To all you Anti-Birthers who said we have to defeat Obama at the ballot box...

today | DiogenesLamp

[DiogenesLamp]

A lot of people who were against us "birthers" said the issue was nonsense, and a distraction, and that we should quit wasting time on it because "we have to defeat Barack Obama at the ballot box." As a person who saw how the media swindled us out of the 2008 election, I never took it as a given that we would be ABLE to defeat Obama at the ballot box. Why would the media not do the same thing to us in 2012? Given that the election fraud perpetrated by Democrats had been taken to an entirely new level by this Chicago crew, I saw it as a real danger that winning an election against this guy was no sure thing. (He Cheats)

What I also saw in 2008 was someone who was inexplicably sensitive to issues regarding his birth and citizenship, and who displayed a degree of stubbornness towards it that could only be explained by the possibility that he was hiding something really bad. It was a loose thread sticking out. I had always thought we should pull at that thread and see what unravels, but there were those of you out there (and you know who you are) that were absolutely terrified and/or disdainful of touching this issue, and preferred to rely exclusively on a political campaign to save us from this Communist.

[Usagi_yo]

Usagi is a troll. He got smacked by JR yesterday for pushing abortion. Now he’s an anti-birther.

From the FR rules: "NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts".

You going to continue to attack me personally wherever and whenever I post on Free Republic?

My post was:

There is only one way to remove a President. USCON Article 2 Section 4.

Are you going to coherently respond to that or just continue to violate the rules of Free Republic?

[wideawake]

And what does that tell you about the plausibility of the theory?

[beandog]

It’s not a personal attack if it’s the truth.

[noinfringers2]

I am a birther in that I believe the POTUSA must have creditable and publicly established birth credentials as stipulated by the Constitution while recognizing that people are differing as to what might be called ‘cause and effect’ of such a belief. I take your comments to place alongside my beliefs. There is one point of your arguments that especially caught my attention. That point is your using the Congressional Research Service to validate a position that only place of birth e.g. the USA is necessary for POTUSA eligibility. I have the opinion that under that particular CRS there was a biased finding for the Obama case that I see as in conflict with the hearings at the Constitutional Convention . However what is much more disturbing is that under such a ruling the children of the current President of Egypt who were born in the USA during their father’s long tenure here are eligible for POTUSA. I believe this is the very point of the Founding Fathers expressed concern and wording concerning eligibility. Of course I do not want a Sharia law advocate for POTUSA.

[DiogenesLamp]

First of all, I've never yet seen a single birther argument that looks like there's anything to it. There's plenty of information out there, and if you read both sides of eeverything, birthers come off looking like fools.

That's funny, I always thought those people who think our laws allow Anchor babies came off looking like fools, but do go on.

Here's the elephant in the room: For a general public forum, FR is about as willing to listen to birthers as it gets. If at least half of us believe you're loons, you frankly don't have a chance of accomplishing anything other than making conservatives look bad.

Argumentum ad populum. If you're smart enough to know what that means, then your wrong, if not, then that also proves my point.

As driftless2 already noted, we're lucky the birther arguments weren't a big issue in this election. If they had been, we would've gotten even fewer votes, and what little chance we ever had of maybe getting to 270 would've been just about zero.

Oh yes, losing by an extra million would be far worse!!!!

All of which aside... do you really think that promoting birther claims HERE is going to have the slightest effect on Obama? Even if they were true?

I don't care about Obama anymore, that ship has sailed. What I care about is rubbing your faces in the fact that your interference seriously bolloxed something that might have worked, and certainly couldn't have turned out worse than what we have now. Had we gotten a single state to demand to see an official original birth certificate from Hawaii, we would have called his bluff. You guys voted with your mouth to fold em without calling to see his hand.

Had Obama refused to produce his document (as he curiously did in the court trial in Georgia) he could have been kicked off the ballot in a single state. That would have produced an avalanche of inquiry as to why he did this, and thereby spur further demands to see his bonifides.

If he could produce the real thing, and get Hawaii to stamp it "official" then we are no worse off, despite all your concerns that this would have cost us ten million more votes. (A highly dubious claim.) If, on the other hand, he absolutely refused to produce it for any state, the media would not have been able to save him, because even the slowest person would realize that this doesn't make any sense unless he's hiding something.

We had a hammer with which to beat him easily, and you guys helped throw it away because you didn't think it would work. Well what we did do didn't work either.

If you really believe all that Birther Stuff (henceforth abbreviated as "BS") then why not take your concerns to our Republican leaders in Congress and to the courts?

The Mainstream Republican herd had already made up it's mind (based on those newspaper adverts) and the courts are filled with people who are badly misinformed on this issue. One must research it a lot to understand it properly, and over the last two hundred years, there has been seldom a need to do so.

