Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: STE=Q
I asked you if you thought he SHOULD show his Birth certificate, not whether you thought he could be legally compelled to show it.

Why should he when it isn't required? Bush didn't. Clinton didn't. No prior president has had to. If the law required it then I'd say that Obama should provide it. Since the law does not then I don't think he should be forced to do what no other president has had to do. Unless, of course, actual evidence is uncovered indicating that Obama wasn't born here.

74 posted on 11/11/2009 4:12:39 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
If the law required it then I'd say that Obama should provide it. Since the law does not then I don't think he should be forced to do what no other president has had to do.

Thank you for your answer that appears to be your sincere opinion.

However, please allow me to press you one more time:

What I wished to address was the ethical and moral issues of the case: divorced from the legal aspects.

In plain language - those actions that are GOOD and NOBEL.

Not all actions that are Good and Nobel are bound by law.

For instance, one time some punks (in my presence) tried to rob an older man of his wallet, and I intervened.

The law did NOT require me to "interfere," (I could have kept walking)however, my code of right and wrong would not allow me to look the other way.

Recently, it was in the NEWS how a girl was raped, in broad daylight, as a large crowed looked on and did nothing to stop it (nor, by LAW, were they required to stop it) and, in fact, some even cheered the rapists on!

Now There are some -- call them "birthers" "patriots" "constitutionalist" -- that see their country being raped through evisceration of the constitution and the obliteration of the lofty vision of it's framers; by tin gods, such as Obama, that openly declare that our constitution is "fundamentally flawed!"

So we each have a moral choice to make as to where we stand:

We can do the right and Nobel thing, or we can turn are faces away -- because the law doesn't require us to fight evil.

Or worse, we can cheer the evil doers on!

Has the "home of the brave" become a nation of cowards?

So let me ask this:

Shouldn't our President, as leader of the free world, be the one to take the "high road" -- the noble road -- rather than the "easy" way out?

What is he hiding in the dark that he is so afraid may be revealed to the light?

I am sorry, but his behaver in the matter of his vital record's may or may not be legal, but it certainly isn't ethical or Nobel or brave.

So I ask wouldn't you agree that going to court and showing his birth certificate -- irrespective of whether the law compels him to go -- be the right and Nobel thing for him do?

Keep in mind that just because other Presidents have behaved in a certain way does not shield the actions of a sitting President from legitimate criticism.

Founder John Adams wrote:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Thank you for your time.

STE=Q

85 posted on 11/11/2009 5:46:20 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson