A Definitive and Unique Guide to the "Birther" Challenge

Ah, the "Birther" issue. The Obama conspiracy issue that will not, and perhaps cannot, go away.

I've studied it at length, and it took me a while to puzzle it all out. But I have. And, if you'll grab an Hawaiin Ice and buckle in, I can guide you to a unique insight as to why you're wrong about what you think that you know about Birther lore. It takes a while to to unravel this story, but it's worth it. Along the way you'll find UNIQUE POINTS with insight you will only find here.

The Birther challenge is my candidate for the singularly most mis-reported story of the Obama campaign / presidency. It's frustrating to me for two reasons. Because the media continues to boilerplate the same incorrect information into every story on the topic. And, because the Birther critics - who pillory and disdain the Birthers as know-nothings - do not themselves understand correctly the case that the Birthers are making. Pitiful and frustrating.

It's not like the basic facts of the Birther's challenge to candidate Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President of the United States have changed much since he announced his candidacy more than 3 years ago. Not the core facts. So...

Why has the Birther issue stayed alive?

• Because it smacks of a good conspiracy theory, even though it turns out that it isn't.

• Because it's important. Eligibility to run for President of the United States is a fundamental issue that affects us all every four years. There are only 2 simple requirements to run for this office: 35 years old, and a "natural born citizen". Challenging a candidate's eligibility on these requirements is not only valid, it is responsible. Ask John McCain, who was challenged on this requirement the first time that he ran for President because he was born out of the country to military parents serving overseas.

• Because President Obama, by his own admission, has an exotic life history for an American president. It includes, for the first time since the Revolutionary War founding days, a father who was a British citizen of another country (Kenya). It includes half of his family living in Kenya, with some telling stories of having seen Barack born in Mombassa.

• Because the press has consistently misreported this issue, and thus inadvertently kept it alive.

• Because the Birthers have yet to provide authentic positive proof that President Obama was NOT born in the USA.

• Because the President has yet to provide CONCLUSIVE positive proof that he WAS born inside the USA, and in fact seems to be hiding records behind seal. After Obama's brief visit to Hawaii to see his dying Grandmother one month before the election in 2008, the Governor of Hawaii sealed Obama's birth records. Why?

Having said that, am I a Birther?

Well, no and yes.

No: because I believe that the Birther challenge is both fruitless and moot. Fruitless, because although it is most likely that the President was born in Hawaii I don't believe that we will get to see conclusive proof of that. Moot because the President is already two years in office, having been elected by a compelling majority of voters and the electoral college. He won. He's governing. This issue needed to have been correctly vetted before the election - which is a lesson for future elections.

Yes: because I believe that challenging a candidate on eligibility is a valid and required pursuit, and that the Birthers have raised a valid challenge that has not yet been conclusively disproven.

A simple detective story:

I approach the Birther challenge as a straightforward non-partisan detective story. I assume that parties on both sides have good motives, whether it is defending or challenging Barack Obama's eligibility per the Constitutional requirement. Let's start from a position of good will.

A BOLD statement up front:

From my study of the Birther challenge, I'll make these two simplified, unique, and bold statements now:

1. There are two relevant stories of the President's birthplace, one which allows eligibility and one that does not.

2. UNIQUE POINT: All of the evidence presented to date SUPPORTS BOTH STORIES EQUALLY!, and without conspiracy or intentional fraud.

There, I said it. Now, let's walk through it as a detective story.

The two competing stories of Barack Hussein Obama II's birth:

The two relevant stories of Barack Obama's birthplace go like this:

1: Barack Obama is born in the USA, in a hospital in Hawaii, and is a US citizen eligible to be President.

2: Barack Obama is born in Kenya, in a hospital in Mombassa and is not a US Citizen because of laws regulating citizenship that were in effect in 1961 - given that his father is a British citizen. The most likely way this happened was that the Obama's took a trip to Kenya to visit Barack Sr's family and was prevented from returning home in time to deliver by airline rules that prevented mothers from flying in the ninth month of pregnancy.

So, what evidence differentiates between these two competing stories?

