I used to think of Commentary magazine as a thoughtful, sober, intellectually honest journal – one that might even challenge conventional wisdom from time to time.
Not so with regard to the question of what it means to be a constitutionally eligible presidential or vice-presidential candidate. Should you suggest the definition of “citizen” is any different from the definition of “natural born citizen,” you run the risk of being called “crazy” – one who should be censored, blacklisted and not permitted among polite media company.
I got under someone’s skin at Commentary for a simple, accurate declarative sentence I uttered on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” last week when I observed that the Republican establishment’s favored vice-presidential candidate, Marco Rubio, is not constitutionally eligible to serve.
This was perceived by Commentary as a “bizarre attack on Rubio.” It was not an attack. I really like Marco Rubio. I supported his bid to become a U.S. senator in Florida. I value his contributions as an elected official. I would support him for any other office he sought – except the presidency or vice presidency. As a matter of absolute principle, I am loyal to and bound by the Constitution. It is those who promote extra-constitutional ideas who are on the “attack” – against the very foundations of our country.
If you want to fully understand the issue of constitutional eligibility, get Jerome Corsi’s best-selling “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” and get his e-book sequel, “Where’s the Real Birth Certificate?” free.
To Commentary, the matter of eligibility is as simple as Rubio’s birthplace – in Miami. He was born in Florida; therefore he is a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires. Actually, that makes Rubio a native-born American citizen, not natural born. According to the definitions of “natural born citizen” used by the founders at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, it requires that both parents be citizens at the time of the birth. That was not the case with Marco Rubio’s parents. Nor was it the case with Barack Obama’s parents.
Commentary characterizes such a view this way: “(W)e have now arrived at a point where ‘birtherism’ is a bipartisan form of insanity.”
I prefer to see this as nonpartisan loyalty to the Constitution.
From there, Commentary just descends into total fabrication of facts, claiming I “spent much of the last few years promoting myths about Barack Obama not being an American citizen though there was never any rational reason to doubt he was born in Hawaii. Even after the Obama birth certificate was produced, Farah stuck to his wacko guns and predictably claimed it was a forgery.”
Actually, I never questioned Obama’s citizenship. I assert with absolute conviction – with actual facts on my side – that Obama is not a “natural born citizen.” His birthplace is irrelevant. His father was a Kenyan who never became a U.S. citizen. And, yes, the birth certificate finally and reluctantly produced by Obama in the face of pressure applied by the imminent release of Jerome Corsi’s best-selling book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, does appear to be fraudulent to anyone and just about everyone who has bothered to look at the evidence.
But Commentary doesn’t care about evidence.
What’s the magazine’s solution for people like me – who disagree?
Ban them from the airwaves.
“Farah’s attempt to cast doubt on Rubio ought to be a warning to responsible media figures to be wary of inviting him or any other birther onto their shows,” the article suggests. “Along with the 9/11 truthers, the birthers need to be quarantined and confined to the fever swamps of political insanity, where they belong.”
I guess there are just some things Americans can’t talk about openly and honestly any more in America – without getting viciously attacked from the right, the left and the center.
That’s very dangerous talk – unbecoming of the people who founded Commentary with the idea of employing reason and thoughtfulness in the exploration of sometimes “politically incorrect” ideas.