Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, others to leave a Legacy of COWARDICE

VANITY

[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.

[Harlan1196]

“both of your posts” as in you and DiogenesLamp - that’s why included him on my reply.

Reading comprehension is a ongoing problem for you it would appear.

So I am a propaganda Jedi sent here to mess with people’s minds? I am glad you have maintained a sense of humor - you had me worried for a while.

[Harlan1196]

“both of your posts” as in you and DiogenesLamp - that’s why included him on my reply.

Reading comprehension is a ongoing problem for you it would appear.

So I am a propaganda Jedi sent here to mess with people’s minds? I am glad you have maintained a sense of humor - you had me worried for a while.

[philman_36]

You’ve got it so ingrained in you that you can’t even stop what you do even when you’re called on it.

[Harlan1196]

So I am a propaganda Jedi? Cool!

[Harlan1196]

And you can’t stop being petty and obsessed with me. Pretty ingrained in you it would appear. Even when called on it.

[philman_36]

So I am a propaganda Jedi? Cool!

@Self-enhancement
Strategic construals can also be more subtle. People make self-aggrandizing interpretations not only of their own attributes, but also of others in order to appear greater by comparison.

[philman_36]

And you can’t stop being petty and obsessed with me.

@Factitious Disorder by Proxy
Generally speaking, the goal or objective is to assume the “sick role,” and subsequently obtain the benefits that are generally imbued on them as a result.

[philman_36]

Please, continue. I'm pretty sure that others are finding this very illuminating and most instructive.

[DiogenesLamp]

There are many respected conservative legal scholars and judges that think Roe v Wade is bad law. Some of them sit on the Supreme Court. There is a mountain of published legal thought on the controversy.

I know of no legal scholars that think Roe v Wade is GOOD law. Even the Supreme court couldn't think of a good reason to retain it except "Stari Decisis"! (Which means Shut the F*** up! We've made up our minds, and facts won't change it!)

There are absolutely no respected conservative legal scholars and judges that accept the NBC = two citizen parents.

There are TWO, quite respected conservative legal scholars who have written articles that say being born on our soil DOES NOT MAKE YOU even a CITIZEN. (Let alone a "natural born citizen.") I am going to post links to their articles, but I can tell it is a waste of time to tell you ANYTHING. No piece of evidence will wake you up. Hell, you can't even READ the stuff i've shown you so far.

Ann Coulter:

George Will:

I don't expect either one of them to knock any sense in you either.

We know what the Supreme Court feels about the issue - the Chief Justice swore in Obama.

That is one possible explanation. Another is that he is IGNORANT about the correct meaning of "natural born citizen." Another is that he may have known what is correct, but felt it was in the interest of the nation to ignore it. (As the court did with the last Roe v Wade challenge.) You really are a simplistic thinker. I can usually see several possibilities with any group of facts.

There is no published legal thought on the matter (beyond birther websites).

Well, there's John M. Yinger

There's Lawrence B. Solum

There is Notre Dame President Charles E Rice.

There is Alexander Porter Morse.

There is Dr. David Ramsey's "Dissertation on the Manner of acquiring the Privileges and Character of a Citizen of the United States."

There is the Essay written by Legal scholar and Ambassador Breckenridge Long."

There is the Legal Opinion written in American Law Review by Legal Scholar George D. Collins.(page 134)

There is the Opinion of this Law book from Harvard.

The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).

There is Aristotle:

Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?

...Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;

...But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.

...a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;

And John Greshack:

et al.

Yeah, other than that, we got nothin.

Rube.

[philman_36]

You think people aren't smart enough, or knowledgeable enough, to recognize what you're actually doing.

And on rare occasions you come up against a hard ass like me who can "see right through you". See "Saran Wrap".

[philman_36]

Pardon me while I just post a little keyword item for myself for your “most excellent” and thorough reply.

[DiogenesLamp]

Some states don’t appear to have eligibility requirements to get on a ballot, some do. They still would not be able to actually take office if they won.

And you think this is reasonable? That a state should tolerate the expense of having an election for a non-eligible candidate when checking eligibility costs THEM nothing? What if the guy won? How many million dollars down the toilet for nothing? Seriously?

If you think this is rational, you live in a strange little world. In any case, you cannot argue that someone has been proven eligible because ALL 50 STATES had them on the ballot,

"BTW - didn’t every state let Obama on their ballot?"

while at the same time arguing that it's okay if they don't bother checking.

Some states don’t appear to have eligibility requirements to get on a ballot...

Your position has gotten so twisted that you now appear to be arguing with yourself.

