Daily Wisdom

September 17, 2009

Juan Williams and Obama's Scary Critics

Juan Williams of NPR wrote a piece yesterday, which was a "Special" to the Daily News, and to which I must take exception. You can read the article HERE. In his article, Williams suggests that the "attacks" against President Obama are not only racially motivated, but they are even "scarier" than that...

The pattern of attacks on Obama suggests that there are people who don't accept the idea that this man, the first black man to win the highest office in the land, is really the President. These critics seem less interested in arguing about health care proposals than in building the case that Obama is not legitimately our national leader.

Williams then briefly mentions the debate over his qualifications to be president -- a reference to the clause in the U.S. Constitution that requires the president to be a "natural born citizen". But Williams mis-characterizes the debate by saying that to meet this constitutional requirement, presidents must be "native-born". This is a common misconception, and fails to recognize that there is a difference between "native-born" and "natural born" citizens.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution uses terms like "natural born citizen" (and others), which it does not define elsewhere in the document. Making matters worse, the Congress and the courts have failed to provide an exact definition for the term "natural born citizen". Thus, we can only rely upon what we believe to be the generally accepted definition of the term "natural born citizen" when the Constitution was written.

As such, we know that our Founding Fathers relied heavily upon the writings of Emmerich de Vattel, who wrote The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature in 1758. According to the 'Preface to the 1999 Digital Edition' of this work...

This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

In Section 212 of de Vattel's work, he defines "natural born citizen" this way...

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. [emphasis added]

Thus, a compelling case can be made that Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" because even while he may have been "native-born" in the United States, only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen. Barack Obama has publicly acknowledged that his father was a Kenyan and therefore a British subject at the time of his birth. Emmerich de Vattel goes on to say...

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children... in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen. [emphasis added]

Juan Williams, having thus mis-characterized at least one important aspect of the debate, then goes on to make an inaccurate claim saying that, "They make this argument even when all Hawaiian documents, officials and news stories of his birth conclusively prove he is an American" [emphasis added]. But that is simply not true.

Barack Obama has only released a short-form "Certification of Live Birth". He has yet to release his long-form "Birth Certificate". There is an important difference here. A "Certification of Live Birth" merely certifies that a baby was born, and it should be noted that the State of Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth (1961) issued such certifications to parents of children who were born in other states and/or other countries. And while Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii's DOH Director, has said that she has "personally seen and verified" Senator Obama's "original birth certificate", she never said that it proves anything, "conclusively" or otherwise.

But let us assume for the time being that Barack Obama's birth certificate is completely in order, and that he was in fact born in Hawaii, and that the hospital of birth is listed, and that the delivering doctor has signed the document. We are forced to assume this of course, because Obama has never released it and wants us to accept it on faith. "Blessed is he who has not seen and yet believes."

But this still only tells us that Obama was born in America. As Juan Williams states, it proves to us only that Barack Obama is an "American". However, it still does not address the issue of his eligibility as a "natural born citizen". A Hawaiian birth does not in and of itself make Obama eligible to be president.

Williams goes on to say, "There are critics who claim he is Muslim, not a Christian despite all testimony about his years in the controversial church of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright." Well, as to whether or not Obama is a "closet Muslim" is impossible to say, but I think it is very unlikely. To the best of my knowledge, he has never unrolled a prayer mat and started praying in the direction of Mecca. Therefore, if he is a Muslim, he is not a very good one.

However, we should recognize that Obama pays much greater respect to Islam than he does to Christianity. He had Christian symbols covered up before he gave a speech at Georgetown University, yet took off his shoes in accordance with Muslim tradition at a Turkish mosque. And it should be pointed out that Jeremiah Wright was himself a former Muslim who embraced a brand of theology that is closer to something his friend Louis Farrakhan might preach, than to something that Jesus Christ might recognize.

Barack Obama said on his campaign website, "I am not and have never been a Muslim." After becoming President, White House press spokesman Robert Gibbs repeated Obama's statement. And that statement is currently on the Organizing for America website. Yet, Barack Obama has failed to release any documents pertaining to his college education such as entrance applications, transcripts, theses, etc. But why? Is it perhaps because some of those documents might contain a statement by Obama that his professed religion was Islam? It is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Is this speculation? Of course it is. But the point here is that President Obama has only himself to blame for these "scary" critics that Juan Williams speaks of. Having promised to be the most "open and transparent" president in history, Obama has failed to live up to that promise thus fueling such speculation. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the yet unanswered questions about Barack Obama create a vacuum that seeks to be filled. Without facts, speculation is the only 'substance' which can fill the gap.

Clearly, Obama has it in his power to end the rumors and fill the vacuum by supplying us with the truth. We could assume that he has nothing to hide, but he has spent what is estimated at tens of thousands of dollars to prevent the release of his personal information -- information that should be readily available to the American public anyway. He has done nothing to end the speculation, and everything to encourage the rumor-mongers.

