What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. No matter who is POTUS.
Part of the "The One's" plan for GITMO was to request a four month delay all the military trials and proceedings.
Obama moves on Guantanamo vow, seeks to delay trials
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba — Only hours after taking office, President Barack Obama late Tuesday ordered Pentagon prosecutors to seek a 120-day freeze in war crimes trials of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — his first action toward fulfilling a campaign pledge to close the controversial prison camp.
As with any other blanket order, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the accused planner of the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen....it doesn't work. Or more to the point, it achieves nothing.
It's already been delayed enough. For pity's sake we're finally adjudicating a crime that was committed over eight years ago. As Gladstone said "Justice delayed is justice denied". I agree, so does CDR Lippold.
And who has averted yet another needless and heartbreaking delay? Who has stood up and said no, this is the law, this is what's right? Who has risked his future to DO THE RIGHT THING?
US Army attorney Col. James L. Pohl.
Now, before you say - "Maggie, you are just applauding this guy because he is tough on the detainees." Nope. There is ample evidence that this guy is fair. For example his dealing in the Darbi case.
Or - "Maggie, how can Obama save the world if he can't get everyone to obey?" Nope. Obama can suggest, request, or cajole........but he can't interfere. Perhaps "The One's" crack legal staff could read up on "unlawful command influence". And a word to the wise, the institution that enjoys the most respect from Americans in every poll - the military. So you might not wanna throw any stones in that direction.
Perhaps your crack legal staff can familiarize themselves with habeas corpus.
ReplyDeleteLOL!
ReplyDeleteYou mean "You (shall) have the body) is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself, or of another person"????
Because that bastid isn't being held "unlawfully". That's a myth. Also, when you read this and make a face.....don't worry, it won't freeze that way.
Yes, Nick, I agree. I don't agree with torture.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, here are posts from the Guardian [UK, conservative], with numerous Gitmo articles, a chiling 60 Minutes documentary, and a European article, Torture and Madness at Guantanamo Bay.
A quote from "Torture and Madness": "This article does not even mention the existence of another "camp," the super-secret Camp 7 the existence of which was only admitted by the military to the Associated Press last February. While details about conditions at Camp 7 are unavailable, we can only assume that they are even more brutal than those at Camps 5 and 6 that are described in this [International Herald Tribune] article." Of course, the author writes this as an assumption. We just don't know.
There is the problem of what will happen to the detainees when they leave Guantanamo. One of the above articles addresses that issue, citing that the EU is working on providing sanctuary when the detainees are released.
Maggie, I do not present these articles to rail against or criticize you. Gitmo has troubled me greatly. Do I agree with Col. James L. Pohl refusing to comply with President Obama's order? Well, he is the Commander-In-Chief, although I don't know if he has the authority to close Gitmo, according to the L.A. Times:
Pohl pointed out that the rules for military commissions adopted by Congress in 2006 gave the military judges "sole authority" to grant delays once charges had been referred for trial.
"Technically, it's within the judge's discretion to treat this as a request or a motion on the part of the prosecutors and the government," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. "We like to think that even military judges are independent, to some extent, of the commander in chief.
Khalid Sheik Mohamed is still awaiting trial, and pled guilty to all charges. [See, BBC.] In this case, we need to try his case and continue to detain him, but not use torture.
I put these out here not to rail against you, Maggie. You know I have much respect for your well-supported perspectives. Please know that the above concerning Guantanamo represents a troubling issue for me.
Stella,
ReplyDeleteYour first link on torture is an opinion column. It's nice that the NYT has an opinion. So do I. Either way, it's an irrelevent opinion, there is no allegation that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri was tortured.
The other links are people's suppositions and allegations about conduct at Gitmo, again what does that have to do with this?
The system in place is attempting to administer justice....the currect administration is attempting to interfere.
And by the way, Pohl looked at numerous requests and most were acceded to. So he is not being defiant or difficult. A request was made and it was considered.
As far as your statement "Do I agree with Col. James L. Pohl refusing to comply with President Obama's order? Well, he is the Commander-In-Chief" That's the problem.
If Col. Pohl's immediate superior officer made such a request that is unlawful command influence .... so follow it up the line, it is also unlawful command influence for Obama to push it precisely because he is CinC.
Google "United States v. Tilghman" regarding command interference with the power of the judge.
This isn't about indefinite detention, they are trying to arraign the man. This isn't about torture, there has been no such allegation. This isn't about an Army officer disobeying the CinC.
