Wednesday, September 30, 2009

nyt: Refusing to ask the pertinent question

Thomas L. Friedman wrote a New York Times opinion-editorial piece, Where Did ‘We’ Go?

Even if you are not worried that someone might draw from these vitriolic attacks a license to try to hurt the president, you have to be worried about what is happening to American politics more broadly.

Mr. Friedman's point that death threats and discussions about B. Hussein Obama are wrong - cannot be disputed. The America promised in the US Constitution is a nation of rule by law - extra-legal acts are against those laws. That should be simple enough for everyone to understand.

But Mr. Friedman takes a surface view only. He looks at who badmouths and belittles - and threatens - who.

I personally find that B. Hussein Obama has exceeded his authority under the Constitution. Constitutionally provided checks and balances - the Congress and the Supreme Court have not addressed those abuses of office. Congress persistantly aids and abets, in some cases, as in the hounding and badgering - for public consumption and political gain - AIG bonuses, an issue that should have been beneath the notice of Congress, in the larger issues facing America.

The Supreme Court, with it's newly appointed racially bigoted political hack justice, Sotomayor (and what did Obama do to get Souter to resign?), has yet to address Obama interfering in the restructure - and firing a CEO - of GM and Chrysler.

Pelosi/Reid/Obama have chosen to wield their power for political gain, for corrupt enrichment of hangers-on, and to punish those with wealth they covet. This is a dangerous, dangerous action, taken in such a way that they create a scenario where the safeguards of the Constitution are thwarted. In effect, by acting as tyrants, by enacting whatever they want in the face of popular opposition, they create a sense of desperation in their opponents. Desperate opponents need to see formal safeguards in action - or desperate responses may be tried.

Since taking office, President B. Hussein Obama has taken frequent steps to curtain and interfere with gun ownership, and frequently denied plans and actions taken. This pattern of bald-faced deceit has raised the hackles, paranoia, desperation, and anger of his opponents. No one doubts that Obama still intends further attacks on gun ownership - in flat defiance and disregard of the Bill of Rights - but is biding his time, planning his next moves.

This is not the way I believe a President governs in a constitutional government. In fact, I believe President Obama has violated his oath of office - to support and defend the Constitution, and thus should be impeached. I am firmly convinced that for now, the US House of Representatives is flatly incapable of honoring it's duty to consider and serve a bill of impeachment if warranted. I am convinced that the Pelosi-led House would block consideration of a bill of impeachment of the President, and would, on party lines, neglect to consider the merits of holding the President to the contents of the US Constitution, and to his oath of office. That is, the Pelosi-led House is acting in a tyrannical manner.

Reid has less of a political plurality to work with, but seems even less likely to follow the path of honor than political expedience. His Senate confirmed Sotomayor, after all. And continues to confirm fringe, radical, bigoted, and anti-American Obama appointees.

Are we to the point where the Declaration of Independence states, "When in the course of human events . . ."? I am offended at the Obama administration, and the Democrat-led Congress that this question occurs to me.

Mr. Friedman, you lament the "dangerous" atmosphere endangering our President. I do as well. But from my chair in Oklahoma, it seems that organized labor and radical elements of the Democratic party are largely to blame for making villains of opposing candidates.

As for the birth certificate - three supposed facts keep the issue alive for me. Kenya, as a nation, believes Obama to be their native son. The certificate of live birth from Hawaii is incomplete as a birth certificate of a natural born citizen of the United States, not requiring that the birth took place at the facility cited. B. Hussein Obama has spent time, energy, and effort to conceal the original of his birth certificate. In addition, there are so many questions about Obama's background, including who financed his Ivy League college education, what his participation was in the Chicago politics that sold his Senate seat - did those same factors buy it for him in the first place? Obama claims to be Christian, with a 20 year membership in Rev. Wright's racially polarized congretion. Yet, within days of publication about that congregation, Obama no longer belongs - was it faith that kept him going to church, political expediency, or a cover for the Muslim beliefs of his early schooling and childhood?

