ad banner for FDA Blunder and Coverup Kills Millions
Advertising Email FAQ Home RSS Search Speaking Townhall YouTube
Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity.
« | Main | »
February 08, 2010
John Hawkins Birtherism Is A Winning Political Issue? Gimmie A Break!
  (Read WP posts from John Hawkins) | (Read MT posts from John Hawkins) | rss

Joseph Farah from WorldNetDaily and Andrew Breitbart got into an argument at the Nashville Tea Party Convention about the birther issue. Not a shock there. But, something Joseph Farah said needs to be rebutted:

I told Farah that his speech was getting negative attention already, and that Breitbart, who’d taken the stage after him, had criticized the “birther” parts of the speech. Farah shook his head and walked over to Breitbart in what seemed like an attempt to debunk my question.

“Andrew is my friend,” said Farah. “He has the right to disagree, and he has the right to say anything to a socialist newspaper that he wants. And if he wants to criticize his friend to you, and he’s dumb enough to do that…”

Breitbart raised his eyebrows. “I’m dumb to do what?”

“Criticize your friend to this socialist newspaper.”

“I was talking to her,” said Breitbart, pointing to Schilling. “I was talking to you. And I was saying that I disagreed on the birther stuff.”

“OK, well, did you know that Dave Weigel from The Washington Independent was”–

“I was talking to her,” said Breitbart. “She was asking me if I thought it was to bring it up, and I said, no. We have a lot of strong arguments to be making, and that is a primary argument. That is an argument for the primaries that did not take hold. The arguments that these people right here are making are substantive arguments. The elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts were all won not on birther, but on substance. And to apply to this group of people the concept that they’re all obsessed with the birth certificate, when it’s not a winning issue–”

“It is a winning issue!”

“It’s not a winning issue.”
I'm not going to go through the whole birther argument again. At this point, I'll just say that Obama has released a valid Certificate of Live Birth given to him by the state of Hawaii and it lists his birth place as Honolulu. If that's not enough to convince you he was born in the USA, nothing else I say is probably going to do it either.

But, what I do want to get into is the idea that birtherism is a "winning issue."

You know what? It may be a winning traffic issue for WorldnetDaily, but the idea that it's a winning political issue is ridiculous.

Whatever you believe on the birther issue, here's the reality of it: There's a small, hardcore element on the right that buys into the idea that Barack Obama wasn't born in the US and really cares about the issue.

Then, there's a significantly larger group of people on the Right who don't like Obama, believe he lies about everything, and think if there's smoke, there's probably fire. So, they may believe that he wasn't born in Hawaii, but it's not a big issue for them one way or the other. Now, at the end of the day, are any of these people voting on the issue? Maybe a small, small percentage of the hardcore group, but that's it.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, although there have been a few Republicans who've come across like they're open to the idea that Obama wasn't born in the US, there's not a single Republican politican in DC who's willing to go on the record and flat out say that he doesn't believe that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. So obviously, they don't see any validity or political gain to be had there.

On the other hand, of course, liberals think it's a crazy conspiracy theory -- but, they're not alone. A large percentage of the people on the left, on the right, and in the center -- all not only believe that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, they believe it's ridiculous and conspiratorial to say otherwise.

Maybe that's because the people beating this drum the hardest  -- like Jerome Corsi and Joseph Farah--  spent years telling Americans that George Bush was going to merge the United States with Canada and Mexico to form a North American Union with an Amero currency. All of us remember when that happened, don't we? Oh wait, that was one of the dumbest conspiracy theories I've ever heard.

Long story short: birtherism has no place at conservative events or political campaigns and Republican politicians would be very wise to steer clear of it as much as possible.
Facebook MySpace Twitter del.icio.us Digg Newsvine Propeller Reddit Stumbleupon Technorati
    Share this article!
I like! I don't like. Score: 4
Return to Top  John Hawkins | 12:48 pm | Permalink Comments (View Comments)   Email this!  
Note: Comments and Trackbacks for this entry were closed as of February 15, 2010
  • That practically demands a reference. I've never seen that law.

    That Law is called the US Constitution. It requires that the POTUS be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which requires that the individual not only be born on US soil (that is a "native born citizen"), but that both parents be citizens as well.

    There is no other reason the qualifier "or a citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" would have been included. George Washington would not have been considered a natural born citizen because his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth, for example.

    The Founders' did not specify "native born", but "natural born". These are not synonymous. Obama is being treated as though any native born status would qualify him as POTUS, but he hasn't even shown legal proof of that.

