I’m trying to figure out why so many believe that birthers’ obsession with President Obama’s “missing” birth certificate will hurt the GOP.  I have received e-mails from friends and acquaintances–and not just liberal friends and acquaintances–warning of the damage birthers could inflict on my party.

And this despite the fact that no leading Republican has attached himself to the issue, saying that Obama may be ineligible to serve as President.  Indeed, not one single House Republican voted against the House resolution “declaring Barack Obama a native of” Hawai’i.

Yet, “Media Matters, Think Progress, and a host of left-wing blogs all became obsessed with the Birther theory and movement in the past month, as opposition mounted to Obama’s health care plans.”  They want to turn attention from the flaws in the President’s policies to the supposed zaniness of his adversaries.

So, if the obsession of a handful of right-wingers is supposed to define, damage and possibly destroy the GOP, why doesn’t the obsession of a substantial number of left-wingers in the private live of the former Governor of Alaska threaten to define, damage and possibly destroy the Democratic Party?

Nearly every sensible conservative blogger I’ve read over the past few days has taken issue with the birthers, joining Bob Owens (and me) in stating that we believe (indeed, we are certain) that Barack Obama was born in the USA.  Have as many liberal bloggers (and pundits) taken left-wingers to task for making much of Mrs. Palin’s private life, publishing unsubstantiated gossip as if it were confirmed fact?  

And even if they had taken those left-wingers to task, wouldn’t (by the logic applied to the birthers and GOP) the very fact that left-wingers were peddling such sordid rumors about that good woman be enough to taint the entire Democratic Party?

In a comment to a recent post, reader Paul expressed one of the standard (but inaccurate) criticisms leveled against the Republican Party:

In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away their rights) 

Many of those who offer this opinion have never talked (for any extended period of time) with a Republican, have never attended a Republican gathering and have rarely (if at all) read essays, Op-eds or blog posts where Republicans talk about their overarching political philosophy or the policy proposals they advocate.  They get their news about us from the MSM and left-wing blogs.

 It’s amazing how misinformed these critics are about the object of their derision.

While there is abundant evidence from the current Congress of Democratic legislation which would push their ideology on others, limiting our liberty and regulating the way we build our homes, run our businesses, purchase our health insurance and interact with others in the marketplace, I wonder if Paul (and others who offer the same criticism of the GOP he does) can he (or others who share his viewpoint) can cite actual legislation Republicans have proposed which would “push” our beliefs on others?

Legislation that they have pushed with as much vigor as the Democratic President and congressional leadership has pushed their statist agenda?

He wants to keep the issue alive as a distraction from his agenda.

The better to smear Republicans.

Similar to the point I made over the weekend about most of the health care debate missing the point, that it should be about individual liberty, not about cost savings or sad-sack stories about people in need (a point, of course, even better made by Mark Steyn in the NRO piece to which I linked), there’s an analagous dissonance when it comes to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Today we find that the Midwest may be receiving some of the detainees from GITMO, and that’s starting to rile the locals in flyover country. Naturally, folks there (and anywhere they’re given the chance to respond, if asked) don’t care for terrorists living in their midst, even if under “maximum security”. This concern is given even greater weight when we look at what some incarcerated terrorists are trying to do.

But the story becomes even more chilling (and bizarre) when we read that the “Justice Department has identified about 80 detainees who could be charged and prosecuted, either in military or federal criminal courts.”

CHARGED?

For those paying attention, this seems odd. These “detainees” are NOT criminals. They are NOT being held on criminal warrants or accusations of crimes. They are COMBATANTS (illegal, at that) in a war that is currently ongoing. They are not being held at Guantanamo Bay because they are awaiting trial for allegedly committing crimes. They were not “harshly interrogated” to elicit confessions to be used against them in a trial. They are active fighters in a war. War, people, WAR.

Japanese and Germans captured during WWII were not put on trial until AFTER the war, and at that time, it was for war crimes. Those prisoners were not given trials while the war was going on for some sort of crime. They weren’t afforded rights of the accused, because they weren’t being held as accused. They were being detained to keep them off the battle field.

As much as the Left wishes this weren’t a war, they’re wrong. And their confusion over the situation is truly confounding. It’s often said that these people at GITMO “aren’t your petty theives.” They didn’t simply steal a car or even beat someone up. When we argue from that standpoint, we’re conceding the biggest point of all: Not that their supposed “crimes” are more abhorrent than a common crook, but that any supposed “crimes” have anything at all to do with why they’re there.

