Posted on 02/19/2012 3:57:01 AM PST by Chance Hart
First off, I am a conservative and have spent countless hours listening to and reading the books of all these men. Reading Levin's Liberty and Tyranny was compelling, as were many of the publications of these Patriots. With the VAST amount of Constitutional research accumulated in order to write these best sellers, there is and has always has been one important fact known to ALL these men to be a Constitutional FACT missing. That non negotiable FACT is that according to the Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT eligible to be placed on the ballot, let alone occupy his present position as President of the United States of America! Obama himself touts the fact that his father was a British Subject at the time of his “BHO 2’s” birth, making him at the very least a duel citizen and not eligible to hold the office as president. Furthermore, Daddy was NEVER a citizen of the United States, again making Jr. ineligible with that fact alone. None of these men (as far as I know) served in the military for whatever reason and I think there may be some suppressed guilt because of that when I hear their accolades regarding current and former Men of Honor. As they refer to many of their callers and guests as “Brother”, they at the same time have never felt compelled to commit the heroic act of jumping on a Firecracker, let alone a Grenade to help save their “Brothers” and in the end help save this Nation. Levin is the one that has disappointed me the most when I heard him disenfranchise many of his loyal listeners on Jan 19th, 2010 (may have been the 20th) by referring to those that even questioned the eligibility issue as (paraphrasing) ignorant and foolish. He followed that comment by saying that Obama was of course eligible to be President. He, in my opinion is an expert on the Constitution and knows full well that his statement was an out and out lie. When the truth finally reveals itself, I can almost hear the excuses from these Less than Honorable radio and TV Patriots now – 1. I was given strict orders from station bosses not to bring up or allow discussion on the eligibility issue and to refer to those that do bring it up as ignorant Birthers. 2. Yes, I of course knew the simple truth, but decided it was the wrong approach to be honest when the proper way to handle this was at the Ballot Box. 3. Book sales were BOOMING and I was too GUTLESS to show the Courage that I ask my listeners to display on a daily basis. 4. There are a few in the business that are standing their ground on this issue and Liberals are calling them names. Sticks and Stones will break my Bones and even Words would really hurt me because I AM A COWARD! By the way, there are thousands of these Cowards walking the halls of Congress and other places that have at least to this point failed to MAN UP. All this makes me admire all the more the few that in their heart really do trust God Almighty and FEAR NO EVIL.
Again, I am not calling them cowards, but I have a problem with most of them for other reasons. They ALL are Freepers and their pre-show prep is just spending a few hours on Free Republic. Like many here, they have lifted some of my comments verbatim on their show. My biggest gripe is the way they spiked the DADT issue....
While I think there is some cause to reject your absolute assertion, you are correct that there is or should be room for disagreement.
But what there cannot be disagreement with is that Obama's entire pre-Chicago life appears to be a fabrication. He has never produced a real birth certificate or a standard (non-diplomatic) United States Passport of the sort that almost every adult, middle-class and up citizen has in a drawer someplace in his house. The computer images he proffered last April would never be accepted by any government for anything (e.g. getting a Drivers' License) and are almost certainly fraudulent or made to appear fraudulent in any case. The man is a bunko artist and belongs in prison regardless of the lack of clear definition from the Framers about the meaning of "natural-born citizen."
ML/NJ
This is the most telling. If he truly believed that Obama were Constitutionally eligible he would take calls to discuss and defend his position. He doesn't.
ML/NJ
Nutcase alert!
“For instance Beck said for us to let the police know that we are the good guys, yeah right? the police are working for the government, if the government is run by the bad guys the police will still be working for them.”
You found fault with Beck advising us when we demonstrate, to show the police we are law abiding and peaceful.
In contrast, what would you suggest?
Thank you. Yes, Levin is excellent. Possibly the most fearless of conservative talk hosts.
In truth, the other hosts often are “cowards” in regards to not endorsing candidates, etc. I have to accept it as part of their “schtick”. Although I will give Rush credit he lately has explained his failure to endorse as being necessary so he can give the ultimate nomineee his full support without contradiction.
Well said.
Ditto. Talk radio is the somma of the conservative masses.
Correction: "YOUR" ball
In fact, they were smart enough not to even pick up YOUR BALL and run it for you.
On the other hand, the opportunistic nutcases over at World-Nut-Daily (Fara & Corsi), have been running your ball for you all the way to the bank. LOL
Wise up.
This "anonymous" stuff is BS. Plenty of us here know at least several other "anonymous" folks from numerous face-to-face meetings. People I didn't know before I joined FreeReublic, whom I met here, have been guests at my house and at my daughter's wedding; and I have been similarly invited by them. It's too bad for you that you must be such a loner that this has not happened for you.
ML/NJ
Ever hear of Jay Diamond or Ariana Huffington?
ML/NJ
Everything in life semms to have a few exceptions. I just think Trial by Jury is the final failsafe mechanism the people have against tyranny, if the citizenry keeps knowledge of it, and it needed to be mentioned in the discussion. JMHO.
I agree. I also think it is worth it for the public to know that what the constitution says, and how it is applied, are two different things. If you are charged with a crime with a penalty less than 6 months imprisonment, there is NO right to trial by jury.
For some reason, the talk radio guys refuse to touch the homosexuality issue. Mystifying.
So would the 9-11 "Truthers". bttt
Since Bill Clinton was the first “Birther”, if there had been any way he and Hillary could have made that dog hunt, she'd be president today.
But Corsi and Fara are still "milking it" for all it's worth. And apparently it's "worth a lot", or they'd have found another "opportunity" by now. LOL
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. There is third way, find that the sitting President is ineligible for re-election. I will concede the first election but we've had four years to stop his re-election, where was talk radio?
“Which is it? There is room for honest disagreement, or disagreeing with the position you advocate represents incompetence and ignorance?”
The birther argument is a weak one. However, if you read the dissent to WKA, you will find it has some merit. I agree with this statement in the dissent:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
I could do without the racism, but I don’t think the Founders ever considered the idea that the child of a tourist would qualify for President. However, it is worth remembering that in the original draft, a naturalized citizen would have qualified.
But as a matter of law, rather than philosophy, there is not a lot of wiggle room. An administrative judge can’t go by what he thinks, but by legal precedence - and that is very strongly in favor of rejecting a requirement for two citizen parents.
The Supreme Court could decide that Obama’s father was here so shortly that he was not domiciled here, or argue that times had changed since English common law since, in the 1300-1600, there weren’t many tourists or exchange students even. I very strongly doubt they would do that, but there is a little wiggle room for them.
But an administrative judge is not in a position to reject guidance from the Supreme Court, in dicta that has been very influential for over 100 years. I actually hoped he would, since it could conceivably set up a Supreme Court case that would give a definitive ruling...but I honestly think the Supreme Court feels they already HAVE give a definitive ruling, over 100 years ago.
Very perceptive! LOL bttt
“But what there cannot be disagreement with is that Obama’s entire pre-Chicago life appears to be a fabrication.”
I agree totally with you there. I tried to convince my legislators here in AZ that someone running for public office should be assumed to have waived all privacy rights regarding transcripts, taxes & past jobs - and birth certificates.
This is so true. Where is the point-by-point factual repudiation? Calling the other side stupid without any repudiation is a liberal tactic.
Savage!
I'd all but forgotten about him. He was sometimes quite good, and I think he honestly spoke about the birth certificate too.
But then NYC Metro radio station WOR (same station that dumped Malzberg) began preempting his show a half hour after it started to carry the audio from some MSM TV station news for a half hour. One would have to be more devoted to Savage than I was to put up with that BS.
ML/NJ
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.