Who Is Calvin Freiburger, and Why Did Someone Give Him a Website?

“If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever.  Use a pile driver.  Hit the point once.  Then come back and hit it again.  Then hit it a third time with a tremendous whack.”
Welcome! Calvin Freiburger Online is where I report and comment on news, politics, morality, philosophy, religion, and culture, and have some fun along the way.

As you may have guessed (clever readers that you are), my name is Calvin Freiburger.  Born in Wisconsin, I graduated from Fond du Lac High School in 2006. (They, uh, don’t like me very much.)  I’m currently a political science major at Hillsdale College, staff writer for the Hillsdale Forum, and a member of the blogging team at David Horowitz’s NewsReal.  I approach things from a rock-solid conservative perspective, with my philosophy firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian principles and the Founding Fathers’ understanding of human liberty and the role of government, coupled with a strong belief in the importance of keeping an independent mind and a critical eye.  There’s not much that makes my blood boil more than dishonesty, hypocrisy, demagoguery, and arguments made in bad faith.

(On the apolitical side of things, I’m also a trumpet player, a cat person, and a science fiction nerd with an offbeat sense of humor.)

In addition to being my personal soapbox, I am continuously working on making CFO one of the most exhaustive conservative resource hubs the Web has to offer. To your right, you’ll find a wide range of links to news outlets, the Right’s best commentators, conservative think tanks and advocacy groups on a wide range of issues, media bias watchdogs, religious thought, charities supporting American soldiers & their families, bipartisan research tools, grassroots activists, places to buy conservative books and gear, fellow bloggers, and humor.  No matter what the question may be, chances are you can find the answer here. (Disclaimer: I do not necessarily agree with or endorse everything written or posted by those to whom I link.  Comprehensiveness is my goal, not intellectual lockstep.)

Blog History

I took my first steps into the blogosphere in December 2006, with the help of Townhall.com.  I wanted a name that would instantly signal the feisty, humorous, take-no-prisoners brand of conservatism I intended to espouse, so Coulter Nation was born.  I was never terribly comfortable with using another pundit’s name, though, and I also wanted more flexibility than Townhall’s software offered at the time, so I moved to Blogger in March 2007, creating Calvin Freiburger Online 1.0, where I stayed until May 2009, when I returned from a temporary blogging hiatus and switched to the more-intuitive WordPress, resulting in the wondrous website you see before you.  In March 2010, the blog’s t-shirt store, The Conservative Armory, went online, thanks to the magic of Zazzle. The rest, as they say, is history.

Comment Moderation Policy

Comments and disagreement are very welcome; however, I ask that commenters steer clear of obscenity and gratuitous profanity. All good-faith comments (as well as hostile, up to a point) will be published, though I may not respond ( college work comes first). I reserve the right to reject comments, and ban commenters, for any of the following:
– Profanity & obscenity
– Demonstrably & willfully lying about debate opponents
– Bigotry of any kind
– Deliberately wasting my time by ignoring arguments and opting to simply level insults instead of rebuttals
– In particular, I reserve the right to ban 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, and Ron Paul supporters whenever I so choose.

For any questions about the policy, or if you’ve been banned and wish to challenge your ban or have it explained, comment below.

35 thoughts on “Who Is Calvin Freiburger, and Why Did Someone Give Him a Website?

  1. Cal,

    I note with some dismay that the comments I left have been deleted. I wonder if you took the time to consider the content included in the comments, including the answers to your question about torture and information received before it was enacted. It’s fine if you want to ban me, though I think the only reason you’ve done so is because you can’t handle opposing arguments.

    Enjoy your new blog.


  2. I certainly did consider their content. But we both know whether or not I can handle opposing arguments isn’t the reason you’re banned. If it were, I certainly would have banned considerably more people by now, and I wouldn’t even allow comments at all.

