Obama Birthers

Many of us by now are familiar with the "birthers" movement with respect to President Obama. These "birthers" allege---in an accusation that is easily disproved---that, because of Obama's mixed heritage and his ecclectic upbringing, he was not born in the United States and therefore inelligible to serve as president.

According to Politico.com, "a whopping 58 percent of Republicans either think Barack Obama wasn't born in the US (28 percent) or aren't sure (30 percent). A mere 42 percent think he was." I will concede---RELUCTANTLY--that this poll stakes out a lot of conceptual territory for those who "aren't sure." It's possible that you can read a birth certificate or any other official government document and still "not be sure" because that person can't read or and analyze what he or she has just read and reach a conclusion.

But this is one of those poll that absolutely embarasses me so much. At time's I can't even believe I'm on the same team as them! I used to give Democrats lots of grief for the poll result showing that over 50% of Democrats believed Bush and Cheney allowed the World Trade Center to collapse, either by having prior knowledge and doing nothing, or by bringing down the towers themselves.

"Is this really mainstream left wing thought? I mean, I know you can't stand the President, but do really think he is capable of this? And smart enought to pull it off?"

I know that most thoughtful, well-meaning Democrats were rather embarrassed by this as well as the reckless conspiracy-theorizing by Michael Moore and others, so I won't revisit that debate. But the strength of this "birther movement" disgusts me. I am relieved to see it is confined to the upper-age brackets, i.e. those least likely to be aggresive consumers of new information and those least likely to use the internet, and not the younger generation of classical liberals and modern-day conservatives. I can hope......

Today I came across this interesting post by David Kopel at one of my favorite blogs, the Volokh Conspiracy. Apparently, this excessive questioning of our candidates's birthplaces is not new, and it is a very legitimate constitutional issue.

Presidential aspirants not born in the United States:

The Constitution provides: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

During the last presidential election, some people suggested that John McCain was not eligible for the presidency, because he was born in the Canal Zone. Radio Free Europe (Russian language station) interviewed me about the controversy last year. NY Times story here. The issue got serious enough so that Congress passed a resolution saying

I remember that during the 1968 presidential election, there was controversy about the eligibility of Michigan Governor George Romney, who was the GOP frontrunner for a while. Romney (father of the current GOP frontrunner) had been born in Mexico to U.S. citizens who were living in a LDS colony there.

A 1988 Note in the Yale Law Journal about the NBC clause states: "This constitutional uncertainty persists despite the fact that the issue has arisen frequently over the past twenty years in discussions over the potential candidacies of foreign-born politicians such as Barry Goldwater, Lowell Weicker, George Romney, Christian D. Herter, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. Goldwater was born in the territory of Arizona before it became a state; Weicker, in Paris of an American father and British mother; Romney, of American parents in Mexico; Herter, of Americans in France; Roosevelt, in Canada." Note, Jill A. Pryor, "The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty," 97 Yale Law Journal 881 (1988).

Can commenters provide other examples of previous presidents or presidential aspirants regarding whom the "natural born Citizen" clause was raised? My guess is that the current crowd of Obama birthers may be part of a broader tradition in American history than is currently recognized. If you are really diligent, see footnote 2 of the Yale note for some citations to older law review articles (not available on Westlaw) which may have some more examples.

If we look back further into our Anglo-American history, in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when William & Mary drove out the wicked James Stuart, we find that when William of Orange set sail for England, "William made no claim on his own behalf, but called only for a free Parliament and a study of whether James II's new son really was a son or had been smuggled into the birthing room in a warming pan." Kopel, "It Isn't About Duck Hunting: The British Origins of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms." Review of Joyce Malcolm's book To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. 96 Michigan Law Review 1333 (1995).

The historical cases are interesting to consider because they provide some perspective on the current claims that the birthers are active only because Obama is biracial. Historically, one can find some analogues; I saw enough anti-LDS prejudice during Mitt Romney's 2007-08 presidential campaign to indicate that religious bigotry might have played a role in George Romney birtherism. Unquestionably the concern of the James II birthers was not worry that the James Stuart (who was Catholic) had a low sperm count, but fear of his efforts to replace Protestant England's mixed form of government with absolutism modeled on Catholic, hyper-centralized France. However, for many of the other instances of birtherism (McCain, Weicker, Goldwater, Roosevelt, etc.), it is hard to see any angle involving racial or religious prejudice.

Please note that this post is not designed to exonerate the stupidity of the "birthers." Like everything else on this blog, it is solely for the purposes of edification.

Comments please!

Measuring the Fight Against Terrorists

And Besides, Obama Is Doing Much Better Than Bush Against Terrorists!

