Posted on 09/21/2010 8:59:08 AM PDT by wintertime
Mr. Limbaugh,
You have FAILED to defend the Constitution in the important matter of Obama's very questionable natural born status! On those rare occasions that you have mentioned the topic ( less than 5 total minutes) you have treated it like a joke. I am mystified that you have done this.
The only consequence, Mr. Limbaugh, for directing attention to Obama's eligibility as a natural born citizen would have been a little ridicule from the mainstream Marxist media. If you fail to defend the Constitution in time of relative peace and security, only a FOOL would expect you to defend the Constitution in the face of real tyranny, tanks in the streets, and cattle cars filled to the brim? Only a fool would expect you to do what is right and brave.
Personally, I will never fully trust you and your opinions again. Some things are deal breakers. That you have failed to cover the important question of having a constitutionally eligible president is a deal breaker for me.
By the way, LTC Lakin is facing court martial for having dared Obama to prove his natural born citizenship. LTC Lakin is brave and honorable man. Hopefully, you, Mr. Limbaugh, you will have one thousandth of the courage of this military officer, and you will do what is right. You will give LTC Lakin the generous time on your program that his legal case deserves.
Mr. Limbaugh, that little itty bitty phrase in the Constitution about having a natural born citizen for a president is **not** a JOKE!
Respectfully,
Wintertime
He has had a rather remarkable impact on the conservative movement in the 20 years he has been preaching the gospel according to Buckley.
You throwing a tantrum because he won't embrace your nutty conspiracy has even less impact than you can imagine.
Your increasingly manic machinations are in stark contrast to what most conservatives know to be the truth about Rush. He continues to show good judgment by avoiding the meritless birtherism topic, while concentrating on the importance of getting conservatives elected.
If you want to do something "useful" why don't you put on a pink outfit and try to arrest David Axelrod at his next public appearance...and stop trashing people who are doing an excellent job of teaching fundamental conservatism to millions of people.
Someone needs to send Rush the video on the web of a man telling how two different versions, one for Hawahii and one for the other states were sent out by Pelosi to states ‘certifying’ Obama’s eligibility/ineligibility to be a POTUSA candidate. This doesn’t mention anything about a birth certificate. Instead it /he gives facts about Hawahii’s strange acceptance of a Pelosi statement for eligibility in place of the state’s usual certification which the state did not use which would have vouched for Constitutional O.K.
We must pressure Rush to make a statement other than jokes. For a smart guy, he sure is having a difficult time deciding how to address this crisis.
Ah! The “nut and slut” attack! Gee! How UNoriginal!
The first two personal insults are the “nut” part. The “pink outfit” insult is the slut part!
Just as the “race card” has been maxed-out, so has the “nut and slut” card. It's time to find a different strategy.
It's difficult to respond to personal insult and, honestly, your argument ( if there is one buried among the nut and slut comments) isn't worth my attention.
By the way...Since you are on the afterbirther team maybe you could pop over to the following thread. I find it **amazing**! Whenever there is a natural born citizenship thread the Obots are all over it like a swarm of killer bees. It takes less than a few seconds.... But...on the following thread there have been no trolls. ( Very odd!)
“The Democratic Party of Hawaii refused to Certify Obama”
Exactly! The Constitution isn't a joke!
For a smart guy, he sure is having a difficult time deciding how to address this crisis.
Cowards can smart.
For a smart guy, he sure is having a difficult time deciding how to address this crisis.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That should read: Cowards can be smart.
Sorry...It’s getting really late.
He doesn't say anything about the children of aliens and he doesn't express his personal doubt. He explained in no uncertain terms what defintion was understood by the framers of the Constitution. He said some authorities go further, but that there have been doubts. He doesn't say who has the doubts. He simply says that it's "sufficient is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." So, there is no uncertainty. He doesn't say he doesn't know how to define this type of citizenship or that he doesn't know which definition to use. He certainly had a perfect opportunity to proclaim that the 14th amendment redefined what it meant to be a natural born citizen. Of course, its existence already destroys the notion that anyone would be a naturl born citizen without citizen parents. If that was what the definition was, there would be no need for the citizenship parts of the 14th amendment.
If you wish to claim to the contrary, please show me the passage where Waite rules that children of aliens can't be natural born citizens.
I already did. He told us what definition was used by the framers of the Constitution. It required the children to born of citizen parents.
The court DID NOT accept it as the exclusive definition. The court explicitly left open the question of whether children of aliens could be natural born citizens.
Not at all. He said what the framers used and that it was sufficient. There's no question left open by those statements.
Please cite a paragraph.
And you'll admit I'm right??
... Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
"Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship."
It doesn't surprise me that you missed the similarities between your Rush rants and Code Pink.
They too delude themselves into believing their antics are producing results for their misguided quest.
Your constant Rush (Levin, Hannity, etc...) bashing puts you good company...
When they have their little pink meetings, I'm certain they congratulate each other on all the "awareness raising" they've achieved.
Rush is a coward! Rush is a coward!!
First of all, Rush is a private citizen. What about the elected officials - and PAY THEIR SALARIES to represent us ‘we the people’.
Secondly, I don’t understand why Lakin has to proved anything. Isn’t it know that his father is/was not a US Citizen. In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, both parents must be USA citizens. And for the exact reason, we are see now being playing out - Barry has shown he has no allegiance to the USA. Perhaps, you might want to question his lawyer.
Correct.
John Jay’s careful addition of the adjective “natural” was wise indeed.
Jay was very familiar with Vattel’s Principles of natural law.
Natural Born Citizen. A unique combination of citizenship and sole allegiance.
