Definitely. Oh, they want it so bad...
Posted on 04/28/2013 6:58:04 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
There are so many things wrong with this guy's past that the ONLY reason why he made it through the primary in 2008, let alone has been able to enjoy his ill-gotten gains to this very day is because of the sycophant and/or cowed media. Amazing how they could find out all about the hookers' backgrounds in less than a week during Se cret Service Gate, but five years in, and we still don't know with any degree of certainty who this dude calling himself "Obama" really is.
Fail.
“This entire article, like pretty much everything ever posted by birthers, is simply false. I’ve listened to the audio - TWICE - and the NPR executive named simply doesn’t say what the article claims.”
Here is my transcript:
Liley: “I don’t know any who are Democrats. But they are primarily conservative commentators and the people who follow them question whether Obama is...to run for president you have to be born in the U.S. For many other offices you don’t have to, but that office you do have to be born in the U.S. And there still IS a question about whether he IS, and that IS a FACT!”
If the fellow-travelers at NPR KNOW that it is a FACT that “there still is a question about whether” Barry was “born in the U.S.,” they are actually BIRTHERS!!!
Isn’t it about time for FR after-birthers, SPs and FogBlower trolls to admit that deep down THEY are birthers, TOO?
Good job Seize. :-)
At least I don't bogusly try to impress people with the fact that I understand Latin.
Plus a few other languages.
But that's neither here nor there.
You might understand the words, but the meaning certainly escapes you. If you can't posit an ad Numerum, an ad Verecundiam, an ad Populum, or an ad Hominum, you're pretty much out of arguments.
There's a big difference between acknowledging that some people still continue to question whether Obama was born in the US (which is entirely true, thanks to an ongoing parade of charlatans and birther propagandists), and acknowledging that there's a LEGITIMATE question.
Like quite a few people here, I've followed this whole thing pretty darn close. And I have NEVER seen any GOOD evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, or anywhere outside of the US.
Nor have I ever seen any GOOD evidence that there's anything at all wrong with his birth certificate. I've followed the discussion, I've listened to the arguments, heck, I've even read the book. Both of them.
What I HAVE seen is mountains and mountains of BS.
The executive in this audio, when you listen to the context, is clearly saying that there are still a lot of people who believe the birther stuff.
I DON'T hear her saying that there's any legitimacy to any of it.
Now I know all you birthers want to believe that's what she's saying. Fine, go ahead.
It won't make you any nuttier than you already are.
You can't even accurately represent an "ad numerum" or "ad populum" argument. You claim that the combined and overwhelming opinion of all the LEGAL AUTHORITIES IN HISTORY is an "ad populum" argument. It isn't.
There's a huge difference in saying:
"90% of people believe that "natural born citizen" means "born a citizen," therefore it must be true,
and saying "All early American legal authorities of any real stature, the United States Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, all major relevant court cases, and every major conservative Constitutional authority all agree that "natural born citizen" means either "born a citizen" or "born in the United States," therefore that's probably what it means.
The latter of which is true, by the way.
Against which, you have what? An argumentum ad unpopulum?
That virtually nobody in history, legal expert or otherwise, believes your claim... therefore it must be true?
What kind of freaking idiocy is THAT?
So you can't even accurately represent what an "ad numerum" or "ad populum" argument actually is.
You can't even make a decent argument for your BS position.
And you can't even SPELL "ad hominem."
You're an idiot.
embrace your inner birther and DEMAND they OFFICIALLY SUBMIT the birth certificate he held up
make them eat it and try to defend an obvious forgery
Unless you can demonstrate that your so-called authorities were Delegates or ratifiers, it is nothing else. The ONLY people who can opine on the meaning of Article II are the delegates and ratifiers of it. Ex post facto Lawyers are crap evidence.
And it doesn't matter how MANY of them you come up with.
“There’s a big difference between acknowledging that some people still continue to question whether Obama was born in the US (which is entirely true, thanks to an ongoing parade of charlatans and birther propagandists), and acknowledging that there’s a LEGITIMATE question.”
True, but you are either mistaken of deliberately attempting to deceive FReepers because that is NOT what she said.
Liley is NOT talking about SOME PEOPLE questioning where Barry was born, as you erroneously claim, she makes a DECLARATIVE statement of personal belief that there still IS a question.
Not only does she employ the declarative, she is EMPHATIC in REITERATING that there IS A QUESTION about where Barry was born and that the existence of that QUESTION is a FACT.
Liley is taking a stand as a SECRET BIRTHER and she clearly explains why, if you listen carefully!
Here is the transcript again:
Liley: “...to run for president you have to be born in the U.S. For many other offices you don’t have to, but that office you do have to be born in the U.S. And there still IS a question about whether he IS, and that IS a FACT!”
It is on the tape at 2:00 minutes.
And it doesn't matter how MANY of them you come up with.
Hahahahaha!
So now you're telling us that all of your quotes of Bingham, and Vattel, and Senator Lyman Trumbull, and Minor v. Happersett are all TOTAL BS, since none of them were delegates to the Convention, or ratifiers?
So we can completely disregard pretty much every word of the BS you've been spewing for the past 2 or 3 years?
That IS what you're saying, isn't it?
Definitely. Oh, they want it so bad...
The Constitution says he has to be a natural born citizen. It doesn’t say who is responsible for “vetting” him. So no one is responsible for vetting him on a national level. And if anyone claims to have vetted him on a state level, there is no recourse for citizens to challenge it. Most of the challenges have been denied by the courts based on “standing.” In other words, you don’t have the right to bring the case before the court because you are not an injured party.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
And it doesn't matter how MANY of them you come up with.