Liberal Lunacy

Hatched by Dafydd

Anybody remember that line I keep quoting from Man of La Mancha about hearing the cuckoo singing in the cuckooberry tree? Barack H. Obama's National Security Advisor explains (in the subtlely titled article "ABC News Exclusive: National Security Adviser Says President Obama Is Having Greater Success Taking Terrorists Out of Commission Than Bush Did") why Obama has actually been far more successful than Bush on all measures of counterterrorism... except for those measures we can actually produce in evidence:

Responding to criticism from former Vice President Cheney that President Obama is making the nation more vulnerable to terrorism, the president’s National Security Adviser, Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.), told ABC News in an exclusive interview that actually the reverse is true: President Obama’s greater success with international relations has meant more terrorists put out of commission.

“This type of radical fundamentalism or terrorism is a threat not only to the United States but to the global community,” Jones said. “The world is coming together on this matter now that President Obama has taken the leadership on it and is approaching it in a slightly different way -- actually a radically different way -- to discuss things with other rulers to enhance the working relationships with law enforcement agencies – both national and international."

Jones said that “we are seeing results that indicate more captures, more deaths of radical leaders and a kind of a global coming-together by the fact that this is a threat to not only the United States but to the world at-large and the world is moving toward doing something about it.”

Ah... I don't know how to measure a "global coming-together," but at least National Security Advisor and former Commandant of the Marine Corps Jim Jones surely can release statistics and evidence of the easily measured "more captures, more deaths" claim. Right?

The former Marine General didn't provide any specific numbers to back up his claim, but he said “there is an increasing trend and I think we seen that in different parts of the world over the last few months for sure.” He added that he was not “making a tally sheet saying we are killing more people, capturing more people than they did -- that is not the issue.”

It isn't? Then why bring it up?

I swear on a stack of Heinlein novels, this administration is the most self-absorbed, competitive (in a schoolyard sense), and envious presidential administration of my lifetime and likely even longer. It seems that President Obama is utterly obsessed with proving that he's much better than that awful Bush fellow.

By the way, if you're interested in specifics of the new political regime of the Obamacon, which has produced such tangible (if strangely invisible) improvements in our counterterrorism campaign, here is a tantalizing tip:

But the numbers are going up, he said. “The numbers of high value targets that we are successfully reaching out to or identifying through good intelligence” from both the CIA and intelligence agencies from US allies has made the difference, he said.

So we're "reaching out" to high-value targets. What could go wrong?

Economist Robert Samulson

Politics of Health Care and Congress

Excellent analysis by Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics.Com

Amateur Hour at the White House

I just about fell out of my chair yesterday when I read this in the Washington Post.

President Obama's advisers acknowledged Tuesday that they were unprepared for the intraparty rift that occurred over the fate of a proposed public health insurance program, a firestorm that has left the White House searching for a way to reclaim the initiative on the president's top legislative priority.

This confirms a suspicion I have had for some time, and made clear a few weeks ago: Democratic leaders in the White House and on Capitol Hill have only recently begun to take seriously the internal divisions within their own party.

Frankly, I am stunned that they would be caught off guard by this. How could they not have anticipated this? How could they possibly have been surprised that the left and right flanks of the party would not see eye to eye?

To explain my utter, complete astonishment at this bone-headed mistake, I need a visual aid. The following is courtesy of Google Maps. It marks the district offices of four types of congressmen:

(1) Democratic House committee chairmen are marked with blue pinpoints.
(2) House leaders and chairmen closely involved with health care are marked with red crosses.
(3) The top 40 Democratic House members in McCain-voting districts are marked with yellow bubbles.
(4) Committee chairmen from the McCain-voting districts are marked with yellow pinpoints.

Here's the map:

As you can see, coastal liberals dominate the leadership positions. California has six of the 24 leadership positions I have delineated. Another seven are located roughly within the megapolis that stretches from Washington, D.C. to Boston. Meanwhile, those marginal members are clustered in the South and the Border States, with a few sprinkled across the Great Plains and then into Arizona.

This is a stark visual representation of the divide within the Democratic Party. We can clearly see the source of the problem. Liberal leaders from the coasts were given wide latitude by the White House to write these bills - and, unsurprisingly, they delivered products their fellow liberals love (or at least like). But the moderate and conservative Democrats - whose votes are needed for passage yet who run the risk of defeat next fall should the broad middle of the country sour on the reform efforts - weren't fully consulted, and don't like the bills. Hence, the internal friction - which corresponds pretty well with age-old sectional divisions in the party (more on that in a moment).

