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.
-PJ
I didn’t shake the truther doll, sorry.
But I did compare some of the arguments here with DU, Kos and HP, because, doggone it, it fits.
The very fact that this is virtually the only place where it is discussed, outside of a few other lesser blogs, is testimony to that.
If it had any credible legs at all, it would be picked up in other places, including people, sites, or commentators who have some standing with many, if not a majority of conservatives.
The empirical evidence, Kevmo, is that no one, not one, outside of some posters on FR and a few minor bloggers has picked up on this story.
What is “provable” is that a majority of credible conservatives have avoided this issue like the plague.
And I go back to my original point...there is a reason.
Like it or not, that’s how it is.
As to Alan Keyes suit, California Electors have been served, so we’ll see how that turns out.
A stopped clock is right twice a day. A clock going backwards is right more often than that.
“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.”
No, Horowitz, you stupid ****, it is not a “technicality.” It is the freaking CONSTITUTION.
Yes, I saw your post. My jaw dropped reading that. By that elector's logic, there is no need for written law, or a constitution. We can just make it all up by whatever feels good to us. See? Easy!
Presto-Chango-Anarchy-Marxism
I wonder if it would do any good to forward a copy of that elector's letter to the FEC?
The point is that he had to get a new American passport much later in his life and there is no available record of his traveling abroad using an American passport in his young adulthood.
The empirical evidence, Kevmo, is that no one, not one, outside of some posters on FR and a few minor bloggers has picked up on this story.
What is “provable” is that a majority of credible conservatives have avoided this issue like the plague.
And I go back to my original point...there is a reason.
So your argument is that the big names haven't yet told you what to think yet, so you cannot think it?
Are you seriously saying that if those in positions of influence don't argue in favour of something you will refuse to give it a second thought?
Stable Datum:
No one, including you, has seen Obama's original long form birth certificate.
Ipso facto - no one knows if he is qualified under our Constitution.
Clarence Thomas certainly has standing with me. But your point is? And Clarence Thomas’ view is?
Clarence Thomas could simply look at the issue and shrug his shoulders, or he could say “Obama, show us the proof.”
Where do you put your money?
The Supreme Court is also discussing it. That should count for something.
-PJ
“Even if you are right this is such a strange technicality that it means squat”
Yeah, who cares what that old piece of paper called the Constitution says. It’s just a technicality written by a bunch of old dead guys. Just throw it in the trash if it is inconvenient, a mere “technicality,” eh?
Rathergate.
The borders & illegals.
Swift Boat Vets.
To name a few similar "topics" where a few turned out to be right and were lamblasted until the table turned. So what if this doesn't get MSM or FR poster support. So what!! A million threads later... so what. It isn't going to be dropped, it is that pesky constitution and our Republic, FRupid.
They are just followers. They are afraid to be wrong.
***It does seem like the chattering class of nominal conservatives have taken a finger-to-the-wind calculation and figured that this thing has little chance of moving forward. There isn’t a constitutionalist among them.
Well, the point being, that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL... millions of voters would probably vote in Arnold too...and perhaps it isn’t fair that he can not be President. But, that is what our constitution says!
Yes, it will be very bad to disenfranchise so many voters...but it will be far worse to invalidate our foundational document.
There’s one thing to be said about the “Democrats’ Bush derangement syndrome” - It worked. I’m not sure why conservatives or Republicans, at every opportunity make the case (any case) against Barry.
Negative campaigning is used because it works. Dems did even before Bush took office. We should return the favor, and then some.
Just a thought.
Clarence Thomas’s view was that even though Souter rejected Donofrio vs. Wells, he said there’s a constitutional issue at stake. He risked the ire of his colleague. So that signals he thinks it’s important, which it is.
C Thomas cannot say, “show us the BC”. Only the majority of the supremes can say that and have the authority to get it implemented.
Where do you put your money?
***Funny you should ask. I’ve been pushing hard at Intrade to open contracts related to this issue. It’s the biggest thread in the history of their forum.
https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/2279.page
No, the argument is, to be kind, that no one with any intelligence, whom I trust, has felt comfortable enough to broach this issue. That tells me to be cautious.
Further, I don’t have the time nor the resources to fully vet this issue, but I have a great deal of interest in it. As I have stated at least once on this thread, I would like to see Obama put this to rest, as I would like to see John Kerry disclose his papers, and I would like to see George Bush fill in some of the blanks on his record. Full disclosure is a good thing.
I will tell you this, after many years of using this site as a major source of information, that I would not fall prey to believing many of the posters’ claims, either for assiduous fact checking or clever deduction, without corroboration.
On the other hand, there are many here who are sane and well-reasoned. And I would point out that many of those sane and well-reasoned posters have not dipped their feet into the waters of these discussions.
That tells me a lot, too.
Nah...political vollzugsanstalt
You make it sound like it is an unresolved question. But I guess it's not important enough for a sane and well-reasoned person to care about. ???
As has been pointed out they didn't breach other topics (Rathergate, etc) either as they didn't want to be embarrassed. The absurdity of the arguments put forth by those 'intelligent' people doesn't give you pause? Letting others do your thinking for you isn't, IMO wise.
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.