Posted on 12/06/2008 9:43:49 PM PST by pissant
The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, an unhinged demagogue on the political fringe who lost a senate election to the then unknown Obama by 42 points should be a warning in itself.
This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats' seditious claim that Bush "stole" the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. This delusion helped to create the Democrats' Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq War, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became "Bush's War" rather than an American War with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.
The Birth Certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)
What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?
Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to 5 Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the 4 liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?
It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country's economy and defending its citizens, and -- by the way -- its Constitution.
Then why haven’t those conservative chiefs presented a rational argument as to why this is nonsense?
Their arguments, Horowitz, Malkin, Medved, Ed Morrissey, etc are juvenile and lack any logic beyond shaking a Truther Doll at us.
Why is that?
They are not stupid people.
So why are they making stupid, emotional arguments?
I was on the mall in DC during the 97 inauguration, I was never involved in politics but I saw what you are talking about and it was scary. Certainly made me get up and notice.
We just want to see it for ourselves. What does Obama have to hide?
suppose the Big O is a natural-born citizen but is not the son of the father that he claims; this would be a major embarrassment - but it would not disqualify him from being President.
Not in a legal sense, but who cares about the law? Much worse it would turn the only sources of biography on the man, his two books, into bullshit. He'd have to entirely re-invent himself, and do it in public. On Oprah. He'd be the first actual clown-president, and that would be a spectacle. I think his fans would have him deported, citizen or not.
Has anybody else heard this?
-PJ
When Chinagate broke Tim Russert was nearly apoplectic for several weeks in a row. I don't recall if the word "treason" ever crossed his lips but it was obvious that treason was what he was talking about. Then he dropped the subject and never mentioned it again. Why? I have my hunch about it what is yours?
I cannot disagree with much of anything in your post. It's true. We did lose for all the right reasons.
But -- the Democrats won for all the wrong reasons, chiefly among them, the deceiving of 66 million people by a con artist par excellence.
Yes, we deserved to lose, but not to an illegal usurper, who has absolutely no respect for our Constitution, and who has even said on national television that he thinks it's "a flawed document".
Someone who for the price of dinner at Denny's could rectify a looming and threatening question about his eligibility to hold the most valued and powerful office in the land.
Yet he has elected instead to spend upwards of a million dollars to prevent anyone from discovering the data on the one document which can prove this to the very people he intends to lead.
I know we deserved a "thumpin" at the White House, and I would graciously take my lumps from a Democrat who was at least constitutionally qualified to hold the office.
Maybe they aren’t discussing it because they think it’s dumb.
Look, if he was born in Hawaii to a US citizen mother, he’s natural born. Case Closed.
But if you want to get all hot and bothered, look at all the slicing and dicing that’s going on on this thread alone. A lot of specious arguments made by a lot of posters who seem to want to parse the law like the Clintons. Qualifications for President are age, natural born citizen, and living in the US for at least 14 years. All the “Yeah buts” you want to throw at it are just that...”yeah buts”.
And that is just about the extent of the discussion of this issue.
He has gotten a driver’s license and a passport. Seems to me you need proof of citizenship for at least one of those documents.
Interesting. So every subject that bores someone should be discontinued because Someone has Heard Too Much about it.
Who cares where our President was born? Does it really matter? Ahnold, what do you think? Kissinger? Arianna? Come on, there are great people all over the world. Why should we limit our choices to people from our continent?
I have two BO supporter friends and when they talk about him I just sit there with my jaw hanging open...I can't believe what they are saying...and it becomes very obvious very early they care not for the facts or history. It is like a drug they are on...and that drug seems to be the promise of free stuff. Or more precisely the greedy rich are going to give them some of THEIR stuff. They seem giddy with that promise. All the rest of my friends are hard-working responsible conservatives who enjoy the challenge of making their own way in life.
Huh???
You are really reaching.
Why do you think Tim Russert dropped the Chinagate story after being so angry that he was literally red-faced and spittle flecked about it for several Sundays in a row? Simple question.
And you all wonder why our conservative commentators don’t want to get involved in this.
This is unsubstantiated and hearsay.
“However, I have seen no proof that he was not born in Hawaii.”
As I understand it, the case before the USSC contends that it doesn’t matter where he was born, the fact that he gas a Kenyan father make him a British subject. This alone disqualifies him.
Hardly. Fear of conservatives being embarrassed and marginalized is written all over the comments of those conservatives who are (ignorantly) carping at the Constitutional challenges to Obama's candidacy.
Just read what they write.
Read what Horowitz just wrote.
Quote: I can understand their point and even sympathize with it, because if Obama is in fact disqualified due to a Kenyan birth there will be a body count, and possibly much worse.
Here we are a supposedly civilized nation & we continue to abort our children at a record rate, i saw a clip on the history channel where George Washington ordered 6 to 8 soldiers hanged in front of his troops for acts of treason i say let there be a body count!
Either Obama meets the Constitution's requirements or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then he shouldn't be president, and an upraised middle finger to the 64 million morons!
That said, it's almost certain that Obama became a natural born citizen of the United States on 4 August 1961.
(McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)
No, David. Do your homework! McCain escaped the problem totally by having been born to American parents. Didn't matter where. Could have been the moon, for all it matters. Whether or not he was born on or off the base, and whether or not the base was US territory are irrelevant questions.
It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation.
Wrong again, David. The Constitution trumps election results. Otherwise, why have one?
You are really reaching if you apply that to Rush.
Besides, some of the arguments I’ve read relating to this issue are embarrassing.
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.