Williams goes on saying, "Then there are claims that Obama is a Socialist who is trying to subvert America." What President Obama's intentions are, is difficult to say. But that he is a socialist is almost certain, despite any claims to the contrary. He was raised in part by a mother who was an atheist and, according to Obama, a "secular humanist". He was raised in part by his grandparents, who were friends with Frank Marshall Davis -- an avowed communist and labor union activist. Davis became Obama's mentor as Obama himself states in his own book. Obama himself attests to having participated in socialist meetings and conferences before going off to college.

He was a member of the New Party -- a socialist organization. He participated in events put on by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) -- self-described as the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. As a community organizer, he worked with ACORN and even defended them in a legal suit. He is an avowed disciple of Saul Alinsky who wrote "Rules for Radicals". He was friends with Bill Ayers, an unrepentant left-wing terrorist. His election was heavily funded by George Soros -- a socialist and globalist. He told "Joe the Plumber" that we need to "spread the wealth around".

During the campaign, Barack Obama told us to judge him by the people he surrounds himself with. Based on that standard, he must be a collectivist, statist, socialist and/or communist because those are the kind of people he has surrounded himself with. He has appointed nearly three dozen "czars" which are unaccountable to the Congress or the taxpayers, and who can rewrite government policy at their own discretion -- or Obama's. He nominated a Supreme Court Justice, who in her own words said that the bench is where "policy is made".

He tried to take control of the banks by seeking to have them convert their preferred stock into common stock, which would have given the government voting rights. He effectively took control of General Motors and fired the CEO. In the case of Chrysler Motors, he violated the bankruptcy laws and transferred wealth from secured bondholders to the auto unions. He's been pushing for a public option in the health care reform bill, which is merely a stepping-stone to a single-payer national health care system. Obama himself said he favors a single-payer system. A national health care system would effectively give the government control over one sixth of the entire U.S. economy. He wants to implement a climate bill, which is nothing more than a gigantic energy tax that will bring hundreds of billions of dollars into the federal government, and which will strictly regulate both energy companies and energy users. If this is not socialism, then what is?

Juan Williams then goes on to suggest that Joe Wilson's shout "You lie!" was racially motivated...

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) ratcheted up the racial heat when he shouted out "You lie!" as the President spoke to Congress. No white President - that is to say all who have come before - has ever had to put up with such contempt. There is a circumstantial case to be made that Wilson, with a history of membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and support for flying the Confederate flag over his state's capitol, is not above playing racial politics.

Aside from being almost laughable, Juan really had to stretch to come up with that one. Perhaps being an African-American himself, Juan is overly-sensitive to criticism of our nation's first African-American President. I have noted similar sentiments by African-American commenters at other websites. I'm sure that Juan's head tells him it ain't so, but he may have problems getting his heart to go along.

African-Americans swelled with pride following the election of Barack Obama. But even then some expressed concern that an Obama failure might be a reflection on all of them. If African-Americans took Obama's election victory so personally, then it is only fair to assume that they are likewise taking his criticisms personally as well. That is a mistake, and it can only lead to negative consequences. While it may be true that are yet some traces of unextinguished racism in this country, the fire has been under control for a long time. Obama's election proves that.

Finally, Juan makes a statement that I can agree with, but for a very different reason. I might have said the same thing myself, but come to a very different conclusion...

At some point, it is hard to ignore the common thread in this criticism: It is an effort to say that Obama is not one of us, not like us. And at that point, it is not crazy to ask the critics if they mean he is not one of them because of the color of his skin.

I think it is correct to say that Obama's critics (myself included) feel that he "is not one of us, not like us." His father was a British subject -- most of ours were American. His mother was an atheist and secular humanist -- most of ours were not. He was mentored as a youth by a communist -- most of us were not. He participated in socialist meetings and conferences -- most of us did not. He went to Harvard -- most of us did not. He was a community organizer -- we were not. He is a friend of ACORN -- we are not. He is a disciple of Saul Alinsky -- we are not. He went to church where the pastor bad-mouthed America for 20 years -- we did not. He is friends with unrepentant terrorists -- we are not. He believes in spreading the wealth around -- we do not. He enjoys the company of statists, collectivists, socialists and communists -- we do not.

Allow me to go on. We believe in the Constitution -- he wants to change it. We believe in the rule of law -- he subverts it. We are conservative -- he is progressive. He wants to cut Medicare -- we do not. He wants to raise taxes -- we do not. He wants higher energy prices -- we do not. He wants to curtail the use of coal, oil and gas -- we want to drill here, and drill now. He does not cling to guns, God and religion -- we do. He does not think we are a Christian nation -- we do. He apologizes for America -- we do not. He is ashamed of America -- we are not.

