Posted on 07/30/2011 12:43:11 PM PDT by opentalk
I am an information technologist by trade and a Birther evangelist by proclivity. When discussing or debating the Birther issues with a newbie, in addition to a transfer education in law, the Constitution, the jurisprudencial system, and history, I frequently am a witness to the real-time acting out of the Kübler-Ross behavioral model of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.
For the duration of the discussion, the political spectrum orientation of the listener doesn't seem to matter, since the topical reactions and counter-bullet points are always the same. The debates are never linear, but desultory.
...Most people mildly exposed to Birther issues are stuck in the denial stage. However, anger erupts once the message sinks in that Barack Obama's April 27, 2011 LFBC (long-form birth certificate) is forged, that multiple criminal acts have been perpetuated, and that both political parties and all branches of government are culpable.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
a lot of the “birther” stuff, can get complicated. (and some, needs graphics experts).
so i think the best way to start, is something that is simple, clear, and easy to explain.
How did a Hawaiian teenager, get a Connecticut SSN ?
(under the laws at the time, for a teenager,
the only possible way, would have been to apply in person.
and Barry Soetoro never went to CT.)
it is his. it’s on his (dubious) Selective Service Form.
and it is a CT SSN. not Hawaiian.
I frequently am a witness to the real-time acting out of the Kübler-Ross behavioral model of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.
***That is the process I have been through, in grieving for the loss of America as a constitutional republic.
Lately I don’t even add the keyword “certifigate” any more. This is probably the last article I will do that for, because it seems well written and serves as a good punctuation mark for a good keyword.
... we have nearly an entire executive branch engaged in the office of running guns to drug cartels in Mexico --arguably an act of war, starting and perpetuating a war in Libya without congressional consent, "borrowing" billions of funds from the Federal Employees Pension Fund so as not to violate a debt ceiling that is already being violated, running election campaigns out of the White House, not enforcing polling place protection laws from Panther thugs, circumventing fed fund restrictions to abortion clinics, arranging Wall Street payouts to unions for stocks created out of thin air --and probably more.
So where do you draw the line when it comes to supporting the integrity of the Constitution and the Rule of Law? For Birthers, the line has already been drawn.
Really? I haven't noticed.
Could you point out where in the article it says that?
What I read was:
"Most people mildly exposed to Birther issues are stuck in
the denial stage.
However, anger erupts once the message sinks in that Barack
Obama's April 27, 2011 LFBC (long-form birth certificate)
is forged, that multiple criminal acts have been perpetuated,
and that both political parties and all branches of
government are culpable."
Are we reading the same article?
GMTA. I had already cut that excerpt myself, and was getting ready to paste it. Beat me by a couple of minutes. ;)
Try reading the entire article.
Hey tex-con,
What is your screen name at the fogbow? That is where people like you congregate to discuss strategies to derail the birth certificate and natural born citizen status (being half kenyan and all), isn’t it?
Why do so many posters (like you) spend so much time and effort verbally sniping at people (truth seeking conservatives) that are investigating the natural born citizen status of Obama?
With all this effort, have you talked *any* birthers away from their position? (If yes, please describe.)
You certainly are part of a curious breed.
Legally, that's just not true. Obama would not be the first government official in US history who has been discovered to be not properly holding his office by reason of a lack of some sort of eligibility or qualification.
In fact, it has happened from time to time at all levels of government and the law has become well established over the centuries as to what happens under the "de facto officer" doctrine.
Under this doctrine, even though it is later discovered that a government official who holds color of official title to his office by virtue of a known election or appointment failed to meet a prerequisite of holding office, such as an eligibility requirement, nevertheless actions taken by him within the scope and by the apparent authority of that office will be considered valid and binding. This has consistently been the position taken by the courts.
The only difference in this case is that it is the president. And in order to remove him, under the Constitution the Congress would have the responsibility to determine in an impeachment trial whether he is wrongly holding his office, and if so, to remove him from office after which the courts would then have jurisdiction to try him for crimes.
Ctrl-F it, friend. I know it’s in there somewhere. Probably around the beginning.
Yes, I found it.
Missed it the first and second time.
InspectorSmith
Why do so many posters (like you) spend so much time and effort verbally sniping at people (truth seeking conservatives) that are investigating the natural born citizen status of Obama?
One...As far as the “truth seeking conservatives” go, Trump's entry into the BC issue exposed quite a few folks around here as birthers first, and really flexible on the conservative part. Many birther/freepers made it clear they didn't care about Trump's position on important conservative issues, as long as he was a birther, they would vote for him for president. It was appalling. (And as a reminder...Free Republic is a conservative website, not a birther website.)
Two...Obama and birthers agree his daddy was a Kenyan. The birth certificate verifies what Mr. and Mrs. Obama brag about. How does the BC advance the natural born citizen argument? Answer...it doesn't.
With all this effort, have you talked *any* birthers away from their position?
Yes...but only if I supplement my argument with remote viewing.
You certainly are part of a curious breed.
Don't I know...I'm not a big fan of country music or beer...in Texas.
ping
So, you post on a board that basically has a mission of casting a fog over the birth certificate issue, and is tied in with democrat politics.
And you pretend to be doing people on free republic a service?
There it is folks - people might as well take advice on this issue straight from the democrat party headquarters.
(Incidentally, you do have a good point on Trump - he is a strange character - and should not be trusted by anyone, IMO. However, he was useful getting more attention to this issue for a while. kind of like getting in a good argument with a fogbower - at least it draws attention to the issue and draws out some information or disinformation.)
out
I call BS on your de facto officer doctrine read the case law.....it does not apply to Obama...
Is there any authority you have for that, or just wishful thinking?
yeah lots of authority read the case law...Obama was challenged as to his eligibility before he was sworn in..he publicly has not been accepted as lawful President by many people- two important parts of the doctrine..how many lawsuits were filed?
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.