Skip to content

From the Pen of David Horowitz: December 5, 2009

December 5, 2009

david_pThe continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president are embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, a demagogue who lost a Senate election to the then-unknown Obama by 42 points, should be a warning in itself.

This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats’ seditious claim that Bush “stole” the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. This delusion helped to create the Democrats’ Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq war, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became “Bush’s War” rather than an American War — with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.

The birth-certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)

What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?

Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to five Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the four liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?

It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution.

Obama Derangement Syndrome: Shut Up About the Birth Certificate, National Review

Yesterday and Thursday leftists tried to paint Sarah Palin as a Birther.

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Gmail.com. Please include:

  1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
  2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
  3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
  4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)
About these ads
126 Comments
  1. Frank Green permalink
    December 5, 2009 4:48 am

    according to the applied logic in this artical, if one is able to sidestep qulifications for any positition and gain the support of persons in significant numbers, then he is to be considered legitamately occuping that position. Therefore Isreal must belong to the Arabs and all oppisition must stop, rite ?

    • stevefromeerie permalink
      December 6, 2009 4:18 am

      No. And trust me on this one, I am on the Arabs side. Note, not al-Qaeda, not Islam, arab. Straight out arabing people is the one thing that was worst than Jewing. Arab is like flying the black flag of piracy of school yard bullies.

      Anyways, to the point at hand:

      “Therefore Isreal must belong to the Arabs and all oppisition must stop, rite ?”

      Yes, however unless I prove David wrong, therefore proving YOU wrong, therefore making your entire little house of cards fall in on itself.

      How about one man’s clown is a stupid person’s god. Yes I know federal senator from Illinois is bad, but how about congressman from Atlanta, or heck, state senator from Atlanta. All Obama did was like USA +1

      You know what beats that? Not usa -1, but more like USA + 1!!! USA + 1 !!!! USA + 1 !!!!!!!

      That is so 2009. What is going to be hot in 2010 is something like US++. Trendy, yet nostalgic. Hey, watch this china, drop the “America” off our name and some how we are in the legalise with Great Britain.

      • Frank Green permalink
        December 7, 2009 3:14 pm

        is there a translater on this blog? I am to dense it understand these comments.

  2. Frank Green permalink
    December 5, 2009 5:10 am

    democrats, independants or republicans could for example nomanate anyone from anywhere in the world and if he gets a majority of the votes that person will be qulafied and no opposition is legetimate ? hey lets tear up the Constitution and just make up the rules as we go …. Mob rule raigns!!!

  3. December 5, 2009 5:46 am

    This is very upsetting, and I’m surprised by it. What does it matter that the Constitution doesn’t matter? Oy gevalt. And how are we to revive the Constitution in the process of ignoring it? That just doesn’t make sense.

    If indeed the president and the DNC have spent nearly $2 million to keep various documentation -not just the birth certificate – hidden from voters, there must be a rather potent reason. I can’t believe you aren’t at least curious about that, or about the rest of the long list of what we cannot see — the legal name change from Barry Soetoro back to Obama, his college records, medical records, SAT scores and selective service registration.

    And furthermore, I respectfully but completely disagree that this phenomenon, for lack of a better word, reflects sore loserism. Regardless of the physical location of his birth, millions of people can easily believe that it wasn’t “here,” because the world in which he grew up is not an America that most people would recognize. The issue of the certificate resonates because he seems a stranger. Never before have we had a president who grew up as a “little Jakarta street kid” (his own words, Nicholas Kristof interview, NYT, March 2007), had more roommates who were Pakistani than not, and thinks that the Islamic call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

    And then of course there was the televised interview with former Manhattan Borough president, Percy Sutton, in which Sutton claimed that he was approached by Khalid al Mansour 20 years ago to write a recommendation for Obama’s admittance to Harvard Law School, which Sutton claims he did. A spokesperson for Sutton’s family said he misspoke, and the Obama campaign said it wasn’t true. End of story. Why?

    No, I’m sorry, Mr. Horowitz. There is too much here that we don’t know or understand. There is a foreign element throughout the president’s past that – I think, reasonably – makes citizens uncomfortable and suspicious. It would be so easy to make all this go away, by simply submitting full documentation to public scrutiny. What’s the big deal? I have my birth certificate right here, with the little footprints and everything. How hard would it be to ease people’s minds? Why NOT?

    If Obama and the DNC weren’t going to such lengths and expense to hide something, this issue would never have developed into a “movement.” I think you’re misplacing the responsibility in this case; it’s unfair of you to ask that the people suck it up and allow unconstitutional secrecy in our highest and most powerful office. Like everything else about this presidency, this entire matter is “unprecedented.” I can’t help but maintain that if the man’s election was illegal, it’s our right to know. And once we know, then we could debate what to do about it, if anything. We could -legally- amend the Constitution to allow him to continue to serve, if that were the will of the people.

    I simply don’t see how the fact that 63 million people voted for him, perhaps unknowingly, changes anything. The election “counts” but only insofar as it was Constitutional, no?

    And again, if we must ignore the basic premise of the rule of law in the process, I don’t see how we go about “reviving” the Constitution as you suggest. If we do as you say, it seems to me that we’d have to do away with the Constitution and start all over again… from scratch. The fabric of our society being as ragged and worn thin as it is, I don’t think we could survive such a thing.

    • Frank Green permalink
      December 5, 2009 6:14 am

      You tell em Anne!

    • Dr. Wayne Smith permalink
      December 5, 2009 7:13 am

      I was all prepared to get after this article, then read the comments by Anne. She said it as well or better than I ever could, so I’ll just add a hearty AMEN! and wonder if I should bother to read anymore of Horowitz.

    • Steve R permalink
      December 5, 2009 11:22 am

      Anne — you covered all the bases and hit each one right on the X-ring! I respect David enormously, but he’s wrong on this one. Obama has hidden the vast majority of his records, and spent millions of taxpayer dollars to keep them under wraps. If he’s legitimate, why doesn’t he simply release the records? McCain was forced to come clean by the same Lame Stream Media who continually gave Obama a pass on that and many other questions surrounding his ascendancy. If the Constitution means ANYthing; if the rule of law means ANYthing; if honest government means ANYthing — Obama must be held to account, and these questions must be answered.

    • Marylou permalink
      December 25, 2009 11:32 pm

      Anne, The reason it has no clout is because it is politically impractical.

      You are totally correct in your well written article in my opinion but, again, here is where we need to pick our battles.

      Our beloved Constitution has suffered worse than this and it is even worse now with the extreme disregard for procedures during the health care debate in the Senate. They are just ignoring Senate rules, but the fact is we are up against a really bad gang who don’t care about niceties like papers filled out correctly.

      In fact, they have “permission” in their own minds to lie, cheat and steal for their cause. We need to get very practical, very fast, and I think that the kind of exposure achieved by NewsReal is one of the most effective things that is happening today. NR and Breitbart! and of couse Mr. Beck.

      Lots of exposure while contrasting to our forefathers ideas may be what saves us and helps us recruit new people to our cause. Your article is well written along that line, I think, in that it exposes so much and explains our unrest with this interloper who has stolen our Presidential office. It’s plain for all to see IF THEY HAVE EYES TO SEE IT but for those who are still carried away with the Obama dream (my three children get absolutely starry-eyed about “Reform”) then these discussions can be quite effective in some cases I believe.

      I believe this is how we can survive!

  4. richard permalink
    December 5, 2009 5:57 am

    i believe that if obama was not born in the us he should not have gotten the presidency. it would have been so had he been white.

  5. clyde griffin permalink
    December 5, 2009 5:59 am

    Why can’t there be a believable showing of Obama’s birth certificate,
    along with the other missing documents in question, and made so available that they can’t be missed even by the most casual inquirer

  6. Brad permalink
    December 5, 2009 6:08 am

    No! They are saying that if he’s not a citizen, easily proved or disproved, someone has violated the law and defrauded those 64 million voters.

    You say: “What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil?”

    The “difference” is clear to many: It’s the law, and for very good reasons.

    You say: “Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies.” What does that mean?

    Further: “We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means.”

    Are you advocating the “Living Document” case, versus the “Original Intent,” which is the Conservative approach?

    You say: “Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies.” What does that mean?

    Further: “We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means.”

    Are you advocating the “Living Document” case, versus the “Original Intent,” which is the Conservative approach?

    • Frank Green permalink
      December 5, 2009 6:19 am

      You can say that again Brad!

  7. Frank Green permalink
    December 5, 2009 6:31 am

    I fear David is under a lot of stress and a recessive gene has emerged from his parentage and manifested as the evil twin syndrome. Such internal conflict may require a verbal spanking! I hope he responds to the therapy, the only way we will know is if he responds in writing to this specific issue.

  8. j c original permalink
    December 5, 2009 6:37 am

    Impeachment is not out of the question, and it is the answer. Obama wants to play f___ around with our Constitution. Americans vote out all Democrats possible and impeach the imposter in 2011.

    • JE Tabler permalink
      December 5, 2009 10:39 am

      We would have an easier time impeaching him for seizing GM dealerships (including one belonging to the parents of Miss America, Gretchen Carlson), in violation of the 4th Amendment, or for firing inspectors general.

