OrlyTaitzESQ.com Official blog for Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire
Not long ago (10:51 am Aug.2) I received an email from Dr. Orly Taitz containing the information posted below. When I attempted to follow the link to her site I encountered what appeared to be a Google warning advisory with the heading "Reported Attack Site!"
I have had no opportunity to discuss this matter with Dr. Taitz. I make no claims as to the authenticity of the document that is the subject and occasion for the discovery motion. In this age of technically proficient fabrication, a healthy scepticism is a necessary safeguard against disinformation. But proper investigation is the best way to deal with the possibility of deception, and that is all people like me have consistently asked for.If Loyal to Liberty is suddenly made inaccessible after this posting, a dose of healthy scepticism as to the cause will certainly be in order, wouldn't you say?
Official Blog for Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire
August 2nd, 2009
Please mail your donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
account 23532-67227 B of A
26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo CA 92691
email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Web site is; www.OrlyTaitzESQ.com
Facebook Page is; http://www.facebook.com/people/Orly-Taitz/548555974
Paypal
August 2nd, 2009Motion for rogatory discovery to authenticate Kenyan Birth Certificate of Barack Hussein Obama
August 2nd, 2009
| 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Ambassador Alan Keyes PhD, et al v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al |
| (ANx), DISCOVERY, MANADR |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Taitz, Orly on 8/1/2009 at 10:08 PM PDT and filed on 8/1/2009
| Case Name: | Ambassador Alan Keyes PhD, et al v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al |
| Case Number: | 8:09-cv-82 |
| Filer: | Alan Keyes PhD |
| Document Number: | 34 |
Docket Text:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD. (Attachments: # (1) Appendix Photocopy of Obama’s birth certificate from Kenya)(Taitz, Orly)
8:09-cv-82 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD. (Attachments: # (1) Appendix Photocopy of Obama’s birth certificate from Kenya)(Taitz, Orly)
8:09-cv-82 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA david.dejute@usdoj.gov
Orly Taitz dr_taitz@yahoo.com
8:09-cv-82 Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by fax to: :
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description: Main Document
Original filename:C:\Documents and Settings\Orly Taitz\My Documents\Keyes%20rogatory%20motion%202[1].pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=8/1/2009] [FileNumber=8207635-0]
[4da93b34b5fdee7990ff197d1d52961f770acc565b44d7fc733fd17c504b32e2e382d
943286e846ebef328762b316b0afaf37f29aa8cf9f725fa7514c0519f29]]
Document description:Appendix Photocopy of Obama’s birth certificate from Kenya
Original filename:C:\Documents and Settings\Orly Taitz\My Documents\Kenya BC.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=8/1/2009] [FileNumber=8207635-1]
[2b1e994c5d722e038a18416495d68765cadffdb11fa1066b8c7814f13f52f8ae00b5d
945186f8c08973dd1125cd2526e37cbc74feb3897c09b6b9ce4708491eb]]
Original filename:C:\Documents and Settings\Orly Taitz\My Documents\Keyes%20rogatory%20motion%202[1].pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=8/1/2009] [FileNumber=8207635-0]
[4da93b34b5fdee7990ff197d1d52961f770acc565b44d7fc733fd17c504b32e2e382d
943286e846ebef328762b316b0afaf37f29aa8cf9f725fa7514c0519f29]]
Document description:Appendix Photocopy of Obama’s birth certificate from Kenya
Original filename:C:\Documents and Settings\Orly Taitz\My Documents\Kenya BC.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=8/1/2009] [FileNumber=8207635-1]
[2b1e994c5d722e038a18416495d68765cadffdb11fa1066b8c7814f13f52f8ae00b5d
945186f8c08973dd1125cd2526e37cbc74feb3897c09b6b9ce4708491eb]]
Dr. Orly Taitz
Attorney-at-Law
Orly Taitz Law Offices
26302 La Paz, Suite 211
Mission Viejo, California 92691
Telephone: (949) 683-5411
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION
Captain Pamela Barnett, §
Lt. Colonel Richard Norton Bauerbach §
Captain Robin D. Biron §
Colonel John D. Blair, §
Mr. David L. Bosley, §
Ms. Loretta G. Bosley, §
Captain Harry G. Butler, §
Representative Glenn Casada, Tennessee §
Jennifer Leah Clark, §
Representive Timothy Comerford, NH §
Charles Crusemire, §
Representative Cynthia Davis, Missouri § Civil Action No.:
Chief Warrant O. Thomas S. Davidson § SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx)
Matthew Michael Edwards, § TRIAL-BY-JURY
Lt. Jason Freese, § DEMANDED
Mr. Kurt C. Fuqua, §
Officer Clint Grimes, §
Representative Casey Guernsey, Missouri §
Julliett Ireland, §
D. Andrew Johnson, §
Israel D. Jones, §
Timothy Jones, §
Alan Keyes, Ph.D., §
Commander David Fullmer LaRoque, §
Gail Lightfoot, §
Lita M. Lott, §
Major David Grant Mosby, §
MSGT Steven Kay Neuenschwander, §
Representative Frank Niceley, Tennessee §
Retired Senator Jerry O’Neil, Montana, §
SFC E7 Robert Lee Perry , §
Representative Larry Rappaport, NH §
Colonel Harry Riley, §
Sergeant Jeffrey Wayne Rosner, §
MSGT Jeffrey Schwilk, §
Captain David Smithey, §
Lt. Commander John Bruce Steidel, §
Cmdr. Douglas Earl Stoeppelwerth §
Thomas J Taylor, §
Representative Eric Swafford, Tennessee §
Captain Neil B. Turner, §
