Posted on 01/02/2011 1:00:02 PM PST by opentalk
A non sequitur troll because no one lately has so it's not...is called illogical BS.
Your hook has already been baited...you're just fishin' in the wrong pond.
This video is pretty long but covers all the bases including Obama’s personal coments that he isn’t an American:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded
Lol; well said.
Okay, this should be up to your reading skill level. I took out those icky lines, a few extraneous sidetracks, and there it is. It’s not exactly the length of a Russian novel, so I’m sure you can slog through it.
I’m coming to the conclusion that the reason they (whoever “they” are - a bunch of ‘em) picked 0h0m0 is precisely because he’s not constitutionally eligible. The article recently by Ezra Klein clinched it. Of course, 0h0m0 himself said some years ago - was quoted on FR a number of times - that the Constitution is old, faulty, needs fixing, and so on.
They want a constitutional crisis so they can trash it. They hate the Constitution. That’s why these trolls - many of them hirelings - stick to the eligibility threads and repeat lies and nonsense that is proven false over and over again ad nauseum. They are basically p***ing on the Constitution - on purpose! They aren’t trying to convince anyone by repteating nonsensical lies over and over again; they’re trying to instill defeatism and hopelessness.
It’s not so much that their boy just happens to be ineligible. That’s the cherry on the cake, or maybe even the cake. They could have won with Hitlery, since McCain was such a feeble piece of - well, we all hated his guts. So even Hitlery could have won.
But they pulled strings and got 0h0m0 specifically so they could pound the final nails into the Constitution’s coffin.
Or so they hope. It’s not over, and we’re not giving up.
And stupid trolls like TNTNT (who’s probably going to blow up pretty soon, regarding his stay on FR) always focus on the eligibility threads because that’s the key to destroying the Constitution. If they were regular leftists just spouting, they’d post about other leftist garbage that 0h0m0 and his gang are perpetrating. But the in-your-face ineligible president is the full frontal destruction of the Constitution, and that’s their aim. The Constitutional principles and limitations on fedgov power and the protection of our rights are the only thing standing between us and tyranny.
And they know it.
Just thought of something additional. Their plans aren’t working very well, since 0h0m0 has messed up much worse than they thought. Even the DUmpsters hate him now. They thought that since he was so popular and adored during the campaign that the love affair would last. And that when eventually his ineligibility was made public, that no one would mind, and we’d all realize that a global citizen actually makes a much better president, and therefore the Constitution needs changing; and might as well change a whole bunch of other stuff at the same time.
But 0h0m0’s serious unpopularity has got them scared. He was actually a tool - a pry bar - to destroy the Constitution with. We all know he’s stupid, but they figured he’d be malleable enough to do the job. Not so.
The fact that they make fun of “birthers” shows that is the sore point for them.
All this repetition that “birtherism” makes conservatives look like kooks is because they want everyone to stay away from that issue.
Until, of course, 0b0m0 is so adored that everyone will accept a global citizen as president, and thus the Constitution is finito.
Plan didn’t work, though.
0h0m0 wasn’t the candidate despite the fact that he is ineligible, but because he is ineligible. And 0bot trolls aren’t here to convince anyone. We can see what/who they are, they just mindlessly repeat the same shot-down drivel over and over and over again.
They’re here to sow defeatism and hopelessness, that is their purpose.
To make us give up.
This Kenyan/Indonesian/British commie homo drug thug idiot is the final blow. If we don’t get rid of him PRECISELY because he’s ineligible, they have won. He is their coup de grace.
He’s so full of it that he really needs some Milk of Magnesia or something. Castor oil.
Just flapping on the dock for a few minutes. Already baited, hooked, and pulled out of the water.
I like the sound of squealing, actually.
Some castor oil to clean his bowel.
Maybe we could hold him down and pour some in with a funnel. For his own good.
He’s chronic and likely beyond help.
You mean like diverticulitis? Impacted bowel?
Okay, let’s take him to one of those high colonic places.
One of those puffer fish that puffs itself up to look much bigger than it is.
Their livers are really poisonous.
:-)
TNTNT, I haven’t been following this thread so I don’t know the ins and outs that have occurred, but if you are a lawyer as it seemed you had indicated, you would know that neither Lingle nor Fukino has used legal language that verifies Obama being born in Hawaii. Fukino’s statement was that she had seen the vital records verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii. That statement was in response to Terri K/Miss Tickly’s question of whether Fukino could verify that she has seen that they have “Obama’s AMENDED birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”.
MT specifically used Fukino’s own Oct 2008 statement as the template for that question, because Fukino could not claim that she cannot make such a statement since she already did. The only difference between the language used in MT’s request and Fukino’s Oct 2008 statement was the substitution of the word “amended” for the word “original” to describe the birth certificate. And the only reason that is significant is because it impacts the legal status of the BC. MT was indirectly asking the HDOH to verify the legal status of the BC/vital record.