  9. Keith Kaye permalink
    December 5, 2009 6:40 am

    Swindle writes: “What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil?” Well, it happens to be in violation of the supreme law of the land is one ‘difference’. Another ‘difference’ might be that we probably should not pick and choose what ‘rules’ or laws we want to enforce and which ones we may not want to enforce (consider: we have about 20M illegals here today).
    Further Swindle says:”. .and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution.” Now isn’t this interesting? He finishes his writing by saying he wants to ‘defend’ the Constitution but in the body of his writing he suggests an antithecal approach to adhering to that document.
    Is this Doublespeak? Am I missing something? Naw, I think this man’s arrogance stems from a lack of respect for others’ intelligence.
    Write on Mr. Swindle, you are entertaining and transparent.

    • December 5, 2009 6:57 am

      I didn’t write this, David Horowitz did. I merely posted it since the Birther issue has come up again since Sarah Palin is being smeared as a Birther. However, I do agree with the sentiments.

      • Frank Green permalink
        December 5, 2009 7:22 am

        To who’s sentiments do you agree …Birther and Tea bagger are demeaning names especially the Tea bagger tag has homosexual over or should I say undertones I saw a sign in a well respected mans place of business in plane site and this is how it read…

        RUDDNESS IS THE WEAK MAN’S IMITATION OF STRENGHT

        To this I agree, it seems if your point is weak or false then you simply start the name calling to the oppisition

        • December 5, 2009 7:44 am

          I agree with Horowitz’s sentiments.

          And I don’t take seriously when Birthers start lecturing me on rudeness. I get the same lecture from Ron Paul devotees when we call him a “crackpot.” It’s disingenuous because we only get the lecture when we go after people or ideas which you support.

          Do you complain when Horowitz is rude to the Left? Of course not. Because you only have a problem with rudeness when it’s going toward those with whom you sympathize.

          • Frank Green permalink
            December 5, 2009 9:38 am

            I would never lecture you perchance I would find myself reaping the reward of the unscholarly see the words of Christ; Mathew chapter 7 verse 6
            no the didactic was for those that would profit be reason of the ability to delve deeper then surface thinking.& knee jerk reactions
            Don’t take it personally. .As for David H. being rude to the Left when I see that I despair, no real constructive dialogue will be achieved after rudeness

          • Steve R permalink
            December 5, 2009 11:31 am

            David — this is not a question of “birthers” and meaningless handwringing. It is very much a matter of too many unanswered, ignored, and sidestepped questions by the man who sought and won — perhaps honestly, perhaps not — the highest office this country offers. Was he straight with the American people? Did he and his handlers comply with the United States Constitution, as other candidates are expected to do? So far, the answer is that WE DON’T KNOW. We have a right to know, and we’ll keep asking as long as it takes, whether you agree with that or not.

            • December 5, 2009 11:59 am

              Ample evidence has been produced to demonstrate that Obama is eligible to be president.

              Look, what degree of evidence would satisfy you that Obama was born in Hawaii? Some magical “long form birth certificate”? What would that prove? Absolutely nothing. Surely Obama has the resources to produce a fake if he wanted to. But no, it’s much more to his benefit for you people to continue spinning your wheels on this crap.

              Obama is playing conservatives on this issue, the more you people rant about this the crazier we look. Did you see my post yesterday about how the Left was celebrating when they thought Palin came out as a birther? If she did her political career would effectively be over. She could never be president.

              Birthers have no practical sense of what it takes to fix this country. They’re spending their time fantasizing with crackpot conspiracy theories instead of thinking practically about what it will take to recapture power.

              • Steve R permalink
                December 5, 2009 12:07 pm

                The records would satisfy me, David. The r-e-c-o-r-d-s!
                Not a copy of a certificate of live birth, without the long form. Not the secretive slight-of-hand involving his residency, scholastic records, passport records, college admissions, etc., etc., etc. Do you not see, Sir, that it’s not JUST the birth issue? It’s far beyond that. And, regardless of what you believe, we have the right, and even the obligation to — as Glenn Beck says — question boldly.
                I for one intend to go right on doing so.

                By the way — you might want to check out this link for other reasons why these questions are legitimate:

                http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html

                • December 5, 2009 12:18 pm

                  Steve, since you’re failing to really listen to or respond to any of the points I have to say I’m going to disengage from this discussion. See point 7 from my list:
                  http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/17/the-final-word-on-the-crackpot-conspiracist-mindset/

                  You’re monologuing, not dialoguing.

                  BTW, it’s funny that you invoke Glenn Beck, a figure we at NewsReal support and who has said nice things about the Freedom Center’s publications.

                  Don’t you think if there was some substance to this story he’d be all over it?

                  • William James Ward permalink
                    December 5, 2009 1:01 pm

                    When the Federal Courts are done with it I will be satisfied
                    that at least some were trying to clarify. It is not a waste of
                    time investigation instances of subversion of the Constitution.
                    Disengage, you made your point. Oh by the way has Glen Beck seen
                    this article, he would have something to say about it if he did.
                    Irrelevant conclusion on your part David.

                  • Steve R permalink
                    December 5, 2009 1:13 pm

                    David — you’re the one who’s missing the point. It’s not JUST about a birth certificate. It’s about every vital, legitimate record that illustrates this man’s past. He is president of the United States. Did he get there legitimately — he was elected. Was he a legitimate candidate to begin with? As Shakespeare said: “aye — there’s the rub.” Once again, David, it’s about the records. ALL the records. It’s obvious the case is over your head, my friend, so blather on. But don’t argue that I’m missing the point unless most of the posters on this topic today are also missing your point — whatever that is.

              • Cassandra permalink
                December 5, 2009 2:02 pm

                You’re doing the typical diversive response here. Make an issue of one thing in order to distract attention from the others.
                The fact is that the COLB is under suspicion and the people have every right to question this. However more to the point is that every single paper trail of and to this President has been sealed or wiped and millions spent on keeping it so.
                Answer why this is, forget the birth certificate issue

              • December 5, 2009 6:52 pm

                His Indonesian passport will show that he was not born in Hawaii. That is why it is hidden.

        • JE Tabler permalink
          December 5, 2009 10:41 am

          I’m not sure that it wasn’t a birther who coined the term ‘birther.’ I don’t really see how it’s offensive.

      • Brad permalink
        December 5, 2009 7:30 am

        Then, I respectfully disagree with you both.

  10. Terry permalink
    December 5, 2009 6:44 am

    I think what we have here is leftism revisited.

  11. Theodore Blunt permalink
    December 5, 2009 6:45 am

    David, Im disappointed in you. If the constitution can be ignored about one thing it can be ignored about others We either obey the Constitution or ignore it. It is the rule of law. It is the old “camels nose under the tent”

  12. Vallie permalink
    December 5, 2009 6:49 am

    That was a thoroughly specious argument Mr. Horowtz.

    All of us respect elections when the elected follow the rules to get there. He didn’t, and still he refuses to prove it. I also take issue with your “sore loserism and quite radical” intent by those who are trying to get to the bottom of this. I would would call them patriots.

    I’m suprised by this post. You’re saying rules don’t matter. Pshaw!

  13. Evan Davis permalink
    December 5, 2009 6:52 am

    While I usually agree with David’s commentary, this one goes way over the top in my opinion. We are ignoring the Constitution in many ways today and and seem to be willing to accept any legislative action as constitutional (ignore bankruptcy, appoint Czars, spend tax money to fund banks, etc.) even though they are highly questionable on their face. The constitution is quite clear on this subject, the President must be a natural born American. Ignoring this opens all of the other provisions including the Bill of Rights to similar rejection. This cannot be allowed to pass without objection. It is too flagrant.

  14. Rick permalink
    December 5, 2009 7:20 am

    Mr. Horowitz, Sir, you have missed the point entirely.
    I must now after being an avid reader of your views take
    a step back and look at you askance.

  15. December 5, 2009 7:34 am

    So David, you would have us disregard one of the constitution’s clear laws regarding who is elegible for President of the Unted States on the basis that 63 million people voted for Obama. So tomorrow, who gets to say what other constitutional laws we get to disregard?

    This isn’t about loserism, you’re smarter than that, David. This is about fighting back against a minority leftist system which has come to power and wormed its way into our culture and political machinery. I beleive the last half of your life’s work has been concentrated on proving this very point and crying out against.

    If Obama had been properly vetted he would never have been elected as this little idosyncracy, as you would have it, would have kept him from being nominated. But the leftist thugs whcih permeate the entire politial apporatus worked in beautiful syncretism to make sure that this little tidbit was not brought to the public’s attention.

    And would you look at what this man stands for, those who form his closest friends and therefore his cabinet and advisors, and look further at what in less than a year he has accomplished in further destroying our American economy and culture.

    I don’t care what we have to do, as long as its within the law, to bring this man down. Some of us saw with absolute clarity the kind of man he was and what kind of president he would be and what it would all mean to our nation before his nomination to be the Democratic nomininee. But we lost the election not because of a high-minded, well-meaning populace. He was elected becasue a scrupulous Marxian fifth column was able to play the public like a fine strativarius.