Natural - via the laws of nature, not available to be awarded statutorily
Born - at the time of birth
Citizen - a member of a state of political community
The Founders specifically rejected “citizen” in favor of natural born citizen.
Perhaps the better way to ask the question is this:
Who is a US citizen at birth and is no subbject to the jurisdiction of any other foreign power or influence?
“Natural Born Citizen. A unique combination of citizenship and sole allegiance.
Natural - via the laws of nature, not available to be awarded statutorily
Born - at the time of birth
Citizen - a member of a state of political community”
Essentially correct! Thanks for your input.... See my post #190 where I expound on the term NBC being essentially a cojoining of the legal concepts of Jus Solis AND Jus Sanginis citizenship.
Given the rethinking and evolving direction of western political thought in the 1700’s, the marriage of these two concepts of citizenship makes perfect sense to address the concern of the Founders of the nation possibly being led by a President with mixed loyalities...or by one with even the appearance of mixed loyalities.....
The after birthers that these threads attract, seem to promote the idea that anyone not born by “C Section” meets the intent that Founders had in mind when they wrote the eligibility requirements for the Office of President and used (coined) the term NBC.....to them the Jus Solis concept prevails in and of itself, effectively standing alone without modification or regard top any other concept/constraint......
I don’t know about anyone else, but I find it difficult to believe that the Founders had in mind, or in intent, to enshrine the idea that the new country they were founding should be led by what is essentially a “serf” and with the loyalities that that term implies when taken alone.
I believe that the Founders, a group of well read and considered thinkers well versed in the cutting edge political thinking of their time, in establishing the greatest governmental system ever devised by man, reached for the best among us for President, rather than groping around for the least in the nation’s population.....
Rather like show dogs, our President should, and must, show his “pedigree” of birth to two purebreds in order to compete in the Presidential ring.... Obama fails the pedigree test and is the cur the Founders sought to avoid.
You bet! It's that race issue thingy.
Also...I am reminded of the Muslims who riot and kill when a cartoon of the leader is published.
Well...The blacks of this nation have rioted too, over issues. Rodney King is one example. And...Disqualifying Obama would be whacking that bee's nest with a stick!
He very clearly does:
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."
If the parents aren't citizens, then they must be aliens. DUH.
He explained in no uncertain terms what defintion was understood by the framers of the Constitution.
Not true. Nowhere does he assert that the founders would have understood natural born citizenship to exclude children of aliens.
He said some authorities go further, but that there have been doubts. He doesn't say who has the doubts.
Given that he neither denies nor confirms these authorities, it follows he must be among those with doubts about them.
He simply says that it's "sufficient is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
That's because the case before him did not involve a child of aliens, but a child of citizens born in the USA. For this reason, he did not have to rule on matter of a child of aliens and left the question unresolved. He explictly says so, for crying out loud:
"Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
So, there is no uncertainty.
LOL. There are doubts, but no uncertainty. Riiiiight.
He doesn't say he doesn't know how to define this type of citizenship or that he doesn't know which definition to use.
I see. So he says "there are doubts," and then refuses to rule on the question, even though he knows for sure children of aliens aren't natural born citizens. Riiiiiight.
He certainly had a perfect opportunity to proclaim that the 14th amendment redefined what it meant to be a natural born citizen.
How could he proclaim the definition was changed if he wasn't certain about the original definition in the first place?
Of course, its existence already destroys the notion that anyone would be a naturl born citizen without citizen parents.
No it doesn't.
If that was what the definition was, there would be no need for the citizenship parts of the 14th amendment.
The purpose of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was to make black people citizens. While US-born children of aliens were natural born citizens before the 14th amendemnt (with the usual caveat about diplomat parents and the like), black people born into slavery were not. In fact, some states refused to grant citizenship of any kind to even free blacks.
He told us what definition was used by the framers of the Constitution. It required the children to born of citizen parents.
He said no such thing, and your unsupported assertion that he did will not make it so.
He said what the framers used and that it was sufficient.
First of all, he nowhere says the framers understood natural born citizenship to exclude native-born children of aliens. Second of all, he says the more restrictive definition of NBC was sufficient FOR THE CASE AT HAND because it involved a US-born person with citizen parents. He did not have to get into the question of alien parents because it wasn't part of the case before him.
And you'll admit I'm right??
No, because you are wrong. The Wong case cites the Minor decision, but it nowhere endorses Justice Waite's claim that there are doubts as to the status of native-born children of aliens.
In point of fact, Justice Gray in Wong leaves absolutely no doubt as to the fact that such children are included in the definition (subject to the usual exceptions of children of diplomats and the like).
Bump for later.
Fact: It is a simple matter to prove one’s natural born citizenship status.
Obama has been politely asked to prove, with the best evidence, his natural born citizenship. That he has
not promptly and willingly done so should be a **MAJOR** news story...yet..our leading conservative yappers ( Rush Limbaugh and the rest) have ignored Obama’s eligibility from the beginning. ( I am mystified.)
Honestly...The dog winning the Best in Show has a better document trail than Obama, and the media is dead on arrival.
It is difficult to respond to personal insult.
Not really...
wintertime has an unhealthy obsession with Rush and the fact that he refuses to embrace birtherism. He/she constantly insults Rush by calling him a coward.
On this thread, I responded to her insult by pointing out that he/she shares similarities with the mentally unstable rantings of Code Pink. And you responded to that insult.
See... pretty easy if you think about it. Your turn.
obama’s mission or why the powers that be wanted him in the White House? To complete the destruction sovernigty of the United States and pave the way for the Globalists.
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.