Friday, July 31, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
To the Following CNN Suppressors of Free Speech:
As a history teacher and civic educator I endeavor to get my students to think logically - with the ultimate goal of discovering the truth. This means that they must be able to read critically, ask penetrating questions and examine facts in an open and non threatening environment. They must be able to both follow the evidence wherever it may lead and acknowledge the truth when it is discovered.
That is the essence of free and open inquiry. And it has for over two centuries separated us from the tyrannical rule so cruelly manifest around the globe.
Until now, sadly. It sickens me to say that you media nazis do not even accord your own Lou Dobbs the same freedoms allowed in my middle-school classroom.
Here is my proposal:
Lou Dobbs will moderate a high publicized, nationally televised, two-hour, commercial-free debate on the monumentally important constitutional issue of Barack Obama's citizenship.
The suggested topic will be, "Proposed. Barack Obama should immediately provide the American public with all the documentation necessary, beginning with his true long-form birth certificate, to prove that he meets the constitutional requirement to hold the office of president of the United States."
The CNN Team will consist of any three individuals you choose.
The Full Disclosure Team will consist of:
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily
Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes
Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz
No such forum has yet to be conducted on this monumentally important issue. Here is your chance to atone for the incredible constitutional crisis created by your willful suppression of the truth.
This issue is not going to evaporate. We won't go away.
Brockton, MA 02302
P.S. - Many freedom loving Americans await your answer.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
According to an AP story, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Health Director with the Hawaii State Department of Health, has issued a new statement seeking to "stem a recent surge in the number of inquiries about Obama's birthplace." "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….I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issue in October 2008, over eight months ago." AP asserts that "Fukino issued a similar press release Oct. 31." However, in her statement in October Fukino said "I…have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." The original statement said nothing about the content of the birth record. The new statement therefore goes significantly farther than the original statement in October, though both the AP story and Fukino herself give the deceptive impression that it does not. Given this evident obfuscation, why should I or anyone else simply take Fukino's words at face value?
Her new and more substantive statement comes in the context of passage by the US Congress of a unanimous resolution commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Hawaii's admission as a state of the United States which declares "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961…." Sadly, this Congressional action only serves as further proof that all the members of Congress from both parties now irresponsibility vote to affirm what they have never read.
This flurry of activity is meant to distract public attention from the palpable contradictions that have emerged in the cover story the Obama faction has used on account of his unwillingness to produce a birth record that actually contains the information needed to lay the controversy to rest. Until recently no one in the manipulated media has been willing to address this failure factually. Despite this repression, more and more people have become aware of the fact that the "certification of live birth" published on the internet during the Presidential campaign last fall did not establish Obama's eligibility for two reasons: a) such certifications were issued at the time to people not born on US soil. Therefore, the published document did nothing to overcome the objection (raised because of the testimony of Obama's African relatives) that he was born in Kenya at a time when his mother, who was married to a foreign national, was not of age to transmit US citizenship; and b) the internet published certification contained no details as to the hospital at which the birth took place, or the doctor who delivered the child, details that could be used to establish what must otherwise be treated as uncorroborated testimony.
Given the lack of such details, the fact that at various times the media and elements of the Obama faction made conflicting statements about the hospital of his birth (was it Queens Medical Center, or Kapiolani?), further aggravated the need to substantiate the true facts.
Then Lou Dobbs acknowledged on his CNN program that there is a factual doubt about Obama's birth that has not been addressed. In response CNN president Jon Klein reportedly claimed in an e-mail that "CNN researchers found Hawaiian records were discarded in 2001 when the state's records system went electronic. Therefore, Klein said, Obama's original long-form birth certificate no longer exists. A computer generated abbreviated version that has been promoted on the Internet is the official record."
But Hawaiian officials rebutted this story. "I am not aware of any birth certificate records that have been destroyed by the department," Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, told WND. "When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don't destroy records….Any records we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department," she insisted. "We have not destroyed any vital records that we have."
This Hawaii official flatly declared that the Obama's actual long-form birth certificate is in the possession of the State of Hawaii. Hawaii Health Director Fukino now belatedly declares that it contains the information needed to lay the eligibility question to rest once and for all. The AP story now disingenuously admits that the Constitution's eligibility provisions are "a key constitutional requirement for being president." So with respect to this key requirement, why are the American people being asked to accept less than the best evidence available? All along people like me have simply asked that the facts be fairly proven so as to preserve the integrity of the Constitution's authority. In this regard the issue is not whether Obama remains in office or is declared ineligible to serve, but whether the issue is resolved in accordance with the Constitution's provisions.
