Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

Let's talk about "ANTI-birther" blather for a change shall we?  The new mainstream media has officially reached a trembling crescendo of state-mandated reactionary rhetoric concerning the President's mystifyingly elusive birth certificate. In fact, unless our relatively now state-sanctioned media can be relegated to the perpetual plagiarists category, it would appear that our fearlessly intrepid news organizations are acting in lockstep, journ-o-listic backlash against a growing world of  skeptics with their newly conjoined, favorite words now being "birther-blather." Doubtful? Very well, then pause from reading this and enter in a Google search for "Birther Blather" and behold the over 3,350 results.

Even more impressive? Remove the quotation marks from your birther blather search string and then note the over 1,260,000 results; fascinating, huh?  So why is it that the media, who are supposed to be our built-in skeptics of all things Government and otherwise, appear to now be the permanently built-in apologists for hope and change, or the new theme, that being "WTF?" For the answers to that question, we must look to brother-extraordinaire, Leonard Pitts' most recent racially inspired tirade (what else?) against anyone who is not yet totally convinced of Obama's origins.

To be fair to Pitts, a favor that Pitts rarely extends to anyone lacking copious melanin content, Leonard did not use the word "blather" anywhere within his column. Yet, many of the newspapers which edited and ran his column, certainly did--within the title, in fact. Pitts, choosing to eschew the already well-worn word blather, rather chose to employ a rather unimpressive lexicon of name-calling to those he calls birthers that one might ordinarily deploy in an aggressive vehicular sojourn around any busy metropolis.

A Nation Of Jack-Asses (Who Voted For Obama)

Pitts called virtually anyone who doubts the now-overwhelming body of non-birth certificate evidence, a range of nasty names from "jack-ass" to "pinheads" and beyond. The interesting thing is simply this, he seemed to be referring to non-blacks--only--as one perplexedly begins to understand while reading Pitts' column.  After glancing through Pitts' words, I later gave the column to a friend who knows Pitts and had indicated him as a very gracious individual who had generously donated a good deal of time, on various occasions, to her college classes.  Her response to me, after having read everything Pitts had written, was to drop what I was writing and immediately refute Pitts with great indignant vigor.

But in reading Pitts mainstream media anthem to anti-birther angst, I could only surmise that the illogic that America has seen deployed by its mainstream media over the past several years, with regard to this trainwreck-Presidency of the media's making, has been nothing less than illuminating for us all. After everything that we have seen from our Government, especially the Democrats and Obama over the past several years, the question becomes who wouldn't ask at this point?

For instance, after seeing nothing less than year upon year of whining and complaining about Bush's war-mongering over the prior two terms, what does Obama do but embroil the US in yet another war without Congressional approval and for no stated goal. The media's smattering applause was difficult to overlook, never mind the scores numbering into the thousands dying across other African countries with regard to our lack of additional humanitarian pursuits.

Further, we are now involved in a war that fails to involve any true American interest at a time that we simply cannot afford it, in which Al Qaeda is absurdly fighting beside us, and we may even elect to help arm these terrorists, according to the President. The response? Even more smattering applause from the media at the Messiah's brilliant non-plan of beyond bizarre decision making.  So, where are Pitts' words of righteous indignation on that particular front?  So far, all that we have gotten from the anti-war Pitts is the sound of crickets chirping when Brother Obama decides to go to war or "kinetic action."  Hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does--being the operative point here.

Selective Righteous Indignation = Hypocrisy

Pitts, within his column, after the spate of name calling against those whom disagree, then apologizes by laughably stating, "I am not much for name calling."  To which we must point out, "since when, dear Leonard?" In fact, name calling is what you have built your entire journalistic career on, Sir.  Calling people racists for not agreeing with you, or for not agreeing with your liberal culture, or for not being enamored of your hero is pretty much all that you have been doing from day one.  The fact that one can actually make a meaningful living at name calling was a thing that we had thought might end with Don Rickles' career; however, you, Mr. Pitts, have taken this phenomena to a whole new anti-inspiring level.