Trust me Juan, it has little or nothing at all to do with the color of his skin.

28 Comments:

At 9/17/2009 11:16 PM , Blogger smrstrauss said...

Re: "know that our Founding Fathers relied heavily upon the writings of Emmerich de Vattel."

We know that they relied on Vattel for advice on international law, but we do NOT know that they relied on him for Natural Born. They did not rely on his advice on all things. For example, Vattel recommended that all countries establish a state religion and force people to join it, or allow them to leave the country. We did not do that.

So, what is the confirmation that they followed Vattel on this? There is another and more likely source of the term Natural Born, which was the law in the Colonies and in Britain at the time, which held that anyone born in a Colony or in Britain was Natural Born simply by being born there. This held regardless of the number of parents who were citizens or subjects at the time.

That is the definition of Natural Born that was given by Blackstone, and Blackstone was far more popular with the writers of the Constitution than Vattel.

This is what the Wall Street Journal says about Natural Born: "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

 
At 9/17/2009 11:24 PM , Blogger smrstrauss said...

A "Certification of Live Birth" merely certifies that a baby was born,"

Not true. The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only birth certificate that Hawaii currently issues. As the Wall Street Journal points out, the fact that it is called by a misleading name does not change the fact that it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)

The Certification of Live Birth is accepted by all the departments in Hawaii (yes, including DHHL, I checked), and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military.

As the Wall Street Journal commented: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."

Re: "and it should be noted that the State of Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth (1961) issued such certifications to parents of children who were born in other states and/or other countries."

This is NOT true. That provision was not passed until 1982, more than twenty years after Obama's birth. At the time foreign birth certificates could not be placed in Hawaiian birth files. Obama has an original birth certificate in his file, as confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii, and there is even a witness who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii in 1961. (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html)

 
At 9/17/2009 11:30 PM , Blogger Barb said...

Picky,picky,picky,Juan.
Juan had to climb Waaay out to the end of the branch and lean as far as he could to reach the end of this limb.
The birth thing could be solved in 5 minutes, that is not my problem with 0bama,and is not his color,it is his beliefs . Or maybe I should say his lack of beliefs. he has one set for Himself and his friends and another set for the rest of America. And ,yes, that includes all the people of whatever color.If 0bama gets his way we will all suffer and have to do without all the things we are accustomed to.
Anyone who can claim they have never heard 0bama lie has not been listening.
Juan lies when he tries to defend 0bama.

 
At 9/18/2009 1:07 AM , Blogger camojack said...

"We could assume that he has nothing to hide, but he has spent what is estimated at tens of thousands of dollars to prevent the release of his personal information -- information that should be readily available to the American public anyway."

Ah, that "assume" thing, yes. "The crux of the biscuit" (to quote Frank Zappa) is the fact that Obama has spent so much to hide his past; if there was nothing questionable in it (which we know there is, even without a full disclosure) he wouldn't be taking such extraordinary measures to conceal it. Open and transparent? It is to laugh...

 
At 9/18/2009 5:10 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact of the matter is Mr. Obama has been anything but transparent (as he promised he would be on all matters, btw) with respect to his school records and an irrefutable documented copy of his vault birth certificate that would stand up in a court of law - and unfortunately vast segments of the judicial branch lies in the hands of liberal judges who will see to it that this case would never make it into a courtroom.

Mr. Obama could have ended this debate the very first week this issue came up by being totally up front and transparent, instead he has spent close to one million dollars in legal fees to deepen this almost inexplicable mystery.

Whatever clever obfuscations Obamatons come up with to justify Mr. Obama's less than honest and open actions on this very important issue demonstrates their continued partisanship in always giving the benefit of the doubt to their own liars and thieves while questioning the intentions - if I may play devil's advocate with respect to these Obama apologists - of their political opponents. For instance, many of those defending Mr. Obama also previously outright lied (or at least believed those lies) about George Bush's honorable service in the Air National Guard. Remember that debacle? Where were these paragon examples of liberal truth seeking when the shoe was on the other foot, eh?

Those who are so vigorously defending Mr. Obama are often the same people who so quickly embraced the bogus TANG documents of Dan Blather and probably believe to this day they are legitimate despite the conservative blogosphere demonstrating once and for all that they were generated by modern word processing equipment.

And let's not forget the "Troofer" nutcases on the Obamaton's side of the aisle who, again, believed with their entire being 9/11 was "an inside job." I must admit, however, some liberals come to their senses eventually and quit drinking that kool-aid but there are any number of them who are also lying about having believed in it at all in the first place!

