Mark Levin - Marco Rubio Was Born In Miami Florida He Is A Natural Born United States Citizen

The Mark Levin Show ^ | Sept 27, 2011

[Politics4US]

Mark Levin says Rubio is a natural born citizen, and threatens to ban birthers on his social sites.

[mojitojoe]

That’s your opinion and you’re wrong. I give him 2 weeks, tops. You do know that a good troll or a concern troll throws a bone in there every once in a while to sound legit, right. I really don’t want to hear or care that you read posts quite a ways back. What the hell does that mean anyway? He’s only been a member for 2 months... read fast and read them ALL the way back and ALL of them.

This is definitely a retread troll. Travis Mcgee called it as soon as this one entered FR and he called it correctly, along with MANY others. Nobody joins FR and is called a troll right off the bat by many respected long time members that doesn’t eventually out themselves as a troll. Don’t go through past posts and cherry pick a few of the bones he threw, check them ALL.

[Fantasywriter]

So if a person responds to you w post after post of nothing but insults and name-calling, you consider it a victory?

Even though that type of behavior is explicitly prohibited by the posting rules?

Let’s just lobby to toss out the rules, then, and push to make it okay for anybody to post whatever the hell they please.

The alternative is to put in an addendum, that the posting rules apply only to so-called ‘birthers’, and anti-birthers can flaunt the rules w impunity.

[DiogenesLamp]

I take it to mean that YOU have read his posts all the way back? If so, then I defer to your judgement. I only went back a few weeks.

[DiogenesLamp]

So if a person responds to you w post after post of nothing but insults and name-calling, you consider it a victory?

Often, yes. :) I normally argue on websites where that is the norm, rather than the rule. When people "lose" it, it is a wonderful opportunity to make fun of them.

Even though that type of behavior is explicitly prohibited by the posting rules?

People ought to obey the rules of the website's owner. That is just courtesy and respect to the house. However, I have noticed that a lot of people get away with it because the moderators can't be everywhere at once.

Let’s just lobby to toss out the rules, then, and push to make it okay for anybody to post whatever the hell they please.

I wouldn't go that far, but if there is a real effort to do something along these lines, a special "flame" area could be created. I would probably spend a lot of time in there trading insults with Liberal trolls. :)

The alternative is to put in an addendum, that the posting rules apply only to so-called ‘birthers’, and anti-birthers can flaunt the rules w impunity.

I will have to admit that the rules are not prominently displayed. I think i've come close to getting into trouble a few times because I wasn't aware of this policy either. (Or if I had read it, I forgot about it.) I would like to see the rules made more prominent so that people can claim no excuse for breaking them.

For some reason, the "birther" issues invoke a lot more emotion than you would think. I would have thought that everyone could see the problem with Obama's legitimacy, and even if they disagreed I don't see why they would spend a lot of time specifically arguing that he's eligible. That has always provoked in me one of those "Huh?" moments. The idea that conservatives would bother defending him even if they thought there was nothing to it, just never made sense to me, but I've seen too many of them do it.

If you have ever read the "Ace of Spades HQ" website, you would know that EVERY SINGLE Staff member at "Ace of Spades HQ" will argue tooth and nail that Obama is eligible, yet they provide a constant stream of postings and articles from the conservative perspective. I have had dozens of arguments with every one of them, and they get quite nasty, (still do, when the topic comes up once in a while) but I have no doubt whatsoever that they are all conservative minded people because their opinions going back for the 5 years i've been reading them are consistently conservative. They raise money for conservative candidates and help organize the vote. They are just wrongheaded about that one issue. I don't get it, but the evidence is overwhelming that this is the case.

In any case, please don't take my defense of SoJoCo's conservatism as being disrespectful to you. From what i've read of his comments, he didn't seem to be a Liberal troll. (apart from the insults and his position on the eligibility issue) He would fit in at various conservative websites (at least the parts that I read) with out controversy. Now mojitojoe informs me that I didn't read far enough, and I have to admit I didn't read back more than a couple of weeks. Mojitojoe has read all the way back to the beginning, and is convinced the man *IS* a troll. As he has more experience at this sort of thing than do I. As he was right about the last one he pushed into the lightning, I defer to his judgement.

I admire your opinion and look forward to seeing more of it.

