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.
Geeesh, if you think your post is important enough for you to want people to read it, then make it readable.
“In 1971, Barry’s mom abandoned him, leaving him in Hawaii when she went to live with her husband in Indonesia. He lived with his Grandparents ever since he was ten years old, and it is unreasonable to think they did not acquire guardianship over him. Most likely they adopted him, and a new replacement birth certificate was created for him in 1971.”
I was going right along with you until I got to the above statement. What about Obama’s several years of upbringing in Indonesia, where he became known as “Barry Soetoro?” Do you deny that this happened? If so, why?
LOL I have listened to Rush a total of perhaps one hour in my entire life. As far as I can tell the man dances around the edges but when the shtf he ducks for cover. He certainly doesn’t do any thinking for me.
>>If Rush were to endorse someone today, and trash the other candidates, what do you think he would be able to accomplish AFTER the primaries?<<
You do know what they call someone who sells their principles for a buck don’t you?
Who said it was resolved? I said some judges say one thing and others say another.
You said it was simply an error on the judge’s part and reflected poorly on his judgement. You were wrong.
It is pretty pathetic that you have to personalize this to the point where every mistake becomes a deliberate lie. Your obsession with what I think is unbecoming - you make yourself look petty and mean spirited and you do nothing to advance your cause.
OK - so the judge said it. Doesn’t change my point that some judges call it clause 5 and some call it clause 4.
Judicial Standing is a triumph of Conservative legal thought. Conservative judges took a long time to enshrine the concept in the legal system. That is what protects you from liberals using the court systems to remove all of your rights - it is a fire brake against all the power residing in the courts and not in the hands of the voters.
Standing ensures that political questions are answered in the political arena. It ensures that elected officials can carry out the will of the voters. It ensures that nameless private citizens a thousand miles away cannot reach into your community and impose their values on your local government
I know at the moment that the issue is frustrating you. But it plays an important role and we are better off with it.
Absolutely not. All one needs to do is listen to those who do put him on a pinnacle and read what they write to determine what he has done and said. My perspective was validated back in ’08 during the run up to the election.
I said some judges say one thing and others say another.
No, you provided a footnote from an eligibility case and the footnote said that, not you. You even lied in that you wrongly attributed it to someone who didn't say it at all.
You said it was simply an error on the judge’s part and reflected poorly on his judgement.
Where? Show my words.
With you I view it more like checkers.
I enjoy the give and take of this forum. I enjoy researching answers and learning new things. I enjoy writing out my thoughts.
What I don’t do is think that somehow we are locked in some titanic struggle of good verses evil. We are two laymen arguing arcane points of law that we may or may not fully grasp. Sometimes we are right and sometimes we are wrong. And sometimes it is merely a matter of personal interpretation. But at the end of the day it is just talk that will have absolutely no effect on the real world. So if I get sloppy or misspeak, it is not end of the world. If you get satisfaction in “winning a point” well more power to you.
OK - so the judge said it.
And you thought your lying was going to advance your argument.
Doesn’t change my point that some judges call it clause 5 and some call it clause 4.
True enough. I'll be honest, this was an effort on my part to show just how dishonest you are in pushing your arguments just so you "win" in the end. You helped out beautifully. It seems that nothing is beyond you, even telling blatant lies.
I told you days ago...@From now on every time I see your screen name on a thread you'll see this...
You prove yourself to be steady in your character.
I don't want you banned, but you sure can sure leave of your own accord.
Good day.
This is how YOU introduced the issue to this thread:
“How could the court make such an error? They made the same error many times over.”
In another thread on the same subject you wrote”
“And just to show how even the court in Ankeny can get things wrong I give you this...”
So did the judge make an error or didn’t he? Not a hard question.
I like it here - I plan to stay. Your behavior simply strengthens my resolve.
That a "natural citizen" is born with no divided allegiance, and no recognizable claim (by Agreed upon International law) by another nation upon them.
If you can be drafted into a foreign army, you are NOT a "natural citizen." You are an "unnatural" dual national.
It is not the law now. It was not the law when Obama was born.
It was not the law for basic citizenship. It *IS* the law for meeting the requirements of eligibility for the Presidency.
Laws change.
Yes they do, but we need to be careful not to assume they did when they didn't. An axiom of legal interpretation is that a law cannot be presumed to have repealed a previous law unless it specifically says so.
Changing the laws to allow either parent to pass on citizenship is merely a back door game when regarding the CORRECT AND ORIGINAL requirements for the Office of Presidency. Since DUAL NATIONALS were not possible in 1787, they cannot be regarded as acceptable according to the meaning and intent of Article II.