It was always going to be a challenge to find something that the moderates could stomach yet the liberals don't think is too watered down. That, more than anything else, was destined to be the highest hurdle for health care reform to jump. Amazingly, the White House waited until after the liberal House bills were published - and all the attending fallout - to take this challenge seriously, or even notice it! Because of this error, it is now in a substantially weaker position to find that middle ground. The liberals already have their bills on the table, so they are at least somewhat committed to them (as the Progressive Caucus has been saying for weeks, and as the WaPo article suggests). The moderates and conservatives are at home getting yelled at by angry constituents, rather than in D.C. searching for that common ground. The acrimony has forced Obama out onto the campaign trail, where he is making mistakes (e.g. the Post Office comment, the Cambridge police comment, and the AARP comment - all a consequence of the White House's desire to get back in front of the health care story). All of this has driven his poll numbers downward, leaving him less able to persuade the marginal members in the caucus, who must get getting nervous about November, 2010.

I can think of five very good reasons why the White House's lack of foresight on the potential for the intraparty squabble is absolutely inexcusable:

(1) For the months between November and January, we were treated to endless comparisons of Obama to the great presidents of the days of yore. One of them was Franklin Roosevelt. Question: who stopped the New Deal dead in its tracks after 1938? It wasn't the Republicans alone. It was Southern Democrats working in alliance with the Republicans. Who are the marginal members standing between Obama and a health care bill...Southern Democrats! Generally speaking, the internal cleavage within the Democratic Party (North v. South; left v. right) is really one of the most significant features of the political landscape since at least the Great Depression. After eighty some years and dozens of failed attempts at liberal reforms, there is no excuse for a President not to anticipate it rearing its head again.

(2) Much of last year was dominated by that famous primary brawl between Obama and Hillary - and all through these states (Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, etc.) the former First Lady made mincemeat of the junior Senator from Illinois. Then, when the general election rolled around, these states voted against him again. Historically speaking, these states usually vote for a winning Democrat. Obama should be very familiar with his struggles in this region, and not terribly surprised that the large number of Democratic members from it could create such problems for bills drafted by coastal liberals.

(3) How many of these members did Rahm Emanuel recruit? Fourteen of these seats changed hands in either 2006 or 2008 when Emanuel was in a leadership position in the House. Is this not a sufficiently representative sample to know that there could be trouble?

(4) Congress usually fails to find compromises on big solutions to big problems - exactly like what is being debated now - regardless of whether the legislature is under control of a single party or if it is split. This means that internal cleavages can do just as much damage to reform efforts as the partisan divide. This should be especially evident for an item like health care reform: Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton failed to deliver anything approaching the scope Obama is envisioning, even though the Democratic Party had complete control of Congress for at least parts of their terms.

(5) As stark as this map looks, the landscape in the Senate is even starker. Thirteen Democratic senators come from McCain states.

It's almost as if the President has absolutely no experience in dealing with the United States Congress whatsoever.

That's so puzzling, considering how Democrats turned down the fresh-faced newcomer who could turn a good phrase on the campaign trail for the old-hand who had been in Washington for 15 years by the time of the nomination battle. Oh wait...

Top Donors in the Last 20 years

Is there any doubt that the Democratic party is the true party of special interests??

Top All-Time Donors 1989-2008 Summary

LEGEND: Republican Democrat On the fence
	= Between 40% and 59% to both parties = Leans Dem/Repub (60%-69%) = Strongly Dem/Repub (70%-89%) = Solidly Dem/Repub (over 90%)