Oh, wait... I remember now. Birthers have taken their BS to our Republican leaders in Congress and to the courts. Again and again.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

In the first case, it looks like there's hardly anyone in Congress who gives any real credence to the "forgery" arguments. And legally, our Congresscritters asked the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service for advice, and they went and researched the issue and wrote a long paper that said no, you don't have to have citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, as long as you're born in the USA.

Yeah, they're wrong, but nobody cares. They have just enough credibility to provide cover, and that's all anyone wanted anyway. Again with the "argumentum ad populum."

As far as the courts go, birthers have brought how many law suits now? 100? 150? I lost track a long time ago. Exactly how many of those have birthers won?

None that I know of, but it's more proof that our judiciary is screwed up than anything else. What can you expect? They have all been mistrained in this area. In the Georgia case, the defendant didn't even bother to respond, but he won anyway. When does THAT happen in the legal system?

As I recall there was even a lawsuit where the judge let Orly Taitz and her super snazzy team of experts present all of their evidence that Obama's birth certificate is supposedly a forgery, and that he's ineligible even if it isn't. And Obama's lawyer didn't even bother to show up and defend against what they said.

And that's the case i'm talking about. According to the normal methodology of the courts, not showing up is an automatic loss, but they didn't even follow that rule when it came to Barry. Like I said, the courts are screwed up and they don't WANT to deal with this.

So the judge sat and listened to it all for 3 or 4 hours, and then said "Well, none of this is convincing enough to take the matter any further," and dismissed the case.

Well that's ONE theory. Again, if you don't understand the law, you're liable to make all sorts of mistakes like this. It's a pity that so many of these people have a wrong understanding of the law regarding this matter.

When your prosecution team can't win the case even with nobody making a defense, that ought to be a clue: you don't have a case.

Not at all. As most legal people rely on Precedent, a wrong or misunderstood precedent will cause all subsequent lawyers/Judges to follow the same wrong path. It's like that Squadron that flew in the ground. Their leader flew into the ground, so the rest of them followed him.

Not that any of us expect you to figure out anything so subtle as that. Keep fighting on. Surely Obama will be thrown out of office. Any day now.

Oh, not at all. Obama may be here to stay. Like Chavez down in Venezuela, he might become El Presidente for life, and we have people like you to partially thank for this.

Now that you've had your childish little rant, know this. I am only referring to the effort to get his official documents before a State Election board. In case you missed it, THAT NEVER HAPPENED. You can talk all the sh*t you want about this or that, but the fact remains that no one with the authority to rule on ballot access has EVER SEEN HIS PAPERWORK.

Thank you, and people like you for working to let him in on His and Nancy Pelosi's word alone.

[DiogenesLamp]

Birther lunacy was nonsense and a distraction before the election, and it is nonsense and a distraction after the election. Many bad ideas just forever remain bad ideas.

Lunacy is accepting a paper signed by Nancy Pelosi as the only proof necessary to get on the ballot. Even worse is defending this.

[Jeff Winston]

Barry told the world, he was born with foreign citizenship, inheriting his foreign father's foreign citizenship by birthright (regardless of his actual place of birth).

That, alone, should have been enough to get everyone interested in protecting and preserving the Constitution and our Republic to get involved.

It doesn't matter that Britain was willing to extend him citizenship because of his father. Foreign countries have no legal power here.

If that weren't the case, North Korea could destroy America by passing a law tomorrow making everyone born in the United States a North Korean citizen. Then nobody would be eligible to be President, and we would be stuck without a leader.

Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. Our founding fathers never intended to give such power to foreign countries, and they didn't.

John Jay, the framers and the rest of the founders would be appalled.

No, they wouldn't. John Jay was born a British citizen himself. And so were virtually all of the rest of the Founders and Framers.

[noinfringers2]

I have just made a posting that the children of the current president of Egypt were born in the USA during the time the father was a professor at colleges here. I would be willing to bet that with a Muslim father and Muslim upbringing the children are Sharia adherents. Some claim these children are eligible for POTUSA because of being born in the USA. I strongly oppose that position as not at all in accord with the deliberations and expressions and wording of the Constitution.

[Usagi_yo]

It’s not a personal attack if it’s the truth.

No, calling me a troll and saying I'm a Democrat because you disagree is pejorative.

The topic was: Article 2 Section 4 is the only means to remove a President. Are you going to contribute to the discussion of that theory or continue to violate the "NO personal" attack rules on posting?

[Neidermeyer]

And what does that tell you about the plausibility of the theory?
*****************************************************
Nothing , I only have the existing evidence to go on and it’s inconclusive ,, but the fact that Obama is ineligible is inescapable ,, not a NBC by his own admission no matter how you slice it ,, just one official making a polite request would have short circuited this and saved the WORLD immeasurable hardship.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not terrified, but recognizing that it rests on inadequate legal grounds, and exposes all involved to discredit and ridicule.