By contrast we're merely making reasonable requests that Mr. Obama produce the necessary, irrefutable documentation which surely must exist in time and space that can prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that he is a "natural born American". The fact that what he as produced to date is still refutable (keep in mind, the first "birth certificate" to be put on his website and that of other liberal bloggers proved to be a fake ... WHAT'S WITH THAT?) by reasonable people demonstrates that he still hasn't been transparent enough on this issue.

Instead of having people front from him on very flimsy evidence to date and by carefully couched words from Democrat officialdom in Hawaii that his "birth certificate is legitimate" (which could mean any number of things), why doesn't he simply produce the necessary document. Oh, that's right, in Hawaii not even the President of the United States can request his own vault copy blah, blah, blah ... yeah right.

The fact we're still debating this is not a result of our unreasonableness on the issue, it's because of Mr. Obama's own long term dodging and weaving about his real history on all kinds of fronts, including his socialist roots. And if, as liberals will whine on the one hand, if socialism isn't that bad of things, why do they complain when they are called socialists for embracing socialist policies? I think liberals in general have an incredible ability to not only lie to others when the truth would suffice but to also lie to themselves and firmly believe that lie!

Personally I would like nothing more than for Mr. Obama to produce the vault records of his birth or at least create a documented paper trail of authenticated duplication of those documents which are germane to this debate so that all reasonable people can get on with judging Mr. Obama on the merits of his ministrations as POTUS which, frankly, aren't looking too good right now.

Hankmeister

 
At 9/18/2009 9:30 AM , Blogger boberin said...

Um...wow. I'm feeling the hatred...and the reason hardly matters.
I didn't think much of/agree with old George, even less with his #2...but I can't say it ever reached this level of hatred.
Yep, I believed he was runing this country (still do) but also felt that he was genuine in his love, fervent in his attempts...and that his term would be over soon enough, that we'd survive/learn/move on.
And yes, one reason Obama got elected is that we knew he's apologize for some of America's more onerous actions/stances...and he has...and we're glad. "We" love America just as much as the next person (which seems to be lost on both sides in their consideration of the other)...but that by no means suggests we are/were proud of every action taken...far from it. And, refusal to see/acknowlegde errors is one of the larger "sins" we've committed. Note that our standing in the world has increased, not decreased for these admissions of imperfection...because everyone, everywhere can relate to a "mistake" cause we've all made them. But it's frustrating if someone won't acknowledge them be it friend/spouse/boss/POTUS or anyone else. Catch them with their pants down and they'll declare "they fell down" or "I meant to have them down" or some equally ludicrous explanation...when "I"m sorry, that was a mistake" is seen universally as far, far more acceptable.
Making nice with Muslims is a "bad" idea? How silly! There are lots of them, more each day. 99.99% want to go to work, come home, kiss the dog,kick the wife, play with the kids, get some sleep. They are or can be our allies. And, if they are then the .0001% of them that are nutjobs will be shunned/turned in. But if we continue to be "perfect" and "better" and "inflexible" then, the .0001% is accepted, perhaps emulated...becoming .0002% and so on until a HUGE section of the population doesn't like us. Can we survive/thrive like that? We did, we have...but I, like others that voted with me, do not beleive we can continue either if that course is followed. So we hired a guy to try another way...and he did. And we like it. Is it guaranteed? Not at all. But, it was never tried. Now we're trying it...so far so good. If it doesn't work out...we can always go back to "Mr. not nice guy" can't we?

 
At 9/18/2009 10:41 AM , Blogger smrstrauss said...

Re: "he has spent close to one million dollars in legal fees to deepen this almost inexplicable mystery."

This is another made-up story. There has not been a single case against Obama that simply asked for him to produce records. None that I could see, and I looked through about ten of them, even asked that the court order Obama to show the court his birth certificate.

The cases are not about making Obama show anything. Prior to the election all the cases were to stop the election. Obama naturally opposed this. After the election, most of the cases were to stop the certification of the election or to stop the Inauguration. Obama naturally opposed this.

The remaining cases charge lots of crazy things, and some include forged birth certificates from Kenya provided by a former convicted forger. Other claims were that Obama lost his citizenship (This is impossible for a US child)or that even if he were born in Hawaii, he still would not be eligible because of the birth place of his father.

The easiest and cheapest way to fight such a mess of claims is to use the provision of standing, which Obama has done. That is his right. The point is, however, that by fighting claims that even if he was born in Hawaii he would not be eligible Obama is certainly not spending money hiding the fact that he was born in Hawaii.


As the Wall Street Journal commented: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."

 
At 9/18/2009 10:58 AM , Blogger Beerme said...

I find all the outrage over Obama's birth certificate to be somewhat silly. I also fail to see the importance of his releasing all these other documents and records. Why bother? He's the POTUS. Besides, on the Conservative-side, what he has revealed and shown us is more than enough to criticize and attack!

