WE MUST NOT ABANDON THE ELIGIBILITY WAR

Having been a “birther” since the movement's inception, I would say I've seen most, if not all, of the arguments proffered by members of the United Church of Obama against those of us who know that their lord and savior, the “lamb of Soros,” is ineligible to hold the office of president of the United States. Although their assertions inevitably fly well below the standard of even rudimentary logic, it typically stuns me that they can level them with such Fred-Phelps-like fervor.

Most at fault in this constitutional apostasy would have to be the deacons and elders of this denominational aberration, otherwise known as talk show hosts and news anchors, who, with Pharisaical fervor, unleash their condescension toward us as a reminder that our lack of “hope and change” palm fronds relegates us to excommunication from their Marxist Utopian temple.

Their arguments, which have heavily littered various internet forums, comment threads, newspapers and radio/television programs, invariably fall into three categories; but their use of each form of their constitutional inaccuracies is certainly not mutually exclusive to its respective category. Many times, they will combine them in an effort to confound even the most discerning among us.

The most common, of course, is their inflammatory accusation that any opposition to their anointed one must be fueled either by open or closet racism. Not only is this the path of least intellectual resistance for them, it is, philosophically, the most difficult assertion to refute, as it necessitates proving a negative (i.e., “I am not a racist”), which is nearly impossible to do. Moreover, in their Jim-Jonesesque world, they are blinded to their logical inconsistencies, considering that Ambassador Alan Keyes and Pastor David Manning are vocal spokesmen of the facts surrounding Obama's ineligibility; and, that the majority of our camp is quite supportive of political figures such as Herman Cain and Allen West. Probably one of the best retorts to this stupidity that I've seen recently was in an internet forum. After being labeled a racist by one of the Koolaid-driven Obots, one “birther” responded with “Fraud is not a color!”

Next in the arena of mindless arguments set forth by the worshipers of the empty suit from Kenya are those that immediately identify these arguers as being completely devoid of any serious (or casual, even) understanding of these issues. I suppose the most common of these arguments conclude that Obama is eligible because: “He was elected by a majority of Americans,” “There is no way he could have become what he has if he hadn't been thoroughly checked out at each step of the way,” “He is a citizen because he was born in Hawaii,” and “If Hillary didn't press the issue, then there must not be one.” To these “Einsteins,” I normally just tell them to turn off the TV, do some reading on the topic, and then they MIGHT be allowed to proffer their opinions.” And, I am always serious about the possibility that they might not be allowed to as well.

If, by chance, one of these intellectual giants actually does put in some reading time, his presuppositions will likely blind any possible honesty in his thinking, and lead his delusions into the ability to assert one of the arguments from our last category—erroneous premises that are based upon either purposed deceit or innocent misunderstanding of relevant case law and/or historical precedent. These arguments are always the most tedious to counter, as they are usually very lengthy in nature, and include the language contained in specific U.S. Code Sections, court opinions, or historical writings. Most typically, they will cite U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark, which they fallaciously assert settled the definition of “natural born citizen,” when, actually, it merely defined “native born citizen,” which speaks only to birthplace, and not parentage. Or, they try to force an understanding of the 14th Amendment that does not apply, as that amendment deals with citizenship, and has nothing to do with whether or not one is a “natural born citizen.” As previously mentioned, often two types of the aforementioned three will be combined, with the common denominator being the “racist” argument.

As an aside, here are the facts: The historic definition of “natural born citizen” is “one who is born on our soil to citizen parents.” The Article II constitutional requirement has never been amended, nor has the definition ever been changed by any ruling authority. Period. It doesn't matter how well, or how lengthy, the assertions otherwise might be, those are the facts. That little bit of text is philosophically sufficient to reduce the false arguments to rubble.

While many of us have been able to show the most common of these arguments to be the equivalent of legal fertilizer, occasionally some pimply faced underpanted teenager will levy a new convoluted idea, which will then be repeated by another intellectually-challenged constitutional authority wannabe, and it will ultimately find its way into common discourse. I have recently been challenged with a new argument by more than one of these “high-on-Obama” addicts, and it goes something like this: If one believes Obama is not eligible for the office of president because he does not meet the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, it is asserted that one must demonstrate that he believed his understanding of the clause before Obama ever came onto the scene, otherwise, it is asserted that one merely dug through the mounds of historical legal “theory” to come up with one that fits his desire to get Obama out of office (and here, is often added the additional accusation that it is because one cannot stand a black man being president).

I even had one of these geniuses demand that I show him physical proof that I believed that “natural born citizen” meant “born on our soil to citizen parents” before Obama became president, or he would never accept that I believe that definition of the term. My first question to that illogical demand is, “When did what I believe ever change the definition of any term?” Note that his demand did not imply that he would believe the definition, only that he would believe that I believe it, which is of no import in the discussion. It has been stated that the truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, so whether this, or any of these armchair justices, believes it, is immaterial. I simply enter into these discussions to provide the truth, not to prove anything about myself.