    Mabe the dirt upon which Obama was born is a fine point, agreed it doesn’t measure up to murder on the White House lawn, but it does have to do with constitutional law, and law is the law. Whats wrong with taking advantage of the law for the sake of the nation. Obama certainly has taken advantage of breaking the law to get where he is.

    For crying out loud David, why after all your brillent hard work in educating the public regarding what is right and good and calling attntion to the dangers that have been set in motion decades ago to bring this nation down, would you throw your reputation behind the absounding of responsibility on such a small matter. This is inconsistent.

    Granted, I have my serious doubts this matter will have any affect at all on the situation. But I would prefer to think that we lost the battle because the enemy was really smart and whipped us by being unscrupolous than that we just gave in and quit fighting. Which if we follow your advice we would be doing.

  16. Terry permalink
    December 5, 2009 7:38 am

    The birther issue is obfuscation. As long as everyone’s attention if focused on this one issue, nobody “notices” that we have NO school history or records for Obama. It’s my belief that these are suppressed because they would show that the Emperor has not clothes on at all.

  17. RAIDER permalink
    December 5, 2009 7:53 am

    Sorry, your argument is a cowards way out. Oh whats the point of fighting the judges will simply over turn it. It’s thinking like this that has gotten this country in it’s relative moralism situation. His policies a ruining peoples live and if health care passes it will kill them. So he can commit murder by proxy. So someone in your view can kill another if they meant well. I now crown you a liberal, so stop trying to bog as a conservative. Geez now I know why Israel is so screwed up.

  18. AuntTurtle permalink
    December 5, 2009 7:56 am

    Alan Keyes is a demagogue?

    • December 5, 2009 6:55 pm

      I know. That was a nutty statement. Horowitz dropped the ball on this one. This opens the door for Ahnold Schwartzeneggar to run for president (and any other foreign born person who becomes an American citizen).

  19. December 5, 2009 8:11 am

    David Horowitz stubbed his toe with this one. I assume President Obama is a citizen by birth of the United States. If so, it would be easy to put the issue to bed. And while I won’t devote my time to it, I am curious about lots of things: his grades, how his schooling was paid for, and how he was able to get into top notch universities given apparently lackluster grades. There are too many holes in his story. Rather than shut people up who wonder about these things, I encourage them to keep asking questions and to continue looking for answers. Nobody is harmed by legitimate inquiry. It is part of the political process.

    Where I have a problem with David Horowitz is in his taking issue with the right of private citizens to voice their concerns. It’s called Freedom of Speech. Last I recall, it is a right granted to us in the constitution.

    Speaking of our constitution, Barack Obama either meets the qualifications for being president or he doesn’t. If there is a question Obama should come forward with proof. Nobody should be labeled a fringe group for raising the question. Horowitz should, however, reconsider his position on ignoring the qualifications of the presidency, and by extension the constitution.

    • December 5, 2009 6:57 pm

      Also his thesis statements will show what a left wing radical he is–he never would have been elected if these things were made public.

  20. December 5, 2009 8:23 am

    David,

    I’m not a sore loser. Obama won the election, fair and square. The question is not whether he won, but if he should have been permitted to run in first place.

    For you to argue on the one hand that the votes of 64 million people trump the question of whether or not he was even Constitutionally qualified to run for the office, then to write this,

    “It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution…”

    seems Orwellian to me.

    I think there are legitimate questions that Obama obstinately declines to answer – not only by refusing to produce a birth certificate, but also by stonewalling all of his pre-college school records, his college records and transcripts, his financial aid application records, and his Illinois legislature calendar. Personally, I don’t care about his medical records, except to the extent that we can reasonably expect him to live long enough to serve his term in office, and that he does not have a serious mental or emotional disorder that might impair his ability to make rational decisions.

    Why? Why would a man who holds the most powerful office in the free world hide so much of his personal history and origins from the people who elected him? Why would he do that?

    With all due respect for you and your life’s accomplishments, I think your argument against posing the question is flawed, David. I have questions to which I would like answers. I do not know the answers to the questions. The President refuses to respond.

    The questions remain, sir, like them or not.

  21. December 5, 2009 8:38 am

    First of all, thank you Anne Lieberman for expressing the situation so articulately. We cannot take a smorgasbord attitude toward the Constitution and I’m really surprised that David would suggest that we simply wink at the possibility that we have a usurper in the White House. The fact that Obama won the election is meaningless if fraud was committed, no? Personally, I don’t think the possibility that Obama was born on foreign soil is realistic because his mother was enrolled at the University of Washington, Seattle just 15 days after his birth. The thought of an 18 year-old first time mother hopping on a plane (whether from Hawaii or Kenya) with a newborn in the day when there were no disposable diapers and planes took twice as long to travel….days after giving birth yet…just doesn’t have the ring of truth about it. I think the problem with his citizenship lies with his adoption by his Indonesian step-father. Obama may very well be an American citizen, but at some time in his life he was passing himself off as an Indonesian. Why else are the passport records sealed…and education records? It seems very strange that he would have foreign-born Muslim roommates at both Occidental and Columbia unless he either A) requested them or B) the university housing offices, in an effort to put compatible roommates together, grouped foreign Muslim students together. The truth shall set us free! And we should boldly seek it!

    • JE Tabler permalink
      December 5, 2009 10:44 am

      ZAKLY!

    • Steve R permalink
      December 5, 2009 11:41 am

      “We cannot take a smorgasbord attitude toward the Constitution…”

      Precisely! And we’ve already come too far down that road for comfort. David’s comments — both Davids, for that matter — seem to dismiss the possible injury to our core document so easily it’s scary. And their reasoning as expressed in these postings just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Sorry, but that’s how I see it.

    • Jeff Hall permalink
      December 5, 2009 1:39 pm

      It is possible that Obama was several months old, or even older when his mother enrolled at the University of Washington just 15 days after his birth on August 4, 1961. If we don’t know for certain where he was born, how can we be certain exactly when he was born? Perhaps the date he was born on was just the date his birth was recorded on? He could be 50 years old for all we know.

      Now lets apply the same logic, and add to the argument that we don’t really know for sure who his mother, father, and grandparents really are. All we have to go by is Obama’s word, and so far his word does not seem trustworthy.

      As Joe Farah has remarked several times, “why is Obama’s place of birth not being proposed as a nation monument, or a historical site”. After all he is the first black President of the United States.

  22. December 5, 2009 9:12 am

    I think Mr. Horowitz is banging his head on the wall with some of you people, but the point needs to be made, nonetheless:

    Go ahead and complain and rant and talk about cabals and conspiracies all you want.

    Obama is President – deal with it.

    Let’s work to get Conservatives elected.

    All the rest is drivel.

    Democrats just love it when you natter on about this kind of stuff.

    They’ll pass even MORE laws that are bad for us while you do so.

    Or don’t you know the meaning of “Divide and Conquer”?

    • Steve R permalink
      December 5, 2009 11:44 am

      Dammit! The Constitution matters. It’s not “drivel”. Legitimate questions about compliance are not “drivel”. It’s the core document that created this Republic. What about that don’t you get?

    • December 5, 2009 4:40 pm

      The attitude expressed by yourself and the two Davids is the flawed policy of acceptance and regrouping; but it is only through ever increasing questioning and opposition that a regeneration of conservative values leadeing to a regrouping can possibly occur. Birthers are not idiots, they seek only answers to pertinent queries.

    • Marylou permalink
      December 25, 2009 11:34 pm

      Right on! well said.

  23. Carterthewriter permalink
    December 5, 2009 9:15 am

    Occasionally, the eloquence of a writer comes back to haunt him.

  24. William James Ward permalink
    December 5, 2009 10:04 am

    Allen Keys is a demagogue? I never considered that as and aspect of
    his personality, down deep we all may be driven by forces that control
    our actions and are unable to separate ourselves entirely from self.
    However I like Allen Keys and he may be involved with the birther
    movement and he may be a sore looser or just someone who was first to
    be done in by Barak Hussein Obama and company. I have not followed
    closely the law suit, however it has not been dismissed by the
    Federal Judge and is ongoing as best as I can recall.

    Getting to what ideation I think is behind this article would make
    David’s proposal the demurrer, the plea that the dismissal of the
    lawsuit is ok on the grounds that even if the statements of the
    opposition are true they do not sustain the claim. There is the
    problem and there is the psychic pain I feel in this mentally acute
    disparagement.

    Our founders laid out the rules of the road for President and it was
    incumbent on all candidates to actually be born on Ameican soil. If
    not, no eligibility period. However there is a culturally admonishing
    dialectic here that proposes and understanding of the apparent
    bifurcation in David’s dictum. Culturally one may make the case that
    you are who you are by the lineage of blood and not where you were
    born, place of birth is unimportant, this idea is ingrained in the
    thinking, no deeply ingrained in the thinking of many good people.

    The Founders stated they were creating this country for themselves
    and their posterity. The rule for this is to be born in America,
    thus an origional rule for us to follow. One can become an American
    but not President, no one but a naturally born citizen can attain to
    this office. To bad Civics was droped, quite lamentable but of course
    a leftist result in subverted eduction today to dismantle the
    individual cognizance of who one is in America and what our
    responsibilities are, thus obligations and duties. The duty of a
    voter is to know who and what they are voting for. It seems that
    64 million americans not only were possibly duped but dismally
    misled by lies so obvious that in my opinion we are living in
    a new nation, a land with the majority being uneducated idiots,
    and hell before us. David is in error but that’s being human, maybe
    it is the season, possibly an undigested piece of bread.