I also have no problem believing that some of the motivation against Obama may be rooted in racism. I feel that this small minority of people pales in comparison to the near majority of White voters who voted for Mr. Obama, however. And to focus on this slim minority of those critical of Obama and the Democrats in Congress is intellectually dishonest.

There is plenty in Obama's message to honestly and appropriately criticize, just as there is plenty in that of his Party. The race card is being played, partly, because the message that the Dems are sending is not being well-received by many voters that were on the fence in the last election and even some that voted for Obama. If the message ain't enough, maybe some more of that White guilt that motivated people to vote for an untested, inexperienced junior senator, in spite of the evidence that he was the most liberal member of a liberal group of Democrats might help massage a few more votes into the pro-Big Government camp.

Finally, all of the messages being sent recently by the Democrats have been attempts to paint those who disagree with rampant pro-government Statism, as extremists, nuts and racists(see Nancy Pelosi's tear-jerking comparison to the great statesman Harvey Milk's assassination as one example).

Calm, reasoned debate about the issues that matter is the best defense against these tactics. I eschew discussions of Obama's legitimacy as POTUS in favor of criticism of his policies and tactics. It makes us look calm and reasonable and his side look deranged and hysterical...I like that picture. It's closer to reality.

 
At 9/18/2009 11:23 AM , Blogger Just call me Shelly said...

Barrack is Jaun's shinning moment to spout his left leaning thoughts. He was leaning over the edge of the dam of common sense long before OB1 showed up on the television screen. Now a savior was born in Bethlehem, er Hawaii, er Kennya--oh heck I have no idea where his mother labored to give birth to him. But for Juan, that is not important.

Now for the first time since Roosevelt, socialists or other members of assorted lefters (compared to birthers) have a mirror hanging on the wall that speaks their language. That mirror, likely made in China, called a flat screen TV, has become an engine for the boring, tiresome Fireside Chats of the new millennium.

Oh how gleeful the Jaun's of the world have become because the man is speaking their language. Do you think for one moment Fox's lone voice in the wilderness of confused logic would disagree with OB1. Again he would lean as far left as Obama would stretch him before falling off the end of the dam.

If OB1 would tell everyone from the middle income to the rich, they must sell their house so the underprivileged will no longer feel bad about their lot in life, Jaun would be on Fox agreeing. OB1 needs thinkers and writers like Juan to give legs to his idiotic politics.

 
At 9/18/2009 4:47 PM , Blogger smrstrauss said...

Re: "Personally I would like nothing more than for Mr. Obama to produce the vault records of his birth."

The OFFICIAL birth certificate is sufficient, and that is what he has already produced.

As the Wall Street Journal put it: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."

 
At 9/18/2009 6:16 PM , Anonymous R.A.M. said...

Williams is just a wee bit more rational than Geraldo Rivera, but only a WEE BIT. lol Williams, like Rivera, (and most libs on talk shows), have their say, and then talk over everyone who disagrees with them!

Rivera gets accolades from O'Reilly and others for going after that scumbag child molester that the judges were about to let out, and for that I am grateful, but has everyone forgot that Rivera was friends with, AND defends to this very day, the scumbag "Jacko" that ALSO molested children and never paid a price for it?

Well, never paid a price, BEFORE he died! ;-)

Does anyone else find it hilarious that bober said, "I didn't think much of/agree with old George, even less with his #2...but I can't say it ever reached this level of hatred."

Send in the clowns, no wait, he is already here!

I saw a LONG, LONG time ago, that once you hire/elect a black man, you can NEVER say ANYTHING about his performance without being labeled a RACIST.

Here is an example of how it works. The Indiana Pacers hired Isaiah Thomas to be their coach. He ruined the team and then ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that was said about his PREFORMANCE as coach was said to be racist, even though when he was hired they KNEW he was a black man, so I guess they were not racists then, were "they".

The other side of the coin is ex Coach Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts. A great coach and WONDERFUL man, yet the SAME PEOPLE that say, we should have a color blind society, trumpet that he was the first black man to win a Super Bowl. Please do NOT point out that a person is black when they do bad things though.

Hey, I don't care, but it should be either a person is black/white/brown/yellow at ALL times, when they are good/bad, win/lose, or just say they are a coach/politician and be done with it!

bober's side wants to hang that race card on everyone, (who sees this man who is bent on destroying America), for anything they say about him YET, FULL BLOODED black people that are Conservatives have had ACTUAL racist things said about them with NO CONSEQUENCES!!!

So to quote L@Y, I say to bober/ALL fringe "left wingers"----BUG OFF!

Maybe a better solution is to simply say, "I am NOT a racist, but you "BAITER's" are going to keep saying it so, think what you will, but stay on the subject or else I will believe, YOUR SIDE doesn't have an answer other than to falsely accuse people smarter than you---OK?"