    • There has to be some modicum standard of judgement. If someone is banned by not meeting that standard, it’s very
      easy for the one banned to play victim and blame the one
      who banned for being unfair, discriminatory, intolerant, among any other number of describers. Playing victim
      in such circumstances doesn’t move the debate forward
      in any meaningful way, and is doing a disservice to him/her
      self by not growing up and admitting the wrongful action.

  3. Sorry I am out of time and just read your synopsis on
    Ms. McCain and I wanted to get in a comment but
    could not find a venue. I jumped in here and so……
    Cal I must say that you have a gift and the value
    of it is immense. I can not think of when I have been
    so impressed with such thought provoking purity. The
    McCain article was infectious food for thought.

    Best Regards,

    William James Ward
    Mayor Emeritus

  4. A very pleasant discovery. This blog — and your columns in American Thinker — have made my day. Thoughtful, informed conservatism is never in over-supply; and to find it in one who has a long future in front of him, hopefully in leading or influencing the conservative movement, is especially heartening.

  5. Dear Mr. Freiburger:

    As the happy parent of a Hillsdale student, I was able to attend the Parents Weekend and while there, grab a copy of the February Hillsdale Forum. I must say, though, that I was disappointed to read your editorial; “Living on the Fringe,” especially at an institution with a focus on American Heritage and the Constitution as part of its core.

    Because, actually, Calvin, if you truly do rely on a Hawaiian birth certificate as the basis for Obama’s eligibility to be President, you are really no different than the so-called “birthers” you ridicule, since you seem to believe that birth in the US is all that is necessary for anyone to have US citizenship. The only point on which you and the “birthers” seem to disagree is whether a long-form or a short-form birth certificate is sufficient.

    Actually, the notion of Birthright citizenship—that birth on US soil to parents who are not US citizens—is not grounded in the Constitution. And even though dual citizenship is now tolerated, the oath of allegiance that naturalized citizens must take when they receive US citizenship specifically disallows allegiance to any other country.

    The Heritage Foundation, which, if I am not mistaken, has some affiliation with Hillsdale, has published quite a bit of research on birthright and dual citizenship by many noted experts.

    Edwin Meese and Dr. Matthew Spalding, in their 2007 article “Where We Stand: Essential Requirements for Immigration Reform” write:

    According to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, those who are born here must also be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The popular concept of “birthright citizenship”—that anyone born while in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen—is historically and legally inaccurate. Only a complete jurisdiction of the kind that brings with it an exclusive allegiance is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship.

    Dr. Edward Erler contributed the article, “Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution,” and a noteworthy speech to the Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in 2008 he called “Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny.”

    Dr. John Eastman, in his article “From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship”, notes:

    …birthright citizenship is contrary to the principle of consent that is one of the bed¬rock principles of the American regime. Such a claim of birthright citizenship traces its roots not to the republicanism of the American Founding, grounded as it was in the consent of the governed, but to the feudalism of medieval England, grounded in the notion that a subject owed perpetual allegiance and fealty to his sovereign.

    In a 2005 Congressional hearing on “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty” before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, the Chairman, John Hostettler, made these opening remarks:

    The purpose of this hearing is to examine both birthright citizenship and dual citizenship and the effect that they have on our sovereignty as a Nation. Currently, the United States grants citizenship to nearly every individual born on U.S. soil. This policy—based on an interpretation of the 14th amendment is sometimes referred to as ”birthright citizenship”…It does not, however, provide citizenship in a blanket fashion to literally every person born on U.S. soil…In recent years there has been a trend toward obtaining multiple nationalities or citizenship. Because citizenship is largely based on notions of allegiance, it is important to closely examine the consequences of this growing trend…

    Committee member Lamar Smith, in his opening comments, remarked: “…during the debate on the 14th amendment in 1866 the Senator who was the author said it would, ‘not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners’.”