It seems incredible to me that a closet-raised, inept, unschooled person could make as many foreign affairs blunders by accident. If President Obama isn't deliberately trying to dismantle America's place in world stability - by giving away our honor, our promises, our friendships - he sure makes himself look stupid. And this from a background of world travel, Ivy League education, and a sitting US Senator.

I think the right place to start is an intense review of the most polarizing efforts by Congress and the President. Let supporters and opponents hear the arguments, and ask their questions. Let bills and actions be submitted for public comment and review. Act as representatives of the nation, rather than autocrats ruling with an iron fist and no concern about nay-sayers.

I actually think that the atmosphere of antagonism can be returned to a hashing of issues quite readily. It just takes all parties allowing their pet agendas to be legal, shaped by all interested parties, and a dedication to rule of law and the Constitution. There are laws and procedures and best practices in place for all of this. Let the leaders show that the Constitutional protections against tyranny are in place and that they work. That would be a really worthwhile change.


  1. There is no proof that Obama was born in Kenya. There is excellent proof, in the official legal documents, confirmed by authorities, that he was born in Hawaii.

    Neither his Kenyan grandmother, nor anyone else, ever said that he was born in Kenya. His Kenyan grandmother actually said that he was born in Hawaii. This can be clearly heard if you listen to the complete recording of the tape, which is on Berg’s site. The complete recording includes a question asking “Whereabouts was he born?” And her answer was: “America, Hawaii.”

    Here is the complete recording on Berg’s site. Be sure to listen for at least five minutes until the question is asked. (

    If it is too difficult to listen to the complete tape, here is a transcript (

    There have been NO official documents from Kenya (numerous forgeries, however) that say that Obama was born in Kenya, and the only organization to have claimed that there are documents “sealed” in Kenya is WND. Its reports have not been confirmed by anyone. (And it would be easy to confirm because all you have to do is to find out if there are files which area sealed). There are hundreds of journalists in Kenya, and the fact that there were sealed files would be news.

    Moreover, IF a child had been born in Kenya and subsequently came to the USA, there would be US documents showing that the trip took place. That is because if a child were born in Kenya, she or he would have to have either a US visa on a British passport or be issued its own US passport while in Kenya. IF either of those took place, there would still be US records in the US embassy in Kenya and in the US State Department in Washington, and they would have been found by now, and they have NOT been found.

    All the allegations of Obama’s birth abroad were checked out by the McCain campaign, and they found that there were no facts. No facts at all. (

    It is strange to believe that Obama’s mother even left Hawaii during pregnancy. Pregnant women rarely traveled long distances in 1961 because of the fear of stillbirths. Moreover, in 1961, to travel to Africa required a Yellow Fever shot, which is very bad during pregnancy.

    There is NO proof that she left Hawaii before Obama was born. (NO one has even shown that she had a passport.) No proof that she went to Kenya, and no proof that Obama was born there.

  2. There is an official birth certificate, whose facts were confirmed by two officials in Hawaii, that he was born in Hawaii.

    He provided his birth certificate, the official birth certificate of Hawaii. (

    Obama put it on his web site, and showed the physical document to both Polifact and Factcheck. So, he has shown the physical document.

    The document that he has shown is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii. It is accepted by ALL the departments in Hawaii as proof of birth in Hawaii (Yes, including DHHL. I checked, they prefer the original, which some people have, but they accept the Certification as proof of birth in Hawaii) The US State Department and US Military also accept the Certification as proof of birth in Hawaii.

    The facts on the Obama birth certificate, that he was born in Hawaii in 1961, were confirmed by the two officials of the Hawaii government who looked into his file. (

    The Wall Street Journal also notes that it is the official document. It said: “Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement.”

    Many states now issue only short-form birth certificates. They are legal documents, and when they have the raised seal and signature as required by the US State Department, they are accepted by the State Department. (Obama’s physical document has the seal and signature, as shown in FactCheck’s detailed photograph).

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