And yet at the end of the day, the entire legal system appears to disagree with your interpretation.
WKA is the law of the land. NBC = being born on American soil. Every judge in every court from now until the end will adhered to that theory. Mark my words.
I am going to entertain no further discussion on the nature of this case with you. I thought "Remanded into the Custody of the Marshall" Made it pretty clear who was being prosecuted and for what. Common sense dictates that if the man wasn't going to be prosecuted by federal law, there was no reason to hold him further, but you seem to understand this case as well as you understand the rest of this issue.
The legal argument was her father was the product of an American father and a foreign mother. Because of father was an American citizen, she was an American citizen.
Yes, we get that. You have repeated it numerous times as if it proves something of consequence. The question does not revolve around whether *SHE* was a citizen, but whether BOTH PARENTS were citizens. When you breed a horse and a Donkey you get a mule. NOT a HORSE, and NOT a DONKEY. It isn't a pure one thing or the other. In the case of citizenship it works exactly the same way. You breed an American with an American, you get a "natural born citizen." You breed Two Kenyans, and you get a "natural born Kenyan." You breed a Kenyan and an American and you get something that doesn't know WHAT nationality it is!
A nice history lesson but completely irrelevant.
It would be a lesson if you were LEARNING anything from it. So Yeah, for you it appears to be completely pointless.
No one is going to state that American citizenship today can only be passed through the male side.
No one *IS* stating that... It is a measurement of your obtuseness that you THINK anyone is saying that. What is being said to you is that "natural born citizens" have always been born to parents of the same nationality, and therefore owe no allegiance to any other government. H3LL! It's right there in the debates on the 14th Amendment!
Obama’s mom was an American - he therefore is an American.
And Kenyan. Which the significance of, seems to be a bridge to far for you.
Tell me he does not have legitimate Kenyan citizenship. (from birth)
Are you dense, or what? You previously agreed with me that ROE V WADE proves that having the entire legal system agree with you does not make you wrong! And yet here you are again, repeating the same non sequitur that you tried the last time.
I have also pointed out to you that this argument is a variation of "Argumentum ad Populum" which is a logical fallacy.
If you aren't up to the task of keeping up with my level of discourse, I will spend my time otherwise. Cite a fallacy once, i'll point out that it's a fallacy. Keep citing the same fallacy and I will decide you aren't able to follow the conversation.
WKA is the law of the land. NBC = being born on American soil.
WKA does not use the term "natural born citizen." Everything that does, defines it as the children of two citizens.
Justice Gray was not so stupid as to leave out two words (natural born) unless he did so intentionally. Same thing with the 14th amendment. Your argument is crap.
Every judge in every court from now until the end will adhered to that theory. Mark my words.
That does not prove it correct. The Church held onto the Geocentric theory of the Universe even after Galileo proved it was incorrect. Black Robed Clergy in the legal profession are much like Black Robed Clergy in the religious profession. They are so infused with doctrine, that they can't even see the truth when it is pointed out to them.
Again, ROE v WADE, Lawrence v Texas, Kelo v New London, and Wickard v. Filburn are all WRONG! So unless you agree with those decisions, stop telling me that I'm wrong because a court says so. I have yet to see a court even LOOK at the evidence, so how would THEY know?
LOL
@here.
You can lead a stubborn mule to water and the bloody thing would rather die of thirst than open up its mouth and take a drink.
And it'll "hee-haw" all the while as if you're the one denying it the drink.
If you two want to push out I can go on the clock at 1..../s
Geeze, you are not getting it. No one is saying that "citizenship" is passed exclusively through the father. It WAS prior to 1922, but it is not subsequent to that act.
The Point is not that citizenship was passed through the father, the point was that "natural born citizenship" required BOTH PARENTS to be of the same allegiance. When a woman was automatically naturalized by marriage, both parents were ALWAYS Citizens. This "dual national" crap didn't occur till congress passed the Cable act in 1922, and their intentions were certainly not to change eligibility requirements for the Presidency.
What was the role of Partus Sequitur Patrem in 1960 in regards to citizenship?
None. A "citizen" can have either an American mother, or an American Father, or both. Unless they have both, they are a dual national, and therefore not a "natural citizen." They are a "Frankenstein Monster" citizen, Unknown and unforeseen by the founders, and therefore uneligible.
You want to err on the side of recklessness! The rest of us want to err on the side of caution. One only need look at the horrible mess this Foreign national president has done to see why the founders wanted no such crap in the Presidency.
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.