Richard E. Venable, §
LCDR Jeff Graham Winthrope, and §
Lt. Colonel Mark Wriggle, §
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. §
§
Barack Hussein Obama, §
Michelle L.R. Obama, §
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, §
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, §
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and §
President of the Senate, §
Defendants. §
SPECIAL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT PRE-RULE 26(f) DISCOVERY
TO DEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and
CERTAIN NON-PARTY WITNESSES
TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY, PRESERVE EVIDENCE, and to
TRANSMIT LETTERS ROGATORY PURSUANT to
28 U.S.C. §§1781(a)(2)-(b)(2)
The undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs has acquired possession of a color copy of one certain document (attached as Exhibit A to this motion), regarding which there are no ready means of authentication except by recovery of the original document. As should be apparent from the nature and content of the document, if authenticated, and shown to be genuine, the contents of this document will significantly narrow and shorten the discovery and pre-trial litigation period necessary in this case, and might lead to an early resolution by settlement or transfer of these proceedings to the United States House of Representatives and Senate according the procedures outlined in the Constitution.
It is also apparent (and hearsay evidence available to Plaintiffs’ counsel aggravates her concerns) that political pressure may be brought to bear to destroy all relevant evidence, whether such evidence exists within or outside the borders of the United States of America.
It would appear to the undersigned counsel that either 28 U.S.C. §1781(a)(2) or 28 U.S.C. §1782(b)(2) or some combination of these statutory authorizations outlines the procedures by which to transmit letters rogatory and other requests to the proper authorities abroad in Kenya and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
For two classes of evidence at issue here, namely all requests for relevant passport materials and other documents existing within the United States of America, as well as all requests to be made through diplomatic channels to foreign tribunals, Defendant HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON is the Secretary of State of the United States of America, and accordingly, Secretary Clinton is the first and primary proper target of letters rogatory to be submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1781(a)(2).
FIRST, Plaintiffs pray that this court authorize Plaintiffs to issue a special subpoena for deposition duces tecum to Secretary HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON be cited to appear within 21 days pursuant to (or in the letter and spirit of) Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (even though this action has been filed and served, many months will pass before the Rule 26(f) Conference can be held to plan for discovery among the parties). The purpose of Rule 27, even though designed for pre-filing discovery, is fulfilled and relevant here, in that some (above-noted) hearsay evidence exists that an individual involved in the examination of passport files at the United States Department of State relating to and involving certain 2008 Presidential candidates may have been killed in relation to such inquiry. Last year it was announced by former secretary of State Candoleeza Rice that there was tampering with the passport records of three major presidential candidates and it was investigated by the inspector general. Lt. Querl Harris was one of the suspects in passport tampering scandal. Washington post has announced that he was cooperating with the FBI and shortly thereafter he was found dead, shot in the head, sitting in his parked car. This case remains open and unresolved. Under such circumstances, “perpetuation of evidence” becomes a more and more significant and time-sensitive issue.
SECOND, Plaintiffs pray that this court will send a request for letters rogatory pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1781(a)(2) to Defendant HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and other relevant officers in the United States Department of State to issue and transmit letters rogatory through proper diplomatic channels to the following foreign offices of public record and vital statistics:
For the Republic of Kenya:
KENYA
The Principal Civil Registrar
Dept of Civil Registration
Office of the President
PO Box 49179
Nairobi
Kenya
Tel: 227461
And/or
Office of the Principal Registrar
Deputy Registrar
Births, Deaths, and Marriages for the
Coast Province of Kenya
(or its modern successor, equivalent jurisdiction) in and for
MOMBASA, KENYA
(formerly British East Africa)
and/or
Kenya High Commission
45 Portland Place
London W1B 1AS
Tel No. 020 7636 2371
E-maiL: info.uk@kenyahighcommission.net info.uk@kenyahighcommission.net
http://www.kenyahighcommission.net/
searchcertappforms.html
And/or
General Register Office
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/contact_us.asp
Certificate Services Section
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Passports/
WhoiseligibleforaBritishpassport/DG_174145
General Register Office
PO Box 2
SOUTHPORT
PR8 2JD
Tel: +44 (0) 845 603 7788 (8am to 8pm Monday to Friday. Saturday 9am to 4pm).
