Birth document: The liars lost - - who won?
Congress should ensure forensic examination of certificate
Alan Keyes
The other shoe has dropped. As I predicted in a previous column:
This constitutes incontrovertible proof that he, his media claque (including snopes.com, etc.), and the gullible or cowardly politicians (Democrat and Republican alike) who repeatedly claimed that he had already done so, were lying. The people they derided and ridiculed as "birthers" were telling the truth. The Certification of Live Birth published on the Internet, which these liars repeatedly referred to as his birth certificate, was an abridged certification that omitted the vital information needed to verify that he was born on U.S. soil, and could therefore claim, jus soli, to be a citizen at birth.
The Certificate of Live Birth released on Wednesday specifies the hospital where he was born and includes the signature of the attending physician. Assuming that it is not a convenient fabrication, it constitutes prima facie evidence as to the matter of fact involved in the eligibility controversy. The liars and dupes who asserted or accepted the Certification of Live Birth as his birth certificate will now contend that this ought to end the controversy. But since they were either lying or deceived up to now, it hardly matters what they contend. They ought properly to be accorded little or no credibility.
But until it has been submitted to forensic examination by unbiased and trustworthy experts, the same must be said of the document released Wednesday. Several years of now incontrovertibly proven deceit have generated a poisonous atmosphere of distrust. It cannot be dispelled except by careful steps, intended to reassure the many score millions of Americans who must now deeply resent the studied and deliberate campaign of deception and ridicule waged against them.
But more telling than this distrust of the evidence is the inevitable distrust of Barack Obama himself. Throughout this whole controversy, I and others like me have pointed to the fact that Obama could have ended it at once by releasing the requested documentation. We rightly pointed out that, having repeatedly sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, he had the moral duty and obligation to show, and be seen to show, respect for its authority. Impressed by this obligation, what sane, responsible public official would deliberately, stubbornly refuse to do so, particularly after assuming the presidency, the office most singularly responsible for preserving the Constitution's integrity?
Well aware of this logic, some people speculated that the actual birth certificate contained facts or information that would embarrass Obama, either by contradicting his own version of events or in some other way. But the document released this week is unexceptional in that respect. Assuming that it is what it purports to be, it provides no explanation whatsoever for Obama's stubborn campaign to withhold it from public scrutiny. Why would a sane, responsible public official, secure in his electoral claim to the nation's highest office, behave in a manner that resists and therefore derogates from the Constitution's authority? Why would he contrive, or allow others to contrive, the professional ruin and imprisonment of an honorable military officer who sought only to ascertain (as his officer's oath requires) that the orders he received came from a constitutionally lawful source of authority?
The Constitution derives from and represents the sovereignty of the American people. Each of Obama's responsible fellow citizens has the right to exercise a share in that sovereignty. Why, therefore, would a sane and responsible public official order or permit his lawyers and cronies to demean the standing and deride the concerns of these citizens as they seek to assure respect for the Supreme Law of the Land, the highest permanent expression of the sovereign will of the people of the United States?
Except we find a rational explanation for his conduct, Obama's actions must appear to be the result of some irrational and defensive pride, some insanely arrogant sense that the oath, duties, and lawful obligations of his position do not apply to him, as they have to the others who have occupied the office he claims. But we are in fairness forbidden to suspect Obama's moral sanity unless we also question the rationality of the politicians, judges, and media personalities who joined in the campaign of lies, ridicule, and derision intended to quell public insistence that due respect be shown for requirements plainly stated in the Constitution. In addition to demeaning the status and responsibilities of American citizenship, some of these people went so far as to suggest that the Constitution can be amended de facto by simple majority vote in a general election, casting aside the procedures for amendment the Constitution establishes.
As a government based on the consent and sovereignty of its citizens, the United States of America is the longest lived democratic constitutional republic known to history. That longevity is due, in large part, to the fact that for almost the whole of its existence, its responsible citizens and especially its public officials worked to seed and cultivate a patriotic love of the Constitution. Such constitutional patriotism embodies and stabilizes the people's sovereignty, so that, as Abraham Lincoln said, a government "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal ... can long endure." Never before in our history has a clique of so-called leaders acted in a way that systematically questions and undermines the responsibility of all Americans — plain citizens, military officers, and public officials alike — to show and be seen to show respect for the Constitution's authority.