Okay, to insure clear communications I am going to make certain that you understand I am referring specifically to efforts to get a certified copy of his Original Hawaiian birth certificate placed in front of election officials. On what legal grounds is this inadequate? All they submitted was a signed statement by Nancy Pelosi. Do you regard this as adequate proof on which to allow ballot access?

Why do you think it's been ruled against so many times?

(This time referring to the meaning of "natural born citizen" issue, which is a SEPARATE issue from that which I am mentioning in this thread.)

I've answered that many times. It's because the entire legal system has misinterpreted precedent years ago, but they keep erroneously using this misinterpreted precedent.

Why do you think the Supreme Court won't touch it? Because it's legally ridiculous, and wanting it to be effective doesn't make it so.

(Again, on the meaning of "Natural born citizen" issue, which I am NOT attempting to discuss in this thread.)

It's legally consistent, but does not fit the precedent which these people have been taught, which incidentally is misinterpreted.

[Jeff Winston]

However what is much more disturbing is that under such a ruling the children of the current President of Egypt who were born in the USA during their father’s long tenure here are eligible for POTUSA. I believe this is the very point of the Founding Fathers expressed concern and wording concerning eligibility. Of course I do not want a Sharia law advocate for POTUSA.

Historically, not everyone born in the country was a natural born citizen. Citizen parents weren't required, but if the parents were visiting royalty, foreign ambassadors, or members of an occupying army, the child was not an nbc.

[Josephat]

what happened to Sheriff Joe? I thought he was supposed to produce more info at the end of Sept. and we heard nothing more. It is like the whole posse dried up and blew away. There is some very powerful and frightening threat being used to silence people. It looks like it may have even worked on the country’s toughest sheriff.

[DiogenesLamp]

There are obviously a lot of things that aren’t worth a moment of our time and energy.

But since birtherism didn’t have a snowball’s chance in he!! of succeeding, it would’ve been nice if we could have focused our full time and attention on getting enough votes to throw Obama out of the White House.

The part of it to which I am referring had a very good chance of succeeding indeed! It came down to two people. Ken Bennet in Arizona and Mary Fallin in Oklahoma. Both of them dropped what might have been the winning ball.

All it took was one state demanding to see official certified proof, and if it was not forthcoming, the demands for it would have avalanched, but both of them were cowed by fear of embarrassment into looking the other way.

[Mr Rogers]

“How’s that workin out for ya? “

Well, Mitt’s narrow loss was better than the landslide it would have been if he had challenged Obama as an illegal usurper during one of the debates...

[Jeff Winston]

Oh, and by the way: Just because someone is constitutionally elgible doesn’t mean the american people would or should elect him or her.

We have Communists, Mafia bosses, serial murderers, terrorists and doctor-certified lunatics who are all natural born citizens with 2 American citizen parents and 4 American citizen grandparents.

Yes, the founding fathers intended to protect us from some foreign royalty breezing over here and buying his way into the Presidency. But they never intended to “protect” us from every possible poor choice that we could make for President. Specifically, they never intended to “protect” us from electing American-born citizens as our chief executive.

[DiogenesLamp]

Orly’s still trying.

Her next court date is; Friday, Nov 16, 2012, Jackson MS, Judge Wingate, 1pm

I doubt she will get anywhere but I admire her persistence if not her competence. She has seen Socialism up close, and I do not begrudge her the terror she must feel at it's imminent arrival in what she thought was a safe haven.

[First_Salute]

bttt

[Usagi_yo]

Argumentum ad populum. If you're smart enough to know what that means, then your wrong, if not, then that also proves my point.

As opposed to argument ad nauseum? That's all I hear from the Birthers.(Not to mention argument from belittlement)

50 State Secretary's of State, The Electoral College votes Obama won, and the U.S Congress, and sworn in by the SCJSCOTUS and you're trying to convince us that they got it all wrong and are part of the conspiracy?

[little jeremiah]

I just happened to catch JR’s slamdown of your promotion of abortion yesterday, and then lo and behold, see you snarking at “birthers” today.

Hmm hmm.

If the shoe fits, by all means stuff your foot in it.

I’m not attacking you. Pointing out that you are promoting abortion (true, got the slamdown about it yesterday from JR), and now using 0bot talking points about 0bastard’s “eligilibty” - looks like duck, walks like duck, etc.

If someone is a usurper they aren’t legally a president, it’s as simple as that.

Like a bigamist, the second woman he marries is not really his wife and he is not really a husband. Even genius high IQ Mensa type as yourself should be able to see simple logic.