Posted on 11/14/2012 8:14:02 AM PST by 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.
The liar in thief, that’s what his supporters voted *for*. After four years of observing his actions, they all marked “yes” for lies, which is essentially the mark (character) of the beast (loving and making lies).
Makes perfect sense why the Dems would have a lock on the dead vote.
First I want to say that that I do not agree that ‘natural born’ never never required citizen parents. Vattel’s treatise ‘The Law Of Nations’ very clearly states that it is the parents citizenship as much as the place of birth that sets a person as a ‘natural born’ citizen. It was Franklin’s referral to Washington that brought about the inclusion of the the explicit term of ‘natural born’ in the Constitution. Secondly I believe there is a lot of mischief possible as to eligibility if only place of birth is required. I have previously noted the cases of the children of the Muslim President of Egypt being born in the USA. With that there is the possibility that any anchor baby born in the USA but reared in a nation very hostile to the USA would be eligible to have their feelings expressed as POTUSA. I believe that Obama is a shadow of this kind of possibility. The founders were well experienced with such intrigue being of European backgrounds and wisely set a requirement for which they thought the meaning was clear in their day.
Sorry, but I simply don’t share your pessimism on this.
We will win again.
The President of Egypt was a resident of the USA. He was very active in academia life. His children were born under such a presence.
Who is “we”?
I’m sorry but I do not trust you.
You have no rational explanation for the massive fraud and how that won’t happen again to negate any R candidate.
Ah, I just checked your posting history. One page takes you back to last November, so you rarely post.
And guess what! You’re an “anti-birther”, I should have guessed it.
If you check JW’s posting history you will see he posted hardly anything since last November, and before that a lot (or mostly, didn’t delve too deeply) as an “anti-birther”. I would not be suprised if he plays for the other team.
You mean John Jay.
Secondly I believe there is a lot of mischief possible as to eligibility if only place of birth is required. I have previously noted the cases of the children of the Muslim President of Egypt being born in the USA.
I have previously noted that the children of the representatives of foreign governments, including children of ambassadors and invading armies, were always special exceptions. I think the children of the President of Egypt would fall into this category.
With that there is the possibility that any anchor baby born in the USA but reared in a nation very hostile to the USA would be eligible to have their feelings expressed as POTUSA.
And what about children of two US citizens who promptly moved abroad, and who were totally raised to adulthood in Russia or Egypt? It's completely clear that such children can completely grow up in a foreign country, be total foreigners in every sense except for their passport, and come back and legally run for President.
What about natives with American parents and grandparents who are bribed by China or Russia? That's the far bigger danger anyway. One of the Founding Fathers (I forget which one it was) in fact noted this. He said that a foreign government wouldn't be as likely to try and sneak people born in their country into our government. They would be more likely to bribe a native, because the native wouldn't be suspected by the people.
Look, we could really get into the nuts and bolts of this, but I know from past experience that there's no point in arguing it. You'll believe what you want to believe, regardless of whether it's actually true or not. That seems to be the one ever-present characteristic of birthers. So go ahead and believe whatever you want. It's not true, but go ahead and believe it anyway.
The result of that would be catastrophic!!
Personally i’m willing to chance it, i’ll survive one way or another.
So? You’ve been a birther for a long time, and birthers have been making conservatives look bad for a long time.
I could just as easily conclude from that that you “play for the other team.”
That’s not what I conclude... on the contrary, I think you’re sincerely deluded. But such a conclusion would not be a huge stretch.
Oh.. and if believing birthers are wrong, and make conservatives look bad, makes me an “anti-birther,” then I suppose I’m guilty of that. I was certainly someone who said I thought we needed to focus on defeating Obama at the ballot box, since that was our only chance to defeat him at all.
I’m in good company, though. I think you could probably add most of the conservative talk show hosts in America to that category.
If not... then why has every single one of them completely refused to take up the birther cause?
The results would be anti-catastrophic; that is, it would undo the catastrophe.
They don’t touch it because they’re chickens**s.
As for you, you’re worse than a chickens***, you’re an outright troll. Probably voted for 0bastard. You’re not worth the electrons to reply to you. You’re a lying sob troll. You’re pleased as punch that your boy “won”, it’s transparent.
What do you know about conservatism? NOTHING. You are the one looking bad for exposing yourself for the idiot troll you are!
When a commie knows he WILL NOT get enough votes, his only option is VOTER FRAUD.
Lastly, I don’t think conservatism is anywhere near dead.
Yeah, that's why you are still here, to do your unfinished work. Conservatives have lazer vision when it comes to your type. You will never get it because your depraved mind says 'if I say the right things they will never know'.
Well, it looks like we have convinced half the country to vote out the liberals, but guess what? - we will never have enough votes because the liberals will always drum up more fraudulent votes than we can get out real votes.
The issue is - why let a usurper run again? Most people ( I mean those back-stabbing ‘allies’) - want to win election against an ineligible person who should not be allowed to run in the first place!
It IS about obama, because the liberals (or whatever they really are) put him up there (yes, with the silent aiding and abetting of the Rs)
It is simply insane to allow obama, who has claimed himself to be a Kenyan born then Hawaiian born, but has NEVER presented any genuine authenticated doc to election officials to prove his real place of birth, to be in the ballot TWICE!
Trying to vote him out is effectively validating his illegitimate ‘presidency’, it is telling him we don’t care if he is eligible!!!
We let him run for the presidency knowing he is NOT eligible.
Whom can we blame?
I remember he was a troll on the eligibility threads. Then he disappeared for a year, since last November. Now he’s back to gloat (he can’t hide it).
He’s a pos.
I don’t remember what threads he was on but his posts scream of being a troll.
The court has no authority to remove a president. That authority is specifically enumerated in the U.S Constitution to the U.S Congress. Article 2 Section 4.
So, draw us a road map that you feel is a valid means of removing the President that does not involve the U.S Constitution Article 2 Section 4 and show us where that authority originates from.
Your example given is ridiculous, even though, I will point out that that example deals with people and issues subordinate to the courts because marriage was created by religion then legislated by congress. Marriage is not enumerated in the U.S constitution.
Really? Get yourself updated before discrediting yourself.
You miss the point, grasshopper. The usurper is not the president and should not be treated like one. A fraud. Get it? Should be treated like an illegal alien, and shipped back to Kenya where he is from, providing he isn't guilty of murdering anyone during his stay here.
Would you afford the same courtesy to the woman posing as a man in my example as you would a bonafide man who would be subject to divorce laws in case the wife wanted a divorce for one reason or another?
Of course not! The anulment would replace the process of divorce. I think anyone who is in line for the presidency would be able to issue an order for removal from office. The AG could be called upon to physically assist with the removal and ship him off with a one-way ticket to the land of his birth -- unless criminal charges were pressed.
K.I.S.S!
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.