Primary evidence - Birth Certificates, which we all understand:

We all were born. We all understand birth certificates from personal experience. We should know that there are two types:

Long Form BC, with the footprints. One vault copy for the Bureau of vital statistics to retain. One copy sent home with mom and dad. (Obama references this copy in his book "Dreams from my Father". He lists some items on top of a dresser, one of which is his birth certificate.) In 1961, a Hawaiian long-form "Certificae of Live Birth" issued by a doctor in a hospital looks like this, with the doctor's name and the hospital:

Short-form. If you can't find your original birth certificate, as I personally can't, you can order one from the state bureau of vital statistics. At some point the birth records were computerized, and you will be getting a computer printout called a "Certification of Live Birth", which DOES NOT list the name of the doctor and the hospital. It's legal for identification. I've used this form myself. In Hawaii for a birth in 1961, it looks like this:



Problem 1: 1961 law

It's complicated, and best explained in this report, but the law in Hawaii in 1961 allowed four ways to get a long-form birth certificate. The simplest was being born in a hospital and having a doctor fill it out. But, not everyone was born in a hospital. So, the law allowed for walk-in reporting of a birth up until 1 year old by family members.

Suppose, in story number two - the Kenyan birth, Obama's birth was reported by walk-in at the Vital Statistics bureau. Suppose Grandma "Toot" Dunham (the responsible one) took daughter Anne (the chaotic one) down when she got back home and reported the birth. "We live in Hawaii, and there's been a birth!" The two long-form certificates would be created. One vault copy and one to go home. The difference would be that they would list no doctor's name and no hospital name. That difference is crucial.

Problem 2: Adoption changes things:

You may not have known this. As an adoptive father of two, I do.

UNIQUE POINT: After an adoption, the original vault copy is replaced with the adoption version, with different information on it. A new long-form BC is issued to the adoptive parents. If the child later requests a copy of his BC, he would not be looking at the original information it contained.

Barack Obama was adopted when he was 6 years old and his mother remarried to Lolo Soetoro. Was his original vault copy BC replaced with a modified one? Possible.

But wait, say the fact checkers, hasn't Barack Obama provided a Birth Certificate?

Yes and No. In the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama presented the short form "Certification of Live Birth" pictured above. The various fact check sites (Snopes, FactCheck, PolitiFact) display it prominently and have judged that this settles the matter.

But it does not. Because President Obama has not presented the long-form "Certificate of Live Birth" - either the vault copy or the family copy.

UNIQUE POINT: The short-form "Certification of Live Birth" does not differentiate between the two birth stories. BOTH STORIES ARRIVE AT THE SAME SHORT FORM BC.

Without the name of the doctor and of the hospital on the document, you can't differentiate between the two stories.

Take a minute and examine the short form BC that Obama presented. Tell me the name of the doctor. Tell me the name of the hospital. Answer: you can't tell me that from the short form. They are not on that document.

Are they on the vault copy that the computer record was generated from? We don't know without seeing it.

UNIQUE POINT: The two stories CONVERGE from a birth certificate perspective:


Let's recap the two birth stories, using what we now understand about the BC's.

Story 1: Obama born in the USA

1. Barack Obama Sr. and Anne Dunham are physically in Hawaii when the baby is born.
2. Baby is born in USA hospital, in Hawaii. (One of two. Both have been claimed over time by Obama. Neither will currently officially claim the birth)
3. Doctor fills out long-form "Certificate of Live Birth" under way one of 1961 Hawaii law, including his name and the name of the hospital.
4. Vault copy goes to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. Family gets a copy.
5. At some point before 2008, Hawaii's birth records are computerized.
6. In 2008 Obama requests an official BC and gets the short form "Certification of Live Birth", with no doctor or hospital listed.

Story 2. Obama born in Kenya

1. Barack Obama Sr. and Anne Dunham are in Kenya to visit his family and are prevented from traveling back to the USA before the birth.
2. Baby is born in a Mombassa hospital, with questionable or nonexistant record keeping.
3. Obama family reports the birth to the Burea of Vital Statistics by walk-in, which is allowed under 1961 law. Bureau fills out long form certificates, WITHOUT the name of the doctor or the hospital.
4. Vault copy goes to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. Family gets a copy.
5. At some point before 2008, Hawaii's birth records are computerized.
6. In 2008 Obama requests an official BC and gets the short form "Certification of Live Birth", with no doctor or hospital listed.