    • Frank Green permalink
      December 5, 2009 1:39 pm

      this is the season of undigested patato induced writers squat in davids peace take your choice of the two Davids

  25. December 5, 2009 10:17 am

    Well at least we know David is amidextrous.Alan Keyes is a person of great insight.why attack him.A bissel self hatred is showing.Glad to see the left has improved so much we must find problems elsewhere.

  26. December 5, 2009 10:22 am

    Let me chime in with three thoughts.

    1. Asking the Supreme Court to overturn the votes of 63 million American voters is both utterly utopian and extremely dangerous and foolish. What do you think the reaction would be in America’s cities? What would the global reaction be? How would it look for five unelected, often elderly White men to take away Obama’s legal mandate?

    2. How plausible is it to believe that Obama became President in 2009 because of an elaborate conspiracy hatched in 1961? Are you kidding?

    3. The “psychological” appeal of this allegation seems rooted in a 19th century notion of nationalism: blood, cross, and soil. The emergence of a hard right, populist White Christian nationalism would be a terrible wrong turn for the conservative movement. There was such a mass movement in the 1920s: the American Klu Klux Klan. That’s avoid giving the Obama administration such an easy to defeat challenge.

    The Obama administration is making so many real, profound mistakes and errors that conservatives can and should focus on those policy debates. Let’s return to reality and defeat his appeasement foreign policy in 2010 instead of getting sidetracked with elaborate conspiracy theories.

    • William James Ward permalink
      December 5, 2009 12:00 pm

      1) It is our country not the world’s, courts overturn voters
      on Constitutional grounds, his mandate could prove illegal gain.
      White men?

      2) Communitst have 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 to 100 year plans. Who is
      claiming a 1961 conspiracy? Something from the past biting us
      today, it’s called fruition of well laid plans, do not discount
      anything if the result is what we see in the dissolution of our
      America which has been on going for the past century. The present
      perfidious entity in the White House should be enough proof of
      what? Bad luck, or good planing on the side of our enemies.

      3) Legitimate questions asked and for you it’s, white men, Christians,
      Klu Klux Klanners, time dimensions? What about black Christians,
      the Black Supreme Court Justice. Due you insinuate American Jews are
      not loyal and not in the fight for preservation of the great long
      term efforts of millions and millions of American’s no matter what.
      Lets not forget the Hispanic Americans, legal and born here are
      incensed they can be under a possible illegally elected President
      but may have a relative or friend living like desperadoes. Leaders
      show the way, if Obama can not be viably questioned, then what rigth
      does anyone have asking anyone for their papers and proof of who
      they are? You come off anti-white, anti-Christian and by default
      ant-American. As to being sidetracked and wasting time by so called
      birthers, hey some people can chew gum and spit too. Rethink.

    • December 5, 2009 4:48 pm

      The vast majority of birthers do not spout conspiracy theories. All they want is proof that Obama is who he says he is. That should be easy enough for a person who swept to office on promises of transparency, hope and change. So where is Obama’s problem?

    • Nick permalink
      December 5, 2009 7:40 pm

      Respectfully, Just A Few questions in reply to your 3 thoughts:

      1.) Should not the reaction you are witnessing right now be considered as well? Does a counter reaction warrant more of your consideration? If so,why? If how things LOOK are important, How does it LOOK if say, you, are being defrauded and you don’t care that you are? Are you thinking defensively?

      2.) No, it is Not plausible to think a conspiracy began in 1961. But that not part of the central argument and farther still away from the numerous possibilities of a cover-up of fraud.

      3.) I find your implications faulty, Eric. Your ideas are inconsistent. If you are going to argue against the eligibility questioning people, you must find solid arguments.

      I would say that your arguments are akin to the left’s in that they approache ridicule and, of course, because you tossed race into the issue. Where do you see race at issue here? Why would we allow ourselves to be intimidated by those who would use race to intimidate and cede our own power, believing we are doing what it is right, and not based upon race?

  27. kim segar permalink
    December 5, 2009 10:26 am

    I just sent my comment

  28. JE Tabler permalink
    December 5, 2009 10:37 am

    It’s not about the birth certificate. It’s about the Indonesian citizenship and the trip to Pakistan which nobody with an American passport could have taken.

    I thought this was the dumbest, most unprincipled, most out-of-character thing Horowitz ever wrote a year ago and now I think so even more.

    Ann Liebermann wrote above:

    “There is a foreign element throughout the president’s past that – I think, reasonably – makes citizens uncomfortable and suspicious.”

    And that is the only thing which explains his admission to Columbia, because regular old affirmative action sure doesn’t, but Pakistani terrorist connections (and there’s no other reason to visit Pakistan besides heroin and child prostitutes, neither of which I think he was involved with) and a fake Arab ethnicity go a very, very long way in that context.

  29. Dave Grenier permalink
    December 5, 2009 11:11 am

    I disagree with David when he suggests we ignore the Constitution. If Obama is not qualified to sit as President, he should be removed.

    That being said, “birthers” are barking up the wrong tree. The Constitution requires “natural born citizen(ship),” not “native born.” “Natural” refers to a quality or circumstance of birth, while “native” refers to place of birth. (I believe the Constitution’s authors understood and appreciated the difference.) If one of Obama’s parents was an American citizen (and we know that his mother was), then Obama is a “natural born citizen” (as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which refers to becoming a citizen by a legal process rather than by birth).

    The Constitution does not make birth within the United States a qualification for the office of President. It makes birth as an American citizen a qualification, and that can happen anywhere. (If McCain had been born in the country Panama instead of the US territoryof the Canal Zone, it would have made zero difference with respect to his qualification for the Presidency.)

    IF Obama’s mother surrendered her American citizenship before his birth, that could lead to an argument against his qualification for office. But because birthers are following a false lead (and Obama supporters are permitting them to do so, rather than reply with the argument that I presented above) that will never gain any traction, they will get nowhere. Only if Obama was NOT born to an American citizen does his place of birth become relevant. If a child is born within the US to non-US parents he or she is a citizen by birth (natural citizen) too.

    • December 5, 2009 12:01 pm

      But even if Obama was born in Seattle of an American mother, what do you make of his adoption by an Indonesian man? It is my understanding that non-citizens were not allowed to attend public school in Indonesia (at that time). Also there is the travel to Pakistan which Americans could not do when Obama traveled there. And then there are the Muslim roommates…

      At the very least he was passing himself off as an Indonesian citizen while a citizen of another country. Doesn’t that say something about his ethics and loyalty?

      His past is all so murky, mysterious and dysfunctional. That alone makes it imperatative that we see proof of his American citzenship.

      • Dave Grenier permalink
        December 5, 2009 2:22 pm

        To answer your question, yes, but that has nothing to do with the qualification that he be a “natural born citizen” as stipulated by the Constition.

        Did he subsequently give up his citizenship in order to travel on a foreign passport? Did he merely travel on a foreign passport without assuming the citizenship of another country? Did he subsequently resume his American citizenship? (This leads to a host of questions, like: A person born a US citizen, and therefore qualified for the office of the Presidency, gives up his citizenship and becomes a citizen of another country. If that person decides to resume his US citizenship, how does he do that? Must he become “naturalized” – a legal process – or can he stand on his original status as a “natural” citizen? If he becomes “naturalized,” is he now disqualified from the Presidency? Or, having been a “natural” citizen by birth, does he maintain his qualification for the office? I don’t know the answers, and doubt anyone does, because the situation has never been adjudicated. Arguments can be made for both sides.)

        Having been (most likely) born a citizen, he’s qualified for the office under the Constitution. Whether or not he remained qualified, or whether or not he is otherwise (subjectively) qualified are separate and distinct questions that have nothing to do with “birther” arguments. Birthers are pursuing a red herring.

        • Nick Chagouris permalink
          December 6, 2009 1:44 pm

          Please See my comment at the near bottom of this page (for the moment anyway) where I cite the The Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. State Department, with respect to dual citizenship and the Constitution’s use of the term, “Natural Born.”

  30. Steve R permalink
    December 5, 2009 11:59 am

    Eric could be right that no US Supreme Court would overturn the decision of 63-million people; though I question — given the antics of ACORN and such — how many are American citizens, or even exist. But there are parallels with the very controversial SCOTUS decision in the 2000 presidential election. That’s why the Court exists — to take these kinds of hard decisions. But, let’s say BHO is shown with reasonable certainty to have violated the Constitution. The resulting storm of lawsuits questioning every decision made by him, or any of his appointed czars, cabinet officials, and other bureaucrats would tie up the administration and the courts, and quite probably the Congress for the remaining years of Obama’s term(s) and beyond. If that overwhelms the system and leads to a revolution, perhaps that’s not such a bad thing. This country has come so far down the road to socialism in my lifetime that, much as I believe in and revere our constitutional system, I don’t know if it can ever be reversed short of such an upheaval. If you haven’t seriously thought about that, about ‘what if’, then it seems to me you’re on this site simply to vent.