    Contributing witness Dr. Eastman offered this historical analysis:

    …In 1898, the Supreme Court reversed course. …In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court dealt with a child of a Chinese immigrant who was here legally, permanently, but subject to a treaty that we had entered into with the emperor of China that would never recognize the ability of anyone to renounce their prior citizenship. However the sympathy there falls, we should not read that Wong Kim Ark case so broadly as to insist upon the Constitution setting a minimum threshold for conferring citizenship on anyone who happens to be born here, whether here permanently or temporarily, whether here legally or illegally…

    Witness Dr. John Fonte opined: “Dual allegiance violates a core American principle of equality of citizenship.”

    Later in the hearing, Dr. Eastman, when asked “what class of persons did the authors of the 14th amendment intend to include as being, ‘subject to the jurisdiction’…what about the children of legal permanent residents, temporary visitors or tourists on tourist visas, temporary workers and illegal aliens?” answered:

    I don’t think, as an original matter, their understanding was that it would include any of those classifications…this allegiance-owing type of jurisdiction that we’re talking about meant that they really could have only a single citizenship. And the fact that they were children and therefore owed allegiance through their parents to a different sovereign, whether the parents were here legally or illegally, temporarily or permanently, did not alter the fact that that was the kind of sovereign jurisdiction that was envisioned in the 14th amendment.

    At the end of the hearing, Rep. Smith concluded that in order to more clearly define the citizenship clause of the Constitution: “…we have Executive Order, we have Solicitor General opinion perhaps. Statute, resolution, we have other alternatives to underline what Congress’ intent is, which we all know is probably determinative in this case.”

    None of the participants of the hearing affirmed that either birthright or dual citizenship were Constitutional, merely that both were common practice.

    The Congressional citizenship hearing occurred in 2005, and resulted in no Executive orders, statutes, or resolutions. In 2009, Georgia Representative Nathan Deal (not a member of this Subcommittee) proposed HR 1868, “Birthright Citizenship Act,” which sought to “clarify” that the right of citizenship would be granted to a person born in the US if at least one parent was either a US citizen or a legal alien.

    Three years after this hearing, Obama announced his Presidential candidacy. His campaign website, Fight the Smears, admitted his dual citizenship at birth:

    When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony…As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.

    The statement also confirmed the principle of partus sequitur patrem, as it concluded that Obama junior’s Kenyan/British citizenship was passed to him by his non-US citizen father, who was in the US on a student visa, and never naturalized as a US citizen.

    It is interesting to note that Obama himself has exactly the type of citizenship that was being debated in the Congressional hearing. And this hearing never addressed Article 2 “natural born” citizenship for the Presidency, arguably a more stringent type than the Article 1 requirement of “citizen” for congressmen.

    Obama, a Constitutional Law professor, called himself a “native citizen”:

    Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen. The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

    Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino, not considered a Constitutional scholar, in her statement called Obama a “natural-born American citizen.”

    Is there a difference?

    One doesn’t need to get bogged down in anecdotal case law to understand the very basic concept of citizenship that is the foundation of the Constitution. But apparently the infamous Obama birth certificate and the surrounding “conspiracy” combined with the “political correctness” of birthright and dual citizenship has blinded so many to the truth.

    And instead of embracing and supporting these patriots–the “birthers” who do get this and are trying to be Constitutionalists–they are being ridiculed.

    If there is any “conspiracy” here, in my opinion, it is the silence of every Congressman and witness who attended the 2005 Hearing–both during and since the election.

    Dr. Erler warned, at the end of his speech referenced above, that “[u]nless we recover an understanding of the foundations of citizenship, we will find ourselves in a world where there are subjects but no citizens.”

    We can argue the constitutionality of the various legislation proposed and passed by this administration, but the very legitimacy of our Commander-in-Chief, who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, is arguably the most important issue—as it is the most symbolic of all. The buck stops at the President’s desk. Either his power is granted, and thereby limited, under the Constitution—or he is placed, or places himself, over and above it and the law.

