My guess is that you probably have no problem with government legislating certain moral issues like murder, theft, etc. According to your last paragraph you do have a problem with government involvement on issues of homosexuality and abortion. You mention that these issues are confined to the bedroom and the uterus, but they are not. Homosexuality has spilled out of the bedroom and into society. It is taught as an acceptable practice in some public schools and it has attacked the traditional institution of marriage. Gay marriage would impact the church and church practices. Should social conservatives surrender these areas? Abortion has moved well beyond the individual uterus as well. What about tax payer funded abortions? Abortion on demand? The ability of a minor to have an abortion without the consent of the parent?

Homosexuality and abortion are no longer about individual choice but rather a societal choice. Social conservatives have a right to speak out on these issues as much as anyone.

Normally, such a bastion of political integrity and dignity like LA Times stays away from petty, ignoble matters like Obama’s (il)legitimacy – but today’s issue has a pretty long and amusingly prudent piece about this affair “Some Fear GOP Is Being Carried To The Extreme” by one Peter Wallesten, in which they show their concern for the conservatives and republicans who might get carried away by Farrah’s seduction (my! My!) in the treacherous swamps of Obama’s illegitimacy debate.

Spooked they were, liberals, by the yesterday march in Washington, and maybe there is something more uglier brewing here, since it’s quite unusual for LA Times to acknowledge that liberals, Obama and the whole progressive crew have problems – enthusistically looking forward for more.

… and wrong you are, Brendan, and it’s you and people like you (I’ll take what you say at face value, and not as a “good troll” part from a “mean Obamatroll – nice Obamatroll” routine), who are causing harm to this nation.

And here-s why: you say: “These people simply are not putting forward credible arguments” – and bellow is my re-posting of my #70 (response/ un-answered challenge to your partner, #69/mph) –

Now you have the chance to clear mph & Obama by answering at these trivial, irrelevant questions – easy job for you:

1) the AP photograph of Obama’s (Soetoro’s) enrollment page at the Franziskus School (Djakarta, Indonesia), showing young Barry as: a) religion = Muslim, b) citizenship = Indonesian; is that photo a forgery or not? Elaborate, can use your own words…
2) regarding the COLB posted on Daily Kos, then on Fight The Smears(?), and repeatedly referred to by Gibbs as true & confirming Obama’s legitimacy – now why the Hawaii HD when pressed about the existence & circulation of that COLB, admitted that such a document like that WAS NEVER SOLICITED (by Obama party) AND AS SUCH THE HAWAII HD NEVER ISSUED IT? What is that un-issued document that’s been offered for a while on Internet for proving Obama’s presidential genealogy? Elaborate, can use your own words…
3) Why the DNC has circulated TWO sets of nomination documents after Obama’s nomination, one:
a) for “internal use” (Pelosi, Dean, Reid, etc.) which states that Obama has fullfilled the citizenship requirements for presidential eligibility, and another one:
b) for filing purposes in the 57 states of the union, document skipping Obama’s eligibility problem altogether? Elaborate, can use your own words -

Ok, Brendan – now, let’s got to the point opened by you stating that even if the birthers’ suspicions are confirmable, the damage done by such a scandal’s unraveling would outweigh the benefits of proving Obama and the Democratic Party as fraudulent -

Here I beg to differ grandly, and I’ll address just two consequences of this (very likely) wrongdoing –
1) while a fraud is fraud is a fraud is a fraud, it is also true that there is a proportion in the penalties applied to the criminal – a ten dollars matter is one thing, a thousand dollars is another thing, then Bernie Madoff is a completely different thing. Remember, the guy who cheats at the counter doesn’t get a life term – and here, the potential of Obama’s likely misdeed is of such a dimension, and has so many consequences in things political and military, has placed so many lives and national affairs in jeopardy that it definitely needs severe scrutiny –
2) … and here, a little criminal tinge to Obama’s lerger, grandiose scheme. It’s been talked a lot (and rightfully so) about the criminal elements of Obama’s Internet fund-rising scheme, but an element of this affair is still studiously avoided – i.e., the fact that since Obama never proved his eligibility in this campaign, he probably rised more than $600 million from the American citizenry under false pretense, BEING FULLY AWARE AT THE MOMENT OF SOLICITATION THAT HE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE POSITION HE WAS RUNNING FOR.

Should be this aspect ignored, too?

Brendan, be a nice sport and answer the above questions, will you?