Sometimes I feel like I’m the crazy one, ya know?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Again, I’m preaching to the choir, I know. Anybody who reads this blog regularly won’t be surprised to find that Barack Obama’s plan all along has been to Stalinize the entire health care industry, and he’s lying through his tobacco-stained teeth when he says it isn’t. Hell, even the lurkers and “little letter” people who swoop in to show their ignorance can’t really deny it. Well, they try sometimes, but now, thanks to Breitbart and an industrious YouTuber, we have the following montage:

It’s too bad I don’t have cable here at HQ. I’d love to see this on ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN. I’m sure they’re all running it at the top of the hour tonight, no?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

In a Western society, when someone commits a barbaric act, emergency services rush to the scene of the crime to try to save as many people as possible while the police and other investigative organizations start to seek out clues and sift through evidence in order to to determine the cause of the crime and to apprehend and prosecute the perpetrator.

In the wake of the attack Saturday on a gay and lesbian center in Tel Aviv, that is exactly what Israeli organizations and authorities have been doing.  Even officials at the highest levels of Israeli government have responded, with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu considering it during his weekly cabinet meeting and the Israeli Knesset committing to address the issue “when the legislature convenes [today] for an already-scheduled special recess session.”

Sending “condolences to the families of the two people killed in the attack and wish[ing] the wounded a speedy recovery,” Netanyahu decried the massacre:

I unequivocally condemn the shocking murder. . . . I have spoken with Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch and stand by the police in searching for and finding the killer. We will bring him to justice and will prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. . . . 

I say to the Israeli people: We are a democratic country, we are a country of tolerance, a country of laws, and we must respect every person, whoever and wherever he is.

It is good to see the leader of a nation speak out so swiftly and unequivocally about these murders.  Let us hope his blunt talk leads to the quick apprehension of the killer and his speedy prosecution.

So should all leaders react, publicly showing respect for the dignity of each individual, regardless his background, regardless what aspects of his (or her) character cause him to differ from the social norm. 

Also to note is the number of Israeli officials who called this a terror attack–which it was.

Both Glenn and Michelle (in her Buzzworthy column) linked posts addressing comments Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made recently about the budget.

Suggesting that the government may have to raise taxes on the middle class, Geithner contended that to “bring these deficits down” requires “some very hard choices.”  Why can’t the Administration make such hard choices by cutting government spending even if that means defying the various interest groups which helped secure the President’s election last fall.

As “Jefferson,” commenting to Michael Silence’s blog (linked by Glenn) wrote:   “if I want to lower my annual widescreen plasma TV outlays, I don’t negotiate a volume deal with my local electronics retailer, I just stop buying them.”

Congressional Republicans lost their majority, in large part, because they refused to make the hard choices voters elected them to make, to stand up to interest groups and lobbyists and hold the line on government spending.  Democrats did well these past two election cycles in large measure because the people had lost confidence in Republicans’ abilities to make such choices.

Now, we see Democrats refusing to make such choices and contending that their only “choice” is to make a very hard choice, Obama’s campaign promise notwithstanding, and raise taxes on the middle class.

Will we ever elect politicians who choose to cut spending?

Mark Steyn at NRO hits the health care nail squarely on the head in a piece published yesterday. What I’ve been screaming since the debate began (and goes along great with my New Independence Movement concept) he has a much better way of saying calmly and to great effect: That we concede the noble high-ground if we allow the debate to be about anything other than liberty and responsibility. I remember from history class that this Nation fought a war for that once. From Steyn:

How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?

Too much in this great piece for me to cut-and-paste the good stuff. You MUST read the whole thing.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Well, this shouldn’t surprise anybody (who’s been paying attention and never believed the HYPE in the first place):

2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won’t go up

- Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Perhaps I should never have blogged on this issue.  It’s not one I think about very much.  About the time I first heard about the issue of Obama’s missing birth certificate, I had also read the Republican Governor of Hawai’i, Linda Lingle, had seen the certificate which showed that Barack Obama was indeed born in the Aloha State.  As far as I was concerned, the case was closed.

But, then, this week, it seemed that each passing day I checked the various blogs and news-sites I read, there were more posts on the “birther” issue.  The U.S. House even voted on the issue.  So, I hacked out a quick post, basically echoing what a variety of bloggers on both sides of the political aisle were saying–that the president should release the certificate so we could move on.

(Also wondering if poll DailyKos commissioned triggered the latest round of discussion on this issue.)