The issue of Obama's eligibility is important only and precisely because such confirmed and visible respect for the Constitution is critical to the stability and survival of government of, by, and for the people. Donald Trump's unseemly boasting aside, it is thanks to the insistent common sense of ordinary Americans that Barack Obama has finally been compelled to take the first step toward apparently submitting to the nation's vital and honorable tradition in this respect. Is this the beginning of the end of the elitists' deliberate attempt to overthrow the sovereignty of the American people? That remains to be seen. Having by this first victory revealed the deliberate deception the elitists sought to impose upon the nation, citizens of goodwill must continue in their common-sense determination to assure that the eligibility issue is fully resolved, in a manner that respects the grave issue of constitutional integrity that is at stake.
The GOP leaders in the House of Representatives kicked off the new term by reading the Constitution of the United States into the record. Such lip service is not purely worthless, so long as the words it contains are implemented with integrity. In that spirit, will the House now move to demand proper forensic examination of the new evidence Obama has released? Will they put fealty to the Constitution above all fearful political considerations? Will they seek by proper constitutional means to assure a fair hearing for the issue, by due process of law, and including the issue of law the courts have refused to address, to wit: Does the phrase "natural born citizen" mean that both parents must have been U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth?
Deception, gullibility, and cowardice have prevented resolution of this whole matter for far too long. It is time for the elected representatives of the people to show themselves worthy of the courage and common sense of the people they are supposed to represent. Then and only then will this controversy be properly resolved; then and only then will the Constitution gain the victory. And it will not be a triumph for one person's vanity and ambition, or for any self-serving faction or party. Rather, it will be a victory for the sovereignty and self-government of the whole free people of the United States.
Originally published Apr. 29, 2011, at WorldNetDaily
April 29, 2011
The other shoe has dropped. As I predicted in a previous column:
When truth is being suppressed, people who refuse to accept the deception have every reason to be grateful to a well-known public figure who loudly trumpets his similar skepticism. But once the grateful public gathers behind him in sufficient numbers, his response to events can be portrayed as authoritative. Then it's just a matter of trotting out some contrivance intended to placate public opinion, one that superficially appears to resolve the matter, but without addressing what's really at stake. By the time the bellwether conveniently announces that he's satisfied, the grateful grassroots support he has received will have made him enough of a public opinion authority to discourage and stigmatize those tempted to challenge him. This will assure that, unlike Don Quixote's pasteboard helmet, the placatory contrivance is never made to undergo anything like real scrutiny.This constitutes incontrovertible proof that he, his media claque (including snopes.com, etc.), and the gullible or cowardly politicians (Democrat and Republican alike) who repeatedly claimed that he had already done so, were lying. The people they derided and ridiculed as "birthers" were telling the truth. The Certification of Live Birth published on the Internet, which these liars repeatedly referred to as his birth certificate, was an abridged certification that omitted the vital information needed to verify that he was born on U.S. soil, and could therefore claim, jus soli, to be a citizen at birth.
The Certificate of Live Birth released on Wednesday specifies the hospital where he was born and includes the signature of the attending physician. Assuming that it is not a convenient fabrication, it constitutes prima facie evidence as to the matter of fact involved in the eligibility controversy. The liars and dupes who asserted or accepted the Certification of Live Birth as his birth certificate will now contend that this ought to end the controversy. But since they were either lying or deceived up to now, it hardly matters what they contend. They ought properly to be accorded little or no credibility.
But until it has been submitted to forensic examination by unbiased and trustworthy experts, the same must be said of the document released Wednesday. Several years of now incontrovertibly proven deceit have generated a poisonous atmosphere of distrust. It cannot be dispelled except by careful steps, intended to reassure the many score millions of Americans who must now deeply resent the studied and deliberate campaign of deception and ridicule waged against them.
But more telling than this distrust of the evidence is the inevitable distrust of Barack Obama himself. Throughout this whole controversy, I and others like me have pointed to the fact that Obama could have ended it at once by releasing the requested documentation. We rightly pointed out that, having repeatedly sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, he had the moral duty and obligation to show, and be seen to show, respect for its authority. Impressed by this obligation, what sane, responsible public official would deliberately, stubbornly refuse to do so, particularly after assuming the presidency, the office most singularly responsible for preserving the Constitution's integrity?