Pitts then proselytizes over the fact that questioning Obama's birthplace "lowers the discourse."  When, in fact,  recalling our first rebuttal to Pitts, which viraled out all over the web, we pointed out that Pitts could be heard forcefully calling the Tea Party "nothing but a bunch of racists" ad nauseum.  Is that not also lowering the discourse, or does Pitts retain a permanent hypocrisy evasion card?  Here again, Pitts even cited a poll trying to prove his thuggish point, even while glossing over the fact that virtually all people of color voted for President Obama. Could that not also be racism, Mr. Pitts?  Our answer would be that it might seem that way, but who am I or who are we to say what is in the heart of Black voters as to their choices?

Pitts goes on to bemoan that a thoughtful response from those who are skeptical of Obama's birth origins is about as likely as Miami having snow on the fourth of July. Well, Mr. Pitts, get out your sweater, and I hope you have a warm pair of long-johns handy; thoughtful response coming right up...

A Thoughtful Response to The "Birther" Question

The first question of Obama's citizenship, regarding his original long form birth certificate, is the question on which everyone focuses. That simple question as to where the original certificate might be, despite all of the anti-birther blather, has yet to be identified. The same people who qualified the President as eligible were the same ones who also qualified Obamacare as "needing to be passed so that we will know what's in the bill." Perhaps they used the same protocol for selecting Obama as they used for passing Obamacare, who knows? The only proof, that we have seen of Obama's origins, lies within a short-form birth certificate that could have been reproduced in any office on any piece of fairly modern technology.

Below is Obama's only publicly known certification of live birth:

And below is an actual Hawaii birth certificate model, that no one can seem to find for Obama, which, by the way, has obviously been clacked out on a circa 1960's typewriter:

The second question delves even deeper and tries to determine if Obama's original Hawaii birth certificate were available, would Obama yet be ineligible to be President? You see, the US Constitution puts forth language that would imply that any citizen NOT born as a natural born citizen would be ineligible to become President:

A glimpse of the constitutional provision as it appeared in 1787

The Constitution requires that Barack Obama be a natural born citizen:

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;

The term, "natural born citizen,"  defined as the framers of the Constitution would have originally intended, would have been as follows from the 1758 book "The Law of Nations" :

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

… natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children … in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

*Special thanks to the website I Took The Red Pill

The fact that original intent always plays heavily in determination of law and of the US Constitution weighs magnitudinally in this regard. The operative point here being that the Founders did not use the term citizen but rather used the term natural born citizen for the position of President, being a child born on US soil and being born of US citizens as both father and mother. Obama's father, as we all now know, was of Kenyan ancestry and was a British subject at the time of President Obama's birth. One must also note that the Framers took special measure to include within the entry for presidential eligibility "or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution." This one particular sentence applies meaningfully to the fact that there were very few citizens, at that time in the 1700's, whose parentage were not immigrants.

Their meaning therefore, it must be asserted, should be clear to all that the Constitution clearly recognizes parentage citizenship and the meaning of natural born by including this entry. But where then does this leave John McCain, is the question that many have asked. Interesting point, in that McCain was not born on US soil and yet, dare we point out that McCain is not the President? While this point might prove interesting, it is ultimately a meaningless attempt at deflection. Pitts then hearkens back to a 2010 poll, no doubt his most favorite of all time, in which 20 percent of Americans and 30 percent of all Tea Partiers believe that the President was not born here. And your point is, Leonard? Shall we bring in an anti-birther force to arrest these Americans? What US Citizens believe is largely based upon what they have seen and heard from Obama, despite every effort by the media to protect the President's now fragile image.

