Birtherism--the belief that President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States--is a cancer, a blight, a toxin eating away at the public consciousness. Consider what good shape we are in right now to really smack the Democrats around in 2010. And yet, every time I've turned on the TV or the radio this week, people are blathering about the Birthers.

Not that anyone talking about it agrees with them. Everyone from Coulter and Malkin on one side and Paglia and Gibbs on the other have emphasized about how messed up the Birthers are. They use words like "rabid", "crazy", and "fanatic". Moreover, although coverage of the "conspiracy" has recently picked up and contrary to the claims of Birthers that the media ignored the issue until now, serious discussion from a serious news outlet (I mean NR, of course) started in June of last year. It prompted then-candidate Obama to release a copy of his Certification of Live Birth ("COLB"), which irritatingly enough only encouraged the Birthers.

That's the problem with this little conspiracy and why I don't bother arguing with the Birthers anymore. Anything the President does gets twisted into evidence that he isn't a citizen. That's why I bailed so fast. As you can see from that link, I wasn't initially hostile to the idea that the President had something to prove. It's just...once he did, I moved on. Robert Gibbs is right. There is simply nothing the President can do that will satisfy the Birthers.

Even if he could release the "original" long-form certificate (which he can't--Hawaii only issues short-form COLBs), it wouldn't end the conspiracy-mongering. First, because the Birthers who are so certain that the COLB is faked and that the Hawaii officials who have claimed that the original record lists Obama's birth in Hawaii are never going to believe that a long-form provided by the President isn't fraudulent. Their insistence that everything will be fine as long as he releases just one more document is belied by the way they treated the COLB, which was deprived of credibility because it came from the President and was handled by Democrats. The demands to see the "long-form" certificate are thus convenient since it's the one thing the President can't provide and which, necessarily, is in the custody of Democrats in Hawaii right now.

Second, even were Obama able to produce the original or a certified "long-form" certificate, it wouldn't stop the conspiracy theorists who think he somehow renounced his citizenship as a child or can't be a natural born citizen if he ever held dual citizenship or--the most fringe and most offensive suggestion I've seen--that the children of aliens (legal or illegal) born in this country cannot be natural born citizens. The Birthers seem pretty desperate to carve out some exception to the American conception of birthright citizenship so as to exclude the President even if he was born in Hawaii.

Which leads me to the point I'd intended to start with: Birtherism is Bad. It's bad for you; it's bad for me. More importantly and for obvious reasons it's bad for the Republican Party. And most importantly it's bad for America. It is fundamentally anti-democratic. It is inherently anti-constitutional. Let me explain:

The Birthers want the courts to void an election and overthrow a President. That is not something that the Constitution gives courts the authority to do. In fact, the Founders kept the courts away from elections and away from sitting presidents. Ultimately, the Constitution gives Congress the power to unseat Presidents. Not the courts. Hence, when I say that Birtherism is inherently anti-constitutional, I mean they are asking for something so heinously contrary to American tradition that it makes my blood boil.

(Incidentally, that is why I have occasionally treated Birthers so poorly in the comments here and on Twitter and why we here at the HQ have entertained discussion on this topic so infrequently. People--including myself--tend to go from zero to FLAMING DEATH very fast on this topic.)

In the same vein, it is anti-democratic because they are looking to overturn the judgment of a majority of voters in this country that President Obama is eligible to serve. They want to disregard the wishes of a majority of voters. They want to throw out their votes. I find that equally offensive as their desire to ignore the Constitutional scheme with regard to removing Presidents from office.

The Twelfth Amendment gives to the Electors (that is, the members of the Electoral College) the power to vote for the President. Ultimately, it is their judgment--backstopped by Congress, which certifies their votes--that carries the day. And in the present case, the Electors deemed Obama fit for the Presidency. That should be the end of the discussion. The voters voted. The Electors elected. They fulfilled their constitutional roles and the courts have no business going around them.

Somewhere, somehow, people got the impression that all disputes are meant to be resolved by the courts. But it's just not true. The Constitution gives the courts no special authority to overrule the Electoral College. Many have suggested that the Constitution would not list requirements for the presidency if there was no one to enforce them. The Birthers are ignoring the most basic component of our democracy: the voters. They get to enforce the requirements for the presidency. The Birthers are ignoring the Electoral College. They also get to enforce the requirements for the presidency. And the Birthers are ignoring the Congress, which certifies the vote. All three are designated by the Constitution to participate in the process of choosing a President. Do you know who isn't constitutionally part of that process? The courts.