    The term would have been understood by the Founders to mean a person born of two citizens of a country on the soil of a country. The legal reference The Law of Nations was used by the Founders (and was a major influence on what they called "Natural Law") in drafting the Constitution. It referred to the concept as follows:

    It is in respect of, and as a due return for, the protection every natural born subject is entitled to, and actually does, by law, receive from the instant of his birth that all the obligations of allegiance attach upon him, and from which he cannot by any act of his own emancipate himself.

    So, having been born the son of a British subject (as was Obama), he cannot emancipate himself of his obligations of allegiance to the Crown. This is precisely what John Jay was trying to head off when he wrote his letter to George Washington suggesting such language be included in the Constitution.

    Even if he can successfully show that he somehow shed that obligation, I would love to know why Mr. Obama has spent so much money (at least $900,000) trying to keep this information away from the public. I do believe it has something to do with the reasons his parents may have been abroad (in the case that he was born in Kenya), especially given that they were both radical progressives. If he was born in Hawaii, and that seems to satisfy a whole lot of people, then why would Mr. Transparency go to such effort and expense to keep the most conclusive proof from the public, even after having been ordered to show it by the courts?

    Even if you accept the COLB and consider him natural born on the basis of his supposed birth in Hawaii, doesn't it at least smell pretty bad to you that he won't just show his vault birth certificate and put the issue to rest? The point is that it won't put the issue to rest, but instead either raise even more questions than those that have already been asked or prove conclusively that he's not eligible.

    In the words of Patrick Henry, I smell a rat, and I want to know what's going on.

    I have also often stated in no uncertain terms that in the event that Mr. Obama demonstrates conclusively that he is eligible by (1) proving he was born in Hawaii, and (2) getting a final verdict on whether native born is good enough (in the event that the Senior Mr. Obama was, as has not been disputed, a British subject or other nationality) from the courts based on the Founders' original intent, that I will consider the matter closed and will not bring it up again except in his defense, except in a situation where we were defrauded in one of the above acts.
  • That practically demands a reference. I've never seen that law.
    Posted by CavalierX
    2010-02-09 08:16:00

    It doesn't exist, that's why.
  • DCS
    I'm going to have to agree with Cav here RWR, we really need some references.

    Personally, I think BHO is a usurper but there's no proof as yet. His policies are bad enough to fight on their own though, so if it ever comes out that he's not even legal, it would just be icing on the cake.
  • Also required is a generation of American parentage, that is to say, that both of his parents are required to have been US citizens at the time of his birth.


    That practically demands a reference. I've never seen that law.
  • Rose
    I don't agree with Hawkins on this issue, I find it similar to that of those who think charging John Kerry for treason for his attendance at the Parish Peace talks is also a losing issue, as they did the questions they entertained as to the guilt of Toady Chappaquiddick Kennedy's act of murder on Mary Jo Koepeckne.

    I don't think it is clean to let the entire Dim Party off the hook on these types of issues.

    Next thing you know, you'll stand by and watch the Dims elect men to high office even who hold knives to the throats of their prostitute girl friends.

    Everyone else has to produce their documents, and doesn't get a skate on it.

    Wimpy, Wimpy, Wimpy.

    You know the oldest rule in bureaucracy: "No job is finished until the paperwork is done."
  • True he would have had dual citizenship until age 18 if his father was considered a British subject in colonial Kenya, but Obama would have had to take action (like serving in the British military or formally renouncing his US citizenship) for it to have been an issue.

    Dual citizenship at ANY point in one's life disqualifies him from holding the office of POTUS.

    RWR
    www.rightwingrocker.com
  • Oh, he probably has it... but it contains something he wants hidden, like "Religion: Muslim" or something.

    Most likely, it involves something regarding his father's immigration status.

    Potentially very incriminating, indeed.

    RWR
    www.rightwingrocker.com
  • I'll just say that Obama has released a valid Certificate of Live Birth given to him by the state of Hawaii and it lists his birth place as Honolulu. If that's not enough to convince you he was born in the USA, nothing else I say is probably going to do it either.

    He has not.

    What Obama has presented is a Certification of Live Birth, which in 1961 Hawaii was issued to people born abroad as well as native Hawaiians. Its listing his birth place as Honolulu is also meaningless, as no documentation of place of birth was not required for issuance of this document. It's not worth the paper it's printed on.

    However, even if it can be conclusively demonstrated that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, he is not automatically qualified to serve as President of the United States. It only qualifies him as a native born citizen. Also required is a generation of American parentage, that is to say, that both of his parents are required to have been US citizens at the time of his birth.

    They were not.

