It’s a common public debate “tactic”—when you’re argument is weak and you are facing defeat on the field of ideas, denigrate your opponent and end debate. It’s a common tactic of fact-deficient, emotion-driven liberals, so it was a bit disappointing to see the AJC’s token conservative, Kyle Wingfield, employ the same strategy in his commentary on HB 401, a bill to require candidates for President to prove citizenship before being placed on the Georgia ballot.
Wingfield may not be willing to continue the discussion, but your liberal friends may. Ask them to consider these questions, to which honest answers will prove most revealing:
- Political leanings and personal feelings aside, would you agree that the Constitution requires that the President be a natural-born U.S. citizen?
- Would you acknowledge that there is no statutory mechanism for the enforcement of that provision?
- Would you also acknowledge that it is the states, individually via the Electoral College, that elect the President and thereby have a legitimate interest in ensuring that candidates meet the constitutional requirements?
- Would you acknowledge that "birthers" are not a clan, tribe, culture, race, organization, team or club but simply individuals who insist that any President meet the minimum constitutional requirements?
- Would you admit that the term "birther" has no meaningful descriptive value, but was coined by supporters of the current President as a pejorative, designed to stifle debate and demonize those individuals expressing a legitimate concern?
Finally, pose the obvious, oft-asked question: who would be the "birthers" if it was a Republican President with the questionable lineage? Would you be willing to give him the same pass that you now demand for Obama?