    Amnesty for illegal aliens will be the next topic discussed by Congress, after Health Care Reform. It would serve all citizens to thoroughly research and understand the founder’s concept of citizenship in order to intelligently debate the issue, assuming we do still have a Constitution.

    A Concerned Hillsdale Parent

    • Thank you for your interest in Hillsdale and in the Forum. But I think your concerns are misplaced:

      1.) Birthright citizenship is not the Birther movement’s loudest, most common claim; the theory that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii is. Accordingly, that was the claim I responded to.

      2.) I’m aware of the problems with the doctrine of birthright citizenship, and of the Heritage Foundation. In fact, I can invoke Edwin Meese too. On Feb. 14, Erick Erickson of RedState highlighted the following quote from Meese’s “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution”:

      “As early at 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in the its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that ‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.’ 1 Stat. 104 (1790) . . . . Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s discussion in Wong Kim Ark (1898), a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.”

      I agree fully with Erick’s conclusion:

      “Even were the American public to fall under the belief that Barack Obama was born in a foreign country and 49 years ago his associates fabricated a narrative, a birth record, and placed birth announcements in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin on August 4, 1961, to ensure that 49 years later he could become President of the United States, it is undisputed that Barack Obama’s mother is and has always been an American citizen. Therefore Barack Obama is and has always been an American citizen.

      “The leaps of logic and reason to arrive at such a conspiracy are unbefitting the credibility of anyone and not worthy of further discussion. Notwithstanding the same, no American should ever sanction what would amount to a judicial coup — the removal of the President of the United States after 52.9% of the American public instructed their Electoral College representatives to place their votes for him. The time to even be willing to entertain these issues from those who claim a conspiracy has long past.

      “A conservative movement worthy of leading this nation must be willing to cast aside those who, for whatever reason, cannot and will not be persuaded that the President is our legitimately, constitutionally elected President.”

      You might feel I am doing a disservice to those who insist on obsessing over Obama’s citizenship, but while there are surely some good-hearted, albeit misguided, souls among them, I submit that it is the Birther movement that is irresponsible, for two reasons. First, in my experience they do not seem to care what the facts actually show, and will happily accept whatever contortions keep their conspiracy alive — this can only hurt the movement’s capacity to think critically and digest information honestly. Second, it should be clear that the “evidence” has convinced so few people that nothing beneficial to the country is likely to be gained from the Birthers’ efforts — Barack Obama will remain in office, and it will only make conservatives look even more irrational less able to lead. Indeed, the Democrats have already made Birtherism a part of their strategy. As Kurt Schlichter wrote for BigJournalism.com on Feb. 8, “Every time some right-wing journalist ‘raises a question’ about the President’s birth certificate, Rahm Emanuel smiles.”

      With all due respect, I see Birtherism as little more than conservative wish-fulfillment: they dislike Obama so much that they fantasize about a quick & easy way to get rid of him before the time appointed by the Constitution. Not unlike the Left’s constant fantasizing about taking the “stolen” 2000 election back from George W. Bush.

  6. Thank you for your response.

    To your point #1–that is what the MSM and the Dems are portraying. And you have bought it. You are a birther too, then, in the sense you portray, if you really believe that birth on the soil is all that is required for natural citizenship as defined by the Constitution.

    In addition, I never said that Obama was not an American citizen. I said he was not “natural born.” There is no conspiracy there–it is a question of interpretation of our laws.

    Somehow I don’t think Mr. Erikson is more knowledgeable about the Constitution and its view of citizenship than Dr. Eastman, for example.

    And regarding Wong Kim Ark–if you really research the background of the case, there was no conflict of allegiance or dual allegiance because of the Chinese Exclusion Act. America was not founded on the British concept of subject, but rather the notion of “consent.” Surely you learned that in your Constitution class at Hillsdale.

    And whether or not one meets the requirements clearly spelled out in the Constitution is not a “political question” decided at the voting booth. It is a question of law.

