A Little Chitchat with Senator Sessions
The Alabama Eagle Forum meeting last weekend in Birmingham was the usual high-intensity, patriotic affair, with Senator Jeff Sessions as the featured speaker. Jeff is my favorite senator. He is the hero of the amnesty fight, being the most vocal opponent of the proposal to legitimize millions of illegal aliens. Though not close personal friends, we have enjoyed a cordial friendship, and my admiration for him moved me to propose him for president in the last election. The proposal got a little national attention but failed to gather steam.
I told Jeff that I thought he should make an issue of the question of whether Obama was a "natural-born citizen," as required by the Constitution. He responded quickly in the most unambiguous terms, indicating that he would not consider such an idea. Very well, then, would he read a letter if I wrote him on the subject?
"No!" was his answer, and he added, "Don't send it to me."
He explained that we are about to pass a catastrophic budget, and he does not have the time for this, adding that he would have to go to Hawaii if he took up the issue.
In the case of the usual political office holder, if a supporter asked him if he would read a letter he proposed to send to him, he would respond, "Certainly, certainly, send it to me, I'll be looking forward to getting it. I would love to read it."-- then either read it or not when it arrived.
But with Jeff the response was (slightly paraphrasing) "Hell no, I'm not going to read your letter! Do not send it to me!" (This was not a private conversation, but was made before a table full of people.) There is one good thing that you can say about Senator Sessions in this instance: You have to give him credit for candor and sincerity. In contrast to the usual hypocritical politician-response, this one obviously came from the heart.
Since I am barred from writing the letter I would like to explain here what I would have said had I been allowed to write it:
The idea is that since the question of whether Obama is a natural-born citizen continues to be raised, we should demand that he publish his birth certificate and settle the question. The beauty of the issue is its utter simplicity. My granddaughter has just gotten her driver's license. She had to show her birth certificate, as every teenager does when she gets her license. Every solider in the Army had to show his birth certificate before he could enlist. Yet their Commander in Chief refuses to show his.
Producing a birth certificate is such an ordinary, frequent, and simple thing that to refuse to do so, and to pay expensive lawyers to avoid doing so, strongly suggests that Obama has something to hide. What other explanation is there for his recalcitrance? Why doesn't he just show the document, dust off his hands, and move on?
We should make unceasing demands, night and day, that Mr. Obama produce his birth certificate. Three outcomes are possible:
1. To the end, Obama refuses to show his birth certificate.
2. He publishes his birth certificate and it proves him to be a natural-born citizen.
3. He publishes his birth certificate and it shows him not to be a natural-born citizen.
Suppose the first is the outcome. Then certainly nothing is lost, and if we act intelligently and with resolve we can profit from continuing indefinitely to point out what is apparently a cover-up. His refusal to produce the document only intensifies the need to produce it. This would be only repeating what is obvious to any reasonable observer, and is bound to cost Obama some of his political capital.
Suppose the second is the outcome. Certainly it is logical to say that, based on the totality of Obama's behavior, this is most unlikely. And should it be the case we would have done no harm to our side. Obama has only done what he should have done much earlier, and we can take credit for compelling him to do so.
Finally suppose that, through one of the several court cases that may be considered, the third is the outcome. This would produce a political explosion that has no precedent. It would mean that Barack Obama would be shown to have lied on a fundamental Constitutional point, and had perpetrated a fraud upon the American people. It would shred his credibility and tear away his moral authority. His karma would be gone. Further, he would become a toxic figure and his Democrat friends would desert him. It is likely that such a cataclysmic event would cripple the Democrat Party and place the Republicans in power for some time to come. It, in short, might well be the one thing that could save our country from falling into totalitarianism.
Why aren't our leaders such as Jeff Sessions being faithful to their oath to defend the Constitution, certainly to defend it against a potential usurper? The only excuse I have heard is the one my favorite senator gave me, that he cannot devote the time to it. But that excuse is not valid.
Maybe an analogy will help me to clarify my point:
Imagine that you are the commander in a war-a war the outcome of which will determine the fate of your country. But at the moment the outcome is uncertain. The enemy has you outnumbered and you are on the defensive. You have committed all your reserves, and every able-bodied man is on the front line.
But just at this moment your G-2, your Chief of Intelligence, comes to you with a surprise report. For whatever reason, the enemy has allowed a weak spot to develop in his line. What should you do? Anything? Should you attack him at this point?
Your staff is divided in their opinions. Some remind you that you have no troops to spare for an offensive operation. Keep them all in place and continue to fight a defensive battle. Others, though, point out that despite the enemy's overall strength his weakness at this one point is manifest and it would be a mistake not to exploit it. It is, in fact, a dream of the sort that a Patton would relish when fighting a Rommel. Don't be a timid Montgomery, they urge, be an aggressive Patton.
You take the latter advice. Despite the ferocity of the battle, you withdraw a small contingent from their positions in the line, move them to the enemy's weak spot, and use them to punch through the enemy's line. There is resistance, yes, but because the enemy's position here is weakly defended your small force is successful, and your main force is still fighting along the rest of the line. Once behind the enemy your attacking force turns right and left and wreaks havoc in his rear. With his supply lines cut he runs out of food, ammunition, and gasoline. He cannot sustain the battle and orders his men to abandon their positions and retreat. You have won the battle and changed the course of the war. Rather than fighting a defensive war you are now the aggressor, and the outlook for your eventual victory has brightened.
I submit that this analogy draws near to exactness.
Yes, our side is locked in a big defensive battle. We are wholly on the defensive, and we think we have no assets to spare. But in fact, just as in the analogy, Obama has a glaring weak spot just waiting to be exploited, and it would take a relatively small effort to attack him at this point, to simply speak out clearly and loudly demanding that he show us his birth certificate. No one has to go to Hawaii.
Nor is it necessary to accuse Obama of anything other than his failure to produce his birth certificate. Just that and nothing more. We need state no conclusions about what the certificate would show. We would be strongly attacked, but if we remain stouthearted that will only increase our strength. It will give us free publicity, and, just as the Liberal attack on Rush Limbaugh increased his listenership, so would this strengthen us. This is an opportunity sent from heaven. But if Senator Sessions won't grasp the cudgel who will?
Where is our Patton?