Sadly, pundits like Ann Coulter have unfairly characterized this simple concern for Constitutional integrity as some kind of "conspiracy theory." Actually, it's just a refusal to declare a fact not in evidence. There was a time when good journalists, like good lawyers, refused to be manipulated into doing so. A fair and proper hearing requires that evidence be produced and subjected to careful examination (by experts if need be.) It requires that witnesses be confronted and cross examined. Though the issue of Obama's eligibility for the Presidency involves the integrity of the Supreme law of the land (not to mention the right to occupy the key governmental office it establishes), there has been no such fair and proper hearing to ascertain the facts and make clear the principles on which it can be decided. This failure is not so much a conspiracy as a massive dereliction of duty on the part of officials oath bound to preserve the Constitution of the United States. How can we be satisfied until such a hearing takes place, openly televised, with both sides to the controversy fairly represented and fairly treated? Only then will the American people have reason to be confident that the conclusion reached is based on carefully gathering and fairly examining all the available evidence.
Such a hearing would exemplify the solemn respect we ought to have for our Constitution. It would therefore serve the common good of our nation. But it would not serve the unbounded ambition of the Obama faction, or comfort the reprehensible cowardice of their supposed opponents. If we wait upon them to serve fairness, truth and constitutional integrity, we may as well whistle for a wind.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
In light of the comments and responses to my WND piece on Sarah Palin's resignation, I think some further observations and reflections are in order.
First it's important to remind everyone that I have never accepted the notion that Palin somehow represents adherence to the moral principles of republican, constitutional government. In a WND article right after McCain selected her as his running mate (Gov. Sarah Palin: Unequally yoked), I gave the reasons why. Later, when Charles Gibson asked her about Roe v. Wade she declared "I think that states should be able to decide that issue." In reaction, I wrote another article (Sarah Palin: Already compromised?) in which I observed that "Palin is being touted as an unequivocally pro-life politician…Her words suggest that, on the contrary, she regards the issue of respect for innocent life as a matter of personal opinion rather than public principle…." I went on to point out that "making a pro-life icon of someone who takes this falsified "states' rights" position and who, at the same time, relegates her pro-life views to the status of "personal opinion", places the pro-life movement firmly on the path of self-destruction." I cautioned that "If the issue of respect for innocent human life is simply a matter of "personal opinion," what justifies government interference (at any level) in the personal decision of the woman carrying the child, or the parents who provided the genetic material from which its life derives?...Where no overriding public interest can be ascertained, the state cannot impose its moral opinions upon individuals without infringing the freedom of conscientious decision essential for the free exercise of religion (which is also counted among our unalienable rights.)"
In these past writings, as in the latest one, I have tried to reason clearly and carefully about the issues of public principle and policy raised by Sarah Palin's words and actions. Unfortunately, both Palin's fans and the leftist media hacks who act as her detractors have focused on her personal life. The fans want people to accept her loving commitment to her Down syndrome child as conclusive evidence that she is a pro-life champion. Her detractors snipe about her temperament, or make reprehensible so-called jokes about her family members, trying with ridicule and character assassination to manipulate public opinion against her. Meanwhile, her fans respond as if these rabid attacks conclusively prove that she is the conservative champion of principled morality they so desperately want her to be.
Unfortunately, as I argued in the articles cited above, ugly media attacks don't' alter the facts that show, logically and conclusively, that she is not such a champion.
Now I find readers like David, who left a comment on this site, declaring his view that my latest piece "is what I would expect from the mudslinging left." This reaction exposes the insidious nature of this whole contrived situation. Once we accept "personal" matters (of action or opinion) as the basis for our support or rejection of political leaders, anyone who opposes them can be accused of mudslinging and slander, even when their opposition is based on careful reasoning about public policy and constitutional principle.
Like so much else going on in our public discussion these days, this makes fear rather than truth the standard of our public discourse. In my case it would be fear of being unfairly attacked as an un-Christian replicant of the left-wing character assassins. This reminds me of what liberal blacks have tried for years to do on account of my rejection of their leftist cant on welfare issues. In both cases my response must be the same, precisely because of Christ's example. I will try to follow what careful and conscientious reasoning from right principle leads me to believe is true. I will leave in God's hands the integrity of my identity. In the end, he knows the right name for me and will recognize me for what I am.
I could of course simply say nothing as others promote Palin as a representative of the constituency of moral principle. Unfortunately, when she proves inadequate to the task, human vanity will lead many to doubt the viability of the moral cause, rather than their own lack of discernment about the flaws in her public policy stances on the key moral issues. Such doubters will sow confusion and demoralization in the ranks of moral conservatives. This may in fact be the result intended by some of those who helped promote Palin to national prominence, though they tacitly despise the moral constituency she is supposed to represent. By speaking out, will people like me help to mitigate this bad result? Will our warnings prevent well intentioned people from relying too much upon a false hope? If so, it's worth the risk of being unpopular with Palin fans who insist that reasonable criticism of her public policy views and actions is no different than the partisan media's malevolent personal attacks.