Additionally, the lack of objectivity is painfully apparent in this argument, as it presupposes that every American citizen is fully aware of every law on our books, and is not allowed to learn the aspects of any law, or form a subsequent opinion about the meaning of any law. The fact is that, in our lifetimes, every serious presidential candidate has fulfilled the natural born citizen requirement, so the issue never even needed to be addressed. It wasn't until a presidential candidate with a constitutionally questionable background presented himself to the general public that it was even necessary for the American people to determine what the highest law of our land dictates. Some of us did that, while the rest of the country allowed itself to be mesmerized and led by their politically correct noses.

It is evident that these discussions will continue until a definitive correct answer to it is provided by either our justice system or legislative bodies, or until we just give up out of sheer frustration. While it is obvious that the Obamavangelists in the media have made our job much more difficult than it should have been, by spoon-feeding their poison pablum to the gullible masses, we must, nonetheless, never abandon this eligibility war. While they continue to tout that our entire argument is that Obama is not “a citizen,” they know that there are actually two issues: whether or not Obama is a citizen, and that he is NOT a natural born citizen. Again, those are two different matters, each with its own details of evidence.

We don't need any further truth, we merely need a “voice.” Donald Trump provided ample proof of that, for nobody in the hallowed halls of our government gives half a belch about what we “smelly tourists” have to say—until they are forced to listen. Sadly, Trump seems to have proven that he was only out for publicity, for he has shrunken from the real constitutional issue at hand, and has expressed satisfaction with the second forged birth document. With his abdicating the fight long before it was finished, he likely also forfeited any possibility for a serious presidential bid. He must not realize who his base truly was.

But, we must carry on, for there very well could be another Trump waiting in the wings to further our fight for the Constitution; and, we must also not forget the brave leaders that we already have, who are still fighting in the trenches to bring as many lawsuits as it takes for this matter to be considered, not only thoughtfully, but rightfully, by our nation's courts. We should also highly regard the authors and real reporters who continue to provide us, not with elitist rhetoric and disdain, but with the facts.

And, we must consider what forfeiting this core principle would do to the historical record. Obviously, the best we can hope for would be for this usurper to be relegated to nothing more than a footnote in our national history—for it to be ruled that Barack Obama has not been eligible to hold the office of president since the day he was born, because his father was never a US citizen, and therefore, he is not a natural born citizen. That can, and should, still happen.

However, at the very least, we cannot allow his constitutionally illegal presidency to be historically recorded WITHOUT a footnote; and continuing to hold our government accountable to answer the question we have repeatedly asked will force historians to conclude that Obama's legitimacy was something that a significant portion of the American people questioned until the day he left office (whether that be on Marine One, or in handcuffs, having been arrested for fraud).

Finally, those who have weighed the evidence honestly know, beyond all doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to be where he is. He is still obfuscating his birth and life records, supplying fraudulent forgeries, and working overtime to keep the public discourse about his eligibility away from his Kenyan father. As a matter of conscience, I must, daily, take a stand against this crime. Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing,” and I simply cannot allow myself to stand idly by and watch evil continue to triumph.

Our birther fort has been battered by the slings and arrows of indecent people in decent suits, but we still stand, and our tin foil flag still waves. Citizen brothers and sisters, do not shrink from this truth, do not defer to the anti-Constitution stench that invades our senses from the airwaves and presses (regardless of how insignificant and ridiculous they proclaim you to be), and, most of all, stay true to the truth for the sake of your consciences. That truth will eventually see the light of day if it is ever proclaimed loudly enough over the din of the deceptiveness that runs rampant through our streets.

Natural born Citizens are born from citizen parents..this has been free republics policy for several years..the recently released birth certificate confirms our spurious born obama is merely a perpetual inhabitant.

The birth certificate has been a ruse..a deception..from Obama’s lack of natural born citizen status.

There can be no doubt Obama is not a natural born Citizen based on the foreign citizenship of his..transient alien father who was deported.

How many Presidents have there been whose father was deported....

I heard a caller on Sean Hannity’s radio show trying to discuss the fact that obama’s not a natural born citizen, and Hannity was laughing him off, dismissing the call because obama’s mother was a citizen.

What is it with people like Hannity and Beck? They go so far to expose the treasonous activities of obama and those surrounding him, and reject this subject of eligibility. There’s a disconnect that is not logical.

I agree he is not eligible. We need to factor in the blood on the streets. Black America would explode. Ask yourself this: Is it worth it? We’d get Biden...what would that change. I’d rather beat the Kenyan in November of ‘12...it would be done on the issues.

Take a look at how the media protects him. His LFBC is likely photoshopped...yet not a whisper, noteven on Fox has appeared in the media. Do we want to go this route?

I’m asking a question here. Not sure of the answer myself.