UNIQUE POINT: The stories CONVERGE at step 4! After that, you cannot differentiate between the stories with the short form. Only with the long form by determining whether or not the doctor's name and hospital are listed.

But wait, say the fact checkers, isn't there secondary evidence in the form of newspaper announcements?

Ah, the trump card that the fact-checker sites believe they are playing, but are not. This is the most misunderstood and misreported piece of evidence in the Birther story.

 Researchers have found a birth announcement in two Hawaii newspapers from 1961 that look like this:

Based on the contemporary birth announcements posted in two Hawaiian newspapers, the fact checkers aske these two compelling questions:

1. Don't they prove that Obama was born in Hawaii as he states?

2. Wouldn't there have had to been a large scale, impossible, and laughable conspiracy to go back to the papers and plant these announcements for the Kenyan story to be true?

Trump card! Case closed!

Well, no and no.

1. UNIQUE POINT: The birth announcements DO NOT prove that a live birth occurred physically in Hawaii. They only prove that a birth certificate was filed at the Bureau of Vital Statistics - WHICH IS TRUE IN BOTH STORIES. The newspaper announcements do not list the name of the doctor or the hospital, and so do not differentiate between stories.

If you go back to both stories where they converge at point 4 (Vault copy filed at BVS) and insert a 4a in each story it would be: BVS notifies newspapers of the filing of a birth certificate, and newspapers routinely print announcement.

2. UNIQUE POINT: No conspiracy to go back and plant the newspaper accounts is necessary in the Kenyan birth story. It is the natural occurence after a BC was filed at BVS, IN BOTH STORIES!

No conspiracy. No conspiracy theory. Only a small case of innocent fraud if the Obama family walked-in and reported a birth, as allowed by 1961 law, when the birth had taken place outside the USA. But, who could blame them. Wouldn't you want a US birth certificate after you had inconveniently been out of the country during the birth? They did live in Hawaii. They would want a US BC. And they might have gotten one.

Summary: What will prove or disprove the Birther case?

It is as simple as the Birthers have stated. As Joe Farah of WND has stated with his sign campaign pictured at the beginning of this article: Show the original form birth certificate.

The only way to differentiate between the two relevant birth stories - in the absence of Barack Obama presenting the family copy of the long-form certificate that he offhandedly mentioned in his book - is to see the vault copy of the "Certificate of Live" birth on file in the birth records office in Hawaii.

If there is no vault copy, we have a problem.

If there is a vault copy, and it does not list a doctor's name and a hospital, we have a problem.

If there is a vault copy, and it has been altered during the adoption, we have a problem.

If there is a vault copy, and it does list a doctor's name and a hospital, then the case is resolved.

So, the natural question is, why haven't we seen the vault copy of the birth certificate? As Chris Matthews asked this week, why hasn't President Obama done everything that he can to make that copy available for inspection to put this to bed?

I'll end this guided tour with three relevant news stories:

1. During the 2008 election campaign, officials of the records office in Hawaii gave a statement that they had seen, and could verify, that there were birth records for Barack Obama in their office.

UNIQUE POINT: While this was seen as conclusive by many, it is not. What is on the birth record? What does it say? Is there a doctor's name and hospital, or not????

2. A story in June of 2010 featured Tim Adams, identified as a "Senior Elections Clerk for Honolulu" who was leaving his job in Hawaii. On his way out, he gave an interview where he said that it was common knowledge in his office that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. This is not substantiated.

3. The new Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, has stated his irritation with the Birther challenge, and his determination to release more birth records to resolve this issue. To that I say: good luck with that. The previous Governor had them sealed. You will likely need the permission of Barack Obama himself to unseal them. I have not yet seen an indication that he will do that.

I hope that Governor Abercrombie can do what he desires to do and can get the vault copy of Barack Obama II's "Certificate of Live Birth". We all need to see it to be able to differentiate between the two relevant birth stories and put this issue to rest factually.

The Bottom Line for Me:

We're not likely to be able to conclusively resolve the Birther challenge to President Obama's eligibility to be President.

I don't think that President Obama can produce a conclusive family copy of the long form "Certificate of Live Birth". If he could, he would have by now. Maybe he lost the copy that he mentioned in his book. It happens. I've lost mine. Maybe the certificate was altered during his adoption. My boys' were. Maybe he doesn't even know the exact circumstances of his birth. Again, my boys do not.

