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.
So you’re Sarah Palin’s spokeman now too? Wow.
You know.. a simple “I don’t think so” would have been more than adequate a response to that or whom you disagree. Calling someone Tokyo Rose, directly and in post, crosses the line of civility in argumentation.
Some of our other Presidents also had parents who may have qualified as British citizens. The last I believe was Woodrow Wilson, whose mother was born in England.
You did skew his post to serve your purpose.
“Obama Derangement Syndrome - Conservatives Need to Shut Up About the Birth Cert.”
TRANSLATION:
AMERICANS Need to Shut Up About the Birth Certificate!
To Horowitz it’s just another ‘political’ question ... who cares about all the AMERICANS that voted for this impostor — under fraudulent circumstances!
Then he lectures us on American ‘unity.’
The Constitution is the wellspring of American ‘unity.’
The Constitution is not a political play-toy as Mr. Horowitz would have us believe (because a few people exercise their constitutional 1st amendment rights in front of the Supreme Court)but the very fabric that holds our country together — lest we fall apart!
Those people in front of the Courthouse are fighting for our Constitution... They are fighting for the ‘unity’ that the Constitution — our guiding document — provides.
The Constitution says what it says.
If Obama is not a ‘natural born’ citizen (we don’t even know if he is a citizen)he CANNOT be President of the United States.
E pluribus unum...
... Out of Many, One!
STE=Q
No I didn’t.
Riiight. And no one ever uses Rush’s stuff for their own ends and purposes.
“factcheck” is a good old journalistic phrase...but I’m sure you knew that.
The issue is that “three law firms” and “spent millions of dollars on lawyers” has been tossed about several times on this and other threads.
I have asked (third time now) for corroboration, and the only response I received was from EV who cited Sandler, Reiff and Young.
I checked it out, and so far, I have detemined only that Sandler works for the DNC, and their proper role would be to represent the Party, and therefore the Pres-elect, in the cases brought before the various courts and states.
I have yet to see anything at all that indicates Obama or his representatives have indeed hired three law firms or lawyers or spent millions of dollars fighting these issues.
I will follow up on the further reference you gave me, EV.
Thanks
OK, but only because I like your username, sweet & airy. (unless you’re a guy then forget I posted this)
Could it be... that you are so on about this issue that you didn’t pause to consider the person you were responding to would rather be treated as an individual person rather than a captive audience for your performance/activism?
Perhaps they shouldn’ have started their part in the conversation by duplicating the spirit of Horowitz’s vicious ad hominem attacks on good people who want nothing more than the truth to be known and the Constitution to survive in a way that actually means something.
However, we are in an imperfect world and in a situation where everything about this candidate from the day of his birth to where he went to college,whom he spent time with, his friends etc., to who his parents really are has been carefully hidden or astroturfed so well we can't find a dam thing out about him.
This situation is unlike any other potus ever. It is extraordinary.
So what do you suggest in a situation like this?
Is compelling a potential potus to come up with a modicum of documentation above and beyond the expected in this situation.
I like sound argumentation.
Can’t argue with you on this point.
-PJ
According to Donofrio, if Obama was born in Hawaii or anywhere in Us he is a citizen but not a “natural born” citizen due to his father not be a citizen. Donofrio is taking Obama’s own words that he was born in Hawaii and a British subject at birth due to his father being from Kenya. Donofrio is not asking for ANY birth certificate to be released. He is going on Obama’s own statements from his web site, “fight the smears”.
If Obama was born in Kenya (not proven) he is obviously not a “natural born” citizen. I believe the Keyes case does ask for it to be released, and the Berg case did.
Yes, probably the DNC hired lawyers to represent Obama.
I'm going to do more checking on this.
Thanks very much. I goggled it but didn’t come up with too much.
Read here about Woodrow Wilson. Leo discusses on his web site all the Presidents who were questioned about their Constitutional requirements as to being “natural born” citizens. Great research!
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
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.