Which brings me to the lawsuits. They're bad, folks. Really bad. Most are poorly written, with formating errors and fractured English to make any person cringe. But more importantly, they are legally deficient. Many of the plaintiffs lack personal injury--like the guy who volunteered for duty in Afghanistan and then un-volunteered himself. Even more fail to state a cause of action; that is, a theory on which they are suing. This isn't entirely their fault, though. As I implied above, the law is not designed to unseat presidents. Most of the suits try and bootstrap their way there, but the real problem is that there is no remedy the courts can provide.

Setting aside for a minute the fact that the Constitution commits the power to remove sitting presidents to Congress and gives the courts no particular authority to depose them, what could a court do? Void all acts of the Executive Branch for the past six months? Order new elections? Declare McCain the winner? Install Biden as a replacement? Ask the Queen for her iPod back? You get the picture. The courts will rightly invoke the political question doctrine--the idea that it is merely a co-equal branch of government and not overseer of the other two--and decline to rule on the issue.

You may wonder, what about lawsuits short of asking to remove the President? Perhaps the Birthers could sue merely for the release of the original birth certificate or a long-form certificate. Sure, but now we're back to standing. How have you particularly been injured by the failure of the President (or the State of Hawaii) to release the original certificate when they've already released a COLB which is accepted by every court and agency, state or federal in the U.S.? You're not going to be put in any better position with regard to his constitutional eligibility for the presidency than you already are. Hence, no injury.

Now, the original birth certificate might contain other juicy information. I have conjectured that it might have an embarrassing religion listed (assuming that Hawaii listed religion like my own state of Texas did) or perhaps a scandalous father's name omitted. But no one is entitled to that information. It would not form the basis of a plausible lawsuit, though it would be ammunition the President would not want to give away.

Furthermore, holding out on this is making the President's political opponents look bad. It's certainly not costing him any time or money; his campaign paid for the early suits and now the DOJ is defending them. He can sit back and forget about the whole thing. In the meantime, Birtherism is a useful distraction from the real issues. As Drew observed earlier in the week, it's very convenient that just as Obama is getting pounded in the polls, Gibbsy finally wants to talk about Birtherism.

In short, my message is for the waverers: don't fall for Birtherism. First, the President is a natural born citizen; he proved it the only way current Hawaii law allows. Second, under no circumstances should you support a movement that wants the courts to start overthrowing lawful elections and, in fact, I want you to join me in condemning the very notion. Third, don't make this the Republican version of the "selected not elected" movement. It was ridiculous from the Left after Bush v. Gore. We really need to move on to the stuff that matters.

Update on the Futility of Trying to Engage Birthers:

It's probably more fun and at least as useful to just call them names. For example, a lunatic in comments:

If that COLB is authentic, then why is it Hawiaan officials tell us, "I saw the long document. It's legit." If this COLB was authentic, there would be no need for them to state this. The fact that they do shows their own admission that the COLB, which Obama has promoted as proof, is not proof at all.

Did you get that? Obama releases a COLB--the one and only document that Hawaii provides when you make a birth certificate request. People claim it's fraudulent. So Hawaii officials say it's accurate. Somehow, in their fevered little brains the fact that Hawaii officials had to publicly comment on this--owing to the Birthers own screechy protests--is taken as proof that the COLB is fraudulent. o_O

Another example, from a long-time commenter (this makes Baby Jesus cry):

It has legs because of Jug Ears's actions in trying to suppress the actual BC.

Suppress the "actual BC"? Oy. The COLB is out there. That's the document Hawaii gives you if you ask for a birth certificate. He has no obligation to show more than he has.

And this from a new one:

Is it really too much to ask for an elected President to show a Valid Birth Certificate?

He did, fruitcake. That it didn't satisfy you is your problem and (I wish) not mine or the President's.

Finally, the persistence in claims that Obama went to Pakistan using another citizenship (he didn't) or that his National Records EO somehow would keep Hawaii from releasing his birth certificate (it doesn't). But try explaining that to them. You just get frantic denials.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:35 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 1839 words, total size 11 kb.

Then-Senator Barack Obama, October 18, 2008:

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it's important for the American public to understand that the $750 billion rescue package, if it's structured properly, and, as president, I will make sure it's structured properly, means that ultimately taxpayers get their money back, and that's important to understand.

But there is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments.

Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. I haven't made a promise about...

SCHIEFFER: But you're going to have to cut some of these programs, certainly.

OBAMA: Absolutely. So let me get to that. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches.

Via: Baseballcrank

Lies...Just Lies... - Obama to Businessweek: "I haven't signed a bill that's raised taxes yet."

Posted by: Slublog at 05:20 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:13 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Especially now that the innovative effects of the old Tron are now crude?

