Even super-conservative senator Lindsey Graham has called the birthers "crazy," my anonymous friend.

Watch it for yourself: Senator Lindsey Graham Calls Birthers Crazy.

The president's birth certificate has been produced and made public in multiple places. Challenging the president when you disagree with his policies is an essential part of Democracy, but calling him the various bizarre names that the right-wing fringe has engaged in is pointless, divisive and frankly detracts attention from a productive dialogue on the important issues facing our nation. But don't take it from me--watch the Graham video.

Have you read any objective accounts of the issue?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birther

I'll admit that the specter of heavily armed right-wing gun nuts at Obama and the so-called "tea-bag" events gives me pause. It is a very provocative act, but viewed against the backdrop of flag burning and other political stunts, it falls squarely into the mold of our free speech rights, and the 2nd amendment. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a bad idea, but objectionable ideas themselves are often the most important ones to protect.

One of the most fascinating things about the 2nd Amendment to me is the linkage between the personal right to bear arms and the national military. The founder's intent seems to have been to protect the citizenry from the possibility of a tyrannical government in the future, but the actual mechanism was bigger then just allowing individuals the right to bear arms, it included the idea that militias (not the Waco kind) would form the backbone of national defense, not a large professional army.

This has serious implications for the right and left ends of the political spectrum. Had Bush been required to call up a force almost entirely comprised of normal people from all walks of life, I'd wager the Iraq adventure would have been MUCH harder to sell and get away with. The intent to keep the government from fielding a force strong enough to subdue the populace serves double duty as a bulwark against foolish military enterprises.

The linkage between this idea of a strategic reserve and personal gun possession also betrays the fact that the founder's principle aim seems not to have been hunting and home protection, but possible military duty and in a worst case scenario, armed rebellion. At the time of the revolution, an armed frontiersmen was arguably more dangerous than the foot soldier of contemporary European armies, so the idea that today's gun owners should not be allowed (dare I say encouraged) to own firearms akin to modern infantry flies in the face of the actual Amendment.

Bottom line, if we as a nation have arrived at a place where these things are no longer true. If we can say for certain that a big national army has worked super well for us, that the idea of an oppressive government is absurd (I was getting worried during the last administration), then the mechanism to alter the 2nd Amendment stands ready. What bothers me is the way the left and right play fast and loose with those parts of fundamental rights that are not particularly important to them (Privacy, torture, due-process for the right - Gun rights for the left) making end-runs on them instead of addressing the issue head-on.

Sadly, even Ray's article above casts subtle aspersions on the idea of AR-15s (and their ilk) and militia (regardless of type), a sentiment common in Democratic circles. This is in effect a retreat into the comfortable (and false) ground of equating gun rights with a whole host of "legitimate" uses for guns (like hunting) uses all notable by their absence from the language of the 2nd amendment. My hope is that Obama, besides seeing what a political nightmare it would be to field a gun ban agenda, is also enough of a constitutional scholar to safeguard ALL rights, not just those he may hold most dear. I wish my party did the same on a consistent basis.

Ethan
Portland OR

The issue of Obama's birth-certificate is not whether or not Hawaii is a state, but rather the issue pertains to whether or not Obama was ACTUALLY born in Hawaii or NOT. Seems a simple matter to address, but rather than address the issue bringing forth proof the issue is continually dismissed as some sort of "absurdity".

for years democrats have been trying to influence and change gun laws assault weapons bans hi capacity magazines an so on. the nra goes afte obama because of his partys past legislations plain an simple, the democrat party has lost most of american gun owners because of these decisions and is the single biggest divider of the democratic party in the south were we are raised to hold dearly the right to keep an bear arms.until they either change their stand on guns or cause a major split in the party the latter is witch i think will happen,then i see no change.an no im not a republican either,just a good ol southern nationalist ,both major parties are to far 1 way or the other for me,most people are more in the middle whitch neither of our present parties seem to recognize and are to influenced by big corporations and there greedy nature.untill democrats see this ,american gun owners will still vote far right even if they dont belive this philosophyan if there was no nra u would have already lost most of your gun rights to the democrat an some republican legislations. brent waller