You said — “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.”
Ummm..., with a friend like that, who needs enemies... :-)
I think I’ll be the one who can say what I’m trying to do, thank you. You may or may not choose to believe me — but at least, I’ll be the one who lets you know what my intentions are and what I’m trying to do.
#1 — don’t believe it really matters — not correct..., you don’t seem to differentiate between what is *desired* versus *what is*. There is a difference. I know what is desired — I did not vote for Obama, I did not desire Obama. Now, that’s a desire. Does it matter? Yes, it matters. Now, that’s the desire and wish and intention part — but — we’ve got a *big problem* with something called *reality* — Hey! “reality check” here... Does anyone see the handwriting on the wall? Nope...
Now, if you would distinguish reality from wishes and desires and “what ought to be” — then you could easily figure out what I’m saying.
#2 — ignore the truth, huh? Now, that’s a big LOL.. If there is anyone ignoring the truth — they’re the ones who are “ignoring the truth of reality”... get it? There is such a thing as “truth” — and you see it happening in front of your face, when you walk out the door. That’s a “truth” that is outside of yourself and outside of your desires and outside of your idealogy and outside of your political persuasions.
Now, we know the *truth* of what the Constitution says — but — no one seems to *know* the truth of what Obama’s birth certificate says. So, when you don’t know the truth — the motto around here seems to be “go with the speculation” and *proclaim* that as the *truth*... Nope... that won’t work, and it sure won’t work in the real world and with courts and documentary evidence requirements.
#3 — distracting? — ummm..., practice chewing gum and walking at the same time... then you’ll do better in that category... :-)
#4 — ignore the Constitution, nope. So far even Obama has not ignored the Constitution. He says he meets the qualifications. So, tell me -— “How is Obama ignoring the Constitution?” when he says he’s qualified. Oh..., I see, you don’t believe him and so on that speculation — you’re going to remove someone from being President. My, my..., it’s a good thing our whole country doesn’t run on that type of thinking...
You know..., it’s just like this Ed Hale program, the Chief Editor Korir (who is back at it again...) and so many other avenues and trails that everyone is going down. Just deliver the document and present it in court and be done with it. Simple. Don’t accuse, don’t guess, don’t speculate — just prove it. It’s not that hard... “or is it?”
—
On to your next item — “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.”
What happens... oh..., just about the same thing that’s going to happen with all that I see going on here — Obama is going to be President. That’s about it in a nutshell.
Oh, and we’ve had another guy who was supposedly born in Canada, but it was *questionable* (just like in this Obama qualifications issue; i.e., “it couldn’t be proven absolutely”) and we’re still just as good with our Constitution now as we were before. He didn’t cause any harm (from *that issue* alone). Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President — was said to have been born in Canada. Now, let me ask you — are his Presidential orders, laws and other paperwork and treaties invalid?? I don’t think so...
—
And then, lastly you said — “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.”
In terms of the “Qualifications issue” (alone, not on politics) — what problems did we have that were a nightmare with Chester A. Arthur, being born in Canada? If you tell me about the nightmare from that administration in regards to the Qualifications issue — then I’ll get a better idea of the nightmare that we’ll have in comparison to his. Remember, “history” is a pretty good indicator of what will happen again.
I thought he was born in the US, but of a non-citizen father, who wasn't naturalized until well after Chester was born. The allegations of foreign birth never played out. Thus there was no cause for challenging him as not natural, except on the basis of having a non-citizen father. Now of course some have said that would make him not natural born, but there's at least some disagreement on that score and it was not pursued after he became Vice President nor after he succeeded to the President when President James Garfield was assassinated.
But, my "what if" scenario assumed that your "must prove eligibility laws, which I of course support, resulted in revelation that Obama was indeed not eligible. Different situation, different effect.
You make points worthy of contemplation. But I would say your portrayal of Obama is highly inaccurate—it suggests you have not fully perceived external reality.
Obama has done more than simply claim eligibility for the presidency in the traditional manner. He has withheld—more precisely, he has blocked—vast amounts of personal information from the American people. It is unprecedented.
Your assertion, in brief terms, is that we should just live with the scheme that Obama has perpetrated, even if we believe it’s fraudulent.
Can you not understand that this approach goes against the most important principles defining American conservatism?
If you can understand it, I would ask you to provide a reason why we should make such a drastic change.