    It is not a Conspiracy. It is the Constitution. You can’t pick and choose. Either we follow it or we don’t.

    You need to do some more homework before you badmouth the birthers anymore.

    Here are some articles with some links to some scholarly research:



    Before 2008, even the Heritage Foundation must have been a “birther.” But now, no one will speak up, because 69 million people voted. And no one wants to have an -er added to their name. The mob rules.

    What a shame.

  7. “You are a birther too, then, in the sense you portray, if you really believe that birth on the soil is all that is required for natural citizenship as defined by the Constitution.”

    Please don’t attribute to me things I never said. I already said I’m aware that there are potential dual-citizenship issues. Further, I already made clear that the first point was not meant to suggest “birth on the soil is all that matters,” but to address specific claims. When somebody makes a particular accusation, am I not supposed to respond to it on its own terms?

    “And whether or not one meets the requirements clearly spelled out in the Constitution is not a ‘political question’ decided at the voting booth. It is a question of law.”

    I agree, and so does Erick. But his point is that the evidence isn’t compelling enough to justify challenging the very legitimacy of the sitting president. Surely you must realize that, in order to pursue such a drastic & disruptive course of action, prudence dictates that the weight of the evidence should be proportionally compelling?

    “You need to do some more homework before you badmouth the birthers anymore.”

    When I badmouth them, I do so only because they willfully ignore evidence.

    Lastly, regarding dual citizenship: I’m content with Andrew C. McCarthy’s (someone with legal credentials rather more impressive than Erickson) take on the matter:

    “Even Obama’s dual Kenyan citizenship is of dubious materiality: It is a function of foreign law, involving no action on his part (to think otherwise, you’d have to conclude that if Yemen passed a law tomorrow saying, “All Americans — except, of course, Jews — are hereby awarded Yemeni citizenship,” only Jewish Americans could henceforth run for president).”

  8. What is this “compelling evidence?” Do you know of more specific documents than the Constitution and other related historical research that defines citizenship in some other way?

    It’s not about the birth certificate. I don’t care if you hand delivered me a videotape of Stanley Dunham giving birth to Obama on the steps of the White House. If you say I am ignoring the evidence that he was truly born in Hawaii (which I’m not), I could say you are ignoring the Constitution and its evidence as to what constitutes both a citizen and a natural born one.

    Did you even read the Heritage articles or listen to the Youtube of Dr. Eastman? Birthright citizenship and dual citizenship were not considered Constitutional law, and only came into practice in the past 50 years or so. Not because of an amendment, but riding on the questionable precedent set by Gray in Wong (and even that case should only apply to those without dual allegiance, as was true considering our treaty with China at the time) and because of the huge increase in immigration and relaxing of our enforcement of immigration laws.

    The child of an alien, born here, would have been considered naturalized when the father naturalized. If the father didn’t, the child could choose when he reached majority. It was always done this way. The framers never envisioned that the US would no longer follow its own laws. Nor would the framers have envisioned that everyone born on US soil would automatically be a US citizen. Are you saying that they believed that even a child of illegal aliens, if born here and living here least 14 years—is eligible to be President? That somehow this person would be more eligible than just the “citizen” described in Article 1 for Congressmen? This makes no logical sense.

    And to your comment about Obama having no “choice”—what baby does? The Founders did not say anything other than “born”. Babies had no choice then, nor do they now. They always followed the citizenship of the father. Obama even recognized his Kenyan/British citizenship from his father. Read that on his own website.

    And as to overturning a popular vote, well, that is why we have a Republic. With laws. Popularity does not trump the law. It can change it, or amend it, but we should never just allow these whims of society to ignore it.

    Health Care Reform is no different. The people, by electing a Democrat, may have “voted” for it, since Obama “won”, but that certainly doesn’t mean it’s Constitutional.

