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.
This is strange at best and Manchurian at worst.
Sorry you don’t get it.
In a single-issue domain, you'd be just fine. But the world nor law, nor the Constitution work like that. Reality is not thermoplastic. I, for one, do want to see the birth certificate. More importantly, I want to understand what is being hidden from view. Anyone who disagrees with your position is NOT "giving up on the Constitution" no matter how many times I've seen this line posted as a repost to "end all argumentation". In many ways, the line is absolutely specious.
Are you then also suggesting that if everyone disagrees with you that this issue should be a defining issue for all conservatives, isn't that just a tad too control-freakish? Do you have someone collecting freeper names for the next purge based on this issue? Just wondering.
But the argument about whether or not BO is or is not natural born is an interesting one, and I don't mean that casually -- ultimately the more I've learned about the subject of "natural born" the more I've seen how liberalism has twisted "natural born" to suit all kinds of agenda items (e.g., anchor babies, etc.)
But calling posters who question this issue as being "against the Constitution" is as downright petty and disturbing as it has been watching the left use its own special brand of specious argumentation.
My point is only to suggest that a great many more people with real knowledge might be more interested in this issue if it weren't flavored with personal animus, as in the "personal is political" - thanks but that very leftist slogan over a 40-year span has increased cultural and constitutional rot, not helped the rule of law, IMO.
I do get it. More than I wished I did.
It just might be that Sarah would love to talk about it, but is most likely waiting to see what happens at the Supreme Court. Others like Rush and all may be also.
And PERHAPS Sarah found out about Obama's lack of Constitutional requirements when she joined the McCain ticket. I am sure she would have brought attention to it if she had been allowed to, but bet she wasn't. WHY? Because McCain is not a “natural born” citizen either!
Just had to pause a second to fix my “tinfoil hat”. One of the American flags was slipping off the edge of the small copy of our Constitution on the front of my hat. Not to worry though, I fixed it! :)
It would be quite appropriate for the DNC to use its law firm to represent their (the DNC’s) interest in Obama’s eligibility.
I suspect, but don’t know for sure, that this is, in fact, the basis for “three law firms and millions of dollars”.
Those of us who are journalists should know better that not sourcing anything we do.
Things have really gone loopy.
It has just been catch 22’s and run-arounds regarding his birth certificate and natural born status.
You can’t ckeck his eligibilty before the election...You have no standing.
Can’t ckeck it afterwards...You still have no standing and you are a sore loser.
This is reminding me of when Bush called the Minute Men vigilantes. That is when Bush lost me.
Now we’ve got Horowitz, Malkin, Hot Air, Little Green Footballs calling us truthers. The truth will come out and I’m going to remember who was with us and who was against us and who stood silent.
It's pretty clear that Congress will act at some point to ensure that it doesn't happen again. There will be a requirement that contenders provide proof of citizenship, age, and residency when they register as candidates.
As for academic and health records, the media dropped the ball. Probably they intentionally dropped because they wanted Obama in the White House.
As for now, who knows? I don't think one should bet on Obama's not being a citizen, but stranger things have happened.
Okey-doke, Santa.
(Post 565) C'mon now, we don't want the thread denigrating into a flame war.
...great post!
~chuckling~
By the way, is it ah-lee-uh or ah-lye-uh?
THe entire ordeal is beyond strange IMHO.
I do.
My son, enroute back to his college just asked me to take a break from freeping so I could watch a funny youtube called "Child Beater". It is really well done. But to those who are unfamiliar with the absolute skill involved with SUPERIOR martial arts, these flicks may just turn their stomachs.
Sorry, but passion just can't replace good old fashioned superior skills and to the un-initiated and untrained, look like something else.
There've been some legal beagles on these threads and around this issue. They've raised solid pro/con arguments. Not once have I see them go "personal" (or postal") on a fellow freeper, regardless of the position.
Hmm... do we know each other from some other forum?
I think Diana West still has a column on Townhall. I just checked her site and followed a link about this case to Atlas Shrugs—couldn’t open it. This has happened before.
WOODROW WILSON
Born December 28, 1856 - the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.
Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,
“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]
This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens - natural born citizen.
According to some here, and David Horowitz, they just did about a month ago.
Is there ONE well-informed major conservative who understands the issue?
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.