Yet, some of our critics, apparently since I raised the issue and am a conservative, put words into my mouth so they could criticize them.  They acted as if I shared the view of the “birthers” that the president was not born in the USA, even though I said the exact opposite:

I believe Barack Obama was indeed born in the United States and has met the constitutional requirements to serve as President 

Not just that, I had written (in the very post):  ”Release the Birth Certificate to allow the focus to return to [the president's] agenda.”  In short, I only posted on the issue to say we needed to move on.

So, please feel free to criticize my posts, but when you do so, at least show me the courtesy of addressing the points I make, not the ones you want me to have made so you can attack me as representative of the rabid right winger you relish reproving.

A gunman dressed in black “burst into the basement of the Tel Aviv Gay and Lesbian Association” Saturday night, opening “fire on a support group for gay teenagers.” He fled the scene.

Not only have police “have launched a massive manhunt for the perpetrator“, but

Large numbers of emergency vehicles [have also] converged on the scene, and patrol cars could be seen scouring the area for the gunman. A police crime scene investigation unit gathered evidence from the scene and a gag order was later placed on the details of the investigation.

It is truly a sad day and reminder that no matter how open a society may be, how tolerant it is, hatred still surfaces.  Israel has been the most tolerant nation in the Middle East for gay people, with gay Palestinians fleeing to the Jewish state for refuge, a place where they can live openly.   Note also how speedily Israeli authorities have reacted to the crime, rushing to save the lives of the victims and to search for the perpetrator.

Even in such an open society, prejudice persists, particularly among the extreme Orthodox.  At least one of the religious parties has condemned the attack.  In a statement, the Shas faction condemned any use of violence:

The attacker must be located quickly and judged severely. Murder naturally contradicts the way of Torah and any harm is against the religion of Israel.

At least some religious extremists seek to punish the murderers of gay people.  And condemn this vile deed.

Words cannot convey my own sadness right now when I think that people just like, just like I was, not all that many years ago were murdered in a place they sought refuge as they were only beginning to come to terms with their difference from the social norm.  Where they had hoped to find a safe environment where they could be open about themselves, they were instead subject to the worst form of barbarism, cold-blooded murder.

We grieve for these young people who lost their lives and pray with their familes.

Given all the issues on my plate and my departure for San Francisco tomorrow (I’m blogging before bed Saturday night in LA), I won’t have much time to blog on the passing of former Filipiino President Corazon Aquino, described by the AP as “the beloved democracy icon who swept away a dictator and inspired nonviolent resistance to autocratic rule.”

What the AP doesn’t mention was how the Reagan Administration helped her achieve that status, arranging for the exile of Ferdinand Marcos, the pro-American dictator she ousted in a popular election in 1986.  Marcos had claimed he won, yet few outside of his circle believed him.   With hundreds of thousands protesting the result and the military divided, some then feared civil war might break out.   (Remind you of something else in the news recently?)

Alas that the AP is reluctant to report the support the Gipper gave to democracy, a legacy which endures today in the Phillipines.  Let us hope that with the passing of Mrs. Aquino. Reagan’s successor takes note of the near quarter-century of democracy in this Asian archipelago and learns from one of the Gipper’s many successes.

And let us all remember the courage and principle of this late, great lady, Corazon Aquino.

Of the issues that I have thought a lot about over the years, I have blogged the least about abortion.   My views on the issue have been in constant flux.  I used to consider myself a pro-lifer, having twice participated in the March for Life when I lived in DC.

Perhaps, as part of my general libertarian lurch while living in the Golden State, I have found myself moving into the pro-choice camp, though still favoring certain restrictions on the practice.  To be sue, the arguments of the pro-choicers did little to sway me; they’re not very good at making the case for the cause they champion.  It was more my own experiences, listening to women who had had abortions.  Some, I grant, had them just to dispose of what had become an inconvenience (I was not very sympathetic with these women), others because they bore a child which, amniocentesis revealed, had severe deformities which made Down Syndrome seem normal by comparison.

I still struggle with the issue and don’t think I’ll ever reach a conclusion with which I feel entirely comfortable.

While I reluctantly* believe that the state should allow abortions in certain circumstances, I remain sympathetic to a good many pro-lifers, aware of the sincerity of their advocacy.  Given their deeply held views, given even the ambivalence of many who struggle with the issue, I join them in supporting the Hyde Amendment, barring the federal government from funding abortions.

I would daresay a majority of Americans support that provision, even those of us who do not want to ban all abortions.  And for this reason, my meddlesome Congressman Henry Waxman seems to have created an issue which can help bring libertarian-inclined Republicans and social conservatives together.   Indeed, he may help make abortion part of the glue which holds the GOP together.