[Fantasywriter]

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate what you’re saying. I used to visit Ace of Spades multiple times daily, and I’m aware of his and his followers’ attitude toward ‘birthers’. It never bothered me, because I enjoyed his commentary on other subjects. However, he’s changed in the past few mos. First, he started hero-worshiping Perry, and it was embarrassing and disgusting. It all came down to Perry shooting a coyote, which is a stupid thing—to put it kindly—on which any ‘conservative’ to base a cult of personality.

What pushed me over the edge was his vicious treatment of anybody who disagreed w Perry on Gardasil. That was flat out ugly, and not something any conservative should be proud of. Ace took the lie Perry told about giving the dying woman a ride on his motorcycle and used it to club to death the last of those who dared express reservations. When it came out that Perry met the woman AFTER he signed the legislation, I visited AoS a few more times to see if Ace would apologize. He never did, and that was that. He may be a conservative, but he acts like a jerk.

Re: SoJo. I do not call him a troll because he is anti-birther. Please see my post #629. I am well aware that there are many fine conservatives who strongly oppose what they call ‘birtherism’. I’ve had discussions w several of them. We are both aware we’re arguing w a conservative. It’s possible to disagree—even hotly and passionately—w’out descending to demeaning insults and puerile name-calling. In the end, no one’s mind is changed, but we still respect ea other as fellow conservatives.

SoJo argues in the same way a DUer/liberal argues w a conservative. It’s all about put-downs and condescending insults. There is no common ground or respect, just childish hostility and trollish rudeness. That detracts from the site and undercuts the spirit of the posting rules. FR is not a wild west AoS, or at least it’s not supposed to be. The more posters like SoJo wallow in their name-calling nastiness, the less you can tell the difference.

[DiogenesLamp]

However, he’s changed in the past few mos.

So it's not just me. Yeah, Ace has been Mocking the candidates on our side entirely too much for my taste. (Palin, Bachman, etc.) He has been downright nasty and flippant rather than thoughtful and deliberative.

I visited AoS a few more times to see if Ace would apologize. He never did, and that was that. He may be a conservative, but he acts like a jerk.

Yes, very much so. He may be highly informed and reasonably intelligent, but when he makes his mind up, it seems to be a knee jerk reactionary response to some piece of information, and after he has declared something "so!" Nobody dare challenge him on it. Even when he's wrong.

I've noticed during the thread where he banned "SwampYankee" that a lot of people started comparing him to Charles Johnson. Yeah, he's been moving in that direction for awhile now, IMO.

As for SoJoCo, Que Sera, Sera. If he is not already zotted, perhaps he will take heed to this thread and practice more civility in the future.

[Publius6961]

Mark Levin seems to think very highly of himself. Of course, I had no desire to visit his site under any circumstances, but...

To be a "natural born citizen," my undertandng is that not only must one be born in the US, but born of two American Citizens, presumably native born OR naturalized. For most of the history of the US, it has been so.

It's not that complicated.

I have no idea where Marco Rubio fits into all that.

My opinion is no less valid than Levin's. I don't care what he thinks.

[Publius6961]

The standard has been set.

The standard was set by original intent.
The standard was changed, without a Constitutional Amendment.
If it is subject to such a casual change, it is not a standard.
If it can be changed once, it can be changed any number of times.

"End of story?"
The arrogance of tiny ignorant people knows no bounds.

[chris37]

Let me tell you about your arrogance and ignorance.

You are asking an unelected judge to remove a president elected by We, The People.

Whether or not your reason for asking is legit doesn’t matter, because what you will do if you succeed is set the precedent for every future president to face the possibility of being removed by an unelected federal judge.

You are willingly giving away your SACRED power to to chose your leader to an unelected offical, and you call yourself a conservative?

Once you succeed in giving away that power, you will never have it again, champ.

This is our mistake, and it is our job alone to correct it. Just imagine our president being removed because they don’t support glowbull warming, or gay rights, or whatever other crap the left will come up with, and you know they will come up with it, and you know they will find a judge perfectly willing to flex his left wing muscle and remove a president.

Birtherism is DANGEROUS. Be careful what you wish for and wake the **** up.

[mojitojoe]

I’ve posted on just a few other subjects,

Oh really? How many times? You go first and then if you are wrong I'll tell you how many times.

[little jeremiah]

Birtherism is dangerous? So you’re saying that concern that the president is a lying scumbag who is actually NOT ELIGIBLE to be president is dangerous?

To carry that “logic” forward, no criminal in any position should ever be removed. Just let them serive out their term of hire.

[little jeremiah]

FW - check out mojitojoe’s comments here and on some other threads - going after the creep BB who deserves a boot in a sensitive place! Repeatedly!