On his Friday night program, O'Reilly inadvertently revealed why he, Hannity, many others on Fox News and elsewhere pretend that the birther issue is bogus. O'Reilly was having a discussion with Glenn Beck about Obama's visit to Ground Zero. O'Reilly thought the visit was a benevolent gesture for the families of the Ground Zero victims. Beck's position was that it was nothing but political grandstanding. O'Reilly seemed to partially concede Becks point of view but ended the conversation with the comment, "...The greater good..." O'Reilly thinks that questionable issues may be decided on the basis of "the greater good" concept. He, no doubt, believes the USA would devolve into race riots and total chaos were Obama to be officially unmasked as the imposter that he is. O'Reilly sleeps well at night with the thought that the greater good is achieved by avoiding a Constitutional crisis and the pandemonium he envisions would result from defrocking the anointed one. In the end, O'Reilly believes he is taking the high ground and probably thinks he is protecting the country.

Add Mark Steyn to the list. Last time he hosted Rush's show he went on a birther tear to the effect of how terrible we were to deny the poor son of an African immigrant a chance to be president. Obama has one US citizen parent so that's all that is required per Mark Steyn.

That’s pretty much the point of my article . . . it doesn’t matter what kind of unrest the libs threaten (of course, they always say “black unrest”), the Constitution must trump all of that. This fight must be won for the sake of the law of our land. It’s not good enough just to beat him at the polls; it needs to be historically understood that he was an ineligible fraud.

The fall-back of “Obama has one citizen parent instead of two” and “we have to think of the greater good” are both bogus and cowardly arguments.

The “greater good” argument is by far the racist most bigoted argument anyone could put forward. It suggests that normal people of ethnicity cannot handle the reasoning skills required to compare an absolute standard to a current occurrence to determine whether that occurrence is in line with the standard. This is bogus and insulting to all races.

The “he has one citizen parent” is so cowardly it’s neon yellow! The constitution is clear. Two citizen parents are required. Unless cloning becomes the norm, every person will have two parents. Period. And American presidents must have TWO citizen parents. To say otherwise means that you are a wimp.

It takes courage, and moral fortitude to apply our lives to an absolute standard. But it seems as if our law-makers do not have this kind of inner soul. I am wondering if most American’s do? It seems to me that most are quite happy to have their moral thinking dictated to them and to act surprised when things don’t work out.

America is not great right now, and will not be great until the middle-aged generation get’s some backbone and decides to really stand up to our government on these constitutional issues. The tea party began that process, but it is not enough.

Common, every day people, of every ethnicity, who want the same dreams for their children that their parents gave them or wanted to give them, have to get a stiff spine and say, “I will not stand for this.”

On the eligibility issue that has not happened, and if it doesn’t America is done.

This fight must be won for the sake of the law of our land. It’s not good enough just to beat him at the polls; it needs to be historically understood that he was an ineligible fraud.

Not only is it MORE important to beat him at the polls, it's the ONLY thing that matters.

This is what Birthers were never able to grasp. America will survive if the country is ruled by man who may or may not meet the elegibility requirements. It won't survive if we're driven into insolvency and collapse. The Constitution is a wonderful document, but you somehow are able to overlook how it is violated in massive and life-altering ways, and obsess over a very minor and unclear item.

Politically correct restrictions on free speech. Infringing what 'shall not be infringed.' Commerce clause abuses. Eminent domain abuses. But THIS is what you settle on as the hill to die on? It's tactically and strategically pointless, in the grand scheme of our problems. Gas is $5 and rising. Unemployment is 9% and rising. Debt is in the trillions and skyrocketing. 1 out of 9 Americans on food stamps.

If we can't beat Obama on that, do you think anyone's going to care about Vattel? The Supreme Court and Congress doesn't care now, they won't tomorrow. There's no path to victory on it. It's a *dead end*.

Having it 'historically understood' that Obama was ineligible is nothing more than hoping someone chisels a footnote into our gravestone. It's not what put us in the grave. Losing in the polls to Obama is what matters. The rest is suicidal obsession with a dead end issue.

It is not just winning the next election that counts. You cannot allow someone who is most likely an illegal alien, who is a known Marxist, a known racist, and an anti-American Muslim walk out at the end of his term with all of our national secrets. He must be arrested and put away in a place where all of what he has learned illegally dies with him in his little hole. Please do not forget that he belonged to a cult for 20 years that espoused all of these traits. It would also be a disaster to establish that the constitution has been declared meaningless.

but you somehow are able to overlook how it is violated in massive and life-altering ways,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This statement of your is absolute nonsense!

How many time must it be posted that the Article 2 defenders can walk and chew gum at the **same** time! The wins in 2010 would have been completely impossible without the **hard** word and **dedication** of those defending Article 2 of the Constitution.

What is your goal and purpose? Hm? Demoralize the base and then ultimate lose those elections that your seem ( maybe) to care about? Why are you sowing division and discord? Pehaps you real goal is to see that Obama is reelected.

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.