I'm not dead yet!!!"
Posted on 05/07/2011 12:07:13 AM PDT by Music Producer
WE MUST NOT ABANDON THE ELIGIBILITY WAR
Dean C. Haskins
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.
And, do not mistake, the Obamaphytes sit on both sides of that church aisle.
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.
“...The greater good...”
I’ve always thought that is the primary reason so many put distance between themselves and this topic. If he WAS found ineligible, then what, does it then nullify everything he’s signed. I’m not asking....
Just pointing out the obvious nightmare.
Bottom line is regardless of merit, the battle, if won, would probably cause more harm than good. IMHO.
“If what you contend were true, the framers would have had no reason to include the grandfather clause exempting themselves from the NBC requirement.”
The grandfather clause wasn’t to allow George Washington to run. It was there to open the door to people who had immigrated and then risked their lives to found the new country.
The original draft of the Constitution had no NBC clause at all - just a residency one. And a number of the Founders argued against a birth clause, saying the people could decide for themselves if an individual candidate was qualified.
The grandfather clause was for someone like Alexander Hamilton, who helped put the clause into the Constitution. The original draft of the Constitution had NO birth requirement, only a residency one.
As for evidence, the courts were filled with cases in the early 1800s involving inheriting property, which in many cases hinged on the person being a NBC. And if a person had been a natural born subject of the colonies, and hadn’t rejected citizenship by choosing to leave the US, then they were held to be NBC of the USA. What mattered wasn’t who they were born to, but where, and if they had by acts rejected citizenship in the new USA.
Really ... deported? Where pray tell did you see this heretofore unknown information about Obama Sr.? Last I knew he completed his studies at Harvard and returned to Kenya. His studies in the US were funded by some sort of fellowship and he returned to Kenya, as planned, soon after his education wrapped up.
I'm not dead yet!!!"
Excuse me, waiter! How’s the crow today? Fresh, is it? Wonderful! Please, a serving of crow for the whole table.
You can lead them to crow, but you can’t make them eat it!
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.
It is odd and I have ceased to trust Fox as a result of it. Obama’s life story is interesting, to say the least, and no journalist has seen fit to look into it. Now, you can understand that from the likes of MSNBC, but I would think Mr. “question with boldness”, Beck could,at least, refrain from calling those of us who do question, Idiots and loons. Something does not add up. The whole way they covered the release of the latest fake BC was suspect.
I did. But seriously...you know you’re in the fringe.
I’ll stick with Truth and Justice for $1,000, Alex!
You write pure fantasy. First, where is your evidence for anything that you say? And, second, it doesn’t matter what some demented individual that a draft of the Constitution included. The only thing that matters is what it does say. Again, your posts are devoid of any factual evidence.
And, second, it doesn’t matter what some demented individual *SAYS that a draft of the Constitution included.
Which is why no one will touch it!
Remind me again who the Speaker of the House is?
Tell me the name of the Speaker of the House again?
Because the GOP has lost its nerve entirely.
And the name of the Speaker of the House?
...must ...not ...eat ...the crow!!
Yes, I cannot help but translate that as....
“this would be total slam dunk if pursued - and lead to the incarceration and disgrace of the President the Vice President and many members of the opposition party - and put a Republican in as President - and THAT is why there is no political will to pursue it.”
Huh? One shudders to imagine the fantasyland where THAT sort of political calculus makes sense.
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.