[Harlan1196]

Both George Will and Ann Coulter want to deny birthright citizenship to the children of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Nothing about imposing a two citizen parent rule.

From Ann:

“For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.”

From George:

“Graglia says this decision “seemed to establish” that U.S. citizenship is “a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States.” So: “This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person’s citizenship than to make the source of that person’s presence in the nation illegal.”

Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to persons whose presence here is “not only without the government’s consent but in violation of its law.”

I agree with both, by the way.

Nothing about two parents. Notice that Ann like WKA?

[DiogenesLamp]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our justice system that I can’t help you with. That “hodgepodge of law” is the American Common Law.

No, you incorrect but pompous idiot, it is not COMMON LAW, it is POSITIVE LAW enacted by Legislation. The VERY OPPOSITE of "COMMON LAW."

When a Law is CODIFIED, it ceases to be "COMMON LAW." Why am I listening to anything you have to say? If you can't even get basic comprehension of terms right, what hope is there for you to get anything right?

Whether you give a damn what a court believes is irrelevant - that is our system of justice and it is not going to change because of your pet peeve.

It will if there become enough of us, and that is exactly my intention. As Franklin said:

"when truth and error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter."

With enough effort, we can get equal play, and with enough further effort, we will take over the meme. 50 Years from now, people will be saying "Everyone knows that a "natural born citizen" requires TWO AMERICAN PARENTS."

The present definition of NBC is the same as it was in 1787. NBS=NBC=born on US soil.

Except when applied to British Subjects (The Tory Loyalists who REMAINED British Subjects after the war) Indians, Slaves, Diplomats, Women who married Foreign Males, and in at least one case involving a fellow named James McClure.

Oh, and did I mention the Marque de Lafayette? He and all his Male Children's descendants, by an act of the Maryland Legislature, are "natural born citizens" forever. (Though NONE of them were born on the soil.)

You're theory also includes several million "Anchor Babies" and "birth tourists."

Not much of a consistency you got there. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

Read #409. He isn't stupid, he's a snake!

I don't mind people lying to me when they do a good job. If they put enough care into it, it doesn't look like they are lying. But when they are lying obviously and stupidly, I consider it an insult to my intelligence.

Lying in such a way as to get easily caught is the hallmark of a childish mind which has not learned better.

[philman_36]

But when they are lying obviously and stupidly, I consider it an insult to my intelligence.
Come on, now...@It was intended as a joke!
Perhaps a poorly delivered one, in hindsight, but a joke nonetheless. {;^)

[DiogenesLamp]

Every birther case in every court has failed.

Every Abortion case has failed. Every Homosexuality case as failed. Every Property rights case has failed. Every Prayer in Public places case has failed. Every Gun Rights case has failed... No wait! We WON that last one. "Ooops there goes, another rubber tree plant."

Now what’s different now? Nothing’s changed. Same argument by the birthers - same grounds for rejection by the courts.

Same argument from you. Apparently your side can make up their mind without needing any facts or reasoning, and then keep repeating the same fallacy argument ad infinitum.

[DiogenesLamp]

So I am a propaganda Jedi sent here to mess with people’s minds? I am glad you have maintained a sense of humor - you had me worried for a while.

More like a useful idiot."

It's not like you don't know what is going on, (though judging by your confused responses, that is a good working theory) but that you think your efforts are for some greater good than the mere "truth."

[DiogenesLamp]

Pardon me while I just post a little keyword item for myself for your “most excellent” and thorough reply.

Ha! I left some stuff out. For one, I forgot to mention Emerich de Vattel. Part of my problem is remembering where I put everything! :)

[Harlan1196]

Couple of things:

John Yinger is an Economist.

“John Yinger is Trustee Professor of Public Administration and Economics; he also directs the Education Finance and Accountability Program”

Charles E Rice is not the president of Notre Dame, just a retired professor. He does not argue for two citizen parent. He wants Congress to investigate. He says Obama may be eligible.

Alexander Porter Morse. 1904? He is talking only about children born overseas. He does not explicitly support the two parent rule in America:

“It remains to be decided whether a child of domiciled Chinese parents, born in the United States, is eligible”

Ramsey? Prior to the 14th Amendment. Superseded.

Your Breckinridge Long essay? You understand he worked for Woodrow Wilson and this is a political hit piece on Charles Evans Hughes who in 1916 was running against Wilson?

George Collins? A tiny snippet from a losing lawyer embedded in a long news article? Really?

The “Book from Harvard”? Out of context snips on a birther website in a essay written by “Linda Melin, citizen researcher”?

Solum is a good article but makes no stand either way. His paper is a discussion on the proper way to interpret Constitutional language to determine original intent.