Hahahahaha!
So now you're telling us that all of your quotes of Bingham, and Vattel, and Senator Lyman Trumbull, and Minor v. Happersett are all TOTAL BS, since none of them were delegates to the Convention, or ratifiers?
Why do I talk to you? You quote me above with the explicit words "on the meaning of Article II" and are so stupid to ask why we talk about Bingham? Bingham is NOT an authority on article II. Do you know on what he is an Authority? THE FOURTEENTH F***ING AMENDMENT!!!!" When we are discussing *THAT*, he is a legitimate authority.
“Unless you can demonstrate that your so-called authorities were Delegates or ratifiers, it is nothing else. The ONLY people who can opine on the meaning of Article II are the delegates and ratifiers of it. Ex post facto Lawyers are crap evidence.”
To this you can add all of the state courts and federal courts below SCOTUS who have opined on the meaning of NBC.
Even the Ankeny Court acknowledged in dicta that the WKA opinion did NOT rule that WKA was an NBC. The Ankeny Court stated that the fact pattern of WKA did not match the claimed fact pattern of Barry’s official “Dreams” narrative. Ankeny only agreed that the lower state court’s mash-up of the 14A with WKA and concluding that Barry was NBC was “persuasive.”
IMO there is NO SCOTUS ruling on whether a candidate like Barry would be NBC in an on-point case (identical or even close in fact pattern) in light of the “evolving” legal case law interpreting the Constitution up to the present moment. Therefore declarative statements that Barry is or is not NBC are premature.
Most states’ laws leave the vetting to the major political parties. Anyone who gets a major party’s endorsement is good to go. Citizens CAN challenge candidates’ names being placed on a ballot. In 2012 there were 50 challenges heard by state elections boards and courts in 22 states plus the District of Columbia. No challenge was successful.
Liley is NOT talking about SOME PEOPLE questioning where Barry was born, as you erroneously claim, she makes a DECLARATIVE statement of personal belief that there still IS a question.
No, she isn't.
And it's clear she's not putting forth her personal belief. It's clear that her personal belief is that Obama was born in the US. In fact, she compares discussing whether Obama was born in the US to discussing whether the earth is flat.
Let's have a full transcript here:
So this funder said to us, you know, we would like to support your environmental coverage, but we really don't want to give you money if you're going to talk to the people who think that climate change is not happening.
Now you know, it -
(Indistinct)
Right.
Male voice: ...with the public, (indistinct), it is not settled.
Right. Well, it is a complicated thing (indistinct) there's a political question, and there's a scientific question.
Male voice: Right.
And we were talking to him about the support of the Science Desk, and so... you know, we've gone back to the Science Editor to say, how do you plan to cover this? And our coverage, if you look at our coverage, it would say that science coverage has accepted that climate change is happening, and we're covering it. But, in Politics, our Washington Desk might actually cover, should it resurface as a political issue, this debate.
So it's more complicated than saying, I mean, the Obama, where, where was Obama born? In Hawaii, or not? Is he an American citizen, or not? And there was this stunning study that came out which said that 51% of Americans now believe that -
Male voice: 51%? (indistinct)
...believe that Obama was not born in the United States.
Male voice: (indistinct) ...because he spends so much time abroad, I mean, he was just kind of, he grew up in Indonesia, and he, uh -
And, and the Hawaiian governor is trying to change the laws of Hawaii so he can release his birth certificate, which, (indistinct) he's not been able to.
(indistinct)
Well. But we're, we're not covering the birthers. We are not covering them.
Male voice: Well, what..? (indistinct)
So there's a whole movement in the conservative group, about questioning something that Obama has said is a fact: "I was born in Hawaii when it was a United States State." And the group that questions this (indistinct) Uh, I wouldn't, I don't know any who are Democrats, but they are primarily conservative commentators, and all of them question whether Obama is... You know, to run for President, you have to be born in the US. Any other offices you don't have to. But that office you do have to be born in the US. And there's still a question about whether he is, and that is a fact. But I think the challenge in our society now is, we are questioning facts. It's not opinions we're debating. It's what are the facts? Is the world flat? I mean, is that the next question we are going to debate??
Male voice: Climate change!
This is exactly my point. These subsequent courts are just engaging in a circle jerk where each of their opinions is merely the product of previous court opinions, and they all lead back to Rawle, and other ex post facto lawyers, none of which know what the H*** they are talking about!
The Ankeny Court stated that the fact pattern of WKA did not match the claimed fact pattern of Barry’s official “Dreams” narrative.
I automatically dismiss as willfully misinformed, anyone who cites Ankeny. It is a brain dead stupid ruling that doesn't pass for the quality of work one expects from a Kindergartner.
IMO there is NO SCOTUS ruling on whether a candidate like Barry would be NBC in an on-point case (identical or even close in fact pattern) in light of the “evolving” legal case law interpreting the Constitution up to the present moment. Therefore declarative statements that Barry is or is not NBC are premature.
My understanding is that if your citizenship requires positive law to make it valid, then it isn't "Natural." Barry is a 14th amendment citizen, and only that if you use the most liberal interpretation of the meaning of the 14th amendment.
Proof more of a herd mentality than that he is qualified. The Media would bring down much hardship on anyone who dared.
To date, we are simply relying on the word of Nancy Pelosi as the only evidence that he is legally qualified. To my knowledge, no actual proof of his alleged birth in Hawaii has been presented to any controlling election authority.
The media rarely reports on conspiracy theories from the right or left......nor should they
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.