Posted on 10/06/2009 7:12:21 PM PDT by kellynla
Drunk with a delusional sense of authority, the American media has become the tool of a powerful and corrupt media conglomerate that calls the shots and picks the players. Public perception of the media has changed and the trust once enjoyed is now destroyed. The former ‘free press’ role of the media was hijacked long ago and what’s left is an echo chamber where dissenting voices are attacked personally instead of debated openly.
In place of reporting news as it breaks in an unbiased fashion, the media promotes big government while actively suppressing newsworthy events that contradict the progressive political narrative. In other words, the media has garnered scant public trust, like its messiah, Barack Hussein Obama; a.k.a. ‘the emperor with no clothes’. Whereas the media repeats government-issued talking points regaling the resplendent aura of this self-appointed emperor, we the people see naught but naked arrogance.
In order that the allusion of a ‘free press’ be maintained to a certain degree in the American market, allowances are made to facilitate the proper functioning of the pressure valve. Enough steam is released to give the allusion of ‘free speech’, but there are lines drawn in the sand that are not to be crossed under any circumstances. Untold amounts of vast wealth already invested in pre-determined outcomes prohibit the complete exercise of free speech and when breached, swift and punitive action is taken. We the people have drawn our own line in the sand and the old media is on the wrong side of it.
If an issue is suppressed or dismissed with overtures of character assassination by the old media, this tells us that it’s crucial to our freedom. The old media has become nothing more than background noise. Their agenda has been exposed as a distraction tactic to keep our attention on anything except the truth. We the people have awakened. We have emerged even stronger from the frightening realization that our freedom is at stake.
The single most suppressed series of newsworthy events currently in play in courtrooms across the country are the eligibility cases being brought against Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro. Whereas the old media along with the help of the hopelessly unhinged Left have excoriated the character of anyone who dares discuss the ‘merits’ of these legal cases; what is equally disturbing is the silence amongst conservatives on the right. Apparently, the act of speaking out on this issue is paramount to risking one’s job.
A team of Louisiana-based radio talk show hosts lost their jobs after discussing Obama’s eligibility for office with World Net Daily Editor and CEO, Joseph Farah. Daniel “Spike” Harville of the “Mike and Spike Show” was told by Ruby Collins, owner of the radio station, that she was “afraid of the Obama administration sending a bunch of lawyers, the IRS and the FCC to close her down, so we needed to cool it.” G. Michael Lee also of the “Mike and Spike Show” was told to “tone down political talk” and not to mention Obama again. (source: www.wnd.com)
Callers who bring up the eligibility issue on air with talk radio hosts are dismissed quickly and without further discussion. Try calling into a radio station on this issue. If your question is actually aired live, watch how fast your call is dropped. The ‘conservative’ narrative out there ranges from using the leftist-spawned moniker for supporters - “birthers” in order to downplay the issue, to the extreme of outright condemnation. Don’t assume that all conservatives hesitate to discuss Obama’s constitutional eligibility as a way to avoid ending up on the wrong side of the issue, because as an explanation, it simply does not ring true. Evidence points elsewhere, towards a campaign of intimidation that is forcing conservative ‘talkers’ to pick their battles; which isolates the eligibility issue as not being worth the trouble it ignites.
In a recent round table discussion at Fox news, Ann Coulter labeled anyone concerned over Obama’s lack of natural born citizen status as a “crank” and further excoriated supporters in a vitriolic column. My advice to Governor Huckabee who also paid lip service to the eligibility slap down, is to do a little research next time beyond simply reading the Fox news memo banning further discussion. If he had, he would have learned that the initial case filed regarding Obama’s ineligible status was done so by Hillary Clinton supporter, Philip Berg. Once Clinton accepted the position as U.S. Secretary of State, Berg backed down. All I can say is that the pressure from above must really be something to shut Coulter down.