Rank	Organization	Total	Dem %	Repub %	Tilt
1	AT&T Inc	$43,501,240	44%	55%
2	American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees	$40,965,173	98%	1%
3	National Assn of Realtors	$35,179,013	48%	51%
4	Goldman Sachs	$31,183,662	64%	35%
5	Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers	$30,920,696	97%	2%
6	American Assn for Justice	$30,734,429	90%	9%
7	National Education Assn	$29,908,625	92%	6%
8	Laborers Union	$28,201,600	92%	7%
9	Service Employees International Union	$27,510,257	95%	3%
10	Teamsters Union	$27,402,304	92%	6%
11	Carpenters & Joiners Union	$27,368,258	89%	10%
12	Communications Workers of America	$26,748,746	99%	0%
13	Citigroup Inc	$26,562,905	50%	49%
14	American Medical Assn	$26,213,449	39%	60%
15	American Federation of Teachers	$25,996,071	98%	0%
16	United Auto Workers	$25,767,002	98%	0%
17	Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union	$24,793,477	98%	0%
18	National Auto Dealers Assn	$24,048,808	31%	68%
19	Altria Group	$23,869,891	28%	71%
20	United Food & Commercial Workers Union	$23,742,074	98%	1%
21	United Parcel Service	$23,649,476	36%	63%
22	American Bankers Assn	$21,945,966	41%	58%
23	National Assn of Home Builders	$21,401,355	35%	64%
24	EMILY's List	$20,984,384	99%	0%
25	National Beer Wholesalers Assn	$20,300,845	31%	68%
26	Microsoft Corp	$19,692,774	52%	46%
27	Time Warner	$19,653,331	71%	28%
28	JPMorgan Chase & Co	$19,395,548	51%	48%
29	National Assn of Letter Carriers	$19,206,784	88%	11%
30	Morgan Stanley	$18,173,708	45%	53%
31	AFL-CIO	$18,034,967	95%	4%
32	Verizon Communications	$17,812,927	39%	59%
33	FedEx Corp	$17,676,556	40%	58%
34	Lockheed Martin	$17,638,388	42%	57%
35	General Electric	$17,349,803	50%	49%
36	National Rifle Assn	$17,095,136	17%	82%
37	Sheet Metal Workers Union	$16,907,563	97%	2%
38	Ernst & Young	$16,746,413	44%	55%
39	Credit Union National Assn	$16,694,237	47%	51%
40	Bank of America	$16,568,591	47%	52%
41	Operating Engineers Union	$16,235,350	85%	14%
42	American Dental Assn	$16,134,579	46%	53%
43	American Hospital Assn	$16,126,109	52%	46%
44	Plumbers & Pipefitters Union	$15,807,536	94%	5%
45	Blue Cross/Blue Shield	$15,779,305	39%	60%
46	Air Line Pilots Assn	$15,478,917	84%	15%
47	International Assn of Fire Fighters	$15,372,243	82%	17%
48	Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu	$15,366,870	34%	65%
49	PricewaterhouseCoopers	$15,073,033	36%	63%
50	Natl Assn/Insurance & Financial Advisors	$14,845,205	42%	56%
51	AFLAC Inc	$14,582,269	44%	55%
52	Merrill Lynch	$14,299,160	37%	61%
53	Union Pacific Corp	$13,847,948	23%	76%
54	Boeing Co	$13,579,262	47%	52%
55	United Steelworkers	$13,477,947	99%	0%
56	United Transportation Union	$13,373,545	88%	11%
57	Reynolds American	$13,302,827	24%	75%
58	Pfizer Inc	$13,210,087	29%	70%
59	BellSouth Corp	$12,993,782	45%	54%
60	Ironworkers Union	$12,923,775	92%	7%
61	American Institute of CPAs	$12,698,585	42%	57%
62	Credit Suisse Group	$12,141,215	44%	55%
63	American Postal Workers Union	$11,925,473	95%	4%
64	National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn	$11,745,871	52%	47%
65	General Dynamics	$11,496,724	46%	53%
66	American Financial Group	$11,334,675	18%	81%
67	GlaxoSmithKline	$10,895,744	28%	70%
68	Walt Disney Co	$10,810,549	67%	32%
69	Chevron	$10,709,395	25%	74%
70	Exxon Mobil	$10,511,023	14%	85%
71	Natl Active & Retired Fed Employees Assn	$10,430,000	77%	21%
72	MBNA Corp	$10,059,006	17%	82%
73	General Motors	$9,950,919	38%	60%
74	UST Inc	$9,935,061	21%	78%
75	Freddie Mac	$9,859,490	43%	56%
76	AIG	$9,744,312	50%	49%
77	Human Rights Campaign	$9,741,375	90%	9%
78	National Restaurant Assn	$9,645,995	15%	83%
79	Southern Co	$9,544,345	31%	68%
80	Prudential Financial	$9,345,074	48%	51%
81	MetLife Inc	$9,284,365	55%	44%
82	American Academy of Ophthalmology	$9,162,538	52%	47%
83	National Cmte to Preserve Social Security & Medicare	$9,144,499	80%	19%
84	Eli Lilly & Co	$9,039,674	28%	71%
85	CSX Corp	$8,935,785	31%	68%
86	Associated General Contractors	$8,811,941	14%	85%
87	Amway/Alticor Inc	$8,716,601	0%	99%
88	National Cmte for an Effective Congress	$8,707,940	99%	0%
89	American Maritime Officers	$8,606,031	46%	53%
90	Archer Daniels Midland	$8,303,364	43%	56%
91	Seafarers International Union	$8,140,144	84%	14%
92	MCI Inc	$8,093,472	46%	53%
93	American Airlines	$8,052,023	47%	52%
94	American Council of Life Insurers	$7,581,090	37%	62%
95	Marine Engineers Beneficial Assn	$7,353,627	74%	25%
96	Bristol-Myers Squibb	$7,282,437	21%	78%
97	Enron Corp	$6,633,457	29%	70%
98	Andersen	$6,313,422	37%	62%
99	BP	$6,120,971	28%	70%
100	Vivendi	$4,455,940	66%	32%