And, maybe he cannot get the original vault copy released because of Hawaii or national law. I don't know - I've never had to try with mine.

Maybe the short form, insufficient as it is, is all he has and all he knows. It's entirely possible.

I don't fault President Obama for any of that. It's a complicated story, mostly out of his control.

So, I'm left with the conclusion that we are never going to conclusively know that answer to this important challenge that the Birthers have validly raised. And so we're stuck with a mystery. A simple but unsolvable detective story. Stuck with endless but fruitless lawsuits until President Obama leaves office.

That's my bottom line.

On Opposing Reform

This week, in the course of pandering to and appeasing his White House guest - Mexico's President Calderon - President Obama sequentially undermined Arizona's new immigration law and then expressed sympathy for it. It's a misdirected expression of frustration, he said, at America's broken immigration system. He shares that frustration, he assures us, because he wants "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", but the Republicans are blocking him.

Ah. We're opposing "reform". Heard it before. I've heard it on liberal blogs and on Twitter alternately that either Republicans or the Tea Party or both are blocking "reform".

Guilty. Not all reform. But, I resolutely oppose reform of the Democrat variety.

Mostly, what I've learned about "reform" over the last year is this:

1. Democrat leaders (Obama / Pelosi / Reid) - in the year of Hope and Change - will attach the word "reform" to any major legislation they propose.

2. Democrat rank-and-file will immediately and unquestioningly support the "reform". Whether they have read the actual bills (and they have not). Whether they know if it is actually positive reform or not (and it's not).

3. Democrat leaders and rank-and-file will relentlessly accuse anyone opposing the specific bills offered in legislation of being "opposed to reform".

Well, yes. I have opposed the Democrat version of "reform" several times in the last 17 months.

Yes, I opposed Obama / Pelosi / Reid Health Care "Reform". All of the various versions, and the various 2700 page mish-mashes of corruption and big-government creeping socialism. We were lied to by the leadership of the House & Senate at every stage of the debate about the scope, costs, and corruption in the bills. We are still learning that the only true thing that Nancy Pelosi said during the debates was "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it". Now we're finding out what's in it, including ever-expanding costs predicts that are still not close to real cost of the bill.

That doesn’t mean that I think that America’s health care system doesn’t need reform.

Certainly not the Democrat version that will eventually go a long way toward bankrupting our nation.

Yes, I oppose the financial “reform” bill drafted in the Senate by Chris Dodd.

Does the financial industry bear some responsibility for the economic crash and deserve further regulation to prevent it from happening again? Of course.

But, why would you trust Democrats in Congress, who arguably had more to do with the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, to write financial reforms? Why especially would you trust Chris Dodd – Senator from Country Wide Mortgage, who was knee-deep in the subprime mess – to write a “reform” bill. It’s insane.

And yes, I oppose “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (CIR), as envisioned by the Democrat leadership.

We’ve been down the amnesty road before, and it did not solve the problem. Amnesty is ultimately where CIR is headed again, despite the fiction that Congress can craft a credible “pathway to citizenship” without secure borders.

Let’s be clear, Congress. You do not get CIR until you demonstrate convincingly that you can secure the border. That is already their job, and they have been negligent in that role for the decades – leading to the problems that we have now. Secure the border first!

In fact, we can fashion other versions of “Comprehensive” immigration “reform” than the version that the Democrats are selling. Here’s a plan that can be labeled as “reform”:

1. Secure the border! Build a double fence as far as needed on our 2000 mile southern border. Build at least the 700 miles that was promised in the 2006 bill that was signed into law. Until you can live up to the already-signed law, you can’t have new laws.

2. Enforce current federal law on immigration. Deportations. Workplace enforcement. Etc.

3. Pause legal immigration until unemployment – currently at a 17% real rate – is back under 6% (Proposed by Pat Buchanan in an op-ed)

4. End birthright citizenship. Go back to requiring that one parent be a citizen and of age. (proposed by George Will in an op-ed)

That is an immigration "reform" plan.