 
At 9/18/2009 10:00 PM , Blogger Uncle Possum said...

Monday night, Williams made a comment on "The Factor" that caused me to miss the rest of the show while firing off the following retort:

"Juan Williams went completely off the rails with his disingenuous remark that Rep. Joe Wilson’s membership in Sons of Confederate Veterans somehow implies racist affiliations. SCV is an organization that honors our ancestors, who fought on the wrong side of history during The Civil War. Most Confederates did not own slaves, and fought for the Confederacy for no greater motive than to protect their homes and families from an invasion by Union [federal government] forces. SCV has repeatedly sued the KKK for stealing the Confederate battle flag, and repudiates any slur of “racism” that is hurled at us. Our unofficial motto is “Heritage, not hate.”



If Rep. Wilson owes yet another apology for his outburst during President Obama’s speech, then Mr. Williams also owes an apology to the Sons of Confederate Veterans."


As a son of The South, I've been called a racist all my life. These days, that stuff is spitballs at a battleship.

I have always judged people by their merit. Unfortunately, Barack Obama has none that's detectable.

 
At 9/19/2009 9:57 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

smrstrauss,
I could likewise question you as to what confirmation we have that the Founders relied on Blackstone for their definition of Natural Born. Beyond some allusion to 'popularity', you have provided none. In fact, I would argue that the Founders rejected Blackstone in this instance.

Blackstone speaks of natural born "subjects" versus "citizens". He posits that those are "natural born" who have been born on the lands within the dominion of the king, and are therefore subject to, and owe their allegiance to, the sovereign monarch. I believe the Founders would find such language offensive, particularly in light of their view of citizens as individuals each sovereign unto themself. Hence I believe they would favor de Vattel's definition which is simple, clean and refers to "citizens" rather than "subjects".

I would go a step further and point you toward the actions of the First Congress of the United States, which in 1790 passed the first naturalization act: "An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization." Because the First Congress passed this act it arguably reflects the original understanding of "natural born citizen".

This act provided that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." Note first that the reference is to "children of citizens" -- plural. Therefore both parents must be citizens. Second, the language of this phrase leads us to the inescapable conclusion that "citizen parents" were an indispensable element to the status of being "natural born". The First Congress recognized that the children of American citizens on foreign soil were not actually "natural born," but could be treated as if they were so by acknowledgment of their parents' citizenship.

In my mind, this clearly establishes the Founders' reliance on de Vattel's definition of "natural born citizen", for otherwise how could the First Congress extend the status of "natural born citizen" to those born offshore, unless it was intrinsically part of the status for those born onshore.

 
At 9/19/2009 10:35 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

smrstrauss,
Thank you for suggesting that "Eccentric" is too kind a word for me, or that I am somehow either daft or dishonest. Clearly, the author of the article in the WSJ was not an expert on this subject (as journalists are prone not to be on many subjects). To the contrary, all three terms are NOT identical in meaning.

Words have meanings. Words in legal documents have very specific meanings. It is illogical to assume that the framers of the U.S. Constitution used words in this paramount foundational document flippantly. A specific phrase is used in reference to the most important office in the nation by a group of patriots who are leery of executive power falling into the hands of foreigners. It is not an issue which should be dismissed lightly.

 
At 9/19/2009 11:02 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

smrstrauss,
I hate to disagree with you once more, but please go HERE, and take a look at a photo of an original 1963 "Certificate of Live Birth". This is the same form that was in use when Barack Obama was born in 1961. Please note box 7c. (you may have to zoom in), which is titled: "County and State or Foreign Country". Why would such a certificate include the possibility to enter the name of a foreign country if it could never be issued to cover someone born in a foreign country? This form could equally be used as a birth certificate (as it was in the case of this 1963 photo), or as a mere acknowledgment that a baby had been born, as in the case of a foreign-born baby.

Let me be clear, I do not necessarily think that Obama was born in a foreign country. I merely point out the fact that Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" is not identical to a birth certificate.

 
At 9/19/2009 11:04 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Barb,
I agree. It is Obama's beliefs or lack of beliefs that I disagree with.

Best regards...

 
At 9/19/2009 11:07 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Camo,
Indeed. It is to laugh... LOL!

(:D) Best regards...

 
At 9/19/2009 11:30 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Hankmeister,
Amen brother. Let's put an end to this thing. Show us the proof!

The July 30, 2009 article by James Taranto in the WSJ which smrstrauss links to, says in part...

"So why doesn’t Obama release the original certificate? The [Honolulu] Advertiser says it is "unclear" whether the president "would even be allowed to see it if he asked." It is clear, though, that the Hawaii statute governing disclosure of public records does not prohibit state officials from providing him with a copy, since he is "the registrant" and therefore has "a direct and tangible interest" in the record. One would think that Obama could persuade state officials to give him a copy, even if that is not their usual policy.

