Posted by
Terry Hestilow on Saturday, December 13, 2008 1:47:09 AM
Don’t tell me to “shut up”!
A retired soldier’s response to David “Professor” Horowitz,
“Obama Derangement Syndrome: Conservatives Need to Shut Up about the Birth Certificate,”
Townhall.com, December 8, 2008.
Poor "Professor" Horowitz! He is so angry and "embarrassed" because, as he prefers to calls them while condescending from his lofty perch on high, a "fringe group of conservatives" keep insisting that the question of President-Elect Barack Obama's Constitutional qualification to serve as president of the United States needs to be answered legally and clearly for all the people of the United States. He claims that it is "destructive."
Relying upon the linguistic and literary device of suggesting ad hominem attacks upon his opponents, Horowitz seeks to divert attention away from the merits of the question, while pretending to defend the system and honor the “results” of the election. He blasts those he disagrees with as "zealots" seeking to "deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president...."
In this knee jerk venomous attack upon those he disagrees with, Horowitz conveniently misses the point. Sixty-four million voters cannot exercise their preferences in the United States of America, even in the election of president, if it violates the "law of the land" (the U.S. Constitution). If Horowitz, and the rest of the sixty-four million Obama supporters, disagrees with a part of the Constitution, they may pursue efforts to have it legally changed through the amendment process; but to tell those who protest that Barack Obama’s election may not be legal to "shut up" reveals his own arrogance and, may I submit, boasts of his ignorance.
Indeed, Horowitz’s raising the question of John McCain’s qualification to serve bears out my point. Had McCain been born of Panamanian parents in Panama, he would not have been qualified under the U.S. Constitution to run for the U.S. presidency. He would have been of foreign descent and even naturalization would not have qualified him to serve as president of the United States. He wasn't! He was born of US parentage. His father was a United States Naval officer serving abroad. John McCain was born in US facilities on a US military installation. There is nothing of question here; and, oh by the way, John McCain was not afraid to produce his birth certificate as evidence of his qualification to serve in office.
If Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, and if he genuinely has the evidence to prove it, he meets Constitutional qualification. If he was born outside of the United States by a father who is Kenyan, well, the simple truth is that he does not meet Constitutional muster (no matter how many may have mistakenly voted for a possibly unqualified candidate). Pretty darn simple! If he is qualified under the US Constitution, all of the people of the United States ought to be able to have confidence that the question of legitimacy is laid to rest.
So, what is President-Elect Obama afraid of? Why does he resolutely refuse to produce the legal evidence of his qualification to serve? What is he trying to hide? I would think that he would gladly and promptly produce the evidence! Why is Mr. Horowitz defending such obfuscation by Obama?
Call me what you want Mr. Horowitz (even though you are not good enough, nor have you defended America sufficiently to tell me to shut up and call me names). As a military officer (whose career is bracketed by duty in Vietnam and Afghanistan), and also as commissioned law enforcement officer, I swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.” I have been cursed and spit upon, and I have been called all kinds of names by better men and women than you, Mr. Horowitz. I stand by the Constitution even if you think it is "destructive."
You say, "Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation." Many of us rightly question the legitimacy of the election with organizations like "Acorn" and the Democrat Party conducting highly suspicious, if not outright fraudulent, election efforts while raising millions in campaign funds through financing that certainly seemed to have come from abroad through terrorist organizations like "Hamas" and other radical foreign Islamic groups that have consistently voiced strong support for the election of Barack Hussein Obama and contempt for the United States.
Without regard to those very serious and potentially criminal issues that would necessarily raise questions of respect for this past election, I contend that the real bulwark of national unity is ultimately respect for the U.S. Constitution! If we have genuine confidence that judges will enforce the Constitution fairly, and that each and every U.S. citizen has standing before any U.S. court to question a perceived failure of enforcement of the U.S. Constitution, then respect for election results will come about as a result of our confidence in the integrity of the application of the law of the land. We obviously don't have that at this point; and we certainly will not have respect for an election we must submit to relying upon your presupposition that we should all accept Obama's election in spite of a Constitutional "technicality" [you must be kidding! technicality?]. Living by the U.S. Constitution is not a matter of technicalities; it is a matter of law for all of us, including President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama and his 64 million supporters!
To those who still want this question answered, below is a copy of my own letter to Congresswoman Kay Granger, 12th Congressional District of Texas, Senator John Cornyn, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison all of Texas. You are welcome to use it (modified to express your own perspective) as you write to your own members of Congress. Let Mr. Horowitz be "embarrassed" and call you names. Who really cares what he says or thinks? The U.S. Constitution, not the opinion of a political hack, is what is important. My letter to Congresswoman Kay Granger follows:
Congresswoman Granger,
Merry Christmas and congratulations again on your reelection to the U.S. House of Representatives.
I am a retired U.S. Army officer, and every day of my professional military career I had a legal requirement to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. It is also noteworthy that producing an official birth certificate was never an option for me to serve in office!
Congresswoman Granger, I do not suggest that you, nor your fellow representatives have failed your duty to likewise uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America; however, I do want to know what is being done to resolve the issue of the qualification of President-Elect Barack Obama to serve as president on January 20, 2009. This question must be resolved openly and finally if the people of the United States are to have any real confidence that the Constitution has true meaning and is being applied without regard to political affiliation! No matter where a person stands on the direction of the nation, if we lose faith that our elected officials live by the Constitution the national regard for the founding document begins to erode. This is a national security issue!
Madam, the American people should not be denied by lawyers the simple proof that the person elected to be president of the United States is constitutionally qualified to assume the office. If President-Elect Obama is truly qualified to serve, let us resolve the issue immediately within the requirements of the U.S. Constitution! If not, even if it is painful and angers many in the population, let that be determined so that we can know that the Constitution is still the law of the land and we can move forward with the legally qualified candidate!
I can produce my birth certificate today! I assume that you can, too! There is no reason that the person elected to be the president of the United States should be exempt from producing documentation that proves he is qualified constitutionally to serve! If not, let no other office holder be forced to produce a birth certificate and do not demand such documentation for any other worker in the nation for any job in the United States. President-Elect Obama should enjoy no exemption!
With regard to this issue, as my Representative, I ask you to take this matter to the floor of the House of Representatives and demand that the Judiciary resolve this legal question immediately or face legislation to limit the time lawyers may delay such questions. Indeed, please initiate new legislation [Election Reform] to require any and all candidates for office, elective or otherwise, to prove as a part of their filing and having their name placed upon a ballot that they are truly qualified to serve in the office in advance of such election.
There are a significant number of your constituents who have doubts about President-Elect Obama's qualification to serve as president of the United States. That is a fact! You have an obligation to us to demand immediate verification without legal stalling or Supreme Court justice’s delays on this issue.
Is the office of the president subject to the Constitution? As of today, the answer may be “no.” If so, we have a true Constitutional crisis on our hands.
I look forward to hearing from you on this issue.
Thank you for your service. You are in my prayers.
Very Respectfully,
Terry M. Hestilow
United States Army, Retired
Fort Worth, Texas
December 3, 2008