Its a bit like that scene in Waynes World where Wayne and that other fellow run into Alice Cooper. Its hard to imagine arguing with David Horowitz. But there you go. People can kick goals for years. But they are allowed to be wrong from time to time.
David Horowitz has been a voice of clarity and reason and especially since the 9/11 attacks. Fearlessly speaking out, he was one of the people who helped Americans understand the world of terrorism and the causes behind these outrages. His online newspaper “frontline magazine” has studied the subterranean influences of stealth jihadists and leftist networks. He’s not someone who I would ever accuse of being guileless.
But something might have gone wrong with David. I suspect he’s been working too hard and it may have caught up with him. Because he has come out strongly in favour of ignoring the constitution and letting the conman Barry Soetoro, become Americas first USURPER-PRESIDENT. Which for me is the ultimate disaster.
David has made four, almost consecutive posts on this topic. He doesn’t claim that Obama is eligible. This is not what he’s arguing. But unfortunately, this one time, its very hard to get hold of Davids argument at all. This is a bit worrying. Its not annoying because he’s such a great guy. Its just a bit worrying for his sakes. We hope that he is alright. And that he will see the sense in taking a bit of a holiday. Also he ought to let the story he canned about this issue go forward. After all he has himself argued furiously against the issue. And that ought to serve as some sort of disclaimer.
I have argued on all four of these blog posts. But my largest post is a comprehensive breaking up of his fourth posts with small comments in between his own. Here it is below:
Lets go through the whole thing. We will find that its circular reasoning. Since it automatically assumes that Obama won an election… though in reality he was not eligible to run. So the only thing he did was successfully defraud everyone.
“The continuing efforts of a fringe group of consrvatives to deny Obama his victory…..”
There is no victory because he was not eligible to run. There is no denial from that side of the argument. The denial is coming from the other side.
“…… and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive…….”
No no. Its the other side of the argument that is embarrassing and destructive.
” The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, an unhinged demagogue on the political fringe who lost a senate election to the then unknown Obama by 42 points should be a warning in itself.”
Well thats just silly. So I’ll leave that alone. Except to say that if you reckon that Obama is fine and Keyes is a nutball its time for your holidays.
“This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats’ seditious claim that Bush “stole” the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. ”
Completely different. Its not tantamount to any such thing. The Bush case was tested in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court made a decision that could have come out either way. The trouble had begun in the Florida Supreme court. We have to accept the fact that constitutional interpretation doesn’t always give us clear-cut answers.
“This delusion helped to create the Democrats’ Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq War, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became “Bush’s War” rather than an American War with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.”
RIGHT. EXACTLY. Now you want to let these same punk-ass leftists get away with having a fake candidate win on foreign money when he is not eligible to so much as contest the thing.
“The Birth Certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised……”
No thats not right. Their enfranchisement comes from their constitutional protection. Which were it more substantial would have shielded them from this rampant bailout stealing going on and the galloping inflation that will follow in its wake.
“…… because of a contested technicality…….”
What has happened to you man? Its not a technicality. This is not the clear logic that you’ve always argued with in the past. Alzheimers?
“……… as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.) …….”:
Well that was line-ball. But he probably ought not have been allowed to run.
“What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil?”
Well obviously you think it makes a difference. And I think it makes a difference. It makes a very big difference who the President is and the circumstances upon which he managed to get elected. There is campaign finance laws after all. And if you blatantly break them its ridiculous that there be no comeback for that.
” Advocates of this destructive ……”
Its an ANTI-DESTRUCTIVE campaign. Its designed to repair the constitution and save the Republic from an obvious usurper. The first ever.
“…..campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others……”
Well of course it does. They ought not have to argue it. Its the law.
“….. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots? …..”
PROTECTED AND DEFENDED. Which many Americans are oath-bound to effect.
“…Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means……”
Yes and this is the fault of the leftists. With their immensely destructive legal-nihilism. This will be a victory against legal-nihilism if this communist and Kenyan-Sharia-Promoter is forced to stand down.
“The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to 5 Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the 4 liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this? ”
The valid kind. Where is this “will of the people” JIVE coming from David? Is this your earlier years reading too much Rousseau?
“It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation.”
The election result ought to be respected. It is not yet known. Since Obama was not eligible to be elected. Hence we don’t know the election result and have to wait and see how it pans out.
“……Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election,….”
You don’t know that.
“…. and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution. ….”
That can be done better without a communist in the White House. The really great thing about Obama not being eligible is that in another election you might wind up with a President who is obsessive with cutting non-defense spending. Good news. And if that happened we could thank that obvious conman Barry Soetoro, for helping to bring it about.