At the rate he’s going his own party may ‘out’ him!
Personally, I don’t give a rosy rat’s ass what Beck thinks about it
He is a fraud and should be IMMEDIATELY exposed- If it is true then he is out of office NOW
What could be better than that?
A lot of you noobs seem awfully concerned about whether Beck agrees with the birthers or not.
I give up. Why?
This has been the Dim strategy all along: kick the can down the road on this issue, until it's too late.
Why should we go along with it?
Leave the “ birthplace” issue at the door. We can deal with it later. There is more important material in Kenya about Obama’s marxist father and his ties to the Luo opposition, the moslems, and the Kenyan communists (who were aligned with Moscow).
Lots of things in Obama’s background that need to come out besides the birth certificate. Let’s focus on those items which will expose Barack as a hardcore Marxist ideologue with some very interesting ties to the Communist Party USA, the marxist New Party, the marxist Democratic Socialists of America, and even to one known Soviet operative, if not two.
There are some very red skeleton’s in Obama’s closet. Time to open the door and let the truth come out.
The question does not even have to be put in terms of his “birthplace.” The point is that he suspiciously refused to furnish the original. The SUSPICION is the thing. There is something associated with the question of his birth, or PERHAPS some detail on the document itsELf. Double citizenship? Who knows? why not question him the way we would question a Republican in the same situation?
I would ask Beck,” Where is your ‘Question with Boldness???’”
on this paricular issue? Hmmmm?
If I were running for office, I would not go on the attack with the issue.... However,
I would be prepared with a slap-in-the-face irrefutable response when someone asked me about it...
Something like...
If you watched as Obama appeared before congress at the state of the union address BUCK NAKED, claiming to be sporting a new fashion in elitist garment technology, and the media reported that his new suit was simply dashing and Oh so presidential, would you take another look at the re-run to see if he was as naked as you thought he was?
Or would you wonder why the media was lying?
I see no acceptable reason for us to forgo the Constitutional eligibility requirement just to humor other RINO’s and real conservatives who choose to work hard to elect more conservatives in the upcoming midterm elections.
That is not reason enough to abrogate our national responsibility under the Constitution.
It’s time to take back the country.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
Ping...
Another attempt to get birthers to shup up... “until after the 2010 election”...
It is completely possible to chew chewing gum and walk at the same time.
Anyway...These lawsuits will move forward **regardless** of what anyone says or doesn't say. ( So...No energy wasted there.)
The least that the conservative media could do is report the FACTS of these cases and report what the conflict is. How much time would that take? Little time. I am completely DISGUSTED with the conservative media. That includes Rush and especially Beck and Coulter ( for being so insulting!)
Also...If any reporter or Democratic candidate brings it up, the Republican should ask, “How do I **know** for certain that YOU ( Mr. Reporter or candidate for whatever) are natural born citizen or even a citizen at all! ??? “
Think about this. How many people are there in your own personal life that you could testify in court that they were a natural born citizen? Huh? Neighbors, friends, many in-law relatives? Would you need to see documentation before you could testify with absolute certainty???? Of course you would documentation.
Well, Gee! If my son-in-law would need to show me ( his mother-in-law) documents to prove to me with certainty that he is a natural born citizen, then maybe it is NOT unreasonable for the president to provide certifiable documents as well!
LOL...what a crock!
Anti-Birthers have been saying this from the beginning and are just as wrong now as they were then.
Obama is becoming a joke on his own, his policies have failed to gain traction, and this is the PERFECT time to bombard him with these questions.
The ‘Birther’ issue is not so much about ***where*** he was born as it is who or the lack of who influenced his development.
The founders and the 1790 Congress as well as the Congress of the 1860s in passing the 14th Amendment defined ‘natural born citizen’ as a citizen who at the time of their birth was conceived from two citizens. This is distinct from a definition of ‘citizen’. And it was done for good purpose.
By now it should be obvious that Obama is not proud of America. And the question is ‘Why?’.
It should be generally acceptable that in most cases having two citizens as parents will with higher probability ensure that some ‘natural bond’ and ‘natural loyalty’ to America is passed down.
When one parent is not a citizen, it should be reasonable to infer that in many cases there will be some loyalty to the old country and perhaps divided loyaties will be passed on to children of such parents, especially in this age of public education where American History is shunned, avoided, berated or outright attacked.
So the ‘Birther’ issue is really about Obama’s loyalty and faithfulness to America, its history and its people.
For consider that Obama’s father was Kenyan born as a British subject. Could his father’s perspective of America as just another country have influenced the young Obama of the same? And with his father’s absence, could his surrogate father figure in communist Frank Marshall have influenced his development as a hater of America, a view that his later father figure in Jeremiah Wright expressed in his screaming “God Damn the United States!”?
Obama stated publically he was going to try and reverse the ‘negative view’ that Europeans had of the United States. And who are these Europeans that he refers to? Are they not the same as those in power or positions of influence that have driven Europe along a path towards Socialism? Doesn’t that statement in and of itself provide a clear indication that Obama agrees with their view (socialism)?
So can we agree that a ‘Birther’ is really calling into question Obama’s loyaty and faithfulness to America? And by questioning the legal technicality of his birthright and upbringing as a ‘non-natural born citizen’ the birthers are in effect saying he has not been endowed with the bonds of loyalty and faithfulness that are expected of a natural born citizen.
And we know that exceptions can exist in such bonds among natural born and non-natural born but the Constitution was written not to remove all uncertainty but to base itself on a sense of expected reasonable behavior. We can more readily trust a natural born citizen to be loyal to America than a non-natural born citizen, even though we know exceptions exist.
I love Beck, but just can’t agree with him on this point. Beck is always preaching go back to the founding documents and this is one thing about eligibility that is the founding documents.
There are many Benedict Arnolds in the anti-birther, after birther movement...
Make a BIG donation to Free Republic and we may discuss some “moderation” on the issue in question.
BS! I’ve been hearing for more than 30 years that the important, strident issues that could advance Constitutional governance (like fundamental tax reform) must take a back seat to the coming election cycle. (”You have to get me reelected so I can keep up the good fight!”)
The Constitution is more important than anyone’s election or reelection. There isn’t a soul in office now (except Al Fraken) who could not have supported the Constitution before the election and PREVENTED a Marxist usurper from taking the Oval Office.
SOMEBODY in DC needs put on their Big Boy pants and stand up for the Constitution NOW. It would all be over in one month. Then, AFTER we have a legitimate POTUS, we can reward those who upheld their oath of office.