This is about Obama inserting himself where he has no legal authority.
Why? My *opinion* is that he is paying off campaing debts. He promised closing Gitmo, now that he is actually in that position, he realizes it's not so simple. He has painted himself into a corner with that promise and no plan to execute it. So basically he asks for a time out. In some of these cases that was no problem, in *this* case it is.
CDR Lippold is exactly right when he says the war on terror (and I believe it is a war) began on 10/12 not 9/11.
There is no acceptable reason being presented to delay this process (in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri) for a second.
Col. Pohl is standing up at the risk of his military career for what is right.
I have no idea why you are agreeing with Nick and his tossed out "habeus corpus" comment. This is exactly the opposite situation.
Habeus corpus is to compel the custodian to bring the person in question before the court. Pohl is doing that. Obama is the one who seeks to delay that. In the cases where the 120 freeze was agreed to - Obama's request is what is keeping these people from their day in court.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to stand behind Guantanamo Military Judge James Pohl UNTIL OBAMA OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.
ReplyDeleteTed, I can see your point that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have an absolute Constitutional duty to stand behind Guantanamo Military Judge James Pohl. However, President Obama does have an American birth certificate and is legally born in America. This Article 2 urban legend keeps resurfacing.
ReplyDeleteThe article in the L.A. Times supports you 100%, Maggie: that in 2006, Congress gave military judges sole authority to grant delays or, arguendo speed up the date for trials.
Re United States v. Tilghman, I read the actual decision and think I get your point about the judge's power of decision at trial. That certainly sets a precedent for Pohl's decision. I never considered the possibility that Obama made an unlawful command influence. I'm not completely convinced he has.
I wrote about torture because of my reaction to what's occurred at Gitmo. No, my comment has nothing to do with the article. That President Obama is holding back those trials, I am not sure. I see your point about Pohl refusing an unlawful command. However, if Gitmo closes, wouldn't that push up trial dates for those incarcerated?
And, yes, President Obama is finding that closing Gitmo and enacting policy is not so simple. I agree. He's discovering the same challenges as the 43 presidents that preceded him. All candidates make promises and, when they assume office, discover those promises to the American people may well be impossible. He is not alone in this discovery.
You state the war on terror goes back to the Al-Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole on 10/12/2000. That makes a lot of sense, given that bin-Laden was at the forefront of this attack.
But I digress (as usual...)
I found an article at Military Pundits that provides a different perspective:
The chief military judge at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Army Col. James Pohl, said that he found the government’s arguments “unpersuasive” and that the case will go ahead because “the public interest in a speedy trial will be harmed by the delay in the arraignment.” (As you noted...)
...
Survivors of the USS Cole attack are pleased with the decision of Judge Pohl saying that it illustrates the independence of the military judiciary at Guantanamo and puts everything back on track to require an accounting for the terrorists acts committed by the detainees there.
But was this snarky comment necessary? Human activists re now saying that the administration should withdraw charges against the Gitmo detainees and move them to a new locations. For instance, down the street from you. No comment that the EU is mobilizing to remove Gitmo detainees to various European countries? That's off-balance.
I'm not schooled enough to understand military law, and refuse to pretend that I am. OK, Maggie. I went far afield of the topic. That's the last time I blog on my birthday. Thanks for your usual intelligent response.
ok....I've managed to get a severe head cold. So I'm not sure about the snarky comment part.
ReplyDeleteClosing Gitmo doesn't necessarily speed up anyone's trial because one of the plans under consideration is to send detainees back to their own country or the one they were caught in. So that could mean no trials or something worse.
I know you have more points and I'll get to them.
Re the birth certificate - Any specualtion is soley the fault of Obama. He is the one who is being cagey and not releasing an actual birth certificate or a reason why he can't. I don't think he was born in Kenya. I don't think it invalidates his citizenship. But he is trying to hide something. I think it's minor. But he resents the intrusion into his personal life. On one hand I understand that....but on the other hand....he's the one who applied for the job.
Stella,
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong and Ted is correct. Soetoro has done nothing but produce a worthless piece of paper. It is not a birth certificate by any stretch of the imagination. If you like feel free to call the DOH in Hawaii for clarification on what he has produced versus what normal Hawaiians produce when asked for a BIRTH CERTIFICATE. No matter, it means nearly nothing to Article II of the Constitution.
Secondly, many historically-ignorant people in the country feel that there is no difference between U.S. Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. They couldn't be more wrong.