    • December 5, 2009 12:17 pm

      So you’re saying we should leave well enough alone? I will admit that if it turns out that Obama is not constitutional eligible to serve as president, we could have race riots like we’ve never seen. It might make us wish we had just left things as they were. Ultimately however, I don’t think fear should keep us from doing what is right. If we no longer live by the Constitution, are we still America, or just a place on the globe? It’s not like we are united by much else these days.

    • William James Ward permalink
      December 5, 2009 12:29 pm

      Lets put this 63 or 64 or a billion voters being overturned by
      the Supreme Court to rest. Yes they can. They overturned
      laws and rules and outcomes of millions of Americans
      that were illegal under the Constitution, that is
      what they are there for. If not if just large
      numbers alone are the rule, we would still live under
      noxious laws that keep women, blacks, minorities of all kinds
      from voting, holding public office, owning property and on and on.
      To have a nation of laws and not men means no exceptions in the law,
      it must be applied equally and fairly, justice holding the scales
      still wears the blindfold. Waffling, being bent with every breeze
      of convenience without orthodoxy in law sets us up to take a fall,
      hence the predicaments of today. As time goes by the majority of
      those who voted law, honesty, integrity, morality, justice and
      the value of our citizenship away should if they are not brain dead,
      they will not have anything to do with Obama again and recognize
      by their own plight the error of their ways and the scamming of
      the media propaganda machines. Cleaning house does not necessitate
      violent revolution. “What if” depends on who leads and who follows.
      You are correct there will be much to do and undo, I for one have
      faith that there are enough good people to see it through and make
      all the corrections necessary for the next generation to carry on
      and make America again a place of prosperity and opportunity for all.

      • Steve R permalink
        December 5, 2009 1:16 pm

        I pray you are right.

    • Dave Grenier permalink
      December 5, 2009 2:36 pm

      Spot on. Anyone not qualified for the office lawfully doesn’t hold it, and is incapable of exercising its lawful powers. All actions by such a person are done under “color of law” and are completely void. The Supreme Court has said that actions under color of law can be ignored; they have no standing whatsoever ab initio.

    • Nick Chagouris permalink
      December 6, 2009 2:33 pm

      Why do you think that a Supreme Court decision would be likely for Obama’s removal? I don’t necessarily see it playing out that way. I would say that’s the worst case scenario.

      If Obama is ever forced to show his hand and it is discovered, what many believe, that he’s holding nothing but a bluff, back-room deals might then be made, and in lieu of the harshest prosecution, some sort of ‘protection guarantee’ might be offered in exchange for him to voluntarily step down, thus mitigating the public rage on both sides to a controllable anger level.

      Perhaps he would be diagnosed with a rare disease that would require him to pass the baton and exit with a final “Greatest-Speech-on-Earth.”

      I return to my original question: Would a SCOTUS battle and judgment be inevitable?

  31. William James Ward permalink
    December 5, 2009 12:38 pm

    Oh yes I do vent, I have legitimate complaints, I have
    loved ones who’s inheritance I do not want stolen by
    Democrats and Republicans who are the problem, we need
    to vote in a new government and yes maybe taken out of
    the jury pool of each American City.

  32. Kai permalink
    December 5, 2009 1:24 pm

    If numbers mattered so very much, it would seem that the people for investigating Obama are unquestionably right, because we have way more posts on this thread than those against do. its like 55 to 4 or so, right?

  33. Khaching permalink
    December 5, 2009 1:25 pm

    Sad to see this. Considering un subscribing. Too much is being hidden here to just blow it off.

    • William James Ward permalink
      December 5, 2009 1:36 pm

      Khaching,
      Hang in there, curioscity at least should give
      the inspiration to see how things pan out. It
      may be a test.

    • Carterthewriter permalink
      December 5, 2009 2:05 pm

      I feel the same as you, sir.

      • December 5, 2009 4:58 pm

        It is a fair assumption that this article could serious decimate the number of subscribers on this blog. I am also curious as to why it was written.

        • William James Ward permalink
          December 5, 2009 5:23 pm

          Hey mikidiki…..
          You have it, the million dollar question. Any speculations?
          I am hanging out and waiting to see how this wraps up. Great
          comments so far on this issue.
          It would be fantastic to see an answer to your question, its
          the 800 pound gorilla sitting in the room…….WJW

  34. Dennis Campbell permalink
    December 5, 2009 1:38 pm

    When professing conservatives begin abandoning our Constitution, which liberals did decades ago, we are in desperate trouble. It appears that David Horowitz is returning to the Dark Side. This is very discouraging.

  35. Bill_H permalink
    December 5, 2009 1:42 pm

    Mr Horowitz makes valid strategic points regarding the ongoing political contest for the heart and mind of this country and of the special need to win, but the fact remains the organization behind Obama has been working very hard to withhold Obama’s OTHER public records and given their stout resistance, one must ask what are they really hiding behind their legal shield. Methinks there is something rotten at the DNC.

    • December 5, 2009 1:54 pm

      Nothing wrong with wanting to investigate Obama and dig into his background. Just don’t associate that quest with Birtherism.

      • Steve R permalink
        December 5, 2009 2:16 pm

        I don’t think anyone posting in this thread has confused the issue at hand with “birtherism” other than you and Mr. Horowitz. JMO

        • December 5, 2009 2:20 pm

          Amen to that, Steve!

        • December 5, 2009 2:56 pm

          THE CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT OBAMA WAS NOT BORN IN THIS COUNTRY AND IS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD AND IS THE SUBJECT WHICH HOROWITZ AND I ARE CRITICIZING. THAT IS THE ONLY THING BEING STRONGLY CRITICIZED. THE LEGITIMATE CONCERN TO INVESTIGATE OBAMA’S BACKGROUND IS NOT IN ANY WAY BEING CRITICIZED.

          Do you understand?

          • December 5, 2009 5:18 pm

            I would have thought that calling Alan Keyes a demagogue is a criticism which consequently disproves your assertion that the conspiracy theory is the only thing you and Mr Horowitz are criticizing. And please do not type everything in upper case. IMHO it shows ignorance and arrogance.
            I hope you understand.

          • Steve R permalink
            December 5, 2009 7:18 pm

            That’s not how it came across in the initial post, neither his nor yours. I think the post here illustrate that we can tell the difference. Hopefully, you do also.

  36. Jeff Hall permalink
    December 5, 2009 2:08 pm

    I recently discovered this site and read it everyday, because I like and agree with everything Mr. Horowitz has to say. However, I am disapointed in his opinion about Obama’s eligibility to be President concerning his place of birth.

    The constitution requires the President to be born in the United States of America for very good reasons, such as to prevent a foreigner loyal to another country, or even an enemy of the USA from ever becoming the President. It’s plain common sense to require the President to be a native to this country. If that simple rule is allowed to be ignored, then the rest of the constitution can, and will be ignored, which has been the case for a long time now.

    I also want to say that I enjoy reading the comments on this site.

    • Dave Grenier permalink
      December 5, 2009 2:30 pm

      Jeff, see my earlier post. I’m afraid you have it wrong. The Constition does not mandate “native” birth, it require “natual born citizenship” (i.e., citizen by birth). Becoming a citizen by birth does not require native birth. A person born abroad of one US parent is a “natural born citizen” even though not “native” born.

      • Jeff Hall permalink
        December 5, 2009 4:03 pm

        Yes you’re right, I should have been more specific, but my point is that the requirement to be a natural born citizen is necessary to prevent a foreign born person not loyal to this country, or even worse an outright enemy of America from becoming the President. The Founders of America didn’t want someone loyal to crown of England to ever become the President. Of course that would apply to people from all other countries as well.

      • Jeff Hall permalink
        December 5, 2009 4:18 pm

        I also want say that if Obama was actually born outside of the America, it wouldn’t matter where his parents were from. He would be ineligible to be the President. Considering his disloyalty to America, I strongly suspect he was born in another country.

        • Dave Grenier permalink
          December 5, 2009 7:06 pm

          If BHO was born outside of the US it wouldn’t matter where his parents were FROM. What would have mattered is their citizenship at the time of his birth. If one of them was a US citizen, then BHO is a natural-born citizen no matter where he was born and no matter where his parents were born.

          You continue to insist that he’d be disqualified from the Presidency if he was “born outside of. . .America.” Native birth is NOT a qualification for the Presidency, the qualification is NATURAL CITIZENSHIP.

          Stop thinking PLACE and start thinking STATUS.

          • Jeff Hall permalink
            December 5, 2009 8:05 pm

            McCain’s parents were natural born citizens, yet his eligibilty for president was questioned since he was not born in America. The only thing that barely saved his eligibilty was that he born on an American military base.

            If two parents are natural born citizens, and then have children born and raised outside of America, those children are ineligible to become president even if the Parents bring them back to America when they still young children, or even as babies.

            Don’t worry too much about it Dave, I’m well aware of the President’s status.

        • Steve R permalink
          December 5, 2009 7:23 pm

          and if he wasn’t born outside the US, we know he was educated outside the US. He doesn’t appear to have much of “America” in his make-up. It’s sad, and a little disgusting that this man who has reaped the fruits of every opportunity America offers has so little apparent respect for its people, its history, and its traditions of government. He gives the appearance of having no real stake in the nation he’s attempting to lead.