    Next time a Dem or someone from the MSM puts a microphone in front of my face and asks their canned question, with the usual tone of mockery and ridicule: “Do you believe Obama is a US citizen?” I will say: I accept his Hawaii birth certificate, but I do not accept that birthright citizenship is Constitutional, and I do not believe he is an Article 2 natural born citizen.” My weapon of defense—my handy pocket-sized Constitution, courtesy of Hillsdale College. And I will not be embarrassed to use it.

    If, for the past 100 years or so, our Congressmen, President and the Courts understood and faithfully followed the Constitution, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today. The slippery slope has become an avalanche. And the office of the President is the symbol on the top of the heap. The very one who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Where the buck stops…

    • Again, please do not misconstrue my words. I clearly did not accuse you of denying his birthplace, and my words about “compelling evidence” refers to the entirety of the case against Obama’s eligibility as put forth by the Birthers, and the fact that Birthers frequently lie about it. All I’m saying is that the burden of proof for such drastic action must be very high — something with which I think the Founders would agree.

      I have looked at your information, though admittedly not in extensive detail, but on the surface, none of it seems compelling enough to outweigh the judgment of people I trust, such as McCarthy. The Birthers’ most prominent advocates, on the other hand, do not have credibility (see WorldNetDaily, 9/11 Truther Phillip Berg). Think about it: there are many, many intelligent, principled conservatives who passionately hate what Obama’s doing to the country, and if they thought there was any substance to this fight, it would be getting far more traction than it is. Of that I have no doubt.

      I am sorry I’m not more helpful to your pet issue, but you’ll have to look somewhere else. You may think I’m disregarding the Constitution, but I assure you that’s not the case. The entirety of my reading on this issue—and yes, I have read Birthers—simply leads me to conclude there’s no “there” there.

      Best of luck,

  9. Actually, Calvin, this is not my “pet issue”—rather the Constitution is. I often comment that the reason many Tea Partiers are also so-called “birthers” is not because they are all kooks, but because both are striving to support the Constitution. And these very “uncool” people, by today’s popularity standards, do (believe it or not) know the difference between conspiracy theory and fact. They are not ignorant—they are the sleeping giant, previously working hard in small businesses and jobs and raising families, staying out of politics, and they have now been awakened.

    People who are knowledgeable in Constitutional law and the foundations of citizenship have been grouped with the birth certificate “birthers”–all as conspiracy theorists and crazies– which, as I hope I have established here, is not the case.

    There are thousands of others like me out there. The Tea Partiers. The ones who realize that we don’t need a new party platform—we have a perfect one already—the Constitution. If the Republicans want to court them, instead of siding with the MSM and the Dems in mocking them, especially on the eligibility issue, they need to re-define, re-frame and control the issue. Change the question. As I have tried to do here. An excellent essay on AT addressed this point in the war of words: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/the_progressives_are_really_op_1.html

    As to your point of no “there” there, your reasoning that because if it were so, it would get more traction–is based on your perception, not on fact. And as if that would happen with the liberal hold on the MSM, combined with the political correctness in our age of tolerance and diversity on the citizenship/immigration issue. (You will see more of this as the Amnesty issue again heats up.)

    There is one point on which you and I do agree—Obama and the Dems are using the birth certificate (which you do have to admit that Obama has been rather translucent about) to label and identify “crazies”—actually a brilliant move that has completely obscured the real Constitutional issue, and served them well in their desire to paint themselves as the intellectual elite and opponents as backward, ignorant and racist.

    And Republicans and Conservatives, like you, who I shall call “CINO’s”—Constitutionalists in Name Only, are letting them get away with it. 😉

    • If you’re interested in convincing me not to be skeptical of your view of Obama’s eligibility, smearing me as somehow not believing in Constitutionalism, just because of my skepticism on this particular point, is hardly the way to go about it.

  10. I was teasing you, Calvin, with that last remark. I love a good debate, and I was challenging you to consider a different view, and actually to really deeply consider the issue, on its merits—absent the popular “frame.”

