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.
The CONSTITUTION is the 'bulwark' of our 'unity as a nation' -- you dullard!
If the Constitution fails the question of 'respect for election results' will become moot!
What does 'respect for election results' mean, anyway?
You mean even if the candidate blatantly and deliberately defrauds the electorate: respect for 'results' should prevail?
Thus, 'the ends (votes) would justify the means'(fraud) -- if only one can pull it off!
Sounds like Alinsky's 'rules for radicals' David!
Mr. Horowitz appears to be suffering from radical 'flashbacks' syndrome?
Maybe he's becoming unhinged!
STE=Q
I’ve been following this BC stuff for weeks and weeks. Because of the national crisis that I think would ensue should the Supremes de-certify the election, I’ve been hoping that Obama would just put this to rest by allowing full and open access to all of his historical records (long-form BC, college applications and transcripts, passport history, Indonesian citizen or not, etc.) and we could all move on. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t vote for him, and I’m not looking forward to his first term.
But it’s nagging and eating at me. Some 19 lawsuits in (I think) 15 states. Defense against each requires many, many attorneys, at an untold cost. This includes Obama, the DNC, various state officials, etc. In these cases, I’ve seen the “no standing” defense, I’ve seen this-and-that technicality defense. What I haven’t seen is a SINGLE defense that says “Obama’s a natural-born citizen, and here’s the proof.”. WHY??? I think, given the above, it’s reasonable for anyone and everyone to doubt his natural-born status.
Until the question is resolved, it’s going to hang over his head as an open question, which will minimally impact his ability to lead. We simply cannot wantonly violate the US Constitution ... for anyone ... PERIOD.
Don't become discouraged by the indifference of the sheeple.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" ... Edmund Burke
STE=Q
And your naming calling is juvenlie, bluegill.
So all of the conservative commentators are not "thinking conservatives."
All of the trial court judges who through out these cases already are not thinking.
If Sclalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas decline to take the case, they are not "thinking conservatives."
Nearly every legal expert in the country agrees with my position are none of them "thinking conservatives."
If those questions were not addressed before the election, then too bad. You can blame the MSM/Democrats/courts all you want, but the fact is, this was a battle and the people questioning Obama’s citizenship lost. It’s over. Seriously, think it through and imagine under what scenario Obama could actually be thrown out of office. When the stakes are this high, the truth gets thoroughly muddled. What piece of evidence could unambiguously prove, to all sides, that Obama was not born in the US? I can’t think of any.
And if there is, and you succeed in overturning the election, think about the consequences down the line. Now there is a precedent that all American elections are subject to judicial review. It’s giving the judicial branch a *lot* more power than before - are you sure you want this??
***
To a certain extent - elections ARE ALREADY subject to judicial review ... just ask Al Franken.
And that is how it should be ...
SCOTUS has already ruled in paraphrased language:
When a State invests individual citizens with the right to vote for Presidential Electors, then that right is inviolate ... it is fundamental ...
If election irregularities are found out after the fact, they STILL need to be remedied ...
BTW:
Berg AND Donofrio sought to have the election stayed BEFORE election day and were shot down in lower courts ...
Perhaps that would be true if this was my only post on the subject. However, I have posted consistently for several weeks regarding this case and why it is bogus. I was merely letting people know if they replied to me, it would take some time for me to answer. I do have a life outside FR.
You opined, “What piece of evidence could unambiguously prove, to all sides, that Obama was not born in the US? I can’t think of any.” That really is not the point of the lesson. Obama was born with dual citizenship, according to his assertion (we don’t know for sure that he was actaully born in HI). That is divided loyalty like the framers were seeking to avoid in a president. Then add to that the fact that he may well have gamed the entry system for college, claiming foreign student status which would further evidence divide3d loyalties and acquiring college funding via a similar gaming, and possibly even holding a passport based upon another nationality calimed, and you have sufficient proof. BUT the little lying squirrel has hired an army of expensive law firms to hide ALL deocuments whioch expose his history and he refuses to release these as well as his vault copy BC. Do you really want that kind of president? Do you really want to allow a man to so spit ont he Constitution?
The fact that the document on posted on Daily Kos may have been altered is not evidence. Anybody could have altered it.
I was really disappointed in Horowitz. I have been interested in him since I read Radical Son. I felt that he had integrity for exposing his parents,the murderous and criminal Black Panthers and leftist traitors like Mr. Jane Fonda out in California.
He is so detested by the left that whenever he appears on Fox the leftists, including and often led by Colmes, shout over him. He is also required to have security when he speaks at universities.
I have no idea why he would think that it was inappropriate to challenge Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy to be POTUS. That is insane. I donated to help him pay for security. Maybe somebody got through security and hit him in the head. He can’t be thinking clearly.
