Posted on 06/24/2011 6:25:19 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
A lot for me as well.
There are obviously two different views on the matter. I've said before and say again that your view has validity - a courtesy that you guys don't seem willing to extend to the other view that a lot of us, not only myself, hold.
I don't think your view's the right one, for many reasons already stated. But I do think it has validity.
The issues are obviously complex. You just about have to be a Constitutional scholar to really get to the bottom of it all.
And probably the one thing we can all agree on is that the Supreme Court ought to clearly rule on the matter once and for all.
"Well, apparently we've already got one."
I spent some time going through Minor v. Happersett again, and through Donofrio's logic. Unfortunately, from what I see, Donofrio's reasoning doesn't hold together at all well, and he ignores other things that Minor v. Happersett says. It looks to me very much like cherry-picking for the results he wants.
As I posted elsewhere:
TWO SCANT PARAGRAPHS DOWN from where they quoted Article II, Section I of the Constitution: "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President" - they followed it up by recognizing:
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, [ - A MERE THREE YEARS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION - ] provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
In recognizing - TWO PARAGRAPHS DOWN FROM WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT ELIGIBILITY TO THE PRESIDENCY - "that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS,"
The United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett thereby recognized that children born abroad of US citizen parents are eligible to run for President of the United States.
There is ONE REASON, and one reason only to draw a legal distinction between "citizens" and "NATURAL-BORN citizens," and that is ELIGIBILITY TO RUN FOR AND SERVE AS PRESIDENT.
This is therefore an EXPLICIT REJECTION of the birther doctrine that "natural born citizens" are ONLY those born BOTH on US soil AND of US citizen parents.
And if you can't convincingly disprove that, then YOU HAVE NO CASE; the "both-and" definition of "natural born citizen" is DEAD.
If you can shoot down my reasoning, you're certainly welcome to have a go at it. I doubt that you will, since you repeatedly completely refused, about half a dozen times, to respond at all to my analysis of Wong Kim Ark. But, there it is.
So we're back to:
And probably the one thing we can all agree on is that the Supreme Court ought to clearly rule on the matter once and for all.
Now of course you will undoubtedly reply that that was a naturalization law. In any event, we have Congress passing a law that clearly and specifically gives the children of US citizens born abroad the right to run for, and serve as, President of the United States.
And these were our nation’s FOUNDING FATHERS that passed this law. It was enacted three short years after the Constitution itself!
It is abundantly clear, then, that the Founding Fathers intended for at least the children of US citizens abroad to be able to run for President. They quickly passed a law that would remove any doubt as to whether such children were eligible to run for President or not.
Of course, Obama is (apparently) the other case: that of a child born on US soil with only one US citizen parent.
Nonetheless, you can spin all you want, but you can’t get away from the plain fact that the obvious intention of the Founding Fathers was very clearly NOT to limit natural born citizen status to ONLY those born BOTH on US soil AND to two US citizen parents.
...a courtesy that you guys don't seem willing to extend to the other view that a lot of us, not only myself, hold.
First off, don't lump me in with others. I disagree on other issues with some of the very people I agree with on this issue. I'm an equal opportunity ogre. And unless you're some part of a group collective (which seems more plausible with each passing day) then you shouldn't lump yourself in one with your "a lot of us" categorization.
To paraphrase your reply... Well, I'm not going to change my mind on the basis of new and INvalid information! Would you?...
I'm not going to change my mind on invalid information or conclusions either.
So, aaaaaanyway, back to the latest.
It looks to me very much like cherry-picking for the results he wants.
You have every right to look at it any way you want.
If you can shoot down my reasoning, you're certainly welcome to have a go at it.
Why would I try to draw water from a dry well? The simple fact that you keep posting the exact same thing over and over and over and over...well, you get the picture. When an argument is presented you deny its validity, as you have in the past, since it doesn't conform with your opinion. And your ultimate desire IMO is to vaingloriously thump your chest and shout "I won" because nobody "shot down your reasoning" to your satisfaction. (Tis only a flesh wound)
...since you repeatedly completely refused, about half a dozen times, to respond at all to my analysis of Wong Kim Ark.
As I said, I'm not going to change my mind on invalid information or conclusions.
You wouldn't, as you've indicated.
I'm glad to hear that!
Do you also disagree with my views on Sarah Palin? :-)
I think she’s intelligent, capable, dedicated, honorable, articulate, already battle-hardened and tested, and our best candidate for President of the United States.
In spite of high current negative perception of her, which I believe she can probably overcome once you turn her loose.
Now all you have to do is convince me that you're sincere and that you're not just spouting what's expected. You could be simply blowing smoke up my backside.
I say that because of your last comment. I would have said "the best candidate". You give the impression of being either a Republican Party hack or a Democrat hoping she runs as you think she's beatable.
You're well schooled in nuance as I've learned and you seem to choose your words carefully so everything you write needs to be closely examined IMO.
In spite of high current negative perception of her, which I believe she can probably overcome once you turn her loose.
That sentence is so fractured I can't make heads or tails of what you're actually saying.