    Stanley Ann Dunham was a citizen of the United States, but Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was not.

    Unless somehow, the senior Mr. Obama can be proven to have taken oaths of citizenship prior to the birth of the current occupant of the White House, he is not legally qualified for office according to the Constitution and Natural Law.

    RWR
    www.rightwingrocker.com
  • When enforcing the Constitution isn't a winning issue, America is in BIG trouble.

    RWR
    www.rightwingrocker.com
  • My My My, how soon they forget. The whole Obama is a Muslim idea was floated by those wonderful fold at Clinton 2008.
  • Crimsonfella
    You know liberals will lie and make up stuff and smear people that don't go along with their liberal policies and they get away with it all the time.While we on the right try to stick to the truth about our political opponents.Sometimes this seems like a losing strategy though.
  • Well that would be Cav and MikeM. You know, 2 of the 4 conservatives who had posted on the thread.


    And they endorsed the "birther" theory...where exactly?

    Oh right, nowhere.
  • D-Vega
    I think Mike was referring to a muslim named "Big Chunk".
  • Tom_pinko_Delay
    "You guys"? Who exactly are you talking about?
    Posted by mightysamurai
    2010-02-08 16:10:55

    Well that would be Cav and MikeM. You know, 2 of the 4 conservatives who had posted on the thread.

    You beef should be with the big chunk of the Muslim world that thinks Obama is Muslim, not with us for pointing out the obvious fact he's hiding something.
    Posted by Mike_M
    2010-02-08 16:11:47

    I didn't realize that a big chunk thinks he's Muslim. Which Muslims are those?
  • Mike_M
    "I love that you guys are still holding out for the "smoking gun" proof that Obama is a Muslim."

    I didn't say he was one now, but it's about the only reason he would refuse to release his actual long-form birth certificate instead of sending friendly partisans into the archives to inspect it before talking to the media.

    You beef should be with the big chunk of the Muslim world that thinks Obama is Muslim, not with us for pointing out the obvious fact he's hiding something.
  • I love that you guys are still holding out for the "smoking gun" proof that Obama is a Muslim.


    "You guys"? Who exactly are you talking about?

    Or did you just not bother to read the three or four conservative posts on this thread alone that openly question the "birther" theory?
  • StanW
    The man hasn't had the best 1st year in office.
    Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay 2010-02-08 15:38:59

    Kinda of amazing that he "hasn't had the best 1st year in office", what with soaring approval ratings and a filibuster-proof majority in Congress.

    It's like he is too incompetent or too stupid to get anything done.
  • Tom_pinko_Delay
    I love that you guys are still holding out for the "smoking gun" proof that Obama is a Muslim. I got news for you: that one is not a winning political issue, either.

    Seriously, don't you have enough policy-based ammo to after him with? The man hasn't had the best 1st year in office.
  • D-Vega
    Seriously, this issue is toxic and if the conservatives want to build a movement, they should stay clear of this.

    If his policies are that out-of-touch, all this other stuff won't matter.

    Returning to the theories only makes it look like your positions aren't strong enough on their face to compete.
  • Mike_M
    The whole theory is moot anyways since Obama's mother is a US citizen. Obama became one the instant he was born whether it was in Hawaii, Kenya, or on the moon.

    True he would have had dual citizenship until age 18 if his father was considered a British subject in colonial Kenya, but Obama would have had to take action (like serving in the British military or formally renouncing his US citizenship) for it to have been an issue.

    He's hiding something (likely the "M" word), but I have yet to see any plausible scenario that demonstrates how he's not a natural-born citizen. Either his mother would have to not be American, or he would have had to renounce his US citizenship in some form.
  • I think it would be good political stragegy for obama to release the long form....if he has one.


    Oh, he probably has it... but it contains something he wants hidden, like "Religion: Muslim" or something.
  • tblrk2006
    I think it would be good political stragegy for obama to release the long form....if he has one. He could shut up people like me that think he is hiding something.
  • Crimsonfella
    Well if he was not really born in the US it would be foolish not to use it politically after how the Bush administration was smeared by the left however if he was born in Hawaii then it would not be a good political strategy to bring it up.
  • D-Vega
    I think it is indeed a winning issue. Every candidate should embrace this conspiracy theory immediately and stick to it no matter what evidence is presented.

    Don't back down. This is the issue of our time.
  • I, for one, don't care where he comes from. I'm far more concerned with where he's taking us.
blog comments powered by Disqus

ad banner for FDA Blunder and Coverup Kills Millions! (Bottom)
© Copyright 2001-2010 John Hawkins
eXTReMe Tracker