Are you serious?
Forged documentation that is being bandied about as 'proof' that Obama has addressed the BC issue is not evidence?
Without access to the documents that Obama has sealed, what would you consider evidence?
A birth certificate from another country. A hospital birth record from another country. Even one official document from another country showing he was born there. Evidence proves facts. The absence of facts is not evidence.
“A birth certificate from another country. A hospital birth record from another country. Even one official document from another country showing he was born there. Evidence proves facts. The absence of facts is not evidence.”
Those have been been sealed as well. All access to his relatives has been denied or obstructed, and when such access was gained we have those relatives telling us HE WAS BORN IN KENYA.
By the logic you use here a 15 year old could run for the Presidency if he had Obama’s team of lawyers. How do you prove he isn’t 35 without access to documents, relatives or school records?
We have a disputed transcript of a discussion where Obama's 86 year old Step grandmother allegedly says she was in a hospital in Kenya at his birth. That's it. It's hearsay and inadmissible unless she appears in court to say this on the record. Why didn't Berg, or one of the plaintiff's in the various suits, get an Affidavit from her. That might qualify as evidence.
I am certainly no Obama fan and wish he would not be our next president, but the facts are the facts and I don't think its wise for conservatives to chase pipe dreams when we should be concentrating on defeating the policies Obama is surely going to try to attack. If we end up looking discredited over these suits, we will have no chance of getting many Americans to oppose those policies.
The Berg case is nothing more than pure speculation. He has absolutely no positive admissible verified evidence to support his case and he lacks standing to bring the case.
Donofrio, has proposed some far out legal arguments, some of which have never been the law in the U.S. Here is a fact for you. The U.S. Department of Immigration and Naturalization has consistent, for nearly ten decades treated every person born on U.S. soil as natural born citizens. This goes back decades before Obama was even born. Now, Donofrio says the U.S. has been doing it wong for all of these decades and he thinks a court is going to agree with him. Further, U.S. courts have ruled consistently for many decades that no one can cause a citizen to lose his citizenship status except that person himself, and even that requires an overt act such as a renunciation of citizenship Simply put, no one except yourself can give up your citizenship. But, now the coutrs are expected to stand established law on its head because some plaintiff (who also lacks standing) asks the to. It is not going to happen.
I don’t know that there is some legal precedent for the definition, but Donofrio states it goes along with the thinking of the founding fathers. He defends his case with so much detail. I am sure if you read his information on his web site, it will explain his thinking on the issue. There are so many references he sites in his arguement for “natural born” being born in US of citizen parents.
Which is exactly why we have endeavored to keep the focus exactly where it should be: on Barack Obama’s burden of proof to show that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.
Why won’t we show the birth certificate?
We don’t have to prove anything. It is Obama who must prove that he is a natural born citizen.
Sorry, that is simply not the way the U.S. justice system works. If you go to court and claim he is not natural born, the burden of proof is on you and you better be prepared to back up your assertions or your case will be tossed. But before you even get to that stage, you have to prove you have the right to be in court in the first place. This is where the standing issue comes into play. The courts all ruled that none of these plaintiffs have standing. To have standing you must show that you will suffer irreparable harm unless the court takes your case. That irreparable harm must be direct to you. In other words, it is not sufficient to show that you will be harmed as a citizen. If your harm is no different than all other Americans, you do not have standing to be in court.
Rather than make blanket statements about who has something to prove, why don;t you show me how Berg or Donofrio has a special interest (greater than any other citizen in Obama's eligibility. That is what it is going to take to keep their cases going forward and I, nor any court, has seen it.
Rev. Kweli Shuhubia’s sworn affidavit, an Affidavit from Bishop Ron McRae, Sarah Hussein Obama’s audio recording saying he was born in Kenya, the Kenyan Ambassador saying he was born in Kenya, and Obama’s half-brother and half-sister attending the birth. The Times Herald even reports: “the senator’s grandmother, brother and sister, who live in Kenya, believe they were present during Obama’s birth in the African country.”
In counter-poise? We have a newspaper clipping and a forged JPEG.
Trying to defeat Obama’s policies are a total waste of time. Why bother? If you will not stand in defence of the constitution on such a clear question, then on what will you stand? He will simply use the threat of being called a ‘Truther’ or social embarrassment to keep most opponents in line. If that doesn’t work threats of civil unrest will be the fall-back position. David Horowitz and others will buckle under and all will be well with the progressive agenda.
The plaintiffs in the case I’m involved with are a presidential candidate, a vice-presidential candidate, and a presidential elector. Do they have standing?
This is not a criminal case. This is a simple question of whether Barack Obama told the truth when he swore that he is qualified to serve as President. He hasn’t proven that he did.
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.