Replies

Okay, a good statement...

And the “truth” is what I think is at stake here, even more so than simply Obama and his qualifications. That’s most of what prompts me to post on a lot of these things. I just don’t see the “reality” of the matter (or another way to say it is “the truth of the matter” in many instances).

Now, while I would agree that Obama has not made it abundantly clear about his qualifications, at the same time I don’t see that he’s done anything so different than many other candidates. What is driving the “suspicion” more than anything else, is the sheer *antagonism* against Obama, such that it goes to the degree that *anything goes* — even those things that are not true.

It’s like you can say anything, as long as you’re against Obama. In my way of thinking “truth” is neither Republican or Democrat and is neither for one candidate or the other. And so, many times, one will find truth mitigating against one’s position (and unfortunately so). But, that’s the way truth is, at times...

Anyway..., I hope someone understands that type of thinking, in regards to truth...

I think that you may be painting the "bir^thers" with too broad of a brush. My personal interest in the eligibility issue is that I hope it raises public discussion of constitutional issues (in your face, serfs! Wake up!). I view it almost entirely as a potential educational lightning rod. I really am not pinning hopes on legal maneuverings to achieve any particular political outcome (but I will gleefully cheer Berg and Orly on in their endeavors) because it keeps people talking. Please consider refraining from using terms like ODS when addressing a general audience, if you would. Thanks.

Now, while I would agree that Obama has not made it abundantly clear about his qualifications, at the same time I don’t see that he’s done anything so different than many other candidates.

His situation is different. What other cannidate in anything like recent times, had a foreign national, who never became even a legal resident, let alone a citizen? Even Chester Arthur's father eventually was naturalized, while Obama's father, who apparently had a big influence on him, even in abstenia, went home to Kenya. Meanwhile the man, Barrack Jr, was raised for some of very formative years in a foreign country, attending their schools as one of them. So, per the very purpose of the Natural Born Citizen requirement, that of avoiding foreign influence in the office of the President, Obama merits higher scrutiny. Now, if he had practiced his vaunted "transparency" last summer and granted access to either his Certification or Certificate, and preferably the latter, of birth, since the former may not contain sufficient information for a determination of natural born status, well then the issue would have been hashed out and be over by now. Instead he sent his lawyers to argue standing and other technicalities that do no go to the truth of the issue.

He either is or is not eligible to the office of President. I for one would like to know "the truth" of that matter. Wouldn't you?