Don’t allow the narrative of intimidation and humiliation, preached by the sold-out media and their sycophantic co-conspirators, to influence you. The media can’t be trusted. We’ve already seen their cards. We now understand whose cause they champion and it’s not the cause of freedom. If you’ve closed your mind to this issue, based solely on a couple of isolated comments from people whose opinions you trust, consider doing your own investigation; and remember that the eligibility discussion bas been banned from the airwaves and many people who want to speak out have been forced into silence.
Enter stage right, a fearless defender of freedom, the attorney at the forefront of the eligibility issue, Dr. Orly Taitz, a.k.a. ‘Lady Liberty’. Back in March of 2009, Dr. Taitz undertook extraordinary measures just to have an opportunity to speak directly to Supreme Court Justice Roberts in order to advise him of apparent criminal sabotage inside the Supreme Court. Dr. Taitz departed her home at 3:00 am and drove to San Diego where she boarded a plane to Salt Lake City and picked up a second flight to Tacoma, Washington. From Tacoma, Dr. Taitz drove for a few more of hours to reach Moscow, Idaho to address Chief Justice Roberts during his appearance at the University.
During her hard-earned moment at the microphone, Dr. Taitz informed the Chief Justice and the audience that she had submitted her case, Lightfoot v Bowen, to Roberts who agreed to hear it in the conference of all nine justices on January 23, 2009. A court clerk, Danny Bickell refused to follow established procedures in handling this case and failed to forward an important supplemental brief. Additionally, the case was erased from the docket one day after Obama’s inauguration and two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged citizens called the Supreme Court and demanded that it be posted to the docket. This outrage was coupled with the fact that it was erased on the very day that Obama signed an executive order sealing all of his personal records. It begs the question what exactly is he hiding?
This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg and that being said, why would anyone sacrifice their personal life, expose themselves to death threats, character assassination and survive having their automobile tampered with unless they were committed to truth, freedom and the defense of the Constitution? Dr. Taitz’ tireless, fearless pursuit of truth and justice is unparalleled in recent history. She is a true heroine and perhaps this is why she was listed at spot #6 on Obama’s hit list at Globe Magazine.
What’s at the center of this fight? Why is Dr. Taitz taking on the Obama regime? During the 2008 election not a single Secretary of State in the entire nation verified the status of then candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, as eligible according to the Constitution. This negligence at the highest level could be easily rectified by producing a birth certificate, but instead Obama has elected to spend nearly a million dollars so far, fighting legal challenges in court that question his eligibility. He’d rather fight than produce true evidence of his past; not the fictional version being sold in a bookstore near you.
The online appearance of a Hawaiian certificate of live birth attributed to Obama essentially states that he exists and lacks the vital information contained in an actual birth certificate. Furthermore, foreign born children can easily procure a certificate of live birth in the state of Hawaii without crucial information that can only be obtained from a hospital record. In addition, Obama’s father, a Kenyan, was a citizen of the United Kingdom at the time of Obama’s birth, as Kenya was a British Colony in 1961.
In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of 14th amendment wrote: “every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
According to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, “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.”
Notwithstanding the refusal to produce a true birth certificate that would settle the central issue of natural born citizenship, we are confronted with the results of an investigation regarding scores of social security numbers in connection to Obama including the most often used number attributed to a deceased Connecticut man. In addition, there have been indications of forgery associated with Obama’s selective service record. The answers to all of these mysteries remain sealed with Obama’s records.
Recently, attorney Gary Kreep grabbed hold of Dr. Taitz’ coattails as legal counsel for Dr. Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson. What grabbed my attention when reading the legal briefs of both Kreep and team Obama was that both teams insinuated in court that Dr. Taitz caused unreasonable delay due to a preoccupation with irrelevant matters. By irrelevant matters both Kreep and team Obama are referring to the constitutional matter of natural born citizenship. Whose team is Kreep playing for? If I were a writer in Hollyweird, I’d cast Kreep as a ‘plant’ as he does more to hinder an expedited resolution on the merits of this constitutionally critical case than actually move it along.