    I have heard that Hillsdale teaches with the Socratic method, which can be very effective as long as all involved remain rational and courteous. It is much more difficult to debate on a blog, when one cannot see the person or hear their voice. I tried to defend and explain my position with facts, historical information, and references; however, it seemed to me that much of the view you offered was based on an opinion of “birther advocates” and the amount of traction the issue has received. And your original article contained unflattering descriptions like “tripe”, “fringe,” “conspiracy,” “imaginative theory,” lies and “birtherism”.

    But I do understand that this is your blog and I have taken up much of your time. I apologize if you feel I “smeared” you. However, I sense that now you know how it feels to be criticized, however unfair or unfounded either of us believes the criticism to be.

    • Apology accepted. However, I’ve “know[n] how it feels to be criticized” for years, and I do not engage in criticism myself lightly. I believe those were entirely accurate descriptions as to most of the Birther movement.

      When I have more time, I will examine the constitutional question in greater detail. I don’t expect my opinion to change, but we’ll see.

  11. Well, Calvin, I’d hate to be on the receiving end of an article you penned in which you do not take the use of criticism “lightly!” I am kidding again, but you must realize that the reason I was initially so offended by your piece, was that it seemed you had not researched the issue beyond the usual MSM assertions and factcheck.org statements, and opinions of other opinion-writers. And you have to admit, your tone was rather smeary.

    And really, I do believe we are both on the same side—both as Conservatives and Constitutionalists.

    I wish that rather than siding with the Dems and the MSM on this “birther” stuff—conservative writers and Republican politicians would first take the time to explore the issue—not just the birth certificate part, but the real Constitutional issue. If this were done, it would allow the Republicans to court the Tea Partiers, with respect, rather than ridicule. When the Dems see pieces like yours, it fuels them. It further divides their opposition. And if the Tea Partiers separate from the Republicans as a new Constitution party of some sort, the Conservatives will certainly lose due to sheer numbers.

    Instead of rejecting and labeling all with eligibility questions as “birthers” or kooks—we need to take control of the issue and the question, and turn it around. We can start by calling these people Constitutionalists, and quit using terms like “birtherism.”

    Many, many Americans have eligibility questions. A recent poll in California, no less, found that almost 1/3 did—this in a liberal state and even when the polling question was whether they believed Obama was a citizen (no mention of “natural born”). The Dem’s recently published Senatorial campaign strategy includes the use of this question.

    The challenge is to reshape this question into support for the Constitution. Not as a way to identify and label crazies, or get Obama out of office. We must find a way to answer that turns it around–to take the sword they are pointing at us, and instead of just dodging it or jumping alongside for safety–to grab it. This would help the Republicans, not hurt them the way the Dems intend. We must not fall into their trap.

    I also write for American Thinker and other blogs, under my real name. This is my personal challenge. Not because I’m a “birther”, but because I will use any opportunity and any means available to educate people about the greatness of the Constitution, and to consolidate support to win against the Dems and their destruction of it.

    I could use your help. 🙂

  12. You might feel I am doing a disservice to those who insist on obsessing over Obama’s citizenship, but while there are surely some good-hearted, albeit misguided, souls among them, I submit that it is the Birther movement that is irresponsible, for two reasons. First, in my experience they do not seem to care what the facts actually show, and will happily accept whatever contortions keep their conspiracy alive — this can only hurt the movement’s capacity to think critically and digest information honestly. Second, it should be clear that the “evidence” has convinced so few people that nothing beneficial to the country is likely to be gained from the Birthers’ efforts — Barack Obama will remain in office, and it will only make conservatives look even more irrational less able to lead. Indeed, the Democrats have already made Birtherism a part of their strategy. As Kurt Schlichter wrote for BigJournalism.com on Feb. 8, “Every time some right-wing journalist ‘raises a question’ about the President’s birth certificate, Rahm Emanuel smiles.”