THIRD and in the alternative, Plaintiffs pray that this court issue and transmit letters rogatory and requests directly to each of the above-and-foregoing listed foreign offices or agencies (or to the relevant tribunals with appropriate jurisdiction in the relevant countries) without the intervention or assistance of Defendant HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and/or other officers of the Department of State and/or the Department of Justice of the United States of America.
It is urgent that this request be prosecuted prior to the normal onset of discovery in this case, again, according to the general letter and spirit of Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the perpetuation of testimony. There has never been a constitutional challenge to the identity and eligibility of a sitting President of the United States and so there are no direct precedents regarding this matter, but it is fairly safe to say that the potential consequences and fallout from this present filing being made public will be severe and significant, even though the undersigned counsel makes absolutely no pre-judgment or prediction regarding the actual authenticity of the document of which only a color copy taken by a camera at an odd angle, which is attached herein as Exhibit A.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For all of the above-and-foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs pray that this court will grant leave to the Plaintiffs to conduct the aforementioned special discovery immediately and prior to the normal Rule 26(f) Conference, pursuant to Rule 27 and all or some subset of the procedures authorized in 28 U.S.C. §§1781(a)(2)-1781(b)(2). Although the urgency of this request cannot be overstated, 21 days is the normal time for service of such a request as this under Rule 27 of the Federal Rules, and the undersigned counsel reminds the Court that she will be out of the United States from August 2, 2009, to August 24, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Lughnasadh/LaLunasa
By:________________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (SBN 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
26302 La Paz, Suite 211
Mission Viejo, California 92691
Telephone (949) 683-5411
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
PROOF OF SERVICE
I the undersigned Charles Edward Lincoln, being over the age of 18 and not a party to this case, so hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this Saturday August 1, 2009, I provided facsimile copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing
SPECIAL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT PRE-RULE 26(f) DISCOVERY
TO DEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and
CERTAIN NON-PARTY WITNESSES
TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY, PRESERVE EVIDENCE, and TRANSMIT
LETTERS ROGATORY PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. §§1781(a)(2)-(b)(2)
to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
THOMAS P. O’BRIEN
LEON W. WEIDMAN
ROGER E. WEST
DAVID A. DeJUTE
FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819
DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS 1st day of August, 2009
Charles Edward Lincoln, III
charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com
Tel: (512) 923-1889
Exhibit A:
Unauthenticated Color Photocopy of
Certified Copy of
Registration of Birth from the
Coast Province of Kenya
District of Mombasa
District Registry Office
Office of the Principal Registrar
Republic of Kenya, issued on the
17th day of February, 19
Orly Taitz DDS Esq
26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688
ph. w 949-586-8110 c-949-683-5411
fax 949-586-2082
Read my latest article at WND.com, then return here for comments or further action. The article is a sad commentary on one of the many casualties being caused by the tendency of too many grassroots friends of liberty to give nothing but lip service to support the efforts of those on the front lines. The way things are going, Loyal to Liberty, and the efforts it's part of, have one foot in the same grave. Enough said.
With permission I here post a copy of an email Greg Sabine of Massachusetts sent to CNN personnel. He is one of the many people who are dismayed at the unwillingness of the manipulated media to report the facts and pursue actual and conclusive evidence regarding Obama's Constitutional eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Needless to say, I would happily participate in the debate Greg suggests. However, my guess is we'll be safer whistling for a wind than holding our breath waiting for a positive response from CNN. Like the cowardly back-shooters of the Old West, the manipulated media propagandists have no stomach for a fair fight.
To the Following CNN Suppressors of Free Speech:
Jim Walton
Susan Grant
Jon Klein
Rena Golden
David Payne
Mitch Gelman
As a history teacher and civic educator I endeavor to get my students to think logically - with the ultimate goal of discovering the truth. This means that they must be able to read critically, ask penetrating questions and examine facts in an open and non threatening environment. They must be able to both follow the evidence wherever it may lead and acknowledge the truth when it is discovered.
That is the essence of free and open inquiry. And it has for over two centuries separated us from the tyrannical rule so cruelly manifest around the globe.
