Replies

I agree. While I don't think Denofrio’s arguments hold legal water - he at least has a legal and rational argument rather than “its a fake!!!!”.

Asking “Where is the Birth Certificate?” was the birther focus.

It was a huge mistake.

The argument that one must have two citizen parents - and be born in country - that apparently many claim to have “known” and been “taught” from grade school - AMAZINGLY wasn't advanced here on FR until AFTER the election.

But still - it at least is a legal argument not dependent upon a massive conspiracy.

Those “birthers” who said that the “Where is the Birth Certificate?” was a mistake and that the Constitutional argument should be advanced instead - they I have respect for - and while I don't agree with their legal reasoning - they at least have a legal argument - not a conspiracy theory.

Those that thought asking “Where is the Birth Certificate?” was going to lead us into the promised land need to....

EAT CROW AND LIKE IT!

I do agree with you in many respects, although not in every respect.

I have no problem with either people having wanted to see the long form birth certificate, or with people being skeptical from the Constitutional point of view.

I don’t even really have a problem with people still personally believing that the birth certificate is a fake, or that Obama’s ineligible because his father was a Kenyan.

Some might be surprised to hear me say it, but I think ALL of the concerns have been legitimate. I don’t think any of the concerns have been so much of a “mistake.”

Where it’s a problem for me is when people are so committed to their point of view that 1) they simply can’t be swayed by any facts or reason, and 2) they personally attack fellow conservatives who’ve looked into the matter in detail and come to a different conclusion.

Asking “Where is the Birth Certificate?” was the birther focus. It was a huge mistake.

If you go through my post history, you'll find numerous occasions where I've mentioned I was a birther before the term was coined. A birther, then, included all who felt the Constitutional requirements for the office must be met. I'm as proud to be a birther as I am to be a Constitutional conservative -- the Constitution is that important. The media and trolls have taken the term and massaged it, in a Clinton-ian way, to be used exclusively for those doubting Obama was "born in Hawaii". The intent of this redefinition was simply to obfuscate the parental requirements; we saw this coming. In my post history too, and in the post histories of many other FReepers, you'll see us mention the Hawaii-birth aspect was a red herring. By your posts, I see the redefinition effort has been largely successful. The value in the birth certificate for me, and many other Freepers, was only to eliminate the possibility of a "mystery father" having signed on the dotted line that actually was a U.S. citizen at the time Obama was born. Blatant forgery or not, by releasing the fake birth certificate by his own hand, Obama has claimed a foreigner as his parent. I'll take him at his word. And I'll happily spend my spare time pointing out to every one I speak to that Obama is at best a dual-citizen at birth and Constitutionally ineligible for the office. For those who care about the Constitution, this is sufficient to enlighten them and they jump on board. Most folks who remember their high school civics classes "get it". For others it takes a little more effort. But in my experience these last couple years, the number of birthers has expanded ... dramatically, exponentially even. I've certainly seen no evidence that our numbers are shrinking. For me, and others like me, we are off the fence and are only politely waiting for our right to redress our government to run its course. What comes after that, who knows? I guess it'll depend on what the court decides and whether or not the average American has reached the tipping point. But I know what side of the fence I'm on and happy to keep pushing the ball forward.