My Fellow Conservatives: You’re too Good to Undermine the Legitimacy of the Election

Men for Palin Blog ^ | December 1, 2008 | W. T. Howes

[Safrguns]

[savedbygrace]

You got your butt handed to you on a similar thread last week, and now you’re back at it again?

This raises a strong suspicion that one of your motives is to increase hits to your website.

Oh, and your analogies are weak and ineffective.

Also, according to the wording of the 20th Amendment, the issue is not moot. Rather, it will be timely between Dec 15 and Jan 20. The fact that you don’t know that is an indication that you have not practiced due diligence before posting this steaming pile.

[RegulatorCountry]

You’re shooting the messenger. We’re not undermining the legitimacy of the election, Barack Obama is undermining the legitimacy of the election, by refusing to provide proof of his eligibility for office.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

Mr. Fairbanks,

How much is UhBamUh paying you?

[stuartcr]

Right. Why not show some actual evidence first? Do you even know if Obama has a security clearance? If he does, then follow that backwards for a verification of place and date of birth. If you cannot provide evidence of his having or not having a clearance, then you should probably wait on that list of yours.

[hoosierham]

What could possibly be more damaging to the constitutional rule of law than having a constitutionally ineligible chief executive?

Charlie Fairbanks,you are not a fellow conservative.You're a fraud just like Obama,until you and he prove otherwise.

Barack Hussein Obama could end the controversy now by releasing his birth certificate.

That he doesn't is near proof he knows he is Constitutionally ineligible.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

What I fear is that our vaulted Supremes will make an effort to ignore the Constitution too. Then, what we have is a country without a reliable rudder.

[antceecee]

Could your blog be any phonier?

[Outlaw Woman]

The hell with the US Constitution........suck it up you conservatives. This won’t be the only infraction on it either........wait ‘til we’re done with it; you won’t even recognize it in 4 years.

[Mogollon]

Yep. We’re too good to dirty ourselves fighting for that ridiculous old constitution. After all it was written be old white men. </s>

[FrankR]

FYI Charlie...


2000 election row a tired argument
San Antonio Express-News ^ | 09/27/2003 | J. Francis Gardner

      Al Gore lost Florida's 25 electoral votes — and the presidency — nearly three years ago, but the carping and whining from Democrats hasn't stopped. Admittedly, it's tough on Gore supporters to see his slim popular-vote victory leave him short of the Oval Office. Constitutionally speaking, however, Gore lost where it matters: in the Electoral College.
      But dyspeptic Democrats don't launch their tirades solely at the college. They continue to spew the twin lies that President Bush "stole" the Florida election or “was anointed by a conservative Supreme Court”.
      A review of the facts debunks both.
      All Florida election statutes in force during the 2000 campaign were passed years earlier by a Democrat-controlled House and Senate and were signed into law by a Democrat governor.
      The Gore team never alleged misconduct, fraud or corruption in the course of the recount effort.
      The Gore team never requested a statewide recount of the so-called "undervote." They knew such a task could never be completed before the Dec. 12 federal deadline for states to resolve election disputes.
      The four counties chosen by the Gore team for selective recounts (Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Volusia) are liberal bastions.
      Precinct by precinct, the recount process was controlled by Democrats. Any shenanigans would have occurred on their watch.
      At the trial court level, where statutory law is applied to case facts, the Gore team lost every decision. The most famous being Gore v. Harris, in which Judge N. Sanders Sauls (a Democrat) allowed certification of election results to proceed on schedule.
      The Florida Supreme Court's failure to practice judicial restraint and to respect separation of powers was so egregious, it was publicly humiliated by the U.S. Supreme Court.
      Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board generated an appellate decision so muddled that the Supreme Court vacated the Florida court's decision and remanded it back for further review — along with a legalistic admonishment that the higher court couldn't understand what the Florida Supremes were trying to say.
      Bush v. Gore was not decided 5-4 by the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court. The vote was 7-2, with Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer joining William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.
      This majority reversed the Florida Supreme Court's order for a statewide recount because the standards for determining voter intent would have varied from county to county, thus violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
      The 5-4 vote condemned by sulking Democrats involved remedy: what to do about it. Souter, Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens would have allowed the recount to continue. The majority court recognized that the Florida court "significantly departed from the statutory framework in place on election day" when it authorized open-ended vote recounts that could not be completed by Dec. 12.
      A consortium of news organizations, including the New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post, published its report of the recount controversy after 12 months of analyzing the undervote.
     "The United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed.

      "Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead."

      Clip this column, laminate it and save it. Next time a Democrat rants about the 2000 election, whip it out. Tell him to vent at the person who really did keep Gore out of the White House: Ralph Nader.

[I see my hands]

To: ComSymp stuartcr

"the ‘me’ generation tag"

What's wrong with that? Do you want what's mine or something? Why not try to take it yourself, citizen?

[USAF70]

Throughout the history of our Country many men and women were wounded and many gave the ultimate sacrifice defending our Constitution and now your telling us to slap them in the face.

I see a big difference between a vote count and possible violation of our Constitution.

In my opinion by just letting this birth certificate issue fade into the sunset is showing disrespect for our military men and women.

We should not put this issue to rest until Obama proves he is a natural born citizen of the United States.

[IYAS9YAS]

Stuartcr,

When the long-form certificate is verified as legitimate, if necessary, by SCOTUS, then I will let the question rest. There is significant concern over his legitimacy, it has been hashed and re-hashed here. The Constitution is the law of the land, it shall not be ignored.

There is no "me" generation about wanting the truth. If nothing else, it is the "me" generation that worked to elect, and voted for, Obama without first verifying eligibility.

[TruthHound]

Yeah, one good derangement syndrome (BDS) deserves another (ODS).

Sorry, I'm not playing.

Birth Certificate

Birth Certificate

Birth Certificate

Birth Certificate

Birth Certificate

[polymuser]

You really need to do your own blog, instead of using FR as one, as evidenced by your history.

[NaughtiusMaximus]

Thank you for posting this. It’s wonderful. I put the line out because it’s too good to miss. I’m glad you were on line to post the full dress treatment. :)

[YdontUleaveLibs]

Good call, Devere.

The site is managed by VillageWerks LLC.

[griswold3]

‘Respect for the Constitution is moot?’

It is after this election. Anyone who heard Obama express his opinion of our current constitution knows what’s coming.
Time for them to convene a ‘new constitutional convention’?
Instead of a nation of states, we will become a nation state. So much for the US Constitution.

[MrB]

Conservatives, by their very worldview, RESPECT PROCESS and RULES.

You’re right, this guy is concerned about outcomes, which clearly puts him in the leftist arena.

The funny thing is, leftists don’t even realize they have this red flag worldview that I can smell a mile off.