Until now, sadly. It sickens me to say that you media nazis do not even accord your own Lou Dobbs the same freedoms allowed in my middle-school classroom.
Here is my proposal:
Lou Dobbs will moderate a high publicized, nationally televised, two-hour, commercial-free debate on the monumentally important constitutional issue of Barack Obama's citizenship.
The suggested topic will be, "Proposed. Barack Obama should immediately provide the American public with all the documentation necessary, beginning with his true long-form birth certificate, to prove that he meets the constitutional requirement to hold the office of president of the United States."
The CNN Team will consist of any three individuals you choose.
The Full Disclosure Team will consist of:
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily
Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes
Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz
No such forum has yet to be conducted on this monumentally important issue. Here is your chance to atone for the incredible constitutional crisis created by your willful suppression of the truth.
This issue is not going to evaporate. We won't go away.
Greg Sabine
Brockton, MA 02302
P.S. - Many freedom loving Americans await your answer.
According to an AP story, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Health Director with the Hawaii State Department of Health, has issued a new statement seeking to "stem a recent surge in the number of inquiries about Obama's birthplace." "I…have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen….I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issue in October 2008, over eight months ago." AP asserts that "Fukino issued a similar press release Oct. 31." However, in her statement in October Fukino said "I…have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." The original statement said nothing about the content of the birth record. The new statement therefore goes significantly farther than the original statement in October, though both the AP story and Fukino herself give the deceptive impression that it does not. Given this evident obfuscation, why should I or anyone else simply take Fukino's words at face value?
Her new and more substantive statement comes in the context of passage by the US Congress of a unanimous resolution commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Hawaii's admission as a state of the United States which declares "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961…." Sadly, this Congressional action only serves as further proof that all the members of Congress from both parties now irresponsibility vote to affirm what they have never read.
This flurry of activity is meant to distract public attention from the palpable contradictions that have emerged in the cover story the Obama faction has used on account of his unwillingness to produce a birth record that actually contains the information needed to lay the controversy to rest. Until recently no one in the manipulated media has been willing to address this failure factually. Despite this repression, more and more people have become aware of the fact that the "certification of live birth" published on the internet during the Presidential campaign last fall did not establish Obama's eligibility for two reasons: a) such certifications were issued at the time to people not born on US soil. Therefore, the published document did nothing to overcome the objection (raised because of the testimony of Obama's African relatives) that he was born in Kenya at a time when his mother, who was married to a foreign national, was not of age to transmit US citizenship; and b) the internet published certification contained no details as to the hospital at which the birth took place, or the doctor who delivered the child, details that could be used to establish what must otherwise be treated as uncorroborated testimony.
Given the lack of such details, the fact that at various times the media and elements of the Obama faction made conflicting statements about the hospital of his birth (was it Queens Medical Center, or Kapiolani?), further aggravated the need to substantiate the true facts.
Then Lou Dobbs acknowledged on his CNN program that there is a factual doubt about Obama's birth that has not been addressed. In response CNN president Jon Klein reportedly claimed in an e-mail that "CNN researchers found Hawaiian records were discarded in 2001 when the state's records system went electronic. Therefore, Klein said, Obama's original long-form birth certificate no longer exists. A computer generated abbreviated version that has been promoted on the Internet is the official record."
But Hawaiian officials rebutted this story. "I am not aware of any birth certificate records that have been destroyed by the department," Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, told WND. "When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don't destroy records….Any records we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department," she insisted. "We have not destroyed any vital records that we have."
This Hawaii official flatly declared that the Obama's actual long-form birth certificate is in the possession of the State of Hawaii. Hawaii Health Director Fukino now belatedly declares that it contains the information needed to lay the eligibility question to rest once and for all. The AP story now disingenuously admits that the Constitution's eligibility provisions are "a key constitutional requirement for being president." So with respect to this key requirement, why are the American people being asked to accept less than the best evidence available? All along people like me have simply asked that the facts be fairly proven so as to preserve the integrity of the Constitution's authority. In this regard the issue is not whether Obama remains in office or is declared ineligible to serve, but whether the issue is resolved in accordance with the Constitution's provisions.
