Political correctness and the birth certificate

The local, state and national media are running scared now – in full attack mode on state legislators across the country who have the audacity to insist that future presidential elections conducted in their states should actually live up to constitutional qualifications for office.

You've all heard Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell rant and rave about this "non-issue" – making it seem like only crazy people would have a concern about the eligibility of the present occupant of the White House. They insist all questions have been answered, that we've all seen the actual birth certificate, that Barack Obama's life is an open book.

But now that the integrity of the Constitution has rightfully become a state issue, because of the abject failure of all controlling legal authorities at the federal level, media at the state and local level are jumping into the act, attempting to enforce acceptance of Obama's story on an unwilling public through the sheer tyranny of "political correctness."

Here are some recent examples for amusement purposes:

This factually challenged editorial in the Daily News Journal of Tennessee, responding to the introduction of a bill requiring proof of constitutional eligibility for presidential candidates running in the state, affirms as fact that "Obama has shown people his birth certificate, and it says he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961. Must he pass around the document to every person in the country?" The paper then dredges up Internet reports from non-authoritative, second-hand sources that do not assert they, or anyone else, has actually seen Obama's original Hawaiian birth certificate.

TRENDING: Voters blame Biden for border crisis, ready to punish Democrats, poll says

But it's not just the media establishment at the local, state and national level attempting to enforce a strict code of political correctness on the curious.

Note this report from the Savannah Morning News in Georgia. When Republican legislators introduced, with overwhelming support from elected members, similar legislation in that state, the bill drew a sharp rebuke from the state Democratic Party, whose spokesman made a not-so-veiled threat of consequences to the state from Obama himself, citing efforts to get federal funding to deepen Savannah Harbor.

Then, of course, there seems to be an unwritten rule among Republican presidential candidates and leaders to downplay the significance of the issue of constitutional eligibility – with Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, House Speaker John Boehner and others distancing themselves from a concern held by a significant majority of Americans and an overwhelming percentage of Republicans.

You might think there could actually be political consensus on legislation that would avert the crisis of confidence in government that occurred as a result of the poorly conducted 2008 election.

You might think members of both parties could get behind legislation that would apply equally to all candidates in the future.

You might think the media establishment would have better things to do than worry about legislation that cannot possibly do any harm to their beloved anointed one should he seek re-election in 2012 because, as they all know, he's got the documents to prove he is a "natural born citizen."

But that is not the case.

This simple, common-sense legislation that many of us assumed was already in place in 2008 is causing mass hysteria within the media establishment at every level.

What are they all so worried about?

Are they really concerned that Republican legislators might embarrass themselves with such legislation? I don't think so.

This is all part of a continuing battle to enforce the rules of political correctness.

It's simply politically incorrect to be a "birther."

It's simply politically incorrect to force presidential candidates to prove their eligibility for office.

It's simply politically incorrect to question why the political system broke down in 2008, leaving most Americans deeply suspicious that the man in the White House does not meet the simple requirements of office.

It doesn't take any courage to malign the reputations of good people who look at the facts and come to the logical conclusion that Barack Obama is hiding something.

But because of the vicious rules of engagement of political correctness, it does indeed take courage and conviction to stand up to this onslaught – and I've got the scars to prove it.