Would you vote for that? Why not. Do you “oppose reform” or something?

on Kagan's Disqualification for SCOTUS

I have opined on Twitter that, in my opinion, President Obama's nominee for the SCOTUS vacancy - Elena Kagan - is disqualified for the position by virtue of the reports of her banning military recruiters from campus when she served as Dean of the Harvard Law School. My opinion is my own, and is not formed from Newt Gingrich's similar pronouncements yesterday, or from any partisan website.

A reasonable question came from my friend Omer Mozaffar on Twitter, who asked:

"Even if the facts were that simple, which you know they aren't, how does that disqualify her?"

Good question.

Our task in evaluating Kagan for the SCOTUS vacancy is the task of evaluating her judgement. That is what she will be called to do - make judgements. Given that she has never been a judge and does not have a body of judicial decisions for us to evaluate, we have to look at how she has made judgements and decisions in her professional life to date as predictors of how she will make judgements on the court. In this particular, in her decisions on allowing or not allowing military recruiters equal access to her campus, her decision was so significantly shocking as to be disqualifying.

It is, as Omer suggests, not a simple question. And there are defenders of Kagan on this issue. One clear and seemingly mitigating defense was offered by her predecessor as Dean of the Harvard Law School - Robert C. Clark - in the Wall St Journal article here. You should read the article. I have, twice.

Clark offers three essential defenses of Kagan's actions:

1. She inherited the policies on access for military recruiters to Harvard's Office of Career Services (OCS) from Clark himself.

2. Kagan was acting in the interest of the campus non-discrimination policy when prohibiting recruiters from using OCS. The military couldn't sign a no-discrimination policy because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", so Harvard treated them as discriminators.

3. The practical effect was not severe because the recruiters came on campus at the invitation of student groups.

Before I discuss why those three arguments are flawed, a review of the timeline set out in Clark's article is useful.

1979 - Harvard adopts the non-discrimination requirement for recruiters on campus using OCS

1994 - President Clinton and Congress sign "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Military cannot sign non-discrimination policy. Harvard at some point denies them access to OCS.

1996 - Congress passes Solomon Act, prohibiting colleges that accept federal aid from banning recruiters

Harvard is now in violation of the Solomon Act

2002 - Air Force makes the case that Harvard is deny it's recruiters "equal access" to their students.

Harvard, facing the loss of 15% of revenue, decides that it's principles on non-discrimination are fungible and grants an exemption to their policy for military recruiters - along with annual statements to their students that Harvard opposes the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Access to the OCS is restored.

2003 - Elena Kagan becomes Dean of the Harvard Law School and keeps this policy.

2004 - an Appeals Court rules the Solomon Act invalid.

Ms. Kagan makes a decion at this point to return the Law School to the previous policy, and again prohibits access to military recruiters to the OCS.

One semester later, the Supreme Court overturns the Appeals Court. Plus, the Government threatens again to cut off federal funding to Harvard.

Their funding threatened, once again Ms. Kagan relents and allows access to the OCS and resumes writing her bad boy advisories to students about the military's discriminatory policies.

That is the timeline and the facts, as laid out by Ms. Kagan's defender Mr. Clark.

Now, back to the three defenses and why they are faulty.

1. She inherited the Policy:

Not good enough. She will not get to make that stance as a Justice on the Supreme Court. She will have to make her own decisions. In fact, she did make her own decision in 2004 with her decision to revert to the previous policy and again ban recruiters from equal access to the OCS.

2. Her positions were based on the Universities non-discrimination policies:

Her decision, when she had the chair of Dean, was to ban recruiters from equal access to the OCS based on politically correct OPTIONAL policies on discrimination. I say optional because when faced with a choice of losing 15% of their funding Harvard's scruples on discrimination came 2nd place. Money came first. When Dean Kagan thought she had the cover of the Appeals Court ruling to shield her from the loss of funding, she chose to end the exemption. She didn't have to.

Dean Kagan had the option of continuing the exemption for military recruiters to use the OCS. In the context of 2004, she should have. America was (and is) at war in two theaters. Military lawyers were in the thick of critical decisions on detaining and trying detainees related to those wars. Does our need for our Department of Defense to have equal access to the best and brightest law school graduates in war time trump an optional policy on non-discrimination? Especially when the military was just following the policies established by President Clinton and Congress. You bet it does.

