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.
* he's not a natural-born citizen, or * there is something else incrimiating in that document.
For an example of the latter, 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.
Therefore the strongest theory is that he is not a natural-born citizen. This theory is easily falsifiable, which makes it a good theory.
Of course, no one expects the MSM to acknowledge facts or logic any more!
People in power want control of information. They don't want anything leaking out and don't make concessions without a fight. "Executive privilege" grows out of that desire for control.
You can't say, "this is the strongest reason for wanting to restrict information, therefore it's the reason someone in power wants to limit access." Simply asserting that one reason is stronger, doesn't eliminate other reasons.
Obama is hiding something on his birth certificate and in his school records.
Obama is thus a target for blackmail.
Do we want the president making decisions while being blackmailed?
You have to know that China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Israel - will find out his secrets - if they don’t have the goods on him already.
Hmmm...interesting choice of words.
My source for the information is Gary Kreep, the head of the United States Justice Foundation, who is representing Dr. Keyes in the CA case. If anyone knows what he is up against, it's Gary.
You need some kind of attribution, some reference as to where the "fact" is coming from.
OK, on or about the 25th of October, Obama's official campaign website posted this statement:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
I take the above statement as an omission of fact, and I believe a court would too.
The other 'fact' saying Obama hiring law firms to to defend him I thought came from a reliable source, although I can't recall where. I'll bet my whole bank account that it's true. I don't know how anyone can conceivably doubt that Obama has not hired lawyers to defend him with an array of law suits heading his way.
I see. You don’t have anything useful, reasonable, or pertinent to add to the conversation.
In both cases, I believe the above to be the truth.
As to which path he's chosen to deal with this issue, it's fairly clear that he's taking the path of no return. He and the DNC are fully invested in his presidency, and have 66 million votes underlying that. They're in with the treachery and have crossed over into actual treason against their country.
It's clear to me, at least, that he and his comrades would rather violate the Constitution and endure any political or social risk, to carry out their Socialist agenda.
Looking at this in that light sheds a great deal of light on the mindset and loyalties of these people. They obviously only pay lip service to America. At heart, they are globalists, with allegiance only to Socialism and world government.
That may sound wild-eyed to some, but there is no other answer. It's happening right before our eyes. The proof? No one on the Democrat side, except for Phil Berg is honestly asking Obama to do the right thing.
Yes, and I don't know where this idea originated, or why.
Time to give up the Birth Cert. crap folks, this makes our side more insane than those who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome....
Oops
ommission = admission
By the way, concerning your silly obscure literary reference: I don’t believe in mob action, although Sam Adams would most certainly have taken issue with me on that.
Thanks, I read so much on this topic it’s hard to recall it all 100%. Is there a huge difference(a sense of Senate Resolution) or how does that work?
Yes, you’re so much smarter than everyone else. I’m sure many are hanging on your every word.
By the way, in the most literal sense, it is folks like you who are in fact arguing for mob rule: The rulership of the majority by force without reference to the rule of law as expressed in the Supreme Law of the Land, ie the Constitution.
Tokyo Rose, Is that you?
You have it all wrong.
It's time for mr Obama to give up the long form birth certificate.
Now I understand that you would rather just give up
but some of us will fight on. Our country means more to us.
Why bother calling us names?
You go back to waxing your car with Old Glory and we
will “Defend and Uphold the Constitution: as promised.
The best part of this discussion are not the personal attacks; but the meat of the matter and superior argumentation.
hint hint.
I happen to believe the charismatic and brilliant governor of Alaska would be of like opinion as Michelle M., Rush, and jla.
I was not making a personal attack. I was making a factual statement. The abrogation of the Constitution is the end of ordered liberty.
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.