Of Dead White Guys And Birth Certificates ( Or Almost Dead)

In fact, Obama did at one time say the he would "stand with the Muslims" and most people now know this. Further, many Americans are painfully aware of Obama's often racial musings in two books which were supposedly written earlier by the President himself. Here, and once again from Pitts, we hear the ever-pleasant serenade of crickets chirping even louder. Racism, it should be noted, is not a one way street, Mr. Pitts. But, then Pitts points out Whoopie Goldberg's caustic rant demanding of Donald Trump "Has any white President ever been asked to show his birth certificate"? Well, Whoopie and Pitts, with regard to"non-blacks" being severely questioned as it regards eligibility either before, during or after their successful or otherwise presidential candidacy, the history books brim over. But, owing to our obviously lacking education system, we would be happy to instruct you in that particular regard:

• Chester Arthur-was questioned concerning his citizenship.
• Al Gore-because of his birthplace being Washington DC, not a state, was questioned.
• Christopher Schurmann-Back in 1898 was questioned due to parentage.
• Charles Evan Hughes--during the election of 1916.
• George Romney--during his presidential run in 1968, Mitt Romney's father.
• Barry Goldwater--during the election of 1964, born when Arizona was but a territory.
• Lowell Wicker--born to citizens but on foreign soil in France,

The list goes on, and yet, we would be remiss if we did not point out that none of the above were black men. Any questions? So, as Pitts prematurely rings out with his "Let the church say amen" to Goldberg's ignorant statements, Pitts then summarizes his entire argument based upon Goldberg's incorrect assumption, as being nothing but birther nonsense. But here, it must be pointed out, indeed is the thing, and it speaks to procedure. The fact that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, being political citizens--held in nothing but the highest regard--by the inner-beltway crowd, were the ones that actually certified his Eminence, speaks volumes. Never mind the clever post-manipulation of Hillary Clinton as being the new Secretary of State; need I say more?

Training Racist Pet Morons

Then Pitts wishes everyone to ignore the omnipotent fact that has shrouded Obama's Presidency in doubt from day one. Pitts actually asks that we leave well enough alone the fact that anyone who criticizes Obama has been or will be accused of racism. Pitts states then that we can criticize the President on essentially anything that we wish, but not on this birther issue. Oh My God! Pitts has, even before the birther issue came to a head, been calling anyone who criticizes the President a racist from day one. Pitts even recalls his stereophonic racist rant within this same column, of the Tea Party, for heaven's sake.

Pitts further states that Obama's supposedly Muslim identity is also about Obama's color, being half-black or black or half-white. It's not just about what we suppose or don't suppose, Pitts. It's also about what the world knows. Franklin Graham has stated that the Muslim world considers Obama Muslim. We know that Obama was raised in the Muslim tradition in Indonesia and that Obama holds his Muslim upbringing in sweet sentimental regard; we also know that Obama publicly converted to Christianity. We known that Qadaffi referred to Obama as "our Son". We know that Louis Farrakhan of radical Islam used to hold Obama in the highest Islamist regard before the President attacked Libya or Qadaffi or perhaps both. So while Pitts may consider the valid questions on Obama's faith as more blather, we would disagree, for no reason other than because the President's inward-held beliefs should also reflect his outwardly-communicated principles and most Americans remain consistently confused by their President in this regard.

Pitts goes on to then remark on how, "like States Rights, these controversies are a code, a dog whistle for those with ears to hear." Pitts essentially states that the whole reason that much of America disagrees with the President is due simply to the fact that the President is black and that blacks now hold the Presidency. Wrong, Mr. Pitts! We know that a radical liberal holds the office and nothing more, and thanks for comparing those that doubt to dogs, by the way. Pitts then actually calls out anyone who is white that disagrees to be "morons" by stating "memo to the morons, it doesn't work, nobody is fooled."

Hmm...Pitts, have you checked out the current status of black students, as a whole, in education, Sir? If you know the beyond frightening answer to that question, and you would call a preponderance of people who differ both in color and political stance as being morons, then where does that leave you and your now rabid racist stance?  Does Pitts not realize that about half of all whites elected Obama as President? Does Pitts not also realize that Obama has lost much of that crowd due to the sorry state that we now find our Republic in, or shall we gloss over that as well? Does Pitts, in fact, not see that he has just completely painted himself as an honorary member of the Black Panthers? And, it should be pointed out, Pitts is in high company, what with the DOJ's snuggly camaraderie with the Black Panthers, eh? But Pitts has yet to address that perplexing issue as well, as a plague of locusts now take over the deafening chirping.

