Replies

Yes, I agree that this should be *proven* and I’ve argued that before (before the election). After the election, it seemed that the horse was out of the barn and one wasn’t going to be able to close the barn door and have the horse back inside again (just a figure of speech...).

And you’re right about the dishonesty and because of that, what was not seen as *required* in the past, should be required now. Dishonesty seems rampant and it extends all the way up to the top, including the President as we have seen with Clinton and his impeachment.

At least the citizens who do want to see this loophole closed do have a way to do it, if the courts don’t do anything (and they may not simply because of the status of our present laws, really..., so I wouldn’t necessarily blame the Supreme Court if nothing came of the cases). You know about the idea to enact state laws requiring specific documentation before someone is qualified. I do hope that it’s not too difficult to get this done before the next Presidential election comes up.

I hope y’all realize that I agree with the desire to get Obama out of office — it’s just that I don’t see that the mechanism is really there to do it (my take on the situation..., and I know that others think there is... and so, that’s why I say, “We’ll see...). I just don’t like to see people get false hopes up for something that I see no mechanism in place to do what they want. I would rather have people “keep their energy” intact for fighting Obama, in that they “realize” that if they pursue these present actions in court, that they are most likely going to fail (but that’s not saying that they can’t do it, mind you..., just keep in mind that it’s most likely a failing option...)

And if someone does keep that in mind, realizing that it’s most likely a failing option, they can also keep in mind that they will take up the fight in other ways, too — at a later time — which I would hope it to be enacting those state laws — and not simply “giving up” after failing with these present court actions and saying “We’re finished if he remains in office!” It would be this attitude that “we’re finished” if we can’t get Obama out of office — that is the dangerous attitude to have (and/or also the one where one says, “The Constitution is shredded if he gets away with this!” — but the Constitution would not be, and that’s why I give the example of the 21st President to show the Constitution is not shredded...).

You see, those kinds of ideas promote “giving up” after the point — if — all these court cases fail. That’s not my idea — i.e., “giving up”... :-)

The Constitution is still intact, no matter what the Supreme Court does. All we have is a loophole in the system which can be taken advantage of by someone who can fool people (just like we’ve been fooled [legally speaking, of course...] before by another President, except they didn’t close up the loophole at that time...). Nothing is going to change the Constitution without 3/4 of the states ratifying it, and so it’s going to remain intact.

It’s not hopeless even if these court cases fail...

—

The other part of the equation that we have a *big problem* with here, is that the voting public is shifting on their ideas, away from the principles of the founding fathers. And I think that’s happening because the mass of the public have abandoned God in the public sphere, taking God and His principles, guidelines and values out of government, schools and the public discourse. Until *that* is corrected — politically speaking, we’re going to be “in the wilderness” for a while... That has to be corrected by either national repentance, or by individual repentance from those other voters (and thus slowing growing back the conservative values, one person at a time, but that will be a long time...).

—

I’ve sorta laid out the fundamental thinking I have on this specific matter and the underlying fundamental problem, too. So, this is what energizes my thinking on the matter.