Then there’s the unsolved murder in connection with the improperly accessed passport information on presidential candidates Obama, Clinton and McCain. State Dept. employee Lt. Quarles Harris was cooperating with federal investigators at the time of his murder. He was found shot to death in his car in front of a D.C. church. (source: Washington Times) Some say that the violations of passport information regarding Clinton and McCain did nothing more than provide cover. Are people disappearing in connection with this case?
Signing on as an active duty military plaintiff in the eligibility lawsuit carries with it a unique risk of its own. Major Stefan Frederick Cook had his orders revoked after arguing that he should not be required to serve under a President who has failed to prove his eligibility for office. Following this legal action, the Department of Defense (DOD) compelled the termination of Major Cook from his job at Simtech Inc., a private company contracted by the Defense Security Services agency of the DOD.
In response, attorney for Major Cook, Orly Taitz, submitted this legal rebuttal: “A federal agency (such as the Department of Defense, acting through the Defense Security Services Agency) clearly violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if it takes or fails to take (or threatens to take or fail to take) a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.”
It suffices to say that regardless of the slippery defense tactics of the team Obama this will not go away! Our prayers go out to Lady Liberty and while you’re at it toss a few bucks in the jar at Dr. Taitz’ web-site to assist in bringing forward this case of paramount importance. Get on board and dismiss the distracting narrative pumped out by the media regarding the merits of this case.
Whatever the results are following the October 5th Santa Ana, CA hearing in Judge Carter’s court room, the question of Obama’s eligibility will remain unresolved until we are shown the documents currently sealed by his own executive order.
The only definition they cite, without quoting it, is a statute passed by the First Congress.
"Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';"
The rest of it is just more statements of fact, followed by a resolution.
You are reading one of the statements of fact, the one reciting the circumstances of his birth, as if it were a definition. That makes no more sense than reading this statement as a definition:
"Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;"
So by your reasoning, only "men and women who are assigned to server our country outside of our national borders" are natural born citizens. Because that's also what they wrote in this resolution.
What definition was the Senate using in that resolution????
Come on — you can read.
The passage from Happersett doesn't say anything except there's no doubt that "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."
That's true. There is no doubt about that.
It also says some authorities also "include citizens born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents". But then it says that's not an issue before them and specifically declines to take a position!
BTW, there's also this line. "These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Uh oh. It specifically equates the terms "natives" and "natural-born citizens", leaving no room for any third, "native but not natural born" category. Completely undermines your point. You may not want to keep posting that. ;-)
Dude, I answered your question. Can you read?
Can you read and answer a simple question??? Define “natural born citizen” as used in SR511???
And once again I’m telling you, I already answered that question. Go back and read post #81.
Then answer it again — Post the definition used in SR511.
The only definition they cite, without quoting it, is a statute passed by the First Congress.
"Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';"
There is no definition there —
Bingo! Precisely what I’ve been telling you.
Bongo! Precisely what you have been evading. The definition used by the Senate was the one used by the First Congress:
"Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';" [SR511]
And the First Congress used a definition that required both parents to be citizens.
And that is the same definition used throughout the SR511. Read it sometime.
Really now? You wouldn't make that up would you? Quote it.
"And that is the same definition used throughout the SR511. Read it sometime."
No definition is used "throughout".
Are you telling us that they just used words in that resolution that have no definitions???
Why do you insist on asking questions to just make me repeat what I've already said? That makes no sense.
The only definition for "natural born citizen" that they provide was an unquoted one used by the First Congress. There is no other.
The thing you keep calling a "definition", isn't. It's just a recitation of the particular facts of McCain's birth. It is one item in a a list of "Whereas's".
Now, instead of asking me to repeat things I've already said, please make whatever point it is you want to make. But do it by quoting the source. It would also be nice if you'd review what we've already said and honestly consider what it means, instead of just trying to find some reason to disagree.
Sure thing, Humpty Dumpty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.