Why yes, I am. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:15 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

It's dated 1961 and everything.

Posted by: Ace at 08:02 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Must type fast before the keyboard finishes melting (Also, the National Weather Service says it got up to 105 a couple of hours after that story was written. Where the hell’s Al Gore? Someone get his ass here stat!) I’d like to issue a pre-emptive “piss off” to anyone reading or commenting from Vegas or Phoenix who feel the urge to share with us how it got up to 130 in the shade today where you’re at. Because you’re not in the shade…you’re in a building/house with air conditioning. Who’s got the big balls now sucka’?

The cleaning out of the bookmarks continues with a couple from Popular Mechanics (with a summertime theme):

1. How about 5 Theme Park Rides that Pushed the Limits of Common Sense? Or,

2. 16 DIY Projects that Make Summer More Fun. Actually, now that I look at the list, it kind of looks like they make summer more lame. Now if it’d been “16 Exploding Projects…” Send requests for subscription refunds to Ace. His address is over there on the left of the page somewhere.

Since Drew’s “Herding Cats” vid below made us all giggle like schoolgirls (and write “Drew” on our spiral notebooks surrounded by hundreds of little hearts.), here’s another one from EDS which concerns squirrels:

IÂ’m sure thereÂ’s some kind of analogy to a current political issue or something here, but itÂ’s not coming to me right away. ThereÂ’s probably a reason why Ace only lets me out at night. Well, several, but thatÂ’s the only one you and my parole officer need to know about for now.
more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:44 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

The deal with the Blue Dogs was supposed to clear the way for the House Energy and Commerce Committee to mark up (write) a health care bill. It didn't happen today.

The hold up wasn't caused by the 'conservatives', it was the 'progressives' this time..

House liberals have quickly rejected a healthcare compromise their leaders forged with centrist Blue Dogs, putting the deal on shaky ground only hours after it was announced.

"It's unacceptable," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "We're not going to vote for anything that doesn't have a robust public plan."

The Progressive Caucus has 83 members. Members are circulating a letter for signatures protesting the deal.

Liberals are hoping to get 50 signatures on the letter, to make it clear they have the votes to defeat the biil.

"Fifty is our threshold," said Progressive Caucus co-chairman Raul Grijalva. "That'll kill anything."

Anyone still want to bet they will have something done by Friday?

Remember, it's Republicans the fault. If only!

*FTR-I did made some changes from the original post since I buried the lead the first time.

Keeping the various congressional factions together has to be something like this.

Posted by: DrewM at 04:17 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

53%, his lowest yet, down slightly from his previous low of 54%, yesterday.

And his disapproval ooches back up to its high of 39%. (It had fallen, statistically meaninglessly, to 38% yesterday.)

Rasmussen and Zogby are proven accurate. Rasmussen has him at 49-50 among likelies, once again at -10 on that thing you know I don't really get.

Same deal in the NBC/WSJ poll. A commenter wrote that the MSNBC stooges were tearing their hair out about it.

Despite his public-relations blitz over the past two weeks to promote his plans to reform the nation's health-care system — including holding two town halls on Wednesday — President Barack Obama has lost ground on this issue with the American public, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Pluralities now say that the presidentÂ’s health care plan is a bad idea, and that it will result in the quality of their care getting worse. WhatÂ’s more, just four in 10 approve of his handling on the issue.

The poll also finds that Obama's overall job-approval rating has dropped to 53 percent. And it shows a public that has grown increasingly concerned about the federal government's spending as the administration defends its $787 billion economic stimulus and supports a $1 trillion-plus health-care bill.

I am beginning to realize it is no accident that these polls -- which always previously told us the disapproval number as well -- keep hiding it.

They're doing it deliberately. To them, it doesn't matter how many people disapprove of Obama. The only thing that matters are the people who matter, and those are the 53%.

I cannot remember ever having to search for Bush's disapproval figure. But this is like the third poll in three weeks where I have to go to the crosstabs for the stat.

It's 40%, as if we care about those 40% of the public, in case you're curious. Which is certainly an all-time high for Obama in the NBC poll, and maybe something they should have mentioned. (Higher than Gallup's number by a point.)

“This is a president who needs a vacation,” says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. “His job rating is … certainly an acceptable mark. But if you look at it over time, it has [gone] south without a doubt.”

On heath care, more bad news:

As Congress works on its legislation and as Obama campaigns to get an overhaul enacted, 42 percent now say that the presidentÂ’s plan is a bad idea, which is a 10-point increase since last month. Thirty-six percent say itÂ’s a good idea.

In addition, 39 percent — a plurality — believe that Obama’s plan would result in the quality of their health care getting worse. That’s 15-point jump since April.

