How great is your desire, or your need, to try as hard as you possibly can to convince people that Obama is a natural born citizen?
That is, if you were to rate the magnitude of this desire of yours on a scale of 1 to 10, what would it be?
I know you didn't ask me, but I am so overwhelmed by the danger to our republic this monster poses, I have to say it is somewhere in the billionths on a scale of 1 to 10 for me. :((
Hmmm..., I just saw this now... I must have missed it earlier...
You asked — “How great is your desire, or your need, to try as hard as you possibly can to convince people that Obama is a natural born citizen? That is, if you were to rate the magnitude of this desire of yours on a scale of 1 to 10, what would it be?”
I don’t want to convince anyone of whether Obama is one thing or another. That’s not been my issue. My issue has been that there needs to be proof to take to court and have it judged in a court and then we say we *know* what the situation is.
In other words, we act on what we *know* and not on what we *suppose*. If someone actually *knew* what the situation was we wouldn’t be talking about this whole issue. It’s the very fact that one does not “know”.
But, by the same token, the other Presidents (most of them) have not had to bring out a birth certificate for examination in a court. Now, maybe there was one or two or more who had to submit one to a court — I really don’t know. Perhaps someone can point me to another President who had to do this.
If there is one — then — that one could be used as a “precedent” in this matter. But, unless I’m mistaken, I don’t think you’ll find a President where he was required to show a birth certificate to a court of law to verify his eligibility.
Please..., give me a precedent, using that other President, whomever he was.
THEN — we *might* have a handle on something...
—
To answer you more specifically — directly to the question — I’m not trying to prove that he is qualified and I’m not trying to prove he’s not qualified. I’m asking for the proof, one way or the other...
In Star's defense, I don't think she is trying to do that. But she rather believes that it doesn't matter, that we should ignore the truth because looking for it is "distracting" to making sure this doesn't happen again. She thinks we should just ignore the Constitutional requirement, this time, in favor of making sure they observed next time.
What I would ask is: What happens if you get your wish, many states require proof of eligibility before a candidate can be put on the ballot and then in 2012, it turns out Obama was not eligible. He'd have served for 4 years. What happens to every law signs, every order he gives and every appointment he makes. All illegitimate, since they were done by someone not eligible to the Office.
I'd just as soon avoid that kind of nightmare, if we can. If we can't, or even if we can, we can still work on getting those state level proof of eligibility laws put in place. It's not an either/or situation. IMHO, of course.