[Fantasywriter]

Thanks for the ping, lj. It was fun reading back over mj’s estimation of how long SoJoCo would last. Then wouldn’t you know it, SoJo got the zot.

Hmmmmm.

Is Blade next??

[mojitojoe]

Blade is DEFINITELY a troll. There are many kinds of trolls but make no mistake about it, he is one. He has no interest in conservatism, the GOP candidates, NOTHING other than trying to dispute the O birth certificate issue.

[Fantasywriter]

Agreed! In fact, I’m betting he’s a retread. [Though I can hardly claim originality in that. Many have speculated the same.] If you recall the form and substance of jamese777’s posts, you will see a bizarre similarity in Blade’s posts. The odds of such eerie likenesses showing up in two entirely unrelated posters is astronomical.

[chris37]

Yes, it is dangerous.

While the goal of bitherism may be valid, its method is dangerous.

It is we the people who select our president, and it is we the people who laid down on the job when we elected an ineligible president.

In asking a judge to correct our mistake by ordering Obama’s removal from that office, we in effect empower a single judge to have more power than the electorate or the president.

I think we have empowered the judiciary well more than enough already. If we futher transfer ALL of our power as the electorate to a judge, then we can expect to never get it back.

This is our duty as citizens to safe guard our house. We failed, and now some are trying to compound that failure. It is no one else’s duty but ours, and anyone looking to give up that duty is foolish.

[Godebert]

"This is our duty as citizens to safe guard our house. We failed, and now some are trying to compound that failure. It is no one else’s duty but ours, and anyone looking to give up that duty is foolish."

Every elected official and every single veteran and active member of the U.S. Military has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land or it isn't. If you accept the latter than we have already lost the Republic.

You seem to be advocating against the rule of law.

[chris37]

Listen, if you want to cede your power to determine whom your president is or is not to an unelected, unanswerable political appointee, then you do that.

Doesn’t sound very conservative to me, because you aren’t conserving your own power. In fact, you are giving it away.

I will protect my own freedom with my right to vote before I ask anyone else to do it, regardless of what oaths they may or may not have taken or meant or did not mean.

I am the ultimate guardian of my God given freedom.

Count me out, I don’t stand with you.

[little jeremiah]

You are wrong. Those who are concerned about having an illegitimate president do not want an unelected judge to throw the criminal out of office.

What would be useful and proper is to have the SCOTUS rule on what a natural born citizen is so the rule could applied to the steaminng pile in the White House. Have a president who is ineligible according to the Constitution is a Constitutional matter and the SCOTUS is supposed to deal in those matters.

Your perjorative use of the word birther stinks, btw.

It is not OUR mistake that steaming pile is in the WH. It was (and remains) a coup. Only a small percentage of hardcore leftists and racists would have voted for him if the general public knew even 10% of the truth about him. People were fooled. Still, it’s their fault they didn’t look harder and were willing to be duped. But the onus of responsiblity is on the perpetrators of the crime, which include the MSM - the propaganda arm of the left.

Your criticism of using the courts is stupid, sorry. Where else to turn? When a crime has been committed, aren’t the courts usually involved??? Sheesh

[chris37]

If you want to have scotus rule on what the term means, I’m fine with that, but I’m not fine with scoutus removing an elected president, because that increases their power far, far too much.

I am not using any terms in any negative sense, I am just calling it what it is commonly called. Relax. I am a former birther, I am sure you know this.

But I disagree with you in that it IS our fault as free voters. It IS our job to educate ourselves about those whom we seek to elect to be our leaders. I knew about the controversy when Berg filed the first law suit prior to his election, as I am sure others did too. Those who did not know were ignorant, and that is their fault for not seeking the knowledge.

If they do it again in re-electing him, then that further displays the ignorance of our electorate. My criticism of the courts is NOT stupid at all. I do not wish to empower the tyrants in black robes any further at all.

You ask who else to turn to when a crime has been committed? The answer is simple. We turn to We, the People, who allowed this fraud to be perpetrated on us in the first place. You know the old saying, right? “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”... or... something like that.

Can we be fooled again? I certainly hope not. Having a court, including scotus rule him eligible or ineligible fails to address the root of the problem, which is that a free people willingly elected an illegal alien naked marxist.

The problem isn’t with the definition of NBC, the problem is with our people, and until that root cause is dealt with, no court can save us from ourselves.

This is our duty, and it always was.