Replies

There may be personal reasons that have nothing to do with eligibility, and there is certainly a desire not to provoke yet another string of lawsuits based on alternative “theories”. He was elected as fairly as any other President in recent history, and based on his appointments and comments since Election Day, he is already a lot more popular than he was then.

The fact is that the only possible result of even a partially successful legal challenge to his eligibility is riots, and political and economic destabilization (the latter inevitably leading to more popular support for socialist programs). Some of the details bring up legal technicalities which have never been addressed by the courts and are not addressed by the Constitution or any legislation. Some of the theories advanced by the promoters of the ineligibility claim rest in part on Indonesian law — at a time when Obama may have held dual citizenship, Indonesian law didn’t recognize dual citizenship and would have deemed him solely an Indonesian citizen.

I don’t buy the notion that any other country’s laws trump the US Constitution when it comes to eligbility for the office of POTUS, but those who are determined to push the issue of his eligibility have actually advanced such a claim. This is the sort of thing that could take years to wind through the courts, and I’m not interested in seeing the US politically and economically destabilized by such a pointless endeavor at a time of critical global political and economic instability.

So essentially what you’re saying is, in this case, we should disregard the constitution in the name of expedience?

Bravo! I've read all of your refreshingly clear-thinking posts on this thread with pleasure.

In Post #20, you stated:

The amount of attention being paid on FR to this and similar distractions (e.g. Michelle’s inactive law license) is alarming, and seriously pulling attention away from strategies to oppose socialist expansion plans under the Obama administration...

I would add that this kind of nonsense is killing FR by driving away people who value common sense, and who are appalled by the fever-swamp rantings of the fringes on both the right and the left.

There may be personal reasons that have nothing to do with eligibility, and there is certainly a desire not to provoke yet another string of lawsuits based on alternative “theories”. He was elected as fairly as any other President in recent history, and based on his appointments and comments since Election Day, he is already a lot more popular than he was then. The fact is that the only possible result of even a partially successful legal challenge to his eligibility is riots ... This is the sort of thing that could take years to wind through the courts, and I’m not interested in seeing the US politically and economically destabilized by such a pointless endeavor at a time of critical global political and economic instability.

I disagree.

1. I cannot imagine a reason worth $1M in legal fees for failing to produce a $10 document that would make all of the objections except those from the tinfoil hat crowd go away. I considered this topic unlikely and almost frivolous when it was first brought up - like demanding George Bush's birth certificate - but I have revised that opinion based on Obama's legal tactics.

2. The fairness of the election and Obama's current popularity are both completely irrelevant to his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States of America. The question is whether he meets the constitutional standards to hold that office, and he has an absolute moral obligation to prove his eligibility now that it has been questioned.

3. The possibility that criminals will riot if their selection is prevented from taking office is irrelevant. We should do the right thing by determining whether Obama is eligible. Then we should do the right thing by swearing him in if he is eligible and choosing a different President in accordance with the Constitution if Obama is ineligible. Then we should do the right thing by arresting or if necessary shooting rioters and criminals who respond violently to that lawful process.

4. It should not take years or even months to go through the courts. The courts should accept the case immediately, demand proof of eligibility, evaluate that proof of eligibility, and settle the question. From that point, the Congress can resolve the question within one to two days and swear in President Biden if there is insufficient evidence that Obama is eligible.

5. Finally, the Constitution is far more important that whether Obama will actually be a good president (unlikely) or the worst president in our history (I'm betting he'll make the bottome three if he takes office). We must do what is right to maintain the rule of law, or the costs will be even greater than the cost of the exceptionally grave damage that I expect Obama to inflict on our country.

He was elected as fairly as any other President in recent history...

Just out of curiosity, what was your opinion of the Chinese Women's Olympic Gymnastics team this past year?

Were they eligible to compete by meeting the age requirements? Did they win fairly despite questions about their age qualifications?

If somebody is unqualified based on the rules for the job, then how can any win be fair when the game was rigged by allowing unqualified competitors?

-PJ

Well, I find it hard to believe that someone would spend nearly 1-million dollars to keep his birth certificate hidden, no matter what the "personal reasons".

Maybe you can enlighten all of us as to what some of those "personal reasons" might be that make it worth $1-million bucks to hide. I can't think of any.

But I do believe that he wants the presidency so badly that he would fork out $10 million if necessary to hide such a thing as being foreign-born...a clear violation of our constiution. This has everything to do with "eligibility"...it's the elephant in the room.

It has been said that anything perceived as a "crisis" will make people let go of their freedoms, but using the "depression/recession" as an excuse for allowing this gross violation in our country's security is simply outrageous.

Nothing is going to "destabilize" this country more than sticking our heads in the sand and letting such a thing happen without some proof offered that this man is not foreign born. It sets precedents that could unravel the entire concept of America and her Constitution. If he is allowed to stay in and later we find that the truth bears out this Constitutional violation, we have opened the door to any tin horn dictator to come here and run for President.

We've got to maintain our Constitution and rule of law, or we turn in to a 3rd world country.

I don't understand Americans who just want to let this go by because it might be just "too much trouble". Maybe those men and women who have fought and died for this country could have thought it might be "too much trouble" and just quit.

Also, to be willing to let this go for fear of "riots" is totally - excuse my french - chicken $h!+. If they come up the driveway and say "give me your house and your money or we will riot!", are you going to comply?

The threat of riots is a leftist fear-mongering ploy, and the worst form of extortion in our society. Give in to this and then we will be threatened everytime they want something new. We're a nation of laws, not law of the jungle.

The fact is that the only possible result of even a partially successful legal challenge to his eligibility is riots, and political and economic destabilization (the latter inevitably leading to more popular support for socialist programs).

Don't kid yourself. There's a whole lot of keyboard-commandos on this forum cheerleading for civil war.