Obama’s ineligibility: Our Lexington and Concord moment is coming

Canada Free Press ^ | June 24, 2011 | Lawrence Sellin

[Ordinary_American]

In a February 13, 1818 letter to H. Niles, John Adams wrote:

“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was affected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.“

The first “shots” of the Second American Revolution have not been fired, but the battle lines have been drawn.

There is now a radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the American people.

Petitioning the current Congress for the redress of grievances is futile. Members of Congress have turned a deaf ear to the voices of their constituents.

The present occupiers of the US Government openly violate the Constitution, are hopelessly corrupt and politically correct, have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy, have opened our borders to illegal immigration and have permitted a fifth column promoting Sharia law to infiltrate our society.

They can no longer be trusted as guardians of our posterity.

Not a week goes by without yet another document analyst claiming that his Certificate of Live Birth presented by Obama at his press conference on April 27, 2011 is a forgery.

[Jeff Winston]

In fact, in this very thread I have changed my views, at least somewhat, in response to FACTUAL information provided by philman.

You can read my reply to him for more information.

[philman_36]

I think we could use a clear ruling from the Supremes on the matter.
Well, apparently we've already got one. You said you hadn't read the latest article by Leo Donofrio and you really should. There is a thread up.
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION (NBC).
The most important part, from what I've read and understood so far, and what will probably be the most contentious, is this...

But most important is the case itself. The official syllabus written by the US Supreme Court states:
1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.”

That’s a direct holding of the case. Hence, it is stated at the the top of the syllabus.

It seems that the dictum versus precedent argument is a bust for the dictum side. I've read the article twice now and I'm still weighing what he's said and the implications.

[Jeff Winston]

His demeanor effectively overwhelms whatever earth-shattering point he seems to be trying to make.

That may be, and I don't agree with his "eat crow and like it" approach.

However, at the same time, you have NO IDEA the degree to which so many of the birthers have CRUCIFIED anybody who doesn't buy into their belief system. They've been doing it for MONTHS, if not years.

It's personal attack after personal attack after personal attack. It no longer bothers me, because I've been attacked so many times now that it's like a pebble off of an elephant's hide. Being the target of what is in many instances hate speech is normal for me now.

I don't really like FR to be like this, but it's out of my control. I'd rather see those who engage in personal attacks unceremoniously booted, but for whatever reason, JR and the moderators tolerate it. Probably, if I had to guess, because they've just been worn down and given up on it, except in "extreme" cases.

I try to defend myself in a civil way, but sometimes you get tired of continually trying to be civil to those who are well beyond uncivil.

That being the way things are, I really can't blame anyone who decides they need to fight fire with fire.

Sad commentary when conservatives can't hash things out without things getting really ugly, but on the controversial issues, that's how it is.

[Jeff Winston]

Well, apparently we've already got one. You said you hadn't read the latest article by Leo Donofrio and you really should. There is a thread up.

No, what I said - or at least what I meant - was that I've read the article, though not with full attention, and need at some point to reread it and work through the arguments in detail.

In fact, it probably wouldn't hurt me to read Donofrio's whole blog.

The problem is, stuff like this takes an enormous amount of time. And, despite all snarky allegations to the contrary, I don't get paid for freeping.

[Jeff Winston]

I have read Minor v. Happersett, by the way.

[philman_36]

I'd rather see those who engage in personal attacks unceremoniously booted, but for whatever reason, JR and the moderators tolerate it.
Now, now...you shouldn't get mad if somebody calls you an insufferable buffoon who doesn't understand things even when they're presented to you on a silver platter. As you say...I have changed, and will change, my opinions on the basis of new and valid information. So be patient with your fellow FReepers. I would suggest, however, that you do need to work on not making qualifying statements like that. It gives the impression of being disingenuous.

Yeah, people have been slinging mud here for years. I believe the term "Congresscritters" was used for the very first time right here at FR. (not that any of them would show up here to 'hear' it) As you say, you get used to it. I've been called a pothead on the WOsD threads so many times it's not even funny. You use the elephant metaphor and I use the duck's back metaphor.

Nor should you get upset if somebody calls you a troll. Hell, I've been called an ogre and I consider it to be an apt description and a compliment.
Enjoy your stay here however long or short it may be. Your posting history will speak for itself so after about a decade or more you should be fine.

[Jeff Winston]

So be patient with your fellow FReepers.

