So if it turns out Obama can't actually be considered 'natural born',

two questions:
First, will the major media actually bring the matter up? If it's strong enough they'll pretty much have to, but how long(then) will they try to put it off, and how hard try to dismiss it?
Second: Will any of the Faithful give a rats ass about it being illegal for him to run, or will they demand the Constitution be a: ignored or b: immediately changed?

I tend to think there's a real problem with his birth certificate, simply because if there wasn't he could short-circuit the whole damn mess by showing it; the only reason to keep it hidden is because there is/they think there is something to hide. If it were to be shown true, I'm a bit worried about the reaction. The Faithful will demand the Constitution be ignored, and does anyone think Howard Dean will not argue the same thing? A whole lot of other politicians will try to suck up to the weenies by going along with it. Not a good scenario.

I mean, we've got politicians like this on the national level, too. And as one of the comments says, "Fagan reflects his electorate. Don't slam him. You put him there." Yes, they did. And how much you want to bet most of them will want to return him to his taxpayer-supplied office at the next election, this either forgotten, forgiven or- considering MA- agreed with? A lot of the vile beings who'd say "Can't we just ignore the Constitutional problem for the First Black Candidate for President? Isn't his running more important?" have a constituency back home who'll agree with them. Look at this crap:
In a fiery soliloquy on the House floor, Fagan said he’d grill victims so that, “when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”
I know all the 'best defense possible' arguments: they do not include "destroy the life of the victim forever', though a lot of lawyers think it does(and wonder why people don't like them). This was one of the things that always pissed me off about lawyer shows back when I actually watched tv, you had one of two premises:
The noble, selfless believer in Truth and Right saving their client from the evil, nasty prosecutor
or
The noble, selfless believer in Truth and Right trying to put dirtbags in jail, often no matter what they have to do.
They were mostly the first, enough so that the mere mention of a new one causes me to think "Let's see, another show about self-righteous, self-indulgent lawyers with a Mission; I'll pass." The other... I remember an episode of Law and Order I once watched, where a woman had shot and killed an attacker on the subway. The forces of Justice were outraged because she had both carried a pistol without permission of the State, and she'd actually dared to defend herself with lethal force. When the facts about the deceased came out(long record, violent offenses, etc.) the prosecutor in charge just about went nuts trying to find something to put her in prison for: after all, "If we don't people will think they can get away with this."(near as I can recall the words) God forbid someone not go to jail for improper self-defense. Never watched that piece of crap again.

And both of them suck onto the current 'social crisis' for all they're worth. When the big child-abuse scare started in the 80's, you had the Defenders saving the innocent from the prosecutors who'd coached the kids and you had the Protectors trying to keep the kids from being savaged by the nasty win-at-any-cost defense counsel and put the evil molester behind bars. Until the next big 'crisis' or 'issue' came up. Toward the end of that period a show called 21 Jump Street actually had a really good show about how a lot of women thinking of/going through divorce or pissed at their ex were using accusations of abuse to screw over their husband, in many cases to keep them from seeing the kids. Along with that happening and the damage caused to the husband(life destroyed) and kids(unable to ever see Dad again, hearing him called these nasty things), it pointed out that almost never was the woman prosecuted, even when they had an admission of what she'd done; just 'too unpopular politically' to go after her. Hell, all she'd done was destroy her ex, her kids' father, so shut up and drop it.

Speaking of vile douchebags, hell YES the UN ought to be sued, but won't happen. I mean, if you actually held them responsible here, the Rwandans who survived the massacre caused in large part by the UN(at Kofi Annans' orders) refusing to act to stop it. And we can't have that, now can we?

Totally unrelated to the above, a couple of weeks before son's leave started he had a chance to call, and told me about a couple of odd rifles they'd found in an arms cache. He was describing it, and something was nagging at me, and then he mentioned the ammo. "Wait a minute, little bottleneck cartridge like the Tokarev fires?" "Yes." Perforated metal shield around the barrel, drum magazine?" "Yes." "Those are PPSh41 submachineguns, the Russians made millions of them in WWII!" They'd found two, and two cases of ammo. God knows when they wound up in Iraq. If could get permission they were going to take them to the test pit and try them out: I said to take pictures. I've heard of some StG44 rifles and ammo turning up a while back, no telling what all is waiting to be found.

Ok, I think I'm done for tonight.