Sadly, pundits like Ann Coulter have unfairly characterized this simple concern for Constitutional integrity as some kind of "conspiracy theory." Actually, it's just a refusal to declare a fact not in evidence. There was a time when good journalists, like good lawyers, refused to be manipulated into doing so. A fair and proper hearing requires that evidence be produced and subjected to careful examination (by experts if need be.) It requires that witnesses be confronted and cross examined. Though the issue of Obama's eligibility for the Presidency involves the integrity of the Supreme law of the land (not to mention the right to occupy the key governmental office it establishes), there has been no such fair and proper hearing to ascertain the facts and make clear the principles on which it can be decided. This failure is not so much a conspiracy as a massive dereliction of duty on the part of officials oath bound to preserve the Constitution of the United States. How can we be satisfied until such a hearing takes place, openly televised, with both sides to the controversy fairly represented and fairly treated? Only then will the American people have reason to be confident that the conclusion reached is based on carefully gathering and fairly examining all the available evidence.
Such a hearing would exemplify the solemn respect we ought to have for our Constitution. It would therefore serve the common good of our nation. But it would not serve the unbounded ambition of the Obama faction, or comfort the reprehensible cowardice of their supposed opponents. If we wait upon them to serve fairness, truth and constitutional integrity, we may as well whistle for a wind.
Click on the title above to read my latest article at WND.com, then return here to post and read comments.
In light of the comments and responses to my WND piece on Sarah Palin's resignation, I think some further observations and reflections are in order.
First it's important to remind everyone that I have never accepted the notion that Palin somehow represents adherence to the moral principles of republican, constitutional government. In a WND article right after McCain selected her as his running mate (Gov. Sarah Palin: Unequally yoked), I gave the reasons why. Later, when Charles Gibson asked her about Roe v. Wade she declared "I think that states should be able to decide that issue." In reaction, I wrote another article (Sarah Palin: Already compromised?) in which I observed that "Palin is being touted as an unequivocally pro-life politician…Her words suggest that, on the contrary, she regards the issue of respect for innocent life as a matter of personal opinion rather than public principle…." I went on to point out that "making a pro-life icon of someone who takes this falsified "states' rights" position and who, at the same time, relegates her pro-life views to the status of "personal opinion", places the pro-life movement firmly on the path of self-destruction." I cautioned that "If the issue of respect for innocent human life is simply a matter of "personal opinion," what justifies government interference (at any level) in the personal decision of the woman carrying the child, or the parents who provided the genetic material from which its life derives?...Where no overriding public interest can be ascertained, the state cannot impose its moral opinions upon individuals without infringing the freedom of conscientious decision essential for the free exercise of religion (which is also counted among our unalienable rights.)"
In these past writings, as in the latest one, I have tried to reason clearly and carefully about the issues of public principle and policy raised by Sarah Palin's words and actions. Unfortunately, both Palin's fans and the leftist media hacks who act as her detractors have focused on her personal life. The fans want people to accept her loving commitment to her Down syndrome child as conclusive evidence that she is a pro-life champion. Her detractors snipe about her temperament, or make reprehensible so-called jokes about her family members, trying with ridicule and character assassination to manipulate public opinion against her. Meanwhile, her fans respond as if these rabid attacks conclusively prove that she is the conservative champion of principled morality they so desperately want her to be.
Unfortunately, as I argued in the articles cited above, ugly media attacks don't' alter the facts that show, logically and conclusively, that she is not such a champion.
Now I find readers like David, who left a comment on this site, declaring his view that my latest piece "is what I would expect from the mudslinging left." This reaction exposes the insidious nature of this whole contrived situation. Once we accept "personal" matters (of action or opinion) as the basis for our support or rejection of political leaders, anyone who opposes them can be accused of mudslinging and slander, even when their opposition is based on careful reasoning about public policy and constitutional principle.
Like so much else going on in our public discussion these days, this makes fear rather than truth the standard of our public discourse. In my case it would be fear of being unfairly attacked as an un-Christian replicant of the left-wing character assassins. This reminds me of what liberal blacks have tried for years to do on account of my rejection of their leftist cant on welfare issues. In both cases my response must be the same, precisely because of Christ's example. I will try to follow what careful and conscientious reasoning from right principle leads me to believe is true. I will leave in God's hands the integrity of my identity. In the end, he knows the right name for me and will recognize me for what I am.
I could of course simply say nothing as others promote Palin as a representative of the constituency of moral principle. Unfortunately, when she proves inadequate to the task, human vanity will lead many to doubt the viability of the moral cause, rather than their own lack of discernment about the flaws in her public policy stances on the key moral issues. Such doubters will sow confusion and demoralization in the ranks of moral conservatives. This may in fact be the result intended by some of those who helped promote Palin to national prominence, though they tacitly despise the moral constituency she is supposed to represent. By speaking out, will people like me help to mitigate this bad result? Will our warnings prevent well intentioned people from relying too much upon a false hope? If so, it's worth the risk of being unpopular with Palin fans who insist that reasonable criticism of her public policy views and actions is no different than the partisan media's malevolent personal attacks.
Posts