You see, as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Waxman “invoked House rules” to defeat an already-passed amendment to his health care bill barring that measure from imposing requirements for coverage of abortion.  After apparently strong arming Tennessee Democrat Bart Gordon to change his vote, the provision was defeated.

Without this amendment, it is entirely possible that the government could mandate coverage for abortion.  Tell that to the American people.  You’re going to get a lot of the ambivalent pro-choicers eager to join forces with pro-lifers in opposition to this legislation–and in outrage against those who would try to get others to pay for a practice they abhor.

* (more…)

Holding views similar to those of blogging law professor William Jacobson, I believe the “birther” story has released critical mass in large part because Obama supporters want to paint the President’s critics with a broad brush, as if we’re all extremists.  Why else would left-wing extremist website (DailyKos) have commissioned a poll on this topic for unhinged leftists to wave around in much the same manner as some of the birthers wave around their facts?

One reason the “birthers” have gained so much traction in America is that while promising a new era of transparency, Barack Obama has been less than forthcoming about his own past, misrepresenting his relationship with William Ayers, refusing to release his transcripts from Occidential College or Columbia University and offering evasive explanations about his youthful years in Indonesia.  He could clear up a lot if he, as past presidents have done, just released the various documents.

In my initial post on the topic, I noted that I was impressed with the awarenes many “birthers” have of the issue which so animates them.  They, like our reader Charlene in commenting to my post, marshal a good deal of eividence when I argue that they’re making much ado about nothing.

Charlene does, however, raises one issue which makes me wonder if maybe I’ve been wrong to dismiss this issue altogether.  If there were nothing to hide then why would Obama spend nearly three-quarters of a million dollars keeping the records secret?  Another reader, Silverwolf, contends there are two camps of birthers, considering himself part of the second, those believing “there is something on the birth certificate that would be rather embarrassing to be found out.“  That notion makes a lot of sense.  Ashpenaz has a theory what that supposedly embarrasing fact might be.

And while the DailyKos poll suggests a majority of Republicans falls in the first camp, the real question for those on the left who want to use that number to trash Republicans is this:  if so many rank-and-file Republicans support the birthers, why aren’t leading GOP politicians making more of this issue?  Can these lefties identify any national Republican who has supported the birthers?  Are they aware that no House Republican voted against the resolution declaring Obama a native of Hawai’i?

My Congressman voted “present.”  Maybe he did it to honor the president’s legislative record in Illinois.  Or maybe he’s a closet birther.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Sonicfrog reminds me why I had long ago lost interest in this issue:   “Yet, when the Republican Governor of Hawaii Linda Lingle declares that she’s seen the original and declares Obama a natural born citizen, well, this inconvenient fact is shrugged off.”  Believing this good woman, I paid the issue no heed until it was all over the blogosphere this past week.

Perhaps, I shouldn’t have blogged on this, given the number of our perennial critics who have faulted me for saying the exact opposite of what I actually said.  But, then again, this isn’t the first time, they’ve put words into my mouth so they can fault me for saying them.

As we see the “media narrative” about Obama begin to shift in the month just concluded, we become increasingly aware just how fawning their coverage of Barack Obama had been, with many suggesting his life story and rhetorical prowess alone would guarantee a successful presidency.

But, now as he tries to govern, people begin to see just how he has failed to fulfill his campaign promises of transparency, wise oversight of the federal government and fiscal discipline.  With the president’s record in office does match his rhetoric on the campaign trail, his poll numbers begin to tumble. As long as he didn’t need to govern, he could sustain his popularity.

Obama’s campaign rhetoric and the Republican failure to stay true to the party’s principles of smaller government (in January 2008, Democrats held a 22-point advantage “on the question of which party would do a better job in handling the federal budget deficit“) enabled him to capture the votes of independents (and even some Republicans) concerned about the size of the federal government.   Ed Driscoll believes the president’s poll numbers might not be “listing” as much as they are had

. . . he governed as the moderate centrist he originally held himself out to be (or was perceived as by say, David Brooks, Chris Buckley, etc.) instead of attempting to transform a wildly diverse economy into a command and control corporatist version. . . .

Jennifer Rubin concurs:

It is not hard to conclude that Obama has been caught trying to pull off a bait and switch — he ran as a moderate and is governing as a left-winger. With ample evidence that they have been conned, the voters are now registering their disapproval.

And who perpetrated this con?  There was ample evidence from Obama’s public record that he was anything but the new kind of politician he claimed to be in his campaign.