Okay. You want clarification.
In my opinion, Sarah Palin is the best candidate out there for President of the United States, because I think she has a decent chance of winning, and I think has a very good chance of making a great President.
Unfortunately, the challenges we now face as a country are so huge that I can’t think of ANYBODY that I have 100% confidence in. It’s going to take some big shoes to steer us through our debt crisis, in my opinion.
That said, I have at least as much confidence in Palin as in any other major candidate.
She has a record of going up against the establishment, fighting, and winning. She was extremely popular as Alaska’s governor. She got stuff done. Good stuff.
As far as convincing you of my sincerity, I seriously doubt I could convince you of anything you don’t want to be convinced of.
But given that you’ve said you pretty much agree with what I just said about her, I think you’d find that we have a lot of common ground in that regard.
As for the last sentence: There are a number of candidates out there that I like. I like Bachmann. I like Cain. I like Pawlenty pretty well. I don’t like Romney. One of my biggest reservations with Palin in the past has had to do with whether she could win, based on the fact that as recently as January she apparently (CNN) had a 56% unfavorable rating. If that many people have already decided they don’t like her, that’s a problem in regard to winning.
However, someone else has recently characterized her negatives as “reversible.” And the more I thought about it it, the more it seems to me that if anybody can turn around those perceptions, it would be Sarah Palin.
And the fact is, the media are going to crucify ANY really conservative candidate that steps up.
Actually, what they’ll do is play the same game they played with McCain: root for the biggest RINO, then turn even on him in the general election.
So any decent conservative candidate is going to have to run the media firestorm, and beat it. I think Palin’s got a head start in that department. For one thing, they’ve already fired most of their ammunition on her. Whatever they say now is just repeat.
As far as Palin herself goes, I think she’s charming and articulate enough to turn the tables, once she gets turned loose on the campaign trail and the public is listening to 50% Palin and 50% media instead of 5 or 10% Palin and 90 or 95% media.
That’s what I was attempting to say.
...I think she has a decent chance of winning...
I am of the opinion (will extend later) that she, and only she, will beat the tar out of whoever the Dems run. People are so fed up with the way things are (economically, environmentally and socially) it'll be another Election '80. Americans are sick and tired of Establishment Republicans and Progressive Republicans so the nomination of one of those types almost guarantees a poor turnout and an election loss.
More to follow. Doing several things at once.
Man, you need better sources!
Consider this...Palin hasn't even announced she's running!
No frontrunner in national GOP primary heat June 2, 2011
Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin share the lead at 16% in PPP’s latest national poll of Republican primary voters...
Let's put it this way regarding polls as references...if you ask Knicks fans if they like the Celtics what do you think they'll say? Just consider the source when you read a poll and always try to find the questions asked.
Well... probably!
Consider this...Palin hasn't even announced she's running!
Yep.
I would expect Palin to beat Romney for the nomination.
On the other hand, if she doesn't enter the race, we face a split vote among the real conservatives of the kind that made McCain the nominee last time around.
I can see Palin supporting another strong conservative for the nomination, but I very much doubt she would sit on the sidelines and let Romney take it. Not when she could stop that from happening, and may well be the only person who can.
That being the case (unless something big changes, which I don't see happening) I believe Sarah is going to run. I think it's just a matter of time.
I mean, how exciting is Romney?!
You take one step forward and two steps back!
Given the degree of discussion about Obama's legitimacy, the State officials had more than enough time and motivation to decide to look deeper. They did not. They simply accepted the National party's assurance that he was qualified, because that is what they had always done before. It never occurred to them that Democrats were so conniving and evil that they would intentionally put forth an ineligible candidate. Trusting Democrats Competence and/or Integrity was a mistake.
Wasn't Leo Donifrio's original lawsuit based on New Jersey letting a foreign born man on the ballot? None of the State Election officials in ANY state did due diligence. What motivated State Officials (in every state) to look the other way when they placed Obama's name on the ballot was the absolute terror of being labeled a "racist" by the Media if they had forced him to produce proof or withdraw. Likewise, the complete Haplessness of the Republican's legal team (who should have objected) because THEY also were afraid of being labeled "racist" and because OUR candidate had a problem with his eligibility as well. Had we gotten ANY other candidate, the issue of eligibility would have more likely been raised.
Perhaps State election officials were fooled and defrauded, but more like they were simply frightened of being the recipient of opprobrium heaped upon them by Democrats and the Media.
There are a number of things I find important, for different reasons.
You want someone who will do the right things.
You want someone who can and will effectively advance their agenda of doing the right things.
And you want someone who can get elected, because when all is said and done, if your candidate can't get elected, their other characteristics are never going to come into play in the office.
For this reason I find not only the things you mentioned important, but also passion, enthusiasm, ability to work effectively with others, commitment to getting things done, and yes, charisma and the ability to motivate people to get out and help campaign.
Lots of people will get involved with an exciting candidate. Star power is an asset to getting elected. Palin has it. Romney, on the other hand, is about as exciting (at least as far as I can see) as last week's leftovers.
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.