however, this just smells bad.

in the time of my father’s birth (he is in his mid 70’s now) there were people here in the rural South who had no proof of birth. they lived in very secluded places and were born at home, or barns, or wherever. when i was a small kid (1950’s) schools started demanding birth certificates and the government took positive steps to insure we all had one.

it seems to me if obama actually was born here, he would have proof. a president is to be a servant and a leader of the people. he should do all in his power to insure that “we the people” feel safe, and have confidence in those who would lead. the ideal is that we trust what he/she does and says, and have good reason to do so.

doesn’t it then follow that any honest decent American would be proud to uphold the principles passed down by our ancestors in the Constitution? especially someone who is poised to take the highest office in the land.

in short, logic dictates that if he had a legitimate document proving his birthright, he would long ago have proudly produced it. instead we see smoke and mirrors.

a sign of things to come? time will tell.

However, I would feel much better if Barack Hussein Obama would just produce a certified copy of the long form birth certificate.

And put the issue to bed.

It is not like he will not have his hands full with the Blagojevich, Rezko and who knows what other scandals coming out of Chicago, Illinois, and the Clintonistas he is hiring for his administration!

I believe the title for his press secretary ought to be borrowed from the German language:

Scheißesturmführer!

For it’s going to be one Scheißesturm after another!

Those of you who still respect our Constitution may want to sign it and distribute it to your families, friends and church groups.

Most of the problems we face in society today result from ignoring the Constitution in favor of popular opinion.

Don’t let the mob destroy America.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81585

The claim that this is how Jefferson would’ve wanted it is absurd. The “lame-stream lunatic fringe” will knowingly present statements out of context to try to bolster their opinion.

A major part of what got many of these so-called “Conservatives” in trouble is their inability to comprehend that they are in no way, shape or form conservative at all. Then some have the audacity to claim that anyone who doesn’t see things from their twisted perspective is “crazed”. They are just the “flip-side” of feminist hate-mongers.

I think Jefferson summed his position up best when he said …

“In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

- Thomas Jefferson

Thanks for the reply.I have to agree that we need to “get over it.” We need principled opposition but not crazed opposition!

A nip here and a tuck there and pretty soon The Constitution looks more like the work of Marx than it does that of Jefferson, in practice if not in word.

Would the citizenship provision also be irrelevant if the media was googly over Osama instead of Obama, and he won a majority of electoral votes?

“Let me get this straight: Because the US Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit that would send the country into a genuine Constitutional Crisis, the author argues that the absence of a Crisis is a crisis itself.”

_____________________________________________________

It seems to me that this line of reasoning is the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

I fail to see how finding out the truth on such an important question can be construed to be anything but lawful and reasonable. To say that such a truth finding mission would lead to a “genuine Constitutional Crisis” is arguably not the case, and is not relevant. We shouldn’t make the decision to turn our backs on the truth because it may stir up trouble.

The “national suicide” referred to in this article results from disregard for the Constitution, not adherence to it.

I agree that we need to live with what the Supreme Court hands down, but that doesn’t make their decisions right.

I think this is the first time I have ever responded directly to one of your posts. But this one bears it.

I agree with TJ: Move on.

Yesterday I received an email from an organization launching a bid for a new Constitutional Amendment that “gives teeth” to Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution.

Here is the first paragraph in the email:

In light of the fact that the US Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit requiring the verification of President-Elect Barack Obama’s satisfaction of Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution, it has become clear that we are facing a constitutional crisis.

Let me get this straight: Because the US Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit that would send the country into a genuine Constitutional Crisis, the author argues that the absence of a Crisis is a crisis itself.

There are whole schools of advertising and politics that study and critique the concept of Cognitive Dissonance. Just google the term.

Certain factions in the Conservative Coalition have gone too far.

This is our country. Obama’s the next President for the next term.

Get over it.

_______________________________________________________

Yeah right.

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the Supreme Court rejected the challenge only yesterday.

I know you will probably get your panties in a wad over this comment so feel free lash out in your usual childish manner.

You are a “lame-stream group-thinker” who gets his opinions from the news media.

If you don’t like the tone of this comment, you have the tone of your “piece” to blame.

Have a nice day.