But the real question is: Why should he? The demand has no basis in principle and would have no practical benefit."


Oh really? There is no practical benefit in silencing one's critics? There is no practical benefit in embarrassing one's detractors? There is no practical benefit in fulfilling one's promise to be 'open and transparent'?

Is there practical benefit in stoking rumors and conspiracy theories? Is there practical benefit in creating the appearance of concealment? Is there practical benefit in failing to live up to one's promises?

(:X) Best regards...

 
At 9/19/2009 12:10 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

smrstrauss,
You said... There has not been a single case against Obama that simply asked for him to produce records. None that I could see, and I looked through about ten of them, even asked that the court order Obama to show the court his birth certificate.

Please go HERE, and see where the Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of PA denied a Motion by Senator Obama and the DNC to Dismiss in the case of BERG v. OBAMA et al.

In this case, the Judge actuall ORDERED Obama to turn over his "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version) Birth Certificate as well as other documents. Obama and the DNC never complied with the Judge's order, and the Judge failed to cite Obama and the DNC for contempt of court.

 
At 9/19/2009 12:32 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Beerme,
Well-reasoned and intelligent comments. As Hank suggests, a case against Obama's legitimacy as President will never see the light of day in the U.S. Supreme Court. And perhaps as you say, it doesn't really matter that much.

Nevertheless, my concern is for the health of the U.S. Constitution which seems to be under constant attack. Is it a legitimate document, or not? Do its words mean something, or not? Are we to "uphold" it and/or "defend and protect" it, or not?

If nothing else, what this whole affair has shown us is that there is no clear and agreed upon definition for the term "natural born citizen". Since being a "natural born citizen" is one of only three requirements for the highest office in the land, it behooves us to know what that definition is, so we can judge whether a future candidate qualifies or not.

 
At 9/19/2009 12:42 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Shelly,
I couldn't agree more. The OSM ("OLD Stream Media") got their start fighting Joe McCarthy in the 1950s, and they have never looked right since. They have now drifted so far left, they have no problem with a President who appoints self-avowed communists. Sheesh!

Best regards...

 
At 9/19/2009 1:47 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Boberin,
To what "hatred" do you refer? Me-thinks you read far too much into my article and/or the statements of these commenters.

It is not "hatred" to question whether a man or woman, white or black, is qualified to hold a particular office based on a set of fixed requirements. The person either meets the requirements or they do not. There is no hatred involved. There is only the letter of the law.

It is now apparent, that in the case of the Presidency, the existing set of requirements is less clear than one might hope for. In fact, there is obvious disagreement as to the interpretation of a phrase which is not clearly defined.

Because I, or someone like myself, happens to interpret that phrase one way, does not presume "hatred" on my part. In fact, if I present my argument in a logical and rational fashion (as I hope I have done), that militates against "hatred" in favor of intellect.

Neither is it "hatred" to: disagree with the policies of a President, question his motives, point out his short-comings, expose his associations, disparage his weaknesses, mock his failures, or protest his frightening agenda. Liberals did that throughout the Bush administration. Now it's our turn.

I suppose if all these things are done at the same time with a healthy dose of sarcasm, anger and disgust mixed in, it may appear as "hatred"... but that would be a mistake. I would dare say that the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" of the last 8 years revealed far more hatred for a President than we are experiencing at the moment.

Don't confuse anger with hatred. People can be angry about the policies of President. They can be angry about the direction in which our country is headed. They can be angry about the deficits he is creating. They can be angry about his lack of openness and transparency. But "hatred" is another thing.

Hatred is directed towards the person themself. It is intense hostility directed at someone because of "who they are" as opposed to "what they do" or what they endorse or what they believe in. Frankly, I think Barack Obama is a nice guy. He is educated. He is rational. He can be humorous at times. I think many would agree with that assessment.

It his policies, decisions, goals, agenda, methods, friends, beliefs and principles which so many of us disagree with, reject, and feel very threatened by.

(:D) Best regards...

 
At 9/19/2009 2:33 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

R.A.M.,
For someone who wants us to believe he is post-racial, Barack Obama has sure played the race card a lot, and neither has he questioned others who have used it. Barack Obama is NOT a post-racial president, and here's why...

He played the race card against Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, and even his own "typical white" grandmother. He played the race card when he said that the Cambridge, MA police acted "stupidly" in the matter of Henry Gates, despite having admitted that he was not aware of the full facts of the case.

He should have said, "Look, I can't make an informed decision until I know both sides of the story. We cannot assume that either side is right or wrong." Instead, he jumped to conclusions, automatically assumed that his black friend Gates was in the right, and that the Cambridge Police were in the wrong. That's not a sign of post-racialism.