It has nothing to do with being born on U.S. soil. It has everything to do with being born on U.S. soil and having no sovereign claim of your allegiance at birth by any other country. Because the President is also the COMMANDER IN CHIEF who has control over the U.S. Military, this makes every difference in the world. There are very few checks and balances POTUS is required to honor in order to command "his" military force.
If you think this is nonsense, feel free to read exactly what Kenya feels about their "son of the soil" in the transcripts from the House of Parliament there on 1/20/2009:
http://www.bunge.go.ke/downloads/Tenth%20Parl%201st%20Session/Hansard/20.01.09.pdf
“We should not just see him in the light of a foreign Head of State but one to which we claim to be ours. I see my good friend looking at me and he says it should be the other way round, that it is not Kenya that should be part of the USA during the administration of Barack Obama but America that should be part of the greater Kenya.”
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, but your snide remark directed towards me is insulting. I am not historically ignorant. I well know the difference between native and naturalized citizen. Through personal experience, I know you are utterly wrong.
Your logic is further specious because John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, but is also born to native American citizens outside the U.S. Further, there was a similar conspiracy theory in that Chester Alan Arthur may have been born in Canada. Alexander Hamilton was born in the British West Indies, George Washington was born in England. Of course, the U.S. hadn't formed until Hamilton and Washington assumed command. Nevertheless, they weren't even American citizens.
In sum, eight Presidents were born British subjects: Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, Jackson, and W. Harrison.
The paper to which you refer clearly states Obama as "an American of Kenyan descent." You have misinterpreted the document.
Further, you might reread the Constitution:
Article II: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States In other words, any citizen of the U.S. is eligible to run and hold the office of president. The Constitution provides for both natural born Citizens or a Citizen of the U.S.
Article 14(1) states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Thus, Article 14(a) specifically notes that one can be born or naturalized as a citizen and still hold elective office.
Here is the full text of Article II and Article XIV
Neither Article II nor Article XIV completely apply any longer as they lack specificity in modern jurisprudence. The Constitution was modified to further refine the definition of natural born citizen per Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
* Anyone born inside the United
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
President Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham... was an American anthropologist and left-wing social activist. She was born in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to Stanley and Madelyn Dunham. Obama's mother was an American citizen.
Based on the fact that President Obama's mother was born an American citizen, and lived in the U.S., ipso facto Obama is a natural born citizen under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401. Even if he was born in Kenya, which he wasn't, he is still considered a natural born citizen. Accordingly, that President Obama is not a citizen is farcical, foolish, incongruous, and outright laughable.
Jeff, be aware, I do not allow people to talk down to me and insinuate that I'm historically ignorant. (If you'd said "mathematically ignorant," I'd take less offense.) This nonsense about Obama is ridiculous. You and Ted might consider additional research before you make such erroneous claims.
Maggie, thank you, as always for your patience in allowing me to rant on your blog.
Stella you highlighted the wrong circumstance. That one doesn't apply to Obama because his father wasn't a US citizen.
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, the problem is that Obama won't just come clean and explain why he provided a "certificate of live birth" in place of an actual "birth certificate".
My personal opinion is that when Obama was adopted by the second husband his birth certifcate was sealed and he simply doesn't want to discuss that. Now I understand feeling that way, but for pity's sake! He must understand that it's not worth it anymore, come clean and put all these rumors to rest.
I don't think I know JeffM and I don't see his remark as being directed towards you Stella.....but just in case - JeffM, Stella knows history, lol!!
JeffM - what you have to remember is that just because you disagree with someone politically doesn't always mean they aren't well read or well versed in the subject at hand.
Exactly, Maggie. That's absolutely true about the president's father, but he qualifies as a natural-born citizen through his mother, who was born in Kansas. (I know, long rant.) So, the nationality of his first or second father doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteI keep hearing about President Obama's birth records
But seriously, the problem is that Obama won't just come clean and explain why he provided a "certificate of live birth" in place of an actual "birth certificate".
I see your point about Obama's adoption by the second husband, but since he is a natural-born American citizen based on his mother's citizenship, I don't know that it matters. What do you think about the birth certificate on Fact Check? Does that count or is there something I'm missing?
OK, JeffM, if Maggie says your remark was not directed towards me, I believe her. And, she's right: my dad is one of the most extremely knowledgeable people I know about history and poli sci. I learned a lot from him. We don't have to agree, but civilized dissent is the foundation for the highest form of patriotism.
And, thank you for your comments, Maggie. You're a great referee. (LOL) Many intelligent people do disagree. The "son of the soil" comment to which JeffM refers concerns Obama's cultural connection to Kenya, not his birthplace.