  37. jmcaul permalink
    December 5, 2009 2:25 pm

    “Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies.” – David Horowitz

    In other words David is saying ‘yes the Constitution is a living, breathing document?!!”

    I usually respect and agree with Mr. Horowitz but I believe he has this one dead wrong. The fact that if Mr. Obama was proven to be Constitutionally unqualified for office, it would cause great social unrest, probably rioting, bloodshed and other mass lawlessness does not change the fact that we MUST be able to trust in the Constitutionality of our governing forces.

    If enough people feel that the governing forces are NOT Constitutionally legitimate, all bets for a peaceful, workable society are off.

  38. Bill Burton permalink
    December 5, 2009 3:13 pm

    The ‘other’ Bill Burton, certainly not the one who writes for the Obamanation.
    I agree with others here that Anne Liberman says it all, & with class. I have to disagree withDave Grenier statement that ‘if ONE of Obama’s parents was an American citzen (& we know his mother was), then Obama is a Natural Born Citizen’. From what I’ve read, BOTH parents have to be American citizens to be a Natural Born Citizen. If that is true, no matter where Obama was born, he is not a Natural Born Citizen as required to become President of the USA.
    Most people do not make the difference between being a citizen of the US, and the requirement by the Constitution to be a Natural Born Citizen of the US. Our founding fathers had a good reason to put that in the Constitution, & I think Obama’s election justifies their reasons.

    • Dave Grenier permalink
      December 5, 2009 7:31 pm

      I’d like to see a citation re your comment that both parents have to be citizens in order to pass US citizenship on to a child.

      If this were true of this country and true of country “X,” and should a US citizen marry a citizen of X and have a child, that child would have only the citizenship status of the PLACE where he was born and the parent’s citizenship would have no bearing on the child’s status? I find that hard to believe that such a situation could exist. (The birth could take place in a third country. If that third country does not endow citizenship merely for being born there then the child would be completely stateless!)

      What about a child born abroad to a US citizen female when the identity of the father is unknown?

      I can imagine too many scenarios where such a rule could negatively impact a child. When you can be born here to foreign parents and still get citizenship even though NEITHER of your parents are American, I find it hard to believe that a child doesn’t get US citizenship from only one US parent no matter where the child is born. Come to think of it, I knew people in the military who were dual-nationals because they were born of one US and one foreign parent. Can’t say for sure WHERE any of them were born, but there’s a good bet that some of the American/German people were born in Germany (meaning that their citizenship derived from their US parent, not because they were born in the US.) If you could cite your authority, I’d be more than happy to check it out. (I’m going to look for it myself too.)

      Someone once raised with me the argument that when BHO’s mother married her man, she automatically surrendered her US citizenship and assumed Kenyan citizenship. Really? You automatically assume your spouse’s citizenship? Then why didn’t he assume her citizenship? In other words, this argument would mean that both parents assume the other’s citizenship, in which case his FATHER would then be a US citizen, and BHO would still be an American by birth! LOL

      • Dave Grenier permalink
        December 5, 2009 7:37 pm

        A quick follow-up.

        If you are correct and both parents have to be US citizens and only one of BHO’s was, then WHERE he was born is important. If BHO was born in the US he’d be a natural-born citizen(i.e., born to citizenship, not granted citizenship through a legal process). Both of his parents could be foreign and he’d still meet the Constitution’s qualification for citizenship.

        • Dave Grenier permalink
          December 5, 2009 8:19 pm

          I just did some preliminary research. According to the US State Department (http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html):

          Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

          Ann Dunham (BHO’s mother) was born 11.29.42. She was 14 on 11.29.61. In order for BHO to be qualified for the office of President, he would have to have been:

          1. Born in the United States (as alleged)

          or if born without the US

          2. Born after 11.29.61 (the date mandated by law above – Ann Dunham’s 14th birthday plus five years).

          AD was marred 2.21.61 and BHO was born 8.4.61, nearly four months before he could qualify as a natural-born citizen IF born outside the US!

          So it seems WHERE he was born DOES make a difference!

          I stand (in part) corrected.

          • Dave Grenier permalink
            December 5, 2009 8:26 pm

            Acch! Put in the wrong date!
            AD was 14 on 11.29.56

  39. semus permalink
    December 5, 2009 4:04 pm

    ‘What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?’

    I think from a logical standpoint the founding documents were written this way to try to ensure a Presidents allegiance.

    I’ll stop here because everythings been said – very well by Anne – I’m surprised and angry with Mr. Horowitz

  40. Jeff Hall permalink
    December 5, 2009 4:27 pm

    Actually Semus, how viable will our Constitution be if the requirement that the President be a natural born citizen is not enforced?

    • semus permalink
      December 5, 2009 9:11 pm

      I agree, the rules have to be enforced.

  41. December 5, 2009 5:39 pm

    “Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election…”
    ***
    Yes of course, we must keep the notorious lefty DOUBLE STANDARD intact. Conservatives must play by the rules and obey the laws of the land. The left is free to do whatever it takes to get and keep power since “The [totalitarian] ends justify the means” as Lenin said. So we mustn’t fret over ACORN voter fraud or the election of a completely unqualifed, unvetted narcissitic rock-star phony with a censored past as opaque as a brick wall. Just enjoy his leg-tingling rhetoric.
    We must accept the fact that the Constitution was written by a bunch old honkies from Europe and is notable only for it’s amusing quaintness and occasional usefulness in advancing the ‘Progressive’ Agenda of borderless-world socialism.
    So all you conservatives just roll over as usual and accept what the aggressive agenda-pushing left has planned for us. After all they ALWAYS know what’s best for everyone. Someday – maybe – we’ll take a stand! Maybe. Not now. But someday! Maybe.

  42. Mark MidHudson permalink
    December 5, 2009 5:48 pm

    THANK YOU, David. It is past time we stopped paying any attention to this distraction. If Obama had been born on Mars, his mother would still have been an American citizen, and SO WOULD HE. It looks to me as if the entire ‘Birther’ fringe is ganging up on you for your plain speaking. Well, I appreciate every word you put into it. There are too many legitimate concerns we GENUINELY have about this Administration to even entertain this garbage any longer. It reminds me of some of my good friends in the Second Amendment camp who insist that “Blair Holt” (HR 45) is about to become law of the land. Hogwash, and the worst of it is that it takes our eyes off the ball. Thanks again.

  43. December 5, 2009 6:32 pm

    Please note: moderation is what got us in this mess.
    You can “await” until hell freezes over.
    I stand on what I say.
    How about David aka David Swindle???????

  44. MMM permalink
    December 5, 2009 6:48 pm

    Does anyone remember how the Democrats howled and gnashed their teeth after the vote count in Florida, and we, the Constitutionally conservative party understood what that a victory determined by the Electoral College was a legitimate victory? Well, the Democrats used that issue to engender enough anger that turned to hatred for President Bush. I observed this phenomenon, and was disgusted by it. The birther issue, legitimate or not is doing the same thing to conservatives right now.

    We conservatives still read the Constitution, understand and cherish it. We understand the importance of each and every clause, and how they need to be preserved and defended, even if our current President, his staff, and our Congress don’t. We are angered and disgusted by the way in which it is being shredded every day since this man took office. Everything he does demonstrates his contempt for our history, our sacrifices and our system of government — no wonder some people are adamant about the deliberate murkiness that surrounds the documentation of his birth.

    But what is happening to this issue is pure Saul Alinsky, and it’s time that you stand back and think about this salient point. The Rule for Radicals are that you ridicule the opposition, isolate the opposition and make them look foolish for having their values — thereby marginalizing them as a force. I don’t pretend to know what the ‘truth’ is of Obama’s birth, but I would not be the least surprised to find out that they have spent $20 million (and consider it well spent) to withhold these documents just to keep conservatives embroiled in an issue that they can use to ridicule, isolate and marginalize anyone who doubts Obama’s origins. The upside of this for the WH is that the more we talk about it, the more the rest of the nation is disgusted, alienated and angry at a group that the WH is successfully identifying mentally challenged, fanatical and obsessed.

    It no longer matters to the rest of the nation that you are legitimately concerned about the Constitution. The Constitution is in trouble, but the WH has successfully muddied the waters so that Constitutional concern is equated with the unstable ‘birther’ identity. Constitutional concern is so much more — it’s about the word ‘shall’ over a thousand times in a healthcare bill that threatens our freedom. It’s about the freedom of speech for conservative news media. It’s about the freedom from taxes that are punishing, from mandates about how we live in our homes, and from losing our job if we aren’t members of ‘The Party’.

    As long as the WH and Obama are using the ‘birther’ idea to draw attention and credibility from the systematic evisceration of our freedom — they are like the magician — What’s he doing with his other hand?. The nation turns it’s attention to an issue that makes us look foolish, isolates us, and marginalizes the fight for freedom on every other legislative agenda — the WH is busy do the trick with their other hand.

