UNDEAD REVOLUTION: Historical Attack on Obama POTUS Eligibility, Part 1 (Donofrio)

I think it's in what Starwise reposted?

"And this is just the beginning of my decimation of these ignorant, intimidated, scared rabbits who seem to be afraid of crazy name-calling that has no basis in fact, and thereby, throw out the law for fear of being ostracized"

He's calling out those who are running scared from the Chicago-thug labels that Obama used to defend himself in this entire affair. He's making the clear distinction between the historical facts and the rumor of the day that "has no basis in fact".

Basically, he's saying that Eric Erickson is a dumbass who didn't do his homework and is intimidated by the Chicago-thug labels because he doesn't want to be labeled as a "birther" who assumes that if Obama just proves he was born in Hawaii, that's good enough for the framers of A2.

He makes the distinction between a "birther" as defined by MSNBC, those who don't believe Obama was born here, with the history of the Constitution itself. He says it's not "one and the same".

Then he picks out a distinct quote from a writing made by Ide in response to Collins who was the attorney in the Wong Kim Ark case that appeared on Leo Donofrio's blog back when UR was feeding him the hidden proof we can't find on the internet because that proof is mysteriously missing.

I know Donofrio put up a few pieces by Collins but does anyone remember if he put up the entire one by Ide? I don't think I copied that one and Donofrio took down the stuff they gave him right after Undead Revolution stopped talking.

One thing is clear. Erickson is playing politics and doesn't know enough about history to stand up to a "birther" label and call out the truth for what it is. One (birthers) is a hypothetical and the other (the constitutional history) is fact. UR finds the documentation of the actual history behind Wong Kim Ark and throws a piece of it in his face.

I doubt Erickson would respond. None of them ever respond to the constitutional side of this. They don't know how! How this guy Erickson ever confused Wong Kim Ark with those that think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii is anyone's guess. But he seems to have declared war on all of them by banning anyone who doesn't see it his way. Go 1st Amendment! :/

Out of curiosity, I went and read not the RedState website, but the actual posts made on Twitter by Erick Erickson who wrote this article.

This is a professional of any kind? Who the hell talks like this and can be expected to be taken seriously?

http://twitter.com/ewerickson

He tweets, "In Washington, when people call you a "fiscal conservative" they simply mean you are for abortion and gay marriage."

Huh??? What does either have to do with fiscal conservatism?

Then there's, "I am so totally gonna have to take a real suitcase and check a bag for CPAC. A full week away from home."

Please stay home, Mr. Valley Man

And the clueless among the equally clueless, "It's not that birfers are racist. It's that they just don't think Hawaiians should be eligible for the Presidency."

And now we know why this guy couldn't argue Wong Kim Ark on the best day of his life. Just one, ONE quote from Henry C. Ide in the 1800's was more informative to explaining that case than anything that comes close to the so-called intellectuals of today.

It's a sad, ignorant and shameful comparison, not to mention a true reflection on today's poor education system.

In my opinion, the RINOs in Congress were also guilty of pushing legislation to change Article II. We saw it again in 2008 with S. 2678 and S.R. 511 when this came out:

http://zapem.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/obama-knew-he-wasnt-eligible-for-potus/

And it's because of that guilt they stay mum about Obama's legitimacy and continue to say nothing. But all the proof shows that Congress started this problem. The people pick up on it and question what's going on and immediately they are attacked with hardly any true Republican or even a constitution-loving Democrat to defend them. And why? Because they'd have to admit their own guilt and hand in this thing and they won't.

That's what is really going on here and the reason why MOST of them need to be voted out in November and in 2012. Because they're mostly all corrupt.

These jokers like Erickson are having a field day at the people's expense for a problem that originated in Congress and now they have the audacity to tell these people that if they dare question anything, they aren't welcome in their little cliques.

Then there’s, “I am so totally gonna have to take a real suitcase and check a bag for CPAC. A full week away from home.”

Please stay home, Mr. Valley Man

- - - - - -

LOL. And he’s a DEACON!

You should know that I am very late to the so-called “bither” question, and my attention was garnered only when I learned about “natural born” citizenship, through STARWISE’S unrelenting persistence.I have since tried to pay close attention and I have found your comments enlightening and reasonable, so thank you again. I agree with you, that MOST of them need to be voted out in November and in 2012, because tey’re corrupt and weaklings as well. There’s too much at stake to not take the issue seriously.

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.