Looking forward for your demonstration -
Yours, Alceste -

One of the first, (and often hardest) lessons one teaches young military officers is “Pick your battles wisely”. In the military, as in politics, both sides are dealing with limited resources. It simply does not do your side any good to expend massive amounts of resources if what you gain from “winning” the fight is worth less that what it cost you to get it. (See the Battles of The Somme, or Verdun, for examples of what happens if you don’t understand this concept.)

What the birthers don’t seem to understand is, if Obama is eligible or not simply does not matter. You aren’t dealing with a scenario where any of their charges, even if they were true, would matter one whit. Edith Wilson was de facto president of the United States from October 1919 to March of 1921. Nobody was prosecuted, nobody went to jail. Bill Clinton was clearly guilty of the charges for which he was impeached, but he wasn’t forced to resign either. Why to the Birthers expect things would be different this time? In the real world POWER does not bow before legal or moral technicalites. Have they ever heard of the Dred Scott decision? The 3/5 compromise? or President Jackson’s remark upon hearing that the Supreme Court had held against his plans to forceably remove the Cherokee tribe from their lands? (“Justice Marshal has made his decision, now let us see him enforce it.”)

Even if they are right, (which I doubt) it wouldn’t matter. Lets assume that somehow they found absolute proof that Obama was born in Kenya, AND they got a case into court, AND it made it to the Supreme Court, AND the Supreme Court wound up taking the case, AND that instead of finding that through some creative legal wordsmithing that Obama was still elgigible, AND they issue an order for Obama to step down AND it is somehow enforced and he does the Nixonian “fly off on the helocopter into the sunset” thing, AND this all somehow gets accomplished before the end of his first term (unlikely)…what have you won? You now have President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and a growing movement to ammend the constitution to allow Obama (and Gov. Schwartzenegger) to be President, the same people are all running MSNBC and the New York Times, and CNN. On the down side you have the greatest wound to the country since the Watergate scandal. Nobody goes to jail. Nobody gets tried for conspiracy or treason; because no treason takes place here.

You do get great violence done to the fabric of our nation, as was done in Watergate, at a time when we can little afford it. The birthers are the ultimate expression of the “logic” behind the phrase “It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.”

mph, with your cogent answers at the following questions you can clear up this matter:
1) the AP photograph of Obama’s (Soetoro’s) enrollment page at the Franziskus School (Djakarta, Indonesia), showing young Barry as: a) religion = Muslim, b) citizenship = Indonesian; is that photo a forgery or not? Elaborate, can use your own words…
2) regarding the COLB posted on Daily Kos, then on Fight The Smears(?), and repeatedly referred to by Gibbs as true & confirming Obama’s legitimacy – now why the Hawaii HD when pressed about the existence & circulation of that COLB, admitted that such a document like that WAS NEVER SOLICITED (by Obama party) AND AS SUCH THE HAWAII HD NEVER ISSUED IT? What is that un-issued document that’s been offered for a while on Internet for proving Obama’s presidential genealogy? Elaborate, can use your own words…
3) Why the DNC has circulated TWO sets of nomination documents after Obama’s nomination, one:
a) for “internal use” (Pelosi, Dean, Reid, etc.) which states that Obama has fullfilled the citizenship requirements for presidential eligibility, and another one:
b) for filing purposes in the 57 states of the union, document skipping Obama’s eligibility problem altogether? Elaborate, can use your own words -

Best regards -
Misanthropicus, a devoted Reynolds Aluminum Foil purchaser -

“However, one need not be a racist to question President Obama’s birth story.”

Birther madness on Pajamas? Please, no….please….

John Birchers part of a “healthy political ecosystem.”

This article is insane.

Mr. Simon, did you read this?

Until it extirpates this reactionary faction, the Conservative movement’s defense of free markets is hopelessly doomed to intellectual impotence. Economic self-reliance through free proud enterprise on the one hand, but moral paternalism in matters confined to the bedroom or uterus on the other hand, are ideologically irreconcilable positions both of which sound hypocritical when preached by the same voice.

Given recently posted documents, it’s pretty clear that democrat state chairmen were given CYA protection in return for putting Obama on the state ballot, no questions asked. The fact that such a deal exists or that someone saw a need for it says all you need to know about whether Obama was really born in this country. If he had been, there would have been no reason to provide state democrat election folks with CYA paperwork.

It’s funny how so many of those same people who think it’s major issue that someone dared violate decorum and yell “Liar” at the president don’t think violating the Constitution is much to worry about.

Regards