    It no longer matters that each and everyone of you who have responded is intellectually engaged, and knowledgeable, because the issue you are embracing is already successfully identified as ‘nutty.’ The issue is lost, and if anyone ever does get ahold of all the documents and data we covet, and he proves to be legitimately a citizen, we’ll look even stupider than we’ve been made to look now. This issue could be the gift that keeps on giving — to the Democrats. It no longer matters to the nation if we are right, or wrong — we’re angry, wasting time and it’s not as important as jobs. That’s not who conservatives are — unless we keep allowing them define us by those birther sound-bites, quotes and signs on they love — because every time they get another one on the air it helps their cause, and we’re giving them all the help they need.

    Shouldn’t we be drawing attention to the other, immediate threats to our freedom with strength and credibility? Can we stop shooting ourselves in the foot with the ‘birther’ thing so we can build opposition to the WH?

    • William James Ward permalink
      December 5, 2009 7:40 pm

      Birthers may be a small group detemined to get the answers that
      they are important to truth and considering all of the uncertainty
      created by BHO by his actions which seem to place his as an
      enemy of the United States, they probably will continue to do
      what they think is right. Your argument couldn’t be better than
      if Barak Husein Obama wrote it himself. Conservatives never abandon
      principle nor should they subborn any action that is against the
      Constitution. If he is found out to be an illegal alien, that
      circumstance will be historic and reform can take place. If he is
      found to be an actual citizen and true proof of same is located,
      fine he is just a home grown subversive. I for one care not who
      the left calls names, you predict outcomes that belie the awful
      effects Obama is having on America, actions speak louder than words,
      his actions say a hell of a lot and voters were idiotic and fooled
      into voting for him but that mistake is known and can not be obviated
      by what you say, he is destroying our Nation and not single handidly.
      No MMM people will bypass the birth issue soon enough as other
      calamaties will befall them under Obama, his origins stand or fall
      by a clarified history, inquiring minds want to know. What the left
      thinks and says will have zero credence and will not stop the wave
      of anger growing in America. What you propose is vacuous and
      supports the left. I personally do not give a damn what my enemies
      think of me or what I do. We live in a time of lawless contrivance,
      we may live to see the end of it but never will with sugggestions
      that aid and abet the left. M-arxist M-arxist M-arxist what
      pure crap. Go out and peddle global warming, take a coat it’s
      cold outside.

    • Bruce permalink
      December 6, 2009 12:02 pm

      Following your logic such issues as “global warming”, or any other leftist cause, should not be challenged because conservative criticisms can be similarly mocked a la Alinsky. Where do you choose to stand and fight or are we consigned to perpetual surrender? This ssh8t has been going on for decades now.

  45. December 5, 2009 7:03 pm

    The scary part is:
    Biden and Pelosi are to follow. Egads.

  46. Steve R permalink
    December 5, 2009 7:31 pm

    I think the point is that if Mr. Obama and his handlers can play fast and loose with the key Constitutional requirement for a presidential candidate, they’ve shown in the first instance that they have no respect for the rest of the Constitution. I’m not arguing here that he isn’t a natural born citizen. I’m saying, as before, that we just don’t know because he hasn’t ‘come clean’ about too much of his background. Many of the things he has implemented, or is trying to implement, and appointments he has made, are Constitutionally questionable to say the least. That shows a pattern of disrespect, denigration for the core document of the Republic, AND for the people of this nation.

    • Marylou permalink
      December 5, 2009 11:44 pm

      OK. Point taken. Agreed. OK, now what?

      That’s what we are saying.

      I think we need to move on to something winnable, or do you really believe we can get Obama impeached on this point?

      • Bruce permalink
        December 6, 2009 12:42 pm

        “I think we need to move on to something winnable, or do you really believe we can get Obama impeached on this point?”
        +++
        Impeachment isn’t the goal. Putting an end to leftist subversion of America in general, and the Constitution in particular, is. As things stand now there IS no “winnable” issue because the left has the power (the Media, the schools, the entertainment industry, television, etc.) to ridicule, smear and demean ANY opposition to its Collectivist Crusade. I have argued that the political Right needs to establish a full-time professional counter-propaganda agency to fight fire with fire. There are many hard-hitting conservative voices out there but they are fragmented and easily isolated for ridicule (a la Rush) and potentially silence, using the Alinsky model and the left’s legislative-judicial dominance.

        The GOP is also impotent because of the Conservative-RINO split. New and conservative leadership at the RNC is crucial to mounting any effective resistance to the highly organized, efficient and motivated Left ideologues.

        The “birther” flap is only a symptom of a much larger disease which needs to be cured or else we will die as freedom-loving soverign nation of creative individuals.

  47. Theodore Blunt permalink
    December 5, 2009 8:11 pm

    Obamas mother was an American citizen. That gives him citizenship. My big worry is his “formative years” were spent as a Muslim and his later years under the tutlage of communists. I too wonder how he traveled to Pakistan and on whos dime. There are so many facets that need explaining.

  48. Jeff Hall permalink
    December 5, 2009 8:15 pm

    Well said, and concise Steve R.

  49. Marylou permalink
    December 5, 2009 9:20 pm

    I am totally on board that I’d like to see a valid Birth Certificate from the Hawaiian records. They have a strange way of doing things supposedly will show further documents when the Certificate of Live Birth is challenged but not in this case. OK, and/or I would like to know he was not born in Kenya BUT………..and, I think Mr. Horowitz gave this reason long ago. I don’t think it’s practical to follow this thread so much. The American populace, and especially the Obama-lovers are not going to accept it. I believe that our energies need to be focused on other issues where we can make an actual difference. Asking for a birth cert at this point invites jeers and invites us being shined on, sloughed off, being totally discounted, and I am absolutely a constitutionalist. This is not a winnable point. It just makes sense to me that we marshall our power in a way that gives us gravitas. It’s not a minor point but I think it is “politic” to let it go, in exchange for heavier items. This looks like a personal slur or attack on Obama himself…which we know it is not. We need to fight for principles and ideas, I think, instead of — and I know some will take exception, nitpicking like this. Even if it is a principle, we need to know our audience plus what we are after. I just think it’s not a good point to put so much energy into when there. It’s too easy. I’d like to see more energy into well-thought out campaign approaches rather than this knee-jerk stance that’s just so simple to react to. Make sense?

  50. Dee Holmes permalink
    December 5, 2009 11:32 pm

    So, if a convicted felon is popular enough, he or she can become President. The heck with the Constitution. Popularity is all that counts in Obamaland.

  51. Nick permalink
    December 6, 2009 4:17 am

    WHAT IS A BIRTHER AND WHO NAMED THEM THAT?

    If you ask the media or anyone from the left, they will quickly answer, “Anyone and everyone who challenges Obama’s eligibility to serve as president.” And then proceed to laugh at the “wacky Right-Wing-Nut conspiracy theorists. They are Racist, Bigoted, Red Necks and Religious Extremists bent on destroing our nation.” Job done.

    Or is it?

    The majority of contention I see in the arguments and assertions over this issue is, I believe, due to the use of word “Birthers”, and the connotations the word commonly conjurs in our minds. (see above)

    Credit the left and the complicit media for this stroke of genius. They coined it and it is paying them big dividends. Personally, I don’t use it and I wish you wouldn’t either unless it is referring to the left’s use of the vulgarity. It was meant to ridicule and demean, and it works very well at that.

    At the very least, there must be a distinction drawn between those who believe Obama was born outside the country and of those who believe he is ineligible to be POTUS because of citizenship ‘conflicts’ that the Constitution addresses. And perhaps there should be a classification for the “Eligibility Agnostic.” He doesn’t know, admits he doesn’t know, and thinks it is unimportant or he doesn’t care. And the “Faithful” who have Faith in what they have heard or have read and are satisfied that Obama is eligible. Are you seeing the conflicts yet?

    But the nagging fact remains: Barack Hussein Obama has not provided his hard copy, original, vault, state certified, birth certificate for The American Public to view. That cannot be argued. Therefore, we must take him at his word, or take the word of a certain Hawaiian Hospital official who says they have seen it, and the DNC.

    But as for the latter, see this:

    “The Theory is Now a Conspiracy – III
    DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!”
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15127

    ” On July 28, 2009, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, “I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    If we are to believe Dr. Fukino, and I have no reason not to, are we also satisfied that Dr. Fukino understands the Founders’ Constitutional meaning of the term “natural-born American citizen?”

    Obama has thus far refused to provide an official birth document for public view. But why then, would he post a facsilile of a non-valid birth document on his campaign web site as proof of his ‘natural born citizenship?” Was this to be used as a “Left-Fin Red Herring” by which to drive righties nuts? If so, isn’t that too a conspiracy theory that would have had to begin way back at pre-campaign days? (I submit Theory B)

    Article II, Section 4, of our Constitution uses the term “natural born.” Some argue that this is a meaningless technicality and irrelevant – that the term is broad and sweeping, that it simply means “born on U.S. soil.”

    However, the official position of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. State Department strongly, if not emphatically, suggests otherwise. I will get to that in a moment.

    We know that there are more than one citizenship classification in the U.S. There are ‘Naturalized’,’Natural Born’, and ‘Honorary’ citizens of the U.S. And there are also “Dual Citizens” of the U.S. and other nations. I know of some. You probably do as well. But a person must be a “Natural Born” citizen to be eligible to be POTUS.

    The Questions are, (i) which type of citizen is Barack Obama? , and (ii) Is Fukino qualified to make the constitutional call of claiming Obama is “natural-born”?