Sometimes it's a bit difficult to be patient with people who have absolutely zero patience for me. None. What-so-ever.

I would suggest, however, that you do need to work on not making qualifying statements like that. It gives the impression of being disingenuous.

Well, I'm not going to change my mind on the basis of new and INvalid information!

Would you? :-)

[philman_36]

In fact, it probably wouldn't hurt me to read Donofrio's whole blog.
Watch out! You might actually learn something. LOL
And here all this time I've been under the impression that you were an avid, well informed follower of this issue when you aren't! You learn something new every day, don't you!
The problem is, stuff like this takes an enormous amount of time.
Ya have to be committed to be informed.

I have read Minor v. Happersett, by the way.
Well good for you! From your replies you appear to have read much more than that.

And, despite all snarky allegations to the contrary, I don't get paid for freeping.
I wish I did get paid to FReep. Alas, I don't.

[Jeff Winston]

Watch out! You might actually learn something. LOL

Oh, I learn things all the time.

Maybe we can set up a charity that pays people to FReep?

Okay, back to reality now...

[Jeff Winston]

Not to mention, to bed. I’m calling it a night.

Thanks for the intelligent conversation, and a good night to you!

[philman_36]

Well, I'm not going to change my mind on the basis of new and INvalid information!
Not at all. That's why I left you to your own designs up at reply 371.
Yes; therefore, Bobby Jindal is eligible to run for, and serve as, President of the United States.
Well, for me, you just jumped the shark with that reply.
Good luck with supporting that opinion.

You presented, IMO, INvalid information to me. And rather than believe your INvalid information I do believe I managed within a few replies to completely squash your argument.
381 In fact, in this very thread I have changed my views, at least somewhat, in response to FACTUAL information provided by philman.

But, then again, I could be wrong.

[philman_36]

Oh, I learn things all the time.
As do I. I do new things all of the time as well.
You just can't go with the same old thing every time.
You get stuck in a rut doing that.

[Beckwith]

it appears that a political deal was struck between the Democrats and Republicans that would provide cover for both McCain and Obama on the issue of eligibility.

Bingo!

And McCain is still covering Barry's ass.

A deal is a deal.

[Beckwith]

That born on us soil plus born of two citizen parents guarantees "natural born citizen" does NOT necessarily mean that born on US soil alone doesn't, and it doesn't necessarily mean that born of two US citizen parents doesn't guarantee natural born status, either.

Nonsense!

Persons, eligible for the Office of the President of the United States (POTUS), NEVER have first generation ties to a foreign nation, whereas ineligible persons always do.

ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with natural born citizens who have only American ties.

[Jim Noble]

According to the 1949 BNA, only children of the first wife inherit British nationality.

[ilovesarah2012]

Well, I can tell you that Obama will never be “my” president. I cannot wait for his last day in office!

[Josephat]

Did you ever hear of the WISE old owl.

[Future Useless Eater]

>> ... the killing of Obama ...

Careful friend, you’re risking a visit by the Secret Service!

Seriously, I could tell from the rest of your sentence you meant to say Osama.

Great posts otherwise!

[DiogenesLamp]

So you admit no one will do anything about it even if he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

I admit that it looks like the courts are terrified of being forced to deal with it. The Congress won't touch it, and the States are afraid to touch it as well. That doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate issue, it means that we have a lot of people who won't insist on following the law when they are scared of the result.

After two and a half years of this going nowhere, I am ready to concentrate on beating him in 2012.

I have been concentrating on beating him since before he was elected. However, I don't want people believing he was legitimate in the first place. The truth matters.

As for beating him, I have said for two years that the most effective way of beating him is by requiring him to present real (Original) credentials. I think what he has shown, (if actually from Hawaii) is amended or otherwise modified in order to cover up whatever it is that he's afraid for the public to learn. If a single state requires proof, and he refuses to comply, it will cost him the election in ALL states, because no one will understand why he would rather concede a state than produce the proof.

[ilovesarah2012]

Has any state passed legislation requiring a presidential candidate to present a birth certificate to be on the ballot? I haven’t really kept up except I know Brewer vetoed the bill in AZ. Heck, we can’t even get a state to pass voter ID.

As for the truth, somewhere down the road someone will discover it, probably years from now. It won’t help. Until the Supreme Court sets out a legal definitive definition of natural-born citizen, nothing will change.