Best to you always.
Obama's refusal to release the real birth certificate or reveal why he won't is what fuels the rumors.
ReplyDeleteThat's why it matters.
Obama himself is perpetuating this situation and it will not go away.
The people who question it have a legit beef. The American people have a right to know that their Presidential candidates are American citizens. Obama may well be an American citizen but he has never been made to prove it.
It can not be compared to McCain's situation because nothing was ever concealed there. All facts were out in the open and widely known.
Hmmm... that's an excellent point about McCain, Maggie. Details of his birth were absolutely out in the open. You're right, and I completely agree with you. (I'm still glad he didn't win the presidency.)
ReplyDeleteThe American people clearly have a right to know that their president is a native citizen. That is constitutional law. You are also right that President Obama hasn't provided a long form birth report. I believe he will if this debate continues.
If we go back to Fact Check, it appears Hawaii doesn't use long-form birth certificates. The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response. Too bad: they should be able to provide state legislation.
On the other side of the issue, here's an article by Jerome R. Corsi, who started this whole birth certificate mess from the conservative World Net Daily. (How do I know they're conservative? They're offering autographed copies of Ann Coulter's book... LOL.)
Why not Kenya? Kenya being in Africa, required all sorts of vaccinations for travelers there. A pregnant woman would not be vaccinated, so this rules out pregnant Ann Dunham.
From Media Matters: Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Jerome Corsi suggested or asserted that the true purpose of Sen. Barack Obama's current trip to Hawaii is not to visit his ailing grandmother, as Obama claims, but rather to address rumors -- widely debunked -- that Obama has failed to produce a valid U.S. birth certificate. However, in addition to FactCheck.org and a Hawaiian Health Department official, even Corsi's employer, the right-wing website WorldNetDaily, has reportedly determined that the birth certificate provided by the Obama campaign is authentic.
I wonder. Does Michael Savage need to be so nasty as he belies his claim about Obama's birth with his comment? Do you actually believe he's going to Hawaii to visit his ailing grandmother with 10 days to go until an election? Do you actually believe that? Do you actually believe he'd be going to Hawaii at this time with 10 days to go? You actually believe that? No, no, no -- no, no, no, no, no. No. There's some other reason that he's leaving the mainland of the United States in the midst of this toe-to-toe struggle right now, and it's got to do with his birth certificate. His comments are disgraceful, given the fact that Obama's grandmother in Hawaii, with whom he was close, died the day before he was elected. I wonder if Savage recounted his statement and apologized. Nah. Doubt it.
So, I found some sites for you (as always):
* American Thinker: the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." So, in order to receive a Hawaian birth certificate, a Certificate of Live Birth must be furnished to the authorities.
Accordingly, I believe Obama's parents adequately proved his citizenship, based on Hawaii's law.
* From the U.S. Department of State re a natural-born citizen. Parents must provide:
(1) an official record of the child’s foreign birth;
(2) evidence of the parent(s)’ U.S. citizenship (e.g., a certified birth certificate, current U.S.
passport, or Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship);
(3) evidence of the parents’ marriage, if applicable; and
(4) affidavits of parent(s)’ residence and physical presence in the United States.
As a natural-born American citizen, Ann Dunham could file papers at a foreign consulate which would make Obama a natural-born American citizen. Panama Canal Zone McCain also falls under this jurisdiction, which solidly confirms him as a natural born citizen. As a foreign- and natural-born citizen, I, too, am covered under the same provisions.
Well, Maggie, I don't know why Obama won't release his long-form birth record. I completely understand your point, but feel this issue is, for all intents and purposes, settled to my satisfaction. I, too, wish President Obama would (if he can) release this long form to put what I believe to be this American urban legend to rest.
Everyone has to decide what they believe for her/himself. I can't change anyone's mind, but I can write horridly long comments. I should apologize that I've forced you to witness the perils of an English major who blogs too many times.
8-)
Best 2ya!
The comments provided here concerning President Obama's alleged failure to provide a certificate of live birth are just ludicrous. These are the whinings of the radical right and their most fanatic adherents.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that President Obama is in fact the president. He will be the president for at least the next 8 years. There is nothing you can do about that. The days of Dubya the Dumb and his loyal crew of Krazy Kristian Neo-Nuts are over. The Democrats control the Congress and the White House, and I suspect they will for many years to come.