Before Fukino even made the statement publicly she responded to MT’s question with that statement. It did not answer MT’s question; it totally evaded the question of legal status of the BC/vital record. And if the vital records Fukino refers to are not legally valid, then Fukino CANNOT legally vouch for anything on them, or personally testify as to what are the true facts of Obama’s birth. HRS 338-17 describes what has to happen before those records can have probative value, and Fukino’s announcement doesn’t fit the bill.
When World Net Daily contacted the HDOH for clarification of what that announcement meant, they were told that the statement was all the HDOH could say and they would not answer questions about what it meant. IOW, they don’t want to talk about the legal validity of the “vital records” they cited.
Sort of like Fukino’s first announcement which mentioned “state policies and procedures” when she was at that very time illegally hiding the HDOH Administrative Rules which would clarify what state policies and procedures she was talking about. She’s very happy to make statements which sound like what Obama wants to be true. But she was willing to break state law to make sure that nobody could find out what her statements really meant.
If ever there was a definition of “bad faith” I’d say that was it. If you are a lawyer you will recognize that as either bad news, or as native language. And which of those 2 it is to you is a measure of who you are, and of how much anybody here should trust your input.
I’m severely disappointed in what I’ve seen you say on this thread, TNTNT.
Anyway, I think your argument that "the Democrats" (who I don't believe are any more of a single mind than "the Republicans") came to a group consensus to pick Obama because of questions about his citizenship is ridiculous. If you make a move like that to create a Constitutional crisis, as you claim, then you have to actually bring the matter to a head to make that point.
But in this instance, the Democrats and Obama have argued very strongly that he was born in Hawaii as a matter of fact, not as a matter of statutory law or Constitutional law. So they have been avoiding discussion of the exact "Constitutional crisis" point you claim they are trying to make.
Now apart from whatever criticisms you may have of TNTNT, you can probably tell from my posts that I've been extremely critical of Obama. The core of that for me is something that was obvious prior to his election. He is not a believer in American Exceptionalism, and in fact, the very concept is as offensive to him as is the bust of Winston Churchill. He's part of what former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick correctly labelled the "Blame America First" crowd.
My problem with the birther movement is that I think you've made it more difficult politically to make that argument. Far better rhetorically, and far more persuasive, to concede (or at least not dispute) that he is legally an NBR, but that doesn't prevent him from being an anti-American, disloyal scumbag whose view of America aligns more with that of Michael Pfleger, Saul Alinsky, Ayers than it does the mass of the Ameircan people.
My disagreement is with your tactics, not with your overall conclusions about Obama's merits.
One of the problems with that is that the HDOH has already been willing to break laws and either destroy or alter records on Obama’s behalf.
Somebody at a high level in John Brennan’s company had to specifically disable the security protocols 3 separate times, just during the time that Obama’s passport file was breached. John Brennan was rewarded by being one of the first cabinet appointments that Obama made, to be National Security Director. The man who oversaw the investigation of the breaches is now the VP who was such a huge embarrassment to Obama during the campaign. The woman who oversees the Passport Office as Secretary of State is the woman he flipped the bird at repeatedly during the campaign and who did opposition research on him that most probably led to one of her supporters filing the first eligibility lawsuit. So everybody who knows about what happened at the Passport Office has been given a cushy job in Obama’s administration.
Do you have any confidence that what is in Obama’s passport file right now is authentic and accurate? Why or why not?
Question, Bruce. So is it your opinion that the Founders, via the NBC requirement, did NOT intend to protect the USA from foreign spawned, foreign raised individuals with no appreciation for our unique history, culture, traditions, values, exceptionalism, singular sacrifices in the name of freedom, or even our Republic?
No, that is not my opinion. I think that's exactly why that requirement existed.
There are two different arguments here, though, that need to be separated out. The first is defining what constitutes a "natural born citizen", and the second is whether Obama meets that definition. The first is a legal question, the second is a factual one.
As to the first point, I'm a lawyer, and a member of the Federalist Society. Whatever the Founders meant by the "natural born citizen" requirement in 1987, it is my opinion that the first sentence of the 14th Amendment either clarified or established (depending upon your view of the intent in 1787) that anyone born in the U.S., as long as they were legally subject to it's jurisdication, is a natural born, as opposed to a naturalized, citizen.
I do not believe that sentence necessarily means that the children of illegal aliens are American citizens. However, IF Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother, he was not the child of an illegal alien. So, IF Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a "natural born citizen". I am aware that some other people disagree with that reading of the 14th Amendment, but I'm a textualist/originalist, and I think that's the fairest reading of the 14th Amendment, whether I like the result or not.
So then, the question boils down to whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii. I know there is a factual dispute on that issue, and I don't think concrete proof has been provided either way.
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.