And just 41 percent approve of the presidentÂ’s job on health care, which is nearly identical to Bill ClintonÂ’s scores from 1994, when he failed to get Congress to pass health care reform.

Here's a shock for ya:

Americans who have private health insurance disapprove of ObamaÂ’s job on health care by a 51-38 percent margin. Those who lack insurance, however, approve of his job, 52-29 percent.

Trouble is 85% of the country has insurance.

And on the Stimulus Stabilization Bill:

The public also has concerns with the progress of the $787 billion economic stimulus that Obama signed into law in February. In the poll, 43 percent believe the legislation was a bad idea, up 16 points since January. Just 34 percent say the stimulus was a good idea.

The media can no longer justify its puff-coverage on the grounds of "But Barack Obama is like sooooo popular!"

(As if that is actually justification for not doing their jobs in the first place.)

Posted by: Ace at 03:55 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 656 words, total size 4 kb.

Or, "Reap Year"?

Democrats giddy with possibilities only six months ago now confront a perilous 2010 landscape signaled by troublesome signs of President Barack ObamaÂ’s political mortality, the plunging popularity of many governors and rising disquiet among many vulnerable House Democrats.

...

Bolstered by historical trends that work in the GOP’s favor — midterm elections are typically hostile to the party in power — and the prospect of the first election in a decade without former President George W. Bush either on the ballot or in office, Republicans find themselves on the offensive for the first time since 2004.

...

“What’s hurting the Democrats badly is that people are afraid of the deficit and spending. They don’t see signs of economic growth, and people are worried,” said GOP pollster John McLaughlin. “If you look at the economy right now, voters gave the Democrats benefit of the doubt, they thought the stimulus would work, unemployment would recede — and they’re finding out now it’s not the case.”

...

The polls tell only part of the story. National Republicans have recently met with success in persuading a number of top recruits to commit to 2010 races that not so long ago looked considerably less attractive — the surest signal that potential GOP candidates view the playing field as less tilted against them than just a few months earlier.

Ah, that is a big thing, candidate recruitment. Good candidates shy away from futile races. The better the situation looks, the better candidates we get.

Politico notes that the odds of winning the House outright are small. Or zero. And the odds of winning the Senate are even weaker -- because of GOP retirements, we're defending 18 seats while the Dems defend 18. Everything else being equal, it's a fight to just stay even.

But there is a lot of room for growth.

I don't think Politico mentioned it, but Barack Obama is also not on the ballot in 2010. Many Obama-only voters will come to the polls again, but many -- more? -- will sit out the election as not having enough MTV hype and Michael Bay explosions for their liking. And a good number of them, hopefully, will have realized their colossal error.

The Democrats convinced the public in 2006 and 2008 that it was now safe to vote Democratic again. But after posing as moderates for four years, the public sees what they are, and they're the same taxing-and-spending hippies in suits they always were. The public's having an "A ha" moment as it realizes the Democrats are exactly who they always thought they were.*

* Yes, this paragraph was written as pure pretext, to justify linking a different Abba song.

Recruitment: A few weeks ago Geraghty noted the GOP is getting the candidates it seeks for 2010.

Posted by: Ace at 01:43 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 4 kb.

Harmony with nature. Only a guy who's never gotten lost in the woods with nothing to eat and growing worries about exposure and frostbite could be so sanguine about being "in harmony with nature," also known "at the mercy of nature."

Nature is a many things, including beautiful. But it's a terrible beauty. Nothing at all like the benevolent ersatz god of hippies and hemp they imagine it to be.

But our "science" czar proposed de-industrializing and reducing our consumption in order to live lives closer to the way nature intended, to wit, nasty, brutish, and short.

Oh -- and, of course. While he was vigorously campaigning for the elimination of most of the Western World's wealth, he was simultaneously urging that what was left of it (by the Planetary Regime which would enforce such laws) be redistributed to those more deserving of nature's frugal bounty.

Hail Science. Our Science, Who Art in Heaven...

"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States," Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. "De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation."

In the vision expressed by Holdren and his co-authors, the Ehrlichs, the need for "de-development" of the United States demanded a redistribtuion of wealth.

"The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge," they wrote. "They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being."

But you know, we can't question him, because somehow advocating armed "Planetary Regimes" coercing a public into forced sterilizations and lives of misery and poverty is "science," rather than what it used to be called, "Marxist political philosophy."

(Which, if I'm not mistaken, was heralded as "scientific" too, I think.)

I am personally pro-environment. What I am not is anti-human, which these bloody-minded humanity-crushing lunatics really are.

Posted by: Ace at 01:18 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.