Gee Mike - thanks for stopping by and flaming everyone who disagrees with you. Next time I want to form an opinion, I won't read up on the subject, think about it carefully and then formulate one - I'll just check with you. And don't worry, if we disagree, you can just shout me down and ridicule your betters.
ReplyDeleteObama didn't produce the standard birth certificate that the majority of Americans can produce. That's a fact. Why? I don't know. You don't either. But that's the cause of the speculation, not George Bush.
I think *you* Mike - you need to adjust your meds if now, February 2009 you are still trying to pin problems on "W".
I love when people pop out here to tell me "W" was dumb. Please! Sell it somewhere else. Talk about *krazy* people caught up in conspiracy theories! Pathetic.
Love your little "Obama is President and will be for at least the next 8 years". At least? LOL Unfamiliar with the Constitution? Or do you think he deserves special treatment? What has he done to merit a second month never mind a second term? Saving those field mice with this spendulous bill? Giving the census to Rahm? Changing our healthcare to the worst form of socialized medicine? Nearly a million for doorbells?
Have another drink Mike and leave the hard thinking to the grownups.
Actually BM when I spoke to "at least" the next eight years I was referring to the possibility that Obama may turn out to be one of the best presidents our country has seen in many years. As a result there may be a move to modify the Twenty-second Amendment, ratified in 1951, to allow him to serve another term as did Roosevelt, who served for 12 years until his untimely death. Then again, brilliant as you are, you no doubt knew all of these things.
ReplyDeleteSo that being said I will go back to my cocktail and you can go back to the firing range. Remember: Front sight slightly blurred, and rear sight in clear focus. Always aim for center mass.
MM - I thought that was what you were getting at....come on! Seriously? You seriously think now, in the first month of his Presidency, that he is destined to be elected to a 3rd term?
ReplyDeleteYikes! You know, I consciously decided to hold fire as far as judging him useless from the get-go. You really need to do the same. You can't cannonize him until the 2nd year.
Enjoy the cocktail, I drink way more than I shoot. That pic represents the only time I have ever held and fired a weapon. I use it because I think it's funny.
Maggie, Mike's one of the good guys. I'm sorry there was such animosity between the two of you. I agree with him: The comments provided here concerning President Obama's alleged failure to provide a certificate of live birth are just ludicrous. Well, I think so, too.
ReplyDeleteTruly, this birth certificate nonsense is a non-issue. A Supreme Court decision apparently isn't enough for whacked out Tennessee lawmakers in the House.
Despite the fact that the Court rejected an effort to contest President Barack Obama's citizenship in a case earlier this year, four Tennessee lawmakers are still pushing a legal action to force the president to turn over his birth certificate and other documents to prove his citizenship. It also comes after Obama posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website. But people need to understand the following: Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. President Obama's mother was an American citizen born in Kansas. It's in the constitution: case closed. He's an American citizen at birth according to the Constitution. He has nothing left to prove.
Gov. Ahnold started the campaign to modify the Twenty-second Amendment, ratified in 1951. Hopefully, Jerry Brown will be our governor next year. Call him Gov. Moonbeam: he said, "I worked hard for that title." Oh, wait, that has nothing to do with our conversation. (We're going to have a lot of fun with this topic, aren't we?)
MM has a right to his opinion and you have a right to yours. But, honestly, he's among the best liberal bloggers you'll find. As much as I respect you, I find MM's writing highly intelligent and well considered.
I'll always respect you even if I don't agree with you politically.
Sorry Stella, MM first comment was hostile and was met with hostility. The second one seemed to tone it down, so I did the same.
ReplyDeleteHowever, both of you are merely the other side of the Obama arguement; the ying to Jeff & Ted's yang. All of you are reasonable people who when confronted by a mystery offer your explanation.
My point is that we wouldn't need to argue about it if it were not for Obama's creating this contraversy.
Questioning the birth certificate isn't ludicrous. Some people have come to crazy conclusions. Some people have decided to operate on faith because they want to believe. But plenty of reasonable people like me would say to Obama - "Clearly you are hiding something. Something large or something small. So you have no one to blame but yourself for the speculation."
I find it ironic that the very same people who screamed from transparency from other Administrations are fine with letting this be opaque.
BM writes:
ReplyDelete"You cannot canonize him until the 2nd year."
LOL! Thanks for that Boston M. You make a valid point. I promise I won't submit his name for canonization if you won't submit his name for "anti-Christ" until his 2nd year:-)
Thanks as always Stella for your wisdom....
Maggie and Mike, do you have any idea how much I enjoy knowing both of you?
ReplyDelete