Overthrow the democratically elected president, "how patriotic", page 9

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I find it rather bothersom of the willful neglect of the constitution when it doesnt suit the arguments of some folks. Lets not the forget the constitution was not written "by conservatives" for "conservatives". It was not written "patriots" for "patriots". The constitution was written by the people for the people. .....

I feel you're aggravation. However, you're sweeping generalizations seem to be exemplary of the conflicts which you find so offensive.

Many have argued about the Constitution. Many still do. Mostly, it refers to things that the drafters could not have foreseen with any specificity. I have heard it said that the people who drafted the document which was ratified by the gathered congress wan not really a good example of 'by the people' since they were all relatively well-off and or well-connected elites.

But it is possible for an elite to see the necessity of political change based on the notional paradigm "for the people, by the people.' At least I believe it is. So I choose to accept that the intent was as stated, to reduce the government from an authority over the people to a servant of the people.

Although I have been reading and participating in the exchanges I have yet to see a serious call for impeachment given from a perspective based on anything other than emotion. It is what it is. You are offended by it. That much is clear.

In fact, my only concern is with the deviation from the practices put in place to maintain the integrity of those entrusted to operate on behalf of the State (or states). After all, the restrictions on eligibility were not developed to exclude American citizens by definition, and unless you can convince me that this is some kind of injustice in principle, I am in agreement with the restriction as a matter of principle.

You have named those you hold in contempt, "southern conservatives and disgruntled libertarians want him to [leave]".

We do not all fit into that category. But it clearly addresses the matter of whom you find 'responsible' for the documents. I must ask if it is necessarily true? Is it impossible that there is such evidence to be found? Or shall we not look, simply because it is offensive to the status quo?

Is this what you consider patriotic? Is what you consider following the will of the founding fathers? Overthrowing a fairly elected president candidate on the basis of your own personal suspcions, theories, hatred? Where did this mentality come from? Does the consensus among those in this forum, among the conservative populous dictate the entire path of the nation? .....

Certainly your questions are rhetorical, conveying their message by context. I fail to make the 'automatic' connection of inquiry to evil; but I do not contend that such a motivation can, and likely does exist. It is good that you are a guardian against such actions. As check against bias it is a necessary component in an open dialogue. But the message seems to be leaking anguish and disdain, does it not?

You may not like Obama for all sorts of reasons but he was democratically elected as president on November 4th 2008. He was constitutionally confirmed eligible in December of 2008 by both congress and the electoral college. Whether you choose to accept it or not he did sufficiently provide evidence of his birth right for the presidency. .....

Ah, the meat of the argument. Frankly, I do not pretend to know Obama, and one of my frequent contentions is that apparently few do. This is no different from the circumstance with most of the parties' polished political products. We can easily consume their pre-packaged personalities as engendered by media finesse, and we can also be easily swayed by intelligently crafted verse. None of this is news. That there is an element of theater to the entire process is a sign of influences that have little to do with governance.

I can't say that you're concrete declaration of the appropriateness of President Obama's ascendancy are universally accepted - that much is evidently true. I am sensitive to some of you're counter-claims regarding the matter; but you seem to proceed under the assumption that they 'nullify' the inquiry. That because the so-called 'accusers' may be racists, or ideologically biased, the accusations can not be legitimate, and must be approached as deliberate fraud.

I simply counter that there is a difference between assuming someone is lying, and knowing that people can often be wrong - which does not presuppose evil intent.

Insofar as what is to become of this situation, it is the responsibility - at least initially - of the government to police herself. All the laws are in place, all the rules are set. My frequent complaint is that these who are obliged by moral compulsion and the oath they took, are often resistant to do what they surely must know must be done. It relates to far more than this simple matter of the proper authentication and vetting of those claiming eligibility to serve as President of the United States of America.

The conspiracy theorist in me compels me to reveal that essentially - all this angst is pointless because we are not discovering anything new or even dramatically different in the manner of the political governments of 20th century U.S.A. The the object of the political party is to establish permanent dominance and control is undeniably self-evident. [And yes, there is even another 'layer' of irrelevancy in this scenario - but I dare not digress further]. Between a number of circumstances a strategic posturing has taken place which serves to continuously diminish the power of Americans to act a single people, it operates from the most base level of ignorant bias to the wide-ranging elements of social-engineering. I wonder, is it unpatriotic to say so?

I agree that every citizen deserves the same rights as any other. I maintain that the object of government is to increase control, and that very tendency leads to abuses. Historically, we as a people, have displayed a nasty habit of waking up too late. I was of the generation that was never taught about our true history. I had to find out for myself. And I suspect you did too. I don't mean that to be presumptuous, I suspect that your sensitivities, as you express them, shows a clear knowledge of how sleazy bigots and the power hungry zombies can be. I just wonder if you're not seeing the enemy in the shadows.

But if you tell me that someone is not a citizen, or is seeming to escape scrutiny which everyone must face; I will be curious and concerned.

Just as if you tell me I'm a bigot, I am curious and concerned.

Curious as to how you're experiences of bigotry compares to my behavior. And concerned that you are not using your own entrenched compulsion to attribute bias to anything with which you disagree.

In addition to this, the mere fact you all kept your mouths shut over the last 8years only the speak up now clearly shows that this has nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with cultural shock and fear and to be frank, that isnt sufficient enough to remove him from office.

I'm afraid that is a presumption on your part. I spoke out loudly and clearly. Most of us here did.

So, the next time anybody here goes on about how the president should be impeached, hanged, or whatever twisted reasoning you folks have, remember that you dont speak for all who contribute to this country, you dont speak for the constitution, you dont dictate the path of this nation exclusively and you dont draft the eligibility laws exclusively. This is a Union, shared by many peoples of many beliefs and many ideologies. Despite our differences we all share rights from the constitution and we all contribute to moving the nation on path. So, please cut the "patriotic water the liberty" garbage, because you dont own that right exclusively. You may not like where this nation is heading to, but thank the founding fathers you dont constitutionally speak for the rest of the nation exclusively.

Assuming your the same person, you're presuming again. No one here speaks for the country. Not even you. But somehow, your presence here seems oddly focused on and confined to a particular kind of engagement. Or is it rude to make such an observation? I certainly mean no disrespect to whoever you are in life. But you DO seem to mean to offend, from which I infer general disrespect. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So the next time you post a thread or reply stating about how Obama and the government should be overthrown, but the constitution where your mouth is, not where your personal suspicions and hatred lie.

Again, assuming your the same person, I encourage anyone to post anything they like (within the T&C of course). And let the truth sort itself out. Until such a time when the rules change, this is one of the few places where you might actually learn a truth you would never have learned otherwise.

But that's just me.

Respectfully,

MM