Likewise, when Janeane Garofalo called the Tea Party protesters "racist", Obama said nothing. When Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman and Cynthia Tucker alleged that the townhall protesters were racist, Obama said nothing. When Maureen Dowd said Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "You Lie!" because he was a racist, Obama said nothing. When Juan Williams in this article which I have been reviewing, hinted that racism is a motivating factor behind those who oppose the president, Obama said nothing.

For these reasons, Obama is not post-racial. If he was, he would be doing everything in his power to say, "Hey, wait a minute. Time out guys. Let's put away all this nonsense about racism. It's not productive." That would be a sign of a post-racial president. But Obama hasn't done that.

Best regards...

 
At 9/19/2009 4:12 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Possum,
Thanks for sharing. I am not myself a Son of The South, and so I must defer to you in such matters.

However, if we live according to the admonition of Martin Luther King, Jr. and judge people by the "content of their character" rather than the color of their skin, then I am forced to say that I must be inclined to judge Barack Obama negatively...

President Obama is an avowed disciple of Saul Alinsky, and according to Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", morality is not fixed but flexible. According to Alinsky, the more important an objective, the less important (or more "flexible") morality becomes. In other words, if the objective is huge, then it is OK to lie, cheat or steal in order to achieve your objective. The ends justify the means.

As a Christian, I view morality as fixed and immutable. As a result, I become a "sinner" because I do not always live up to my high ideals and understanding of morality.

Yet, I do not change the rules to fit the circumstances. The ends do NOT justify the means. The means become an end unto themselves. If I attain my goals and objectives while staying to true to my principles, then I am that much more blessed.

I believe that Barack Obama is a master in the art of "organizing". I believe that he has mastered the "Rules for Radicals" and consequently has a lot of people fooled.

On the other hand, I believe that a lot of people have recognized Obama for the radical he is, thanks to the help of people like Glenn Beck, Bret Baier, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

From early in his campaign, it was noted that Obama uses a distinct style of speaking which has been labeled as "slippery sleight of mouth". He does not always lie, per se, but he can obfuscate, downplay, deflect, and kill time wandering as well as anybody.

When not dealing in vague unspecific generalities, Obama provides answers that can be "technically correct" while also masking very real alternative possibilities. Even after an outright flip-flop, Obama pretends that his message has never changed.

I find these things disquieting. It has led me to the conclusion that I can never, under any circumstances, accept anything he says at face value. My impression is that whenever Obama speaks (which is every day and often more than once a day), he is either lying, exaggerating, obfuscating, deflecting, or concealing some hidden truth. I just don't trust the man. He's slick and smooth, but so is a snake.

Best regards...

 
At 9/20/2009 4:01 PM , Anonymous R.A.M. said...

Hawkeye: A LOT of people are relating what Obama is doing now to what FDR did in the early 1930's. While this is true, a BETTER analogy is Obama compared to Pharaoh.

I put this link on Scott Ott's site. It is to Perry Stone's most recent "Manna-Fest" program:

http://www.voe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=152&Itemid=91

The first analogy, while correct, does NOT tell people how close we are to JESUS' return. Perry's does!

People, (ALL God's children), that have not accepted Jesus sacrifice yet, had better do it SOON!!!

If the link above doesn't work, I also linked it to my name.

God's ABUNDANT blessings my friend!

 
At 9/22/2009 9:51 PM , Blogger radar said...

What a wonderful post!

I am less concerned with Obama's birth than I am by his current actions. He is the President and I think we are stuck with him. But his plans must be thwarted. He is as Machievellian as they come, apparently without a base moral code that I can detect. He attended a so-called church that continually spewed hate from the pulpit and seemed surprised anyone cared. He ran as a socialist to get a shot at public office and then segued into the Chicago political machine without a shrug.
He has no problem telling lies and seems to do so regularly.

He has access to great power. He has massive resources and the support of rich and powerful men. He is the most dangerous man of the 21st century. We have to take him head on, not by searching for more minutiae associated with his birth but by educating the public and getting them to get off their butts and say something about it all.

Right now voters still have the power to vote people in and out of office and we had better use it in 2010 before it is taken away from us.

 
At 9/28/2009 3:32 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

R.A.M.,
Sorry it took me so long to reply. I was laid off from my job on Friday, September 18th, and I have been kind of "discombobulated" (is that a word?) ever since. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Best regards...

 
At 9/28/2009 3:37 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Hey buddy! Great to hear from you! How's things? I agree. I think we're stuck with Obama, but man... what a bad precedent that sets. I can't wait for the guy to run for president who says his father was Iranian or Libyan but his mother was American. That'll be fun.

And you're right. We need to keep pressing Obama on his left-wing policies, his bad decisions, his broken promises, his lies, and his questionable cronies.

(:D) Best regards...

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home