play the race card, we will be totally defeated. I know pleny of conseratives from Columbia wo helped Obama because they genuinely liked him as a person. I can tell you I have reason to believe some prominent former Reagan youth members also helped him because they found McCain and his Nixonian coterie to be a nasty, noxious piece of garbage. Because of these small minded people, we have given Richard Dailey and Zbigniew Brzezinski control of the White House and the world for at least then next two years, if not for two decades.

Mitchell Langbert replies:

Dear Cortes, Phil, Raquel, Vasos and of course David--Thanks so much for your thoughtful correspondence about David's blog. I hope you don't mind that I posted everyone's comments on my blog. David is likely right, although the law suits may be creating a useful tactical or psychological imbalance. The recent Blagojevich news seems to confirm my early conclusion that Obama is not a nice guy. I don't think the people he's associated himself with (Vasos, you're obviously the exception) have been nice people. Not just Wright and Pfleger but the likes of Blagojevich, Daley and the entire Chicago sludge machine. Since the media wasn't interested in asking questions, it's easy for him to look great. Also, the Republicans are in worse trouble than Vasos and Phil are saying. I don't think that today they have the necessary ideological grounding to win, and in order to gain it they would need to reject a large portion of their likely financial support. I think the country is in trouble and more than just tactical and strategic planning is necessary. The Republican Party has lost its vision. Phil's idea about the party of Lincoln sounds great, but where are Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises now that we really need them?