Yet, in her one moment of owning the decision, Ms. Kagan decided on a policy of denying equal access to our military's recruiters. Shameful.

3. The practical effect of this ban, this denial of equal access, was negligible.

Nonsense. The military did not feel that it was negligible. That's why they pushed hard for restoration of equal access in recruiting Harvard's law students. Goldmann-Sachs had full access, but the U.S. Military did not.

Nor did the Supreme Court, when it reversed the Appeals Court on the Solomon Act.

Elena Kagan had her moment of making a decision. A judgement. It came in 2004, when she made the decision to revert to a policy of denying equal access to the OCS to military recruiters.

Kagan's decision was opposite in intent to the Supreme Court's intention in restoring the Solomon Act. Yet, Obama now wants to put her on that same court. It's a mistake.

We have little record to judge Elena Kagan's judgement. Here is one example, and she got it badly wrong - as did her defender Mr. Clark. She got it so wrong in wartime as for it to be a disqualifying decision, IMHO.

Vote no on Elena Kagan's confirmation.

(Photo by Randy Masters copyright 2007)

on Racial Sensitivity at our Borders & the AZ laws

It's heating up!

The issue of the 5 kids who wore American flat t-shirts to a California public schools on Cinco de Mayo is more than a one day news story. It has become emblematic of the general tensions on the border - played out in the tensions in the public schools.

The battle is engaged on Twitter and in the blogosphere, with Roger Ebert leading the team critical of the kids wearing the American Flag shirts. Click here for Roger's blog post, and engage...civily please.

I'll leave my comments on the topic over there.

You can find my Twitter posts at www.twitter.com/rmasters78

THE ONE Continues Slander of Fellow Citizens

"Obama Kills at White House Dinner" was the headline I saw this morning. Making jokes at the expense of his fellow citizens in Arizona:

"We know what happens in Arizona when you don't have an ID...Adios Amigos."

Funny. A knee-slapper. Yucking it up - not like he had to be at an oil spill or anything.

Nice, to have the President of the United States undermining federal immigration law - which the Arizona law mimics for laughs.

Meanwhile:

- immigration "rights" forces march in lockstep with communists on May 1st: May Day / Che Day. Both having the same agenda of undermining American law.

- our border remains negligently unsecure under the Obama administration, as with his predecessors, allowing an illegal invasion to continue to endanger American citizens.

- the American political Left yawns at Arizona's crisis and agonizes only about racial profiling.

- racial groups like La Raza and MeCHa push for "chicano studies" programs in schools in the West that promote Reconquista and Aztlan - the future chicano state reclaimed in America's West after the collapse of Washington. And we tolerate that?

There will be a backlash against the Left's backlash on the AZ law. It's on.

American Left Outraged over Wrong Things

The American political left is outraged - outraged I tell you! - regarding the newly signed Arizona immigration law. But, as usual, they are outraged over the wrong things.

The good people of Arizona, in a reasonable attempt to protect themselves against an ongoing criminal invasion of their state that sees 650,000 (probably more) people trespassing there and border chaos and violence that endangers every one of them, acted where a negligent federal government has not.

Does the American political left have empathy for the very REAL crisis that their fellow citizens find themselves in? No. Not at all. Instead, they vilify them - with unwarranted charges of "racist!" and "Nazi" and agonize only on the POTENTIAL for racial profiling. A potential, I should add, mitigated by the good-faith efforts of the Arizona legislators to craft wording in their law that prohibits racial profiling.

I have three questions for my friends on the political left - many of whom I hung out with at EbertFest 2010 last week:

1. Are you paying attention to, reading about, the crisis in Arizona? I'm talking about the border violence that has spilled over to Arizona and made it essentially a war zone that endangers them, and simultaneously crushes them with the cost?

If so, why aren't you outraged at the murders, kidnappings, drug crime, and identity theft that plagues Arizona?

2. Have you no empathy for your fellow citizens and their crisis? If not, may I respectfully say that your empathy is misplaced with the lawless.

3. What is your solution to Arizona's crisis? Open Borders? Amnesty for those who have illegally crossed our borders? Ignoring our immigration laws? Vilification of good people and fellow citizens? What is your solution?