    Barack Obama, by his own admission is the son of a U.S. mom and a Kenyan dad. Therefore he admits to being born a “Dual Citizen.”

    Many Constitutional attorneys and experts argue that the intentions of the Founding Fathers use of the term “Natural Born citizen” holds an essential and unequivocal meaning for this reason:

    Any citizen of the U.S. is allowed to simultaneously be a citizen of a foreign country – a “Dual Citizen” by birth. But a person cannot “apply” for citizenship of another country without forfeiting his citizenship of the U.S.

    When the country was founded, obviously none of the Fathers were “Natural Born” citizens, and so they specifically named a point in time when the “Natural Born” clause would go into effect, thus allowing for the unavoidable “Dual citizenships” of the first several presidents.

    Why would this matter? Why would the Founders have mandated that the “Natural Born” status become law at a certain point if they did not have a very important reason for doing so?

    Is it not common sense and clear that if a person was a citizen of both the U.S. and, say, Iran, it might propose a little conflict?
    For the Founders, when the colonists were British citizens and some refusing to be disloyal to the nation that the colonists were about to go to war with, the Founders understood very well the conflict of a leader having “Divided Loyaties” between two nations. Indeed it would have been impossible for this to be so. One had to be completely in or completely out of the deal.

    That’s why the Founders Mandated this “Natural Born” clause into Constitutional Law for eligibility to lead our nation.

    Getting back to The Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. State Department, which further states,

    “…dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are REQUIRED TO OBEY THE LAWS OF BOTH COUNTRIES. Either country has the right to ENFORCE its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be REQUIRED by the foreign country to use ITS passport to enter and leave that country…” (emphasis mine)

    Now, imagine if a U.S. President owed allegiences to both the U.S. and China. Can you not see the impossibility of this?

    Therefore, the argument that the Constitutional language of the “Natural Born Citizen” clause means only that a person need to be born on U.S. soil would at the same time have to argue that the Founders did not foresee the potential for this preposterous, conflict of interest, or it simply did not matter to the Fathers.

    That idea, to my mind, is completely implausible. For if that be the case, what other “small” details might they have ‘overlooked’ or did not care about?

    Do you see where this leads? To believe that the Founders did not specifically foresee this huge conflict and mandate law to avoid such a conflict would cause an erosion of the potency of the entire document. “The old guys were just not very bright – like we are.” And this is what the left thinks and wants. Revolution. To FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA. And this is what WE will not permit!

    If for no other reason than this alone, we should all demand a clarification of the meaning of the term “Natural Born Citizen”, with respect to Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President over all of the Land and all of its People. Is this nota good enough reason?

    It should further be our responsibility to either join in the demand for this calrification, or to at the least remain sympathetic and perhaps supportive of those who are making this demand.

    In light of the recent revelation of the incriminating, conspiratorial, CRU emails that involve many high powered scientists and academics, U.N. and officials from several nations, that has been thriving in the darknes for more than a decade , it should be no stretch of anyone’s imagination that fantastic conspiracies of Global Proportions not only exist, but that the same Left source is quite capable of another.

    • William James Ward permalink
      December 6, 2009 9:34 am

      Very impressive Nick, you hit all bases and your conclusions
      are exactly right, I love to see brilliance shine forth, well
      done. It may not be a crucial issue but the left if playing
      games as some think are playing a stupid game. I and my friends
      have nothing to do with the law suit going forth and as I
      believe is still in front of a Federal Judge. Conservatives at
      large have nothing to do with it but there are those who
      are totally comitted to finding out if at all possible and
      that is their right. Freedom of inquiry about elected persons
      is foundational to conservative politics. Now think about it,
      who would give up freedom to please a leftist, not I. On face
      considering Obamas actions he is doing enough to be challendge
      in Federal Court, his administration is quite destructive and
      the fall out will sweep him and his Tsar’s away, that removal
      is of the greatest importance and I for one cheer on anyone for
      any reason opposed to tyranical rule. To steal a phrase Nick,
      “Mega Dittos”………

      • Nick Chagouris permalink
        December 6, 2009 3:41 pm

        William, I appreciate your support of my views. I am not an authority. I have merely been doing my homework and have read everything from the hysterical to what I consider the brilliant on this most fascinating subject.

        If there is a most compelling aspect of this issue, it might be that sanity demands for all to accept, IT IS NOT GOING AWAY.

        Any and all objection and criticism to “Proof Seekers” must necessarilly sprout from an unrealistic belief that this issue will eventually fade from public consciousness, and that their criticism and objection will assist in that process.

        In my opinion, this is a fatal miscalculation of the American Spriit.

        Here is a powerful example:

        Poll studies prove that this movement is far beyond the “fringe”, a word that the complicit media robotically belches out when they are forced to discuss the eligibility issue. “Birthers and Fringe, Birthers and Fringe, Birthers and Frings.” That is their ordered talking point, and that is their artillary.

        I for one will not cow from their words. Neither do I fear their ridicule. It serves only to drive me forward with more resolve. And I believe my feelings represent a huge movement that is reacting likewise.

        Far more than a just a significant number of Americans of every stripe question Obama’s eligibility. There are a whole bunch of “Not Sures” out there, and perhaps they are the most honest of all. AOL conducted a recent poll on the eligibility issue.

        In its poll, AOL is asking readers: “Do you have any doubt about Obama’s eligibility to be president because of his birth status?”

        With more than 250,000 responses, results were nearly split with 47 percent saying yes, and 53 percent saying no.
        http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90447

        Forty Seven Percent does not a Fringe make!

        And The People Know this. Therefore, that word, “Fringe”, instantly becomes synonymous with “Racist, Bigot, and Red Neck” in the minds of the people of the movement. That is in fact how I hear it, and I am far from the most active in the movement.

        I do not believe for a moment that Mr. Horowitz is in any way sympathizes with the left. He despises them. I believe he fully believes in his strategy to further the cause of defeating the left and empowering conservatism. I am sad to see him get hit with so much criticism, and I don’t think it is fair to him.

        However, I think this may serve as an enlightenment to Mr. Horowitz -discovery of an error in his calulations. I fully understand the angry reaction evident from all the comments. You see, the momentum of the Tea Party movement is being fueled by the media’s shameful depiction of who they are and what they want. In fact, the media is doing its damnedest to synthesize “Tea Baggers” and “Birthers” into a single swatch of soiled toilet paper to be quickly and permanently flushed away.

        This ENRAGES the movement and is serving instead as Turbo Charge it. I believe that this will either change, and the media will begin to report more accurately and sympathetically, or the resistence will continue to grow in size and rage.

        No, a “Fringe” we are not. And most every single one of the Tea Party members at least questions Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS. Lord Christopher Monckton does and Sarah Palin says it is fair game to investigate..

        It is obvious, this is why the recation to Mr. Horowitz’s commentary has been so harsh. The people heard the media’s ridicule coming from him, even though that was not David’s intention. I think he has unwittingly touched that raw nerve that triggers the anger of the movement. Perhaps he has underestimated the size and the locomotive force that is driving the demand for prrof. Additionally, the people of the movement expect that he should be walking in harmony with their sentiments.

        It Needs to be Understood by all, especially by us:

        The Eligibility issue is Not Negotiable! Period!

        We demand accountability. If it has been a trick all along, then this is criminal and should also be accounted for. The shame and ridicule will not fall on the right, it will fly back in the arrogant and sleazy face of the left.

        • William James Ward permalink
          December 7, 2009 6:20 pm

          Amen and amen. Possibly David Horowitz will wish to enlighten
          further on this issue, or possibly let it go as he has much on
          his plate. There are several possibilities here but you have
          lifted the main points of concern and proffered what I beleive to
          be the majority thread and it’s attendant foibles par Zeitgeist.
          William

    • Steve R. permalink
      December 6, 2009 3:10 pm

      Bravo, Sir! Well done. Well and truly done!

  52. December 6, 2009 1:43 pm

    Well, if nothing else, David has provoked some heated debate and thoughful writing on this one.

    There’s one way for this controversy to end and it would take a few strokes of a pen, maybe a one-minute phone call, and a five minute press conference:

    Release all of the records in question for public scrutiny.

    During my career I’ve released my birth certificate, my college transcripts, selective service records, medical records and much more to become a law enforcement officer.

    So, what’s the problem? What’s to hide? There’s the rub. What’s to hide that he doesn’t want us to see?

  53. Steve R. permalink
    December 7, 2009 5:23 pm

    I have to say: this thread has been one of the best, most impassioned debates on this website since I came here. David — you and Mr. Horowitz tapped into something here, strong feelings that run deep among those who are aware of what’s going on in our Nation. I pray the passion for liberty and the Constitution runs far deeper and stronger than just here. We’re going to need every bit of it, and more besides in the years ahead.

    • William James Ward permalink
      December 7, 2009 6:31 pm

      Steve you and John L. also make my brain think it is talking to itself
      when I read what you have to say, and from all of the comments, I
      see why the left has reason to fear, Patriots are alive and well.
      William

      • Steve R. permalink
        December 7, 2009 7:43 pm

        Thank you, William — Merry Christmas and a safe and healthy 2010 to you and yours.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.