Posted on 08/05/2009 6:40:35 AM PDT by Edward Watson
In my personal opinion, Obama is a disaster for America. I believe future historians will describe this period as the OBAMA CATASTROPHE - the time when America collectively lost its mind and voted for a man and a group of leftists who quickly destroyed the nation in favor of socialism and income redistribution.
However, if people want to save the American nation and way of life - the best and most benevolent society in human history; opposition must be passionate and RATIONAL. The entire legitimacy or birther issue is indeed passionate but definitely not rational.
It has been frustrating to see my fellow-Freepers waste so much time and effort arguing that Obama isn't a legitimate president. He is and no amount of wishful thinking to the contrary will change that fact.
Salon has a great article addressing all the issues of the matter (see sourced website above).
What has become of us? I know some conservatives tend to lean towards mindless conspiracy theories but this is getting ridiculous.
Free Republic is a forum where conservative issues are discussed, hopefully rationally but always passionately. I remember when we all laughed at the conspiracy theories emanating from the liberals and leftists (i.e., 9-11 was an inside job) and now the same type of lunacy has infected this forum.
Time to stop the birther distraction and focus on the real issue of saving the Republic.
Cute. One accuses me of flooding the thread with hundreds of posts and the other with not replying at all.
Can`t satisfy everyone ... :-(
I don't know that I could prove from the Constitution whether the legal burden of ensuring it lies more heavily on the candidate himself, on the state officials who determine ballot access, on the Electors, or on the Congress when they certify results. But yes, certainly it's reasonable to expect him to provide adequate evidence of eligibility.
Your non-answer if evocative of Obama.
I think your U.S. citizenship status might affect your “take” on this issue of Obama’s citizenship. It could be instrumental for us in us seeing just how you might process Obama’s citizenship as a non-issue.
JMHO. It’s important to me - but it IS also interesting to see how you sidestepped the issue of your citizenship. Jeff Head was perfectly willing to post his birth information.
The italicized is the oath of office that is required by the US Constitution.
Ethics has to do with what is right and wrong, and not necessarily with what is legal.
Is it right to stand before the people and the highest judge in the land and swear that you will "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution", when you've intentionally NOT abided by the spirit of that Constitution in regards to your qualifications for the office you have entered?
I say it's wrong: unethical.
when you've intentionally NOT abided by the spirit of that Constitution in regards to your qualifications for the office you have entered?
I don't think that I could agree that Obama has not demonstrated his qualifications for the office. The short-form COLB seems adequate for that purpose to me.
Which do you think has more and more detailed information directly related to presidential qualifications, the long-form or the condensed version?
Since both state the time and place of birth, and since the citizenship status of his parents is not disputed by anyone AFAIK, I'd say they are equal in this respect. If you disagree, what additional information do you think the long form could hypothetically contain that would have a bearing on Constitutional qualifications?
I apologize for that. I had mistaken hundreds of posts to you as being hundreds of posts from you.
I assume from your response that you’ve not seen generic copies of the long form and the short form certificates.
The question was “which has...more and more detailed info directly related to presidential qualifications...?
Would you like a link to the two so you can see the differences?
You are quite right that this is no magic bullet, but it is still a bullet, and it’s got the other side screaming a lot. That’s never a bad thing.
I don't think I have. So sure, a link would be handy.
The question was “which has...more and more detailed info directly related to presidential qualifications...?
Right. And the Constitutional qualifications from Article II, Section 1 are:
1.) Natural born citizen
2.) 35 years of age
3.) A resident of the US for >14 years
So, again, which of these does the long-form address that the short does not?
Examples of long form: Link: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347
Attempt at image: 
Short form: link: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg
Attempt at image: Go to link. I can't seem to size it correctly.
Actually, I have seen that. When you said “generic copies” I thought you meant blank forms. So anyway, what does that tell us?
Mighty decent of you. Thanks!
Yeccch!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