Apparently, watching today's May Day rallies, the American Left's solution is to join forces with the Communist Party and the Reconquista movement on May Day / Che Day to continue to destabilize American sovereignty and democracy. See Michelle Malkin's coverage of today's rallies here. Does anyone on the American political left see a problem with this?

The accusations of racism and Nazi are outrageous, over the top, and must stop.

I stand with the good people of Arizona in confronting their existential crisis.

Perpetually Outraged Left Overheats on AZ Law

Folks. Friends. Let's keep a level head here.

There is no more rapidly overheating issue, in an already overheated political season, than that of the recently passed Arizona state law addressing law enforcement responsibilities regarding immigration status. A law which codifies at the state level what already exists at the federal level.

Arizona's new law is a reasonable response to an emergency. The border is in chaos, with drug wars and crime bleeding across and endangering American citizens. The government, whose core function is the protection of these citizens, is acting - in the negligent absence of action by the Federal Government. And they are being vilified for it.

My EbertFest / Twitter friends are peppering me with questions on my position standing with the good people of Arizona. The political left is generally in misreading the law and in hurling charges of racism. It's unbecoming.

Let's address the plain facts of the law with a cool head.

Let's start here: Pat Buchanan got it right in his column this week on "Whose Country is It Anyway", when he observed that "No other developed country has a 2000 mile border with a developing country." True. Not Canada. Not Mexico. Not anywhere in Europe. Nowhere else in the West, at least, is that true. And that is the heart of the matter. The developed country (USA) is a magnet for the developing country (Mexico), and an invasion of illegal aliens at least 12 million strong is the result. (Although I think that number is soft).

I used three words in that last paragraph that many will object to: invasion, illegal, and alien. But words have meanings. And, those words have plain meanings that have been greatly distorted by the Open Borders crowd on the left, with resulting damage to this debate and to our country.
Let's discuss the definitions of those words, in the context of some quick facts:

1. A country is defined in large part by it's geographical borders. Look at any globe.

2. Countries maintain their sovereignty, in large part, by controlling those borders. Every country does it. A country that does it poorly, that negligently allows the borders to become uncontrolled and porous, is in danger of losing it's rightful sovereignty.

3. Sovereign countries, to thrive and grow, should welcome immigrants. But that welcome is not without limits, and must be controlled in a fashion to allow assimilation to work. Negligent uncontrolled immigration leads to balkanization and ethnic factionalism - which is detrimental long term to the health of a unified nation.

4. The United States Congress, in recognition of the above, has passed a body of Immigration Law over time in an effort to both welcome immigrants and to control their numbers and distributions to enrich our country and still allow for assimilation.

Now, back to the definitions:

1. Invasion: accurately describes a wholesale combination of a negligent control of our borders and a flood of people passing through them in violation of the law. Are there 12 million people illegally in Canada? In Mexico? Anywhere in Europe? No. It is an invasion.

2. Alien: a perfectly good word often used in US immigration law. It means only "not from here".

3. Illegal: a straightforward word. U.S. immigration law establishes the procedures that allow aliens to be in our country legally. If you are here in violation of those laws - regardless of where from or of what race - you are here illegally. If you came across the border without permission, or overstayed a Visa, etc. you are here illegally. How many other countries allow that on a massive scale?

The political left in this country has degraded the clear meaning of those words, and for partisan political agenda reasons, using euphemisms like "undocumented worker", for example. It's dishonest and not helpful to the dialogue.

Back to the AZ law. It's only 16 pages, and easily readable. Yet, no one on the political left who is hurling the charges of "racism" has probably read it. They are clearly mischaracterizing it rampantly. Stating, for example, that people can be stopped and "asked for their papers" simply for how they look. It's untrue, prohibited in the plain language of the law, and outrageous. That charge was fueled by President Obama, who said:

"Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to get harassed — that’s something that could potentially happen… That’s not the right way to go."

That pandering statement made by our President at a campaign rally is a blatant lie. You have to already be stopped for a legal violation to be asked for ID. But facts don't matter to our demagogic President. Does it bother you that our President lied about this topic.

By the way, I've been asked to show ID. I've carried a passport in every foreign country that I've visited and been asked to present it many times. I've been stopped here for traffic violations and asked to present my ID and proof of insurance. What exactly is the problem here?