Well aware of this logic, some people speculated that the actual birth certificate contained facts or information that would embarrass Obama, either by contradicting his own version of events or in some other way. But the document released this week is unexceptional in that respect. Assuming that it is what it purports to be, it provides no explanation whatsoever for Obama's stubborn campaign to withhold it from public scrutiny. Why would a sane, responsible public official, secure in his electoral claim to the nation's highest office, behave in a manner that resists and therefore derogates from the Constitution's authority? Why would he contrive, or allow others to contrive, the professional ruin and imprisonment of an honorable military officer who sought only to ascertain (as his officer's oath requires) that the orders he received came from a constitutionally lawful source of authority?
The Constitution derives from and represents the sovereignty of the American people. Each of Obama's responsible fellow citizens has the right to exercise a share in that sovereignty. Why, therefore, would a sane and responsible public official order or permit his lawyers and cronies to demean the standing and deride the concerns of these citizens as they seek to assure respect for the Supreme Law of the Land, the highest permanent expression of the sovereign will of the people of the United States?
Except we find a rational explanation for his conduct, Obama's actions must appear to be the result of some irrational and defensive pride, some insanely arrogant sense that the oath, duties, and lawful obligations of his position do not apply to him, as they have to the others who have occupied the office he claims. But we are in fairness forbidden to suspect Obama's moral sanity unless we also question the rationality of the politicians, judges, and media personalities who joined in the campaign of lies, ridicule, and derision intended to quell public insistence that due respect be shown for requirements plainly stated in the Constitution. In addition to demeaning the status and responsibilities of American citizenship, some of these people went so far as to suggest that the Constitution can be amended de facto by simple majority vote in a general election, casting aside the procedures for amendment the Constitution establishes.
As a government based on the consent and sovereignty of its citizens, the United States of America is the longest lived democratic constitutional republic known to history. That longevity is due, in large part, to the fact that for almost the whole of its existence, its responsible citizens and especially its public officials worked to seed and cultivate a patriotic love of the Constitution. Such constitutional patriotism embodies and stabilizes the people's sovereignty, so that, as Abraham Lincoln said, a government "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal ... can long endure." Never before in our history has a clique of so-called leaders acted in a way that systematically questions and undermines the responsibility of all Americans — plain citizens, military officers, and public officials alike — to show and be seen to show respect for the Constitution's authority.
The issue of Obama's eligibility is important only and precisely because such confirmed and visible respect for the Constitution is critical to the stability and survival of government of, by, and for the people. Donald Trump's unseemly boasting aside, it is thanks to the insistent common sense of ordinary Americans that Barack Obama has finally been compelled to take the first step toward apparently submitting to the nation's vital and honorable tradition in this respect. Is this the beginning of the end of the elitists' deliberate attempt to overthrow the sovereignty of the American people? That remains to be seen. Having by this first victory revealed the deliberate deception the elitists sought to impose upon the nation, citizens of goodwill must continue in their common-sense determination to assure that the eligibility issue is fully resolved, in a manner that respects the grave issue of constitutional integrity that is at stake.
The GOP leaders in the House of Representatives kicked off the new term by reading the Constitution of the United States into the record. Such lip service is not purely worthless, so long as the words it contains are implemented with integrity. In that spirit, will the House now move to demand proper forensic examination of the new evidence Obama has released? Will they put fealty to the Constitution above all fearful political considerations? Will they seek by proper constitutional means to assure a fair hearing for the issue, by due process of law, and including the issue of law the courts have refused to address, to wit: Does the phrase "natural born citizen" mean that both parents must have been U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth?
Deception, gullibility, and cowardice have prevented resolution of this whole matter for far too long. It is time for the elected representatives of the people to show themselves worthy of the courage and common sense of the people they are supposed to represent. Then and only then will this controversy be properly resolved; then and only then will the Constitution gain the victory. And it will not be a triumph for one person's vanity and ambition, or for any self-serving faction or party. Rather, it will be a victory for the sovereignty and self-government of the whole free people of the United States.
Originally published Apr. 29, 2011, at WorldNetDaily