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?

‘Birther’ bill is an embarrassment to Georgians, Republicans | Kyle Wingfield

2 thoughts on “When Reason Fails: AJC’s Kyle Wingfield on the So-Called Georgia “Birther” Bill

  1. To all the “Chicken Littles” that keep saying that the sky is falling, and the Unites States will fail, never count against the United States of America, we are coming back and you and your phonies are wrong!

    The Birthers just HATE and can’t debate, where is there proof you might asked? Up where the sun don’t shine, HA, HA, show some proof birthers or people will continue to see you as dumb, stupid or racist, maybe all three. Can you blame them?

  2. Good points, Bob. I do not know that I give much credence to the claims that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Even if he is not, our energies are much better spent ensuring he is made a one-termer next year than in some quixotic attempt to legally annul his Presidency. The former is very possible and can very well occur in 2012. The latter is a stretch and would likely take far longer to get through the courts, even if the claim has validity. That being said, I cannot see any valid reason why a candidate for President or any other office have to legally prove their eligibility for that office before being placed on the ballot. That to me is just common sense just like the law to require a voter to prove their identity. Funny how it is almost always liberals, though, that go against common sense when their political power might be jeopardized by such reasonable proposals. You are absolutely right, if there was any tiny doubt that a Republican president were not of legal birth to be president, those same liberals who bash demonize anyone who dare question their golden man Obama would be howling much louder and with much more mainstream voices for proof of citizenship laws such as this. As is often the case, liberalism is highly characterized by amazing degrees of hypocrisy.

Comments are closed.