Okay, to answer the Twitter questions:

1. etherielmusings When you think a complete stranger is less worthy than you, put your best friend in his/her shoes, and think again. Think before you judge.

Grace, I don't think of strangers as less worthy than me. I think of them as held to the same standards as me. Follow the law. To think less than that, to allow people to wantonly break the law because of liberal sensibilities, is to degrade them. The least judgmental thing to do is to apply the same standard, the same law, to everyone.

2. popcornreel AZ law fans please note: this is Native Americans' land. Most of us are immigrants. AZ law doesn't target all immigrants, ergo: it's racist.

Omar: true, historically. We are all immigrants. However, your statement negates the entire body of American immigration law. Congress passed immigration laws, which clearly define legal and illegal immigration. To abide by the law is not racist. If anything is racist, it is to advocate not holding someone accountable to the law merely because of their race or origin. We are all accountable to the law. If you don't like the current immigration law, then vote to change it.

In the meanttime, are we to ignore that immigration law exists. To pretend that Arizona is not in crisis?

3. etherielmusings @rmasters78 who determines who is a "criminal" alien or not? What if I walk down ur street & get stopped cuz I look like an "alien"?That ok?

Grace, the Congress of the United States has decided who is a criminal alien and who is a legal alien. Just as your country has done for Canada. Why did you go through Customs on the way back into Canada. Why didn't you just cross the border to go back home anywhere you felt like crossing?

Congress has defined it, and law enforcement officers execute the law. Just like on every other law.

4. ebertchicago @rmasters78 You say it's odd liberals object to "criminal aliens showing ID." Guilty until proven innocent: That's America?

Roger: Have you never been asked to show a passport in a foreign country? Have you never presented your driver's license when stopped for a traffic ticket? The AZ law says that if a law enforcement officer in the course of a legal contact for other issues has reason to suspect that the person may not be here legally they can ask for evidence of that and refer to ICE. That is in support of federal immigration law, which the Federal Government has been negligent in enforcing.

I was listening to talk radio - left and right - on a long drive yesterday. I heard an AZ lawman call in. He said that often on a traffic stop the person will say "I don't have a driver's license, but here is my Mexican birth certificate" or counsular card. The lawman now has reason to refer the case to ICE. What is wrong with that?

5. ebertchicago What if whites in Arizona were pulled over on suspicion of being racist? Not all are? Not all brown people are illegals.

Roger, 70% of Arizonans support the new law. Do you think that total only includes white people? Hispanics and African-Americans are negatively impacted by illegal immigration and the chaos on the border too.

6. @ebertchicago: Idea for Arizona: Just have them wear a cloth star, easily visible on their topmost outer garment.

Roger, my friend. Please reconsider this tweet. It makes me sad. Comparing the holocaust to the AZ law? I'm invoking Godwin's Law, and you owe Ben Stein an apology now.

Folks. Arizona's border with Mexico is in crisis. Kidnapping and crime off the charts. State resources overburdened. Ranchers being shot. Years and years of broken promises by the Federal Government in administrations of both parties to fix the border. It's a crisis. I think that Arizona acted reasonably to protect it's citizens of all races and colors from an invasion.

Please, stop with the "Nazi" and "racism" charges. It is, frankly, unhinged and unwarranted.

More to Say

Wow. I see that I haven't posted here in almost a year...

It's not that I haven't had anything political to say in that time. I've said plenty! I've just said it elsewhere, becoming addicted to posting on Roger Ebert's Journal. Commenting on a range of political, scientific, and religion issues with an international cast of characters. Holding my own, as the often lone conservative on a predominantly liberal blog - and facing the fire with civility modelled for me by the master himself, Roger Ebert. It's been a pleasure getting to know him and spar with him.

I'm just back from a wonderful experience at EbertFest 2010, where I immersed myself in an eclectic mix of 10 films of Roger's choosing. Politics free. Just film.

But, I find that I have more to say in this tumultuous political climate that we find ourselves in.

So, I'm spinning up Partisan Newsjunkie again.

I've written this blog for seven years now. 351 total posts! Nothing that I am ashamed of. Strong and often partisan opinion, sure. Raw emotional politics, sure. But civil.

I'm sticking with my byline "Partisan", though I've added my real name to my profile.

I'm back.

And I have more to say.