Houston Newspaper Attacks ‘Birthers’ in Texas House Delegation

Thursday, July 30, 2009 at 10:12 am

This is getting to be a theme today. The Houston Chronicle takes note of the six Texas Republican congressmen (the editorial was apparently written before Louie Gohmert joined in yesterday) who have co-sponsored Rep. Bill Posey’s (R-Fla.) “birther bill,” and chides the two members from the city’s suburbs.

A group of five Texas congressmen, including Reps. John Culberson, D-Houston, and Ted Poe, R-Humble, is considering whether to require future presidential candidates to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Please, gentlemen. That strikes us as grandstanding in the third degree. The whole thing is getting weirder than those old tabloid stories about house cats giving birth to space aliens. It’s time to say, “Enough, already.”

Poe and Culberson both represent districts that have grown less white and less Republican over the last few years. Poe’s 2nd District, for example, is 64.2 percent white and gave Barack Obama 40 percent of the vote, up from John Kerry’s 37 percent. Culberson’s 7th District is 67.5 percent white and gave Obama 41 percent of the vote, up from Kerry’s 36 percent. Neither is seen to be in danger in 2010, but the rewards of their being seen to back a racially-tinged conspiracy theory are increasingly limited.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter



Comment posted July 30, 2009 @ 9:06 pm

Who's to say this is a racially-tinged conspiracy theory? I put no store into the idea itself, but to try to sell it as racist simply because it slights Obama is asinine.

Comment posted August 1, 2009 @ 4:20 am

I don't think that anyone is saying that the birfer movement is solely motivated by racism. But we certainly cannot pretend that race isn't relevant in the birfer movement. Racism can be overt but it can be subtle and unconscious as well.

In birferstan, racism isn't just against black people. It is against Arabs as well. Right now, it is easy to hide racist anti-Arab sentiment by stating Islam is evil; anti-Arab racism is not discouraged in the US at this time. We have linked religion and race. And, while there is no proof that Obama is or has been Muslim, the birfers believe Obama to be a Muslim. Some birfers will go so far to state that Obama isn't black. They state he is predominately Caucasian/Arab and a tiny part black. The fact that such things are discussed seriously points to blatant racism.

I have often wondered; what if Obama's name was James Smith? What if the first black President had a nice western name? Would we view Obama differently? I think we would.

Comment posted August 1, 2009 @ 3:21 pm

Since Obama is a racist, and more White than Black, does that mean his majority White DNA is discriminating against his minority Black DNA?

Comment posted August 1, 2009 @ 11:32 pm

How is Obama more white than black?

When you look at Obama you see a black or biracial man. Why does the % of blackness matter? The man looks black…because he is black.

Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 11:36 am

Well, it's getting out in the drive-by media now.

From David Hahn, “Publisher StatePaper.com ” August 5, 2009.

Publisher: Obama Should Produce Original Birth Certificate

At StatePaper.com, we know by making this statement we will be instantly tagged as “racist,” “birther,” or other pejorative terms by those who defend the President of the United States. We often defend the President and the job he is doing and are regularly lambasted for being “too liberal” or an “Obama lover” by some of our most prolific critics.

But, here is the issue:

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of our country. Article II of the Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Without reciting them here, there appears to be some serious questions raised about whether President Obama was born in the United States or Kenya. We have not checked sources, but there are reports that some witnessed his birth in Kenya.

The President's campaign staff and then his administration have released and placed on the internet a “Certificate of Live Birth.” We do not dispute the validity or correctness of that document as others have tried to do, suggesting the use of computers to alter seals and names. By releasing this document the President agrees that the claims about his status as a natural born citizen is an open, important, public issue.

But, this “Certificate of Live Birth” is simply not the best evidence that the President and his administration could offer to lay to rest any doubt about his status as a natural born citizen.

Barack Obama is a lawyer and a graduate of Harvard Law School. All law students study the body of law we call “Evidence.” One of the core tenets of American law is the “best evidence rule” which requires the production of original, or certified copies, of original document to prove a fact. Abstracts and summaries are not original documents.

The President has offered an abstract (Certificate) of his birth, but not an original birth certificate which would be the best evidence of his birth. We need the best evidence so that it can do what the best evidence is meant to do; dispel the doubts about a fact. We need to see the Birth Certificate. That's the one that is often handwritten and signed by the doctor.

Lawyers and legal thinkers will, obviously, argue the finer points of the “Best Evidence Rule” and its applicability to this matter. But, that misses the point. The notion of “Best Evidence” is solidly-grounded in law. This is an important public matter and it seems now that the President has started down the path of offering some evidence (Certificate of Live Birth), he should offer the “best evidence” (Original Birth Certificate) which is the source document for his birth. The document behind the document which has been released. This is what is needed now in the court of public knowledge.

The fact in question here is the constitutional qualification of the President of the United States to hold office. With a simple nod, the President could offer the American people the best evidence, the source document(s), as he learned about at Harvard, and dispel those who question his birth as a natural born citizen. His failure to provide this best evidence, when it could be so easily done, raises only more questions, which fuels an ugly public debate.

And now we've got a “Liberal” Nebraska newspaper advising Barry to cough up his birth certificate.

If he can. Anybody ready to hear our TelePrompTer-in-Chief taking the Fifth?

Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 6:15 am

Hey There – David Hahn has just displayed his total ignorance of the truth about a “Birth certificate”. My own, dear (RIP) mother's original birth certificate (ca. 1920) was lost in a fire soon after she was born- certainly pre computer records, and many other forms of back-up record keeping. We will never have even a facsimile of her original birth certificate – but I have no doubt that she was an actual citizen of these United States. And I dare Mr. Hahn or anyone else to dispute this fact. Furthermore, not all “Live births” are witnessed by a “Doctor”. How about the highway patrolman who delivers a live baby on a highway in Texas (for a white, US citizen, on her way to work in corporate America, of course). Or the midwife who delivers a live baby in a bathtub in Idaho? Are these babies then not true citizens of the US because a “Doctor” did not handwrite and sign the “Birth Certificate”? How provincial can one get (as in rube)? Try telling the parents of those babies that their children are not citizens of the US. They have a “Certificate of Live Birth” for their children, and those children are citizens of this country – as is Barack Obama by proof of his “Certificate of Live Birth”.
What an idiot David Hanh is making himself out to be. One can only assume that his actual intent is to stir debate, so here it is. This seems to be a semantics argument amongst terribly, unfortunately, extremely uneducated and racist people. Good luck with that! Biirfers Uniyt!

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.