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.

We need to factor in the blood on the streets. Black America would explode.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The above statement is a profoundly racist statement. It assumes that blacks have no allegiance to the Constitution and love of country or their communities, and are too stupid to understand why Obama would be ineligible. Undelying this above statement is the **racist** belief that black lack self control and restraint and have no desire for justice and rule of law.

When it comes to racism, nothing beats an afterbirther!

We need to factor in the blood on the streets. Black America would explode.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The above statement is a profoundly racist statement. It assumes that blacks have no allegiance to the Constitution and love of country or their communities, and are too stupid to understand why Obama would be ineligible. Underlying this above statement is the **racist** belief that black lack self control and restraint and have no desire for justice and rule of law.

When it comes to racism, nothing beats an afterbirther!

“The historic definition of “natural born citizen” is “one who is born on our soil to citizen parents.”

Really? Someone forgot to tell the British, and someone else forgot to tell the states after they ceased being colonies. All natural born subjects became natural born citizens at independence, including all those born of non-citizen parents.

But no one will be able to keep a birther from worshiping at the altar of Vattel, and certainly not “the language contained in specific U.S. Code Sections, court opinions, or historical writings.” Those things are soooooo much harder to read than WorldNutDaily...

Not only do you not have a single shred of evidence to support your assertion, it is also the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard. If what you contend were true, the framers would have had no reason to include the grandfather clause exempting themselves from the NBC requirement.

Well...I guess you could describe my comments as “racist”. It’s the kind of thing they do on MSNBC all the time...I think it’s called being a “racer”. I suspect you are one.

To say that the threat of black ghettos exploding if The One were forced to resign does not strike me as especially racist...it would be a new opportunity for the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons to reclaim their roles as black presidents of America.

It’s something that should be factored in. Calling me a name is not an argument.

We need to factor in the blood on the streets. Black America would explode.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Let's seriously examine this statement above:

** It is a blanket statement about the general population of all blacks. It is racist to do that.

** It assumes that the black community does not love the Constitution, the rule of law, and their communities. Personally, I'd consider that a racist position.

** It assumes that blacks would “explode” and “cause blood in the streets”. What does that say about the black races? That they can't control themselves and are violent? It harks back to the Jim Crow prejudices of blacks be “hot blooded”.

Personally....I have more faith in the American people Red, yellow, Black and White ( as the old Sunday school tune would say.) I am appalled that the afterbirthers who think soooo poorly of and have soooo little regard for the good sense of their fellow Americans who happen to be black. If statements like the one above is NOT racist, what on earth is?

You are using racer tactics. I have the following evidence:on April 4, 1968 MLK was murdered...riots erupted in hundreds of cities. White people were blamed for the act of one white man. THAT is racism. Consider the possibility that Obama is not legitimate and he resigns? Given the history of gehttos exploding...say Rodney King...it is a possibility politicians must take into consideration.

Take your racer tactics over to the liberals where they belong.

No one can say what the default action is in this case. Biden can not win a “fruit of the poisoned tree”, meaning a thing gained by fraud.

Here’s my take one: Cheney is the valid President, since having no validly elected (by the Electoral College or Congress) President, the last Presidency continues, but as Mr. Bush served his maximum already, Mr, Cheney rises to fill the Presidency.

Here’s my take two: Palin is the President, since she is the only valid, non-elected-by-fraud nominee voted by the Electoral College. McCain fails by birth in Panama.

Here's my take three: Those would be interesting plot twists, on alternate-reality planet. Here on Earth, those scenarios have no chance of playing out. Had John McCain won, he'd be President. Obama won. He's President. If he's not defeated at the ballot box in 2012, he'll be President again.

There is no possible scenario that ends in Obama being frog marched out of the White House because suddenly the Supreme Court and Congress decide he's not qualified to hold office. You must know that. So why continue to obsess on it?

Anyone who **assumes** that blacks will riot over a birth certificate is racist. This is the afterbirther argument. We should ignore Obama’s eligibility because blacks will riot.

Birthers trust the good sense and peacefullness of their fellow Americans. Only in the upside down Orwellian world of Newspeak could this possibly be called racism.

Afterbirthers are flaming racists.

Birthers trust their fellow Americans to be the patriots we know they are!

I am assuming nothing. Only pointing out that 90% of blacks who voted, voted for him. They consider him THEIR president; if he’s taken down there is going to be a price to pay...possibly through violence, in some places. Some black people I know believe the birth controversy is some sort of Rovian plot based on race and politics to discredit their messiah. Fact.

I’m just sayin’ it is a contingency to consider.

Oh....I see that you are back peddling from these racist posts. You only mean ....( flill in the blank).

Afterbirthers who claim that we should ignore Obama’s eligibility because blacks will or may riot are making a very racist statement about their black fellow Americans!

It is the Article 2 defenders who trust the good judgment and good sense of **all** Americans.

Back to Kos with you.

That’s not what I said and you know it.

Gotta go mow the lawn...I’d like to continue this but I don’t think you are capable of being educated.

Back to Kos with you.

That’s not what I said and you know it.

Gotta go mow the lawn...I’d like to continue this but I don’t think you are capable of being educated.

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.