Friday, July 31, 2009

Dear Birthers

Much love for your Constitutional fidelity, but I'm hoping this rather thorough review of the issue by the WSJ quells your concerns.

I have to disagree that political ideas are a dime a dozen. They tend to be more like $3.27 trillion a dozen. If politics is war, ideas are the arrows.

3 comments:

  1. Law is supposed to promote a civil society, but the way we write law, decide law, and allow loopholes for [sheila dixon] any public figure or any weathly individual or organization of influence, we promote injustice which leads to egotistical fights wherein the non-influential inevitably loose and become very angry.

    Once the 'justice' system take the fight into the ego arena, there is no reasoning with anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John in Ellicott CityJuly 31, 2009 at 12:35 PM

    Tom,
    It is apparent that you believe Obama to be a natural born citizen. What's great about that is that nobody is referring to you as a "lunatic" These "birthers" have real reasons for the doubts being "discussed" now.
    "Our" Constitutional fidelity applies to everyone, yourself included.
    The article you cited falls short in several areas.
    The immediate labeling of "birthers" as lunatics calls into question the motive of the article. Any meaningful commentary on the issue should take place without the name calling.
    This article also seems to argue that since the law has changed it is not a real issue. Again false. How many real people out there do you think could take advantage of that loophole? None, I assure you.
    Now, the previous statement is based upon Obama actually being born in the US. This is also not proven. The document cited as proof, the "Certification of live birth" is not a birth certificate. It is simply a statement that someone has registered a birth. The Hawaiian government doesn't even accept this form under certain circumstances. They will require you to submit the long form.
    Also, the label used to denote Obama's race "african" is not the proper wording for documents during the 60's. The government has very specific terms to be used when registering a black baby and that was not it.
    And when did we start using a know biased source like the main stream media to prove (or disprove) a question as meaningful as this? We all know the majority of media outlets are biased. One way or the other.
    The court case in question? I cant really discuss that because the author doesn't cite the case but there are many court cases about this issue. Most of which are not resolved. One I am familiar with stated that because the there was no proof that the outcome would effect the person who brought the case it was dismissed. Hmm? Excellent legal precedent to set.
    Also, the usage of justices as political appointees (pawns) will muddy any outcome there.
    We are not going to solve this issue here. but have a little faith in your fellow man, even a "birther" can have an intelligent conversation about the subject if anyone will provide the forum.
    lets put it out there and everybody put their cards on the table.
    Oh Yeah... Obama is intentionally hiding all his personal documentation..

    ReplyDelete
  3. John,
    "Lunatic" may be the words of the article, but not myself. I am sorry you feel marginalized and or offended, but that is not my intention. I was just trying to pass on an article that I thought was thorough, but appears to have failed in many respects. So goes the quip "Can't please everyone."

    ReplyDelete