Posted on 04/25/2011 9:19:02 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
So its OK if he only stands up for selected parts of the Constitution. How does he decide which parts are to be defended and which are not? How is it that because there have been persons who have not been as competent as they might be in presenting the eligibility question that it is OK to give the constituional fraud a pass while holding oneself out as believing religously in the Constitution? I find that a tad inconsistent. Nor do I see how attention being drawn to the constitutional fraud involved harms conservatism.
ha. I might be with you, but frankly, I learned my lesson in 1992. I will be voting for the GOP and against Obama in 2012 no matter what happens. I feel as sick about McCain as you do from the 2008 campaign, but I am not going to stay home or let the Dems benefit from a less than perfect choice on our side. The only way I would not vote GOP is if Obama is a pure lock, or candidate bombs, and it is a protest vote.
WTH are you to tell someone who has stood up for the Constitution publicly for 40 years where he should or should not put his time and talents? Do you stand up equally for every shred of Constitutional damage being done by this government?
People only have so much time in a day. You have to pick your battles. There are Constitutional breaches that we know for sure are going on. What will you say if in fact Obama does present a valid BC? How well will you have invested your time and energy then?
I mean I’m glad some are focusing on the birther issue. But just to absolute hell with any of you who condemn those of us who choose to pick other battles.
No Trump, but you did good.
I thought you were very well spoken and presented your points clearly.
ML/NJ
Please - Trump has NOT changed! He is the same fellow that he was two years ago with maybe a bit more of an ego.
He is NOT the one for Republicans or Conservatives but he is at least bring up things that no other candidates seem to have the guts to do. That is a plus.
So...sit back and let Trump do his damage to the Democrats and then let a decent Conservative come to the fore...
Levin does not need to prove his conservative pro liberty cred to any birther.
You are right that he doesn't need to prove his chops, but he has addressed the issue raised by the birther's efforts. He has pointed out that the Constitution does not provide the courts a mechanism to remove the President. Only Impeachment by the House and Conviction by the Senate provides that remedy after inaugeration which is manifestly obvious.
How will a valid BC change the fact that his legally registered father was a Kenyan and thereby at the time a British citizen, making him ineligible as a “natural born citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution? That would be the case even if Soetoro a/k/a Obama weren’t clearly hiding something damaging, which he clearly is. Levin clearly understands this from is remarks on air and yet has stated that he does not think the issue is worth pursuing because of the time it would involve. Permit me to say that have stood for the Constitution for as long and I disagree with his decision. His adding his voice to the fray early on would have perhaps broken the issue open before Donald Trump came along and did what he would not do. I think his behavior deserves criticism and I am entitled to that opinion. He chose not to make a difference when he could have based on reasons that I do not think are valid. WTH are you to criticize me for pointing out the obvious inconsistency of this behavior? Why is giving a constitutional fraud a free pass good for the country?
Thanks for the comment. Malzberg is a good interviewer - and it helps that he has long read my work at American Thinker. He knew where I was coming from.
Your idea that Levin “chose not to make a difference” on the birther- Kenyan father issue and that hurt the movement is sheer sophomoric sophistry. Levin chose to make a difference on other issues instead. He made the issue that Obama was flat a marxist ahead of most others on the national stage. That doesn’t make him “inconsistent” as you said. SHEESH.
Of couse, nothing you have said has addressed my main - and unassailable point — which is that we all have to pick our battles and no one can fight every battle or emphasize every issue. I respect those who are obsessed with the birther-natural born issue - but you guys sure as hell don’t have the ability to respect anyone else apparently.
Just fight your battle, we’ll cheer for you, but respect the battles we fight.
The conspicuous silence only encourages judges to think that they can duck their responsibiity and get away with it. Your notion that Levin cannot be criticized for his inconsistency is not particularly rational.
You misunderstand. I was not talking about Levin on Trump — I agree with Levin 100%.
I was talking about the author of the piece saying that Trumps incoherence is just the same as Reagan’s youthful flirtation with unions, etc. The Reagan-Trump analysis by the author was wrong.
Now, I realise that you in fact are not attacking Levin for supporting Reagan, you are attacking him for not supporting Donald Trump. Or since you claimed it was his right not to support Trump, you are attacking him for using a double standard. Or since you mentioned he was 19 at the time, I guess you are attacking him for your perception that his criteria for supporting a candidate when he was 19 years old is different than his criteria as an old man.
But if we accept your comparison of Reagan and Trump (even though I guess there was none, since you denied they were comparable), but reject your opinion about Levin's attacks on Trump, the alternative is that your argument is an attack on Levin's support of Reagan.
Let me explain again: If we believe Levin is right now, and believe your opinion that Levin should be held to the same standard at 19 as he is today, we have no choice but to accept that argument as an attack on Levin for supporting Reagan.
Of course, if we simply accept one of your many caveats, that Reagan and Trump really are not alike, then your entire argument falls apart.
In fact, I would reject your claim that Reagan has a "dark past". There was nothing wrong with being the president of a union in the 50s, at least not the union Reagan led. Reagan made mistakes, but they were not mistakes of intent, but result. He didn't intend his actions on abortion to lead to more abortions; but it's not like he said he supported abortions, and then later changed his mind.
And even your attack on his amnesty is a retrospective one. At the time, his solution had merit. He certainly did not intend, or expect, or speak kindly about illegals flooding our country. He felt he had reached a good compromise that stopped the flood, but didn't throw everybody out. History proves that this didn't work.
If the choice is between Obama and Trump, I’ll vote for Obama.
Of course, if the choice was between Obama and a ham sandwich, I’d vote for the sandwich.
A little more about the man you would proudly vote for over Donald Trump a man who clearly loves America and wants to turn the Democrat mess around.
Percy Sutton, NYC political icon in the African American community, tells a news reporter that Dr. Khalid al Mansour solicited favor and recommendation on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama in order to secure Barack’s entry into Harvard. Think about that.
Sutton was approached by a Dr. Khalid al Mansour on Obama’s behalf, to secure (procure?) Barack’s admission into Harvard from the rather second college, Occcidental.
Khalid al Mansour is a vile antisemite, devout (radicalized) Muslim and high level adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.
Wow, did I make an error in THAT post.
It was supposed to say “If I had a choice between Trump and Obama, I’d vote for Trump. Of course, if the choice was between Obama and a Ham Sandwich, I’d vote for the Ham Sandwich”.
I would never vote for Obama. If the choice was between Hillary Clinton and Obama, I might actually vote for Hillary, although I’d probably just stay home and cry, or vote 3rd-party.
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.