This whole issue with Hussein O.'s missing, vaulted, sealed, protected, non-existent, whatever, authentic birth certificate is finally beginning to get some attention, even among skeptics. And by the way, I'm not berating anyone for their initial skepticism on this complicated issue. A healthy degree of skepticism concerning an issue as grave as this is never bad. But we should not allow a healthy amount of skepticism on the validity of the claims against the legitimacy of BHO's posted birth certificate to turn extreme and thus prevent us from discovering the truth of the matter, whatever that truth turns out to be. We must realize that there actually are people out there who would literally stop at nothing, including the doctoring (or the actual manufacture) of Obama's COLB, to install him as president.
To paraphrase Mr. Jefferson, our leaders and the people behind them are as honest as anyone else, and not more so.
So you're going to tell me you've not met up with innumerable dishonest people during the course of your lifetime; people capable of forging their own false identification documents for their own perceived self-interested purposes, and others who help them do so for their own purposes? If so I simply say to you that you ain't been around long, and/or, you ain't been paying attention.
But for those of you who have experience enough to better inform you, let us say, hypothetically, that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein O. is not a natural born U.S. citizen prior to, or early in his actual presidency. What would be the result? A commenter named Mark has speculated over at Reflecting Light that Congress would quickly initiate an amendment proposal to retroactively qualify Hussein O. for the presidency, and that the requisite number of states (three fourths) would happily ratify it as a show of their non-racism and non-discriminationism.
Well, respectfully to Mark, liberal domination in America notwithstanding, I do not think that is a very likely scenario. Why? Let's just say that the majority of states voted against, not for Obama. Mark's fear reminds me of the fear among many, conservatives in particular, to petition Congress for an Article V Convention to propose amendments. Such fears render us impotent to protect ourselves and our interests, and the provisions of the U.S. Constitution intended for the purpose, effectively null and void.
But I'd be very interested in your take. What do you think would likely happen if the above scenario became reality?
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Birth Certificate-Gate cont.; what does it mean?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
It took a lot of words to get to your point -- and that point is you're a bigot.
It is the bigot who causes the most trouble, exhibiting obstinate and often blind devotion to his or her beliefs and opinions. In contrast to fanatic and zealot, the term bigot implies intolerance and contempt for those who do not agree (: a bigot who could not accept the reality vs assumption).
Life-Long Republican
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.
Anonymous Life Long Republican,
My copy of the American Heritage Dictionary says:
"bigot - A person who is intolerant, esp. in matters of religion, race or politics."
You may call me a bigot too, as I also hold a healthy respect for the continued rule of law in our country and expect presidential candidates to uphold our Constitution with far more vigor than others. I'm terribly intolerant of those who think the laws should only apply to some people and not others.
This refusal to confirm his status as an American citizen and thus save us, as taxpayers, time, money(we pay the salaries of all those judges you know)and peace of mind during this troubled time in American history(terrorism, war, economic challenges)is not only unconstitutional, it's rude.
This is not a case of innocent until proven guilty(although it may become so), this is a case of proving one meets the Constitutional requirements before taking the job.
Terry, In answer to your original question, I think the electors will be required to cast their votes for the eligible candidate with the most popular votes, which would then be Mr. McCain, since America has allowed itself to be lulled into being deceived that they must vote for one of the two MSM candidates.
Happy Thanksgiving to you!
Terry - I think 'Mark' is probably right about what would happen if 0 is found not to be a citizen.
There would be fear of the consequences should our 'president-elect' be found ineligible, and as Mark says, a great many Republicans (like the self-described ''Life-long Republican" above) who would lean over backwards to appear -- ahem, 'non-bigoted.' So the Constitutional requirements would take a back seat to political correctness. After all, PC trumps everything, so far, doesn't it?
Besides, for several years now there have been rumblings from both Democrats and Republicans in favor of dropping the natural-born citizenship requirement for the Presidency. After all, why be a ''bigot" and demand that only American-born citizens be eligible for the Presidency? It would be so much ''fairer'' if we allowed those born elsewhere, and it would be much less chauvinistic and narrow. Gotta be inclusive above all things, and discrimination for ANY reason is bad, bad, bad.
-VA
Anonymous Life-Long Republican says to CALL ME MOM: A Bigot is a Bigot by any definition -- Besides, it appears that you've been fast asleep for the last 8-years while the Bush II/Cheney cabal shredded the US Constitution. Why are you suddenly worried about a document like a birth certificate when you've conveniently forgotten so much about the dunce-like cowboy who went AWOL and the vice president who appointed himself the REAL president.
Anon Life Long Republican.
"A Bigot is a Bigot by any definition " - No, they are not. Words are important. The proper definition of a word is essential to intelligent conversation.
Perhaps you would prefer the definition in my big dictionary, of "bigoted" which includes the phrase "holding fast to an opinion, belief, party, church or other position, without reason and not tolerating other views". In that case, I would not be "bigoted" on this issue, because my opinion is not "without reason". I have reasons for upholding the rule of law in our society and they are good reasons.
On your second point:
Pardon me? Do you know me personally, that you can say with such authority that I have had no problem with anyone's disregard for The Constitution? That I've been fast asleep for the past 8 years? I think not.
If you would like to discuss Mr. Bush's lack of respect for the Constitution, then you should bring up specific instances to be discussed instead of throwing personal accusations at me with regard to what you think I have or have not approved of in the case of Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney.
Furthermore, What I do or do not believe about Mr. Bush or Mr. Chaney has little or no bearing on whether or not the Constitutional requirements for eligibility to sit as POTUS should be enforced for Mr. Obama.
My apologies Mr. Morris, it was not my intent to engage in this sort of discussion on your blog.
LLR, If I may respectfully request that you address the question raised in the post instead of slinging insults hither and yon, Mr. Morris, the other commenters and I might enjoy discussing that with you.
All, sorry, I've been away for Thanksgiving ... with my bigoted family.
DR, thanks.
Ted, if the Supremes are our "last hope," I think we're in big trouble.
VA, yes I wrote a post to the effect some time back. I'll have to dig it out of the archives.
Mom, Thanks for holding down the fort. :-)
Anonymous wrote:
It is the bigot who causes the most trouble, exhibiting obstinate and often blind devotion to his or her beliefs and opinions. In contrast to fanatic and zealot, the term bigot implies intolerance and contempt for those who do not agree (: a bigot who could not accept the reality vs assumption).
(1) Did you get that from a book or did you think of it all by your little self?
(2) I'm curious, why do you sign off as "Lifelong Republican" in your posts? Assuming you're being truthful about your party affiliations and whatever the term implies -- particularly the "lifelong" part -- which I will do in your case because it doesn't by any stretch rise to the level of the deception involved in Hussein O.'s refusing to produce an authentic birth certificate (whether one exists or not) if you're lying, what do you think you've gained by signing off under such a moniker?
If you can't understand the importance of establishing Hussein O.'s natural born citizenship status in accordance with Article II, Section I, U.S. Constitution, then I'm afraid you're likely a lost cause, and you and I have nothing further to discuss. But like I've said, and/or implied many, many times before, I'm bigoted, intolerant, xenophobic, ... REPUBLICAN, etc., in the same sense that the founding fathers were all of the above.
(3) If you want to be stupid, then do so elsewhere. Otherwise I'll exercise my intolerance of abject stupidity and summarily delete any further nonsensical post from you. Comprehende?
Mr. Morris, I was following rabbit trails today and came across this: http://www.debbieschlussel.
com/archives/2008/11
/exclusive_did_n.html
I thought you might be interested.
Post a Comment