  13. I wrote my Congressional representatives all last summer and during the first part of this year. In fact I wrote all of the Democrats in the House of Representatives — telling them Obamacare was a massive entitlement program that would completely destroy this country economically. My biggest concern, however, was the impact of the Government taking over 1/6 of our economy. I told them I would fight Obamacare until the day I die — I was born free and I do not want to die a Socialist! This message is a continuation of my battle.

    I have developed a list which shows all of the opponents of the 219 House Dems who voted in March 2010 to pass Obamacare by listing the House Dems by state, district, general geographic area of district, and membership in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This list is currently posted on the following website which you may want to link to:


    The Docs4PC website also has an interesting WSJ article written by a doctor to his patients, “Dear Patients — please vote to repeal Obamacare”. By the way, I am not a doctor nor am I employed in the healthcare field — only a patient interested in preserving our country and our healthcare.

    If you would like me to forward a copy of the list in a PDF, please let me know asap — we only have 22 more days until the election. Hopefully, this list will encourage people to contribute to or vote for the opponents!

    Joy Putnam

  14. Great Blog, Cal! Are you familiar with Publius-Huldah’s Blog. I can now enjoy two great blog’s! I think I feel that “Chris Matthew’s Tingle” up my leg. LOL Liberty’s work is never done!

  15. I don’t normally publish comments this vulgar, but I’m making an exception, because it amuses me to think that a potential employer might Google your name and come across such a childish, intemperate, and grammatically shoddy tirade. It doesn’t make a substantive argument of any kind or hurt me in any way – it just reveals the caliber of human being you are.

    For the rest of you: Jeremy here is throwing a temper tantrum because I de-friended him on Facebook. Why? Because he was being obnoxious to a friend of mine, which was but the latest thing that convinced me he wasn’t the sort of person I wanted to associate with or to have access to my private Facebook wall.

    • Handled with skill, grace, and dignity on your part, Calvin, and nothing more than I’d expect from an angry, impotent liberal on his. Your website is great, I read it regularly, and it IS funny to think of future employers raising their eyebrows and slowly realizing that they’re considering hiring a Neanderthal upon using the google-machine to find out about Mr. Jeremy LaVigne.

  16. Where was the e-mail for those posts, Calvin, because that certainly wasn’t me. I don’t even read your blog (except for this post, which was given to me by Nagle).

  17. And Calvin, I know we don’t always see eye to eye, but I think you know that this isn’t the kind of language I use. It doesn’t even slightly resemble my language, and what is this, “killcalvins.com” thing that the link goes to? We may disagree from time to time, but that is over the line. I have no incentive for writing anything of that nature– I get nothing out of it, and in the history of our dialogues I’ve never given any reason for you to believe that those would be my comments.

    I would appreciate it if you could either provide me with the IP address (is that possible?) or any information you have that is not available to other users regarding the post. I’m not sure how I can prove to you that that wasn’t me, but I assure you that it wasn’t. If you wouldn’t mind deleting those posts it would save me the google-related headache that you referred to.

  18. I do apologize that some jackass posted this garbage to you, though- you definitely don’t deserve that trash. It’s cowardly…and I can’t believe it. My guess is that it’s someone from our high school who read the earlier post, but I don’t know.

    • I dont’ know what the truth here is – on the one hand, your email and IP address are different from the other comments, and the tone is definitely different (though not completely dissimilar from a comment you had on Nagle’s status about Zinn). On the other hand, the timing and lack of alternate suspects seem to speak against the likelihood of it being someone else. The third possibility is that it’s another nut with the same name.

      Given the evidence, I’ve deleted the offending comments from this section, and I’ve both deleted your name and added an update to this post: http://rightcal.blogspot.com/2011/03/and-now-special-message-from-former.html

      I’m not going to publicize the full email or IP of the other guy here; I’ll send you a private message with that info.

  19. I am a University of Iowa grad…read your article about nasty teacher’s F-Bomb email…who do I write to – to protest this obnoxious woman?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s