Did people want to believe his rhetoric because they liked his life story?  That’s what Ben Stein thinks:  “They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.“  The media made it easier for the American people to take Obama on faith.  They obscured the record of his dubious associations, his campaign tactics commonplace in the corrupt city where he first rose to power and his very liberal voting record.

Throughout his career, Barack Obama has been little more than a liberal politician, spouting the nostrums of social Democrats and other critics of capitalism who dominate American universities.  And he has been a bare-knuckled politician of the Chicago mode.  He has succeeded in obscuring his partisan reality underneath his cool veneer and personal charm.

Guess the media is only a “watchdog on power” when Republicans wield, or aspire to wield, such power.

As a sign that discussion of  “birthers” claims that the President was not been born in the United States has reached feverit pitch, the House of Representatives earlier this week “unanimously passed a resolution stating that Obama was born in Hawaii.“  Echoing David Kuhn, blogging law professor William Jacobson believes “discussion of the birth certificate issue has exploded in the past month, pushed mostly by Obama supporters as part of a political tactic against Republicans.”

It seems that tactic has failed.  Unanimous passage of a House resolution means no Republicans voted against this resolution.  A slightly higher percentage of Democrats did not vote on the measure than did Republicans.

Over the past few months, I have talked to quite a few “birthers” and while not sharing their skepticism about the place of Obama’s birth, I am impressed with their awareness of the “missing” evidence.  Yet, just because evidence is missing does not mean it’s not there. (And in this case, it’s not missing, just not publicly available.)  I believe Barack Obama was indeed born in the United States and has met the constitutional requirements to serve as President (whether he has the qualities to govern effectively is another issue altogether).

A House vote is not likely to satisfy the birthers.  To them, the evidence is still missing.  The only way to quiet their drum beat would be for the President to authorize the release of his birth certificate.  After all, didn’t he promise a new era of unprecedented transparency when he took office?

Bloggers across the political spectrum are in accord with conservative Bob Owens who echoes the HuffingtonPost‘s Mark Joseph in urging the President to release the certificate:

Officials in Hawaii have confirmed that the original, long-form paper birth certificate filled out at the time of President Obama’s birth exists. The President can easily ask them to release a copy of the document to the media to be photographed at high resolution, where it can be posted on news web sites and blogs around the word and debated and parsed, ultimately shutting down all but the most fringe elements of the debate, those that still believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that Ron Paul would have made a good President.

It only takes a phone call. Do this, Mr. President.

The President has it within his power to quiet this minor media firestorm.  Release the Birth Certificate to allow the focus to return to your agenda.

This morning, as I sipped my coffee and checked the news, I learned from a headline on Yahoo!’s homepage that the least popular freshman Senator \ relishes policy role in new position.  In Henry C. Jackson’s fawning profile of former funny man Franken, we hear nary a word of criticism about the Democrat.   Yet, it seems in every profile of Republicans, even on the speech by Tim Pawlenty, Governor of the state Franken represents in the Senate to the Republican National Committee meeting in San Diego, there is the required concluding criticism by a Democratic hack.

When, they write about Republicans, the AP always finds a Democrat to criticize the GOP. When they write about Franken, they quote the Democrat praising himself.

And then, “reporter” Jackson mentions what Franken “spokeswoman Jess McIntosh described as ‘a lively discussion’ with T. Boone Pickens.“  Yep, the AP relies on a Franken spokesman for coverage of this exchange.  Here’s what really happened:

Franken managed to make time for the lunch [with Pickens]— but then let Pickens have it afterward.

According to a source, the wealthy oil and gas magnate and author of “The First Billion Is the Hardest” stepped up to introduce himself to Franken in a room just off the Senate Floor after the lunch ended

Franken, who was seated talking to someone else, did not stand when Pickens said hello. Instead, Franken began to berate him about the billionaire’s financing of the Swift Boat ads in 2004.

According to a source, the confrontation grew heated

Looks like Al Franken picked a fight.  Doesn’t fit the image the AP wishes to convey of the Democrat as a thoughtful senator with a gift for policy.   So they limit their coverage to a description provided by the Democat’s spokesman.   Kind of sounds like the way he media treatment Obama in the campaign, focusing on his promises of a new kind of postpartisan politics and ignoring his actual record.

While the AP may wish to portray Franken as a smart policy wonk, this recent exchange shows him to be, in John Hinderaker’s words, “temperamentally unsuited to high office. A bitter, angry man, Franken has a long history of confrontations and fisticuffs.”

But, don’t expect the AP to report those facts about this mean-spirited Democrat.   You know, he is a Democrat after all.