Pitts is, in effect, a true coward when it comes to the issue of intelligent political veracity, it should be pointed out. It's  either that or the fact that Pitts holds a magical pen that permits even an idiot-savant to wield it with disingenuous skill codified by racist glee and then emblazoned with argumentative speciousness. You do your own fine race a disfavor, Sir, and many of them will undoubtedly recognize this fact. While Pitts' argument now appears to be more with whites than any political acumen, it does become ragingly clear that Pitts must account himself as a member of the intellectual crowd. This only because of the coffee-sipping ease I have just employed in slamming down his entire scope of neglectful ranting  and showing it for what it is.

Where There's Smoke...

Pitts does later, in fact, trip up his entire argument by bringing in the fact that Hawaii officials actually vouched for Obama as having a valid birth certificate. When in fact, there may yet be many who have not heard of Hawaii Governor Abercrombie's still beyond mystical search for Obama's birth certificate, without having found it. Oh ye, Mr. Pitts, of little perspicacity.

You see, Abercrombie, in December, came out with a declaration that he is, as a Democratic Governor and avowed friend of Obama, wished to put this issue to rest. Abercrombie further stated that the President did not need this cloud of doubt following his every move in the future. So, as a powerful Governor from Hawaii in charge of every Hawaii Department, Abercrombie, with considerable skill and deftness, set to work. Looking high and low, Abercrombie later came out with the statement that everyone had been anticipating. Alas, it was one of disappointment, in fact. Rather unamazingly, Abercrombie could not find the original birth certificate and lamented this fact to everyone. The Governor even discussed this with a media talk show host friend in which this friend actually--later on--communicated Abercrombie's words to the world. Those words were "we just can't find it."

The talk show host later recanted his entire story with the rather odd words "no comment at all." Abercrombie has remained quiet, and while many news organizations have come out even vilifying those politicians and members of the media who refuse to even bring the subject up. They, in effect, want the axis press to come out in a full phalanx assault against anyone who will not belittle and antagonize those who either keep asking the questions or refuse to address the questions.

• We have news that the  State of Hawaii has refused to release the birth certificate.
• We have news from a retired US Air Force Colonel that President Obama's Social Security number had never actually been issued.
• We have news that Hawaii has had Obama's birth records sealed.
• We have news that the Democratic National Committee actually changed the qualification certificate wording to fit Obama's nationality question back in 2008, essentially removing the certification of  Obama's eligibility.
• We have news that there have been either threats or rumors of threats directed at members of the media who bring up the eligibility question.
• We have even Conservative of note inching themselves away from the question of Obama eligibility.
• These are but a few of many instances we could bring up, in fact.

Pitts, in a reach for viability at the end of his column even grasps for the straw of plausibility by drawing from not one, but two newspaper announcements that Obama had been born! Well, we are then to believe that the fact that someone paid two newspapers to announce the fact of Obama's birth as being the be all and end all? We don't think so, unfortunately. Pitts ends his racist rant by wishing that all of the doubters would call the President the N-word.

And herein lies the power of an intellect lacking in any form of substantial argument. Well done, Mr. Pitts, well done. You know Pitts, you can say that particular word by the way, it's just the other folks lacking in sufficient coloring who cannot.

The simple fact is that with Pitts' most recent column he has both reached and broken through the shatterpoint of credibility along with Obama's birth certificate question. This is also why we have, on a daily basis, observed search strings within our site's analytical software asking the question "is Leonard Pitts a racist?"

In fact, and getting to the valid summation, at this point all that we have are the now strongly understood reasons by the American people as to why the Founding Fathers reasoned that a President's parentage and upbringing within America are so terribly important to the Nation. The values of this nation are something that cannot be learned in a hostile, anti-American madrasah. Thus, the very clear requirement to be a natural born citizen.

What we have seen from our leadership is, more often than not, why many people now question the President's birth origins. It's not that anyone for certain knows that Obama was not born in the US, nor is it that anyone, indeed even Governor Abercrombie, that can be absolutely sure that the President was certifiably born within the US.

Where is the undamnable proof?

And therein lies the rub...