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.

[Jeff Winston]

Thanks for encouraging people to read my past posts.

Maybe you should read them yourself. You might... oh... never mind.

[rxsid]

"North Korea could pass a law declaring tomorrow that every child henceforth born in the United States is born a North Korean citizen. If you want to tie it specifically to ethnicity or national origin, you could make it that anyone who has an ounce of Korean ancestry in them is born a citizen of North Korea.

Of course they could pass such a law...nobody could stop them from doing so, but it would be worthless outside of North Korea.

Who would recognize it as being valid law (aside from NK)?

As for why nobody else spoke up on the issue...one word.

Fear.

Just who was going to challenge the eligibility of a (half) black President?

[rxsid]

Do you know why James McClure was found to be a "citizen?"

Because his FATHER naturalized a year AFTER James was born. The chronology is this:

1. Born in the United States on April 21, 1785 to a British national father. James is not even considered a "citizen" of the U.S.
2. James's father naturalized on February 20, 1786.
3. James McClure became as U.S. citizen...NOT because he was born in the U.S., but BECAUSE his father naturalized.

[rxsid]

If a U.S. citizen women (of age), gives birth to a child in England (for example)...is that child born a U.S. citizen?

[rxsid]

If a U.S. citizen women (of age), gives birth to a child in England (for example)...is that child born a U.S. citizen?

[little jeremiah]

Jeff Winston is a nasty stinking troll. I don’t know why he’s still on FR.

[DiogenesLamp]

And now Zero the usurper n thief’s buddy John Brennan, who’s firm breached Zero’s passport records, current counter terrorism czar in the White Hut, is now possible candidate to head CIA. Sickening.

The last election was like the Reichstag fire. It defines the boundary between what was before, and the evil that shall follow after.

[DiogenesLamp]

The process of putting Obama on the ballot was largely Negative affirmation -- meaning somebody had to object.

That may be the way it works nowadays, but that is not the way it is supposed to work. Election officials routinely check qualifications before allowing someone on the ballot, they just didn't want to do it to this guy. (He's black, you know.)

This guy got kicked off the ballot in several states (not all.) because he TOLD them he was born in Nicaragua. Apparently if you don't tell them, they don't bother to check.

The absence of negative affirmation means a silent and tacit yea.

The reality is, the election officials were asleep at the switch, and didn't do their duty. It isn't supposed to require an objection from the opposition candidate.

On the other hand, the act of the EC voting and The U.S congress certifying the election is a positive affirmation, meaning they have to certify or not certify. They certified.

Rubber stamped you mean. They probably thought it was all handled by the election officials, and therefore assumed everything was all right. One branch of a bureaucracy dropping the ball because they thought another would handle it? About par for the course.

Pelosi sending a letter is another positive affirmation and in fact she affirmed he is a natural born citizen. You have no place in the process other than your vote. You exercised (hopefully) as did others.

Pelosi's signature is not proof. Pelosi never saw any proof. Pelosi is a lunatic and cannot be expected to be rational. While the current legal structure has told us all it's none of our business and we have to just put up with an unqualified president if they say so, the truth of the matter is that it is everybody's business to see that the laws are followed.

Courts can get involved sure, but the accusations have been tossed out. But even if the birther's dreams came true and the SCOTUS determined that Obama was not a natural born citizen, there is no way to remove him other than Article 2 section 4.

Wasn't discussing his removal, was discussing how we could have possibly gotten him kicked off the ballot, and/or raised enough suspicion to cost him the election, but all the so-called "smart" people didn't want to support efforts to do this.

Over and over they said, "this issue is a waste of time, we have to defeat Obama at the ballot box." Well, if Obama could produce the certified documents (something he has strangely refused to do under all circumstances up to this point, including allowing a man to go to prison because he didn't feel like showing a D@mned document.) then it would have been a waste of time. As he has this consistent reluctance to do so, and as everyone in Hawaii always hedges when discussing this, there is a good chance it wouldn't have been a waste of time.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ultimately the fight isn't about Obama. If we can't articulate conservative values well enough, field good candidates, and persuade enough people to vote for conservatives, we won't get anywhere, with or without Obama.

There is nothing wrong with conservative philosophy. What is wrong is the 24 hour a day Liberal propaganda that spews from all sources of Media. The public is badly misinformed, and heavily manipulated. The Liberal Media is the greatest threat to this nation because they steer the minds of the public, and they always steer them left.

So yes, being able to persuade the voters to vote the liberals out isn't just a key. It's THE key.

Someone has pushed a stopper into the key hole, and you aren't going to be able to use your key. Till we get rid of the Liberal-Democrat-Union-Members-hired-from-New-York (2008 79% for Obama)Filter, it will not be possible to get the conservative message across. Nothing gets on the air without going through that filter, and so we need to punch a hole in that filter.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

As I don't recall ever having discussed this with you, I cannot be held to account for what others have said. I know my own arguments are very good, as are the arguments of some others such as rxsid, and Spaulding, etc. Perhaps you should hear our arguments before taring us all with the same brush?

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?

Incompetence does not a conspiracy make. In 225 years, how many times has the question of eligibility come up? Only 3 that I know of. That public officials should be so ignorant of History, Law, and their duty, does not at all strike me as hard to believe. The wonder is that they ever get any of it right.

Do you think "Anchor babies" were what any of the founders had in mind?

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Or slaves, or Indians, or the children of British Loyalists after the Revolution. Both the US and England recognized these children as British Subjects.

Kinda got a lot of exceptions in your theory, doesn't it?

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

And they were very much aware of this. They were all "natural born" British Subjects. That is why they put the grandfather clause in Article II. They weren't morons.

[DiogenesLamp]

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...

Let us try to keep it straight as to what we are actually discussing. The topic of this thread was regarding the effort to get his Official certified Hawaiian birth certificate in front of election officials in at least one state. The Topic is NOT regarding whether he is an usurper, or what is the correct meaning of natural born citizen. The Topic is ONLY about efforts to get someone in the state election system to demand Official and certified proof that he was born in Hawaii.

What was wrong with that?

[DiogenesLamp]

Yeah, they work, I know because I treat psychotics for a living.

And so you are living proof of the adage, "if the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails."

The medications may work in quieting down the psychotics you work with, but having someone disagree with you does not make them a psychotic.

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually, if that rally had been "about the usurper's constitutional eligibility," there would probably be nothing left of the Tea Party now.

I was at that rally, and all the people I talked to considered it an issue. I didn't meet anyone that said it was nonsense. We must have spooked the B@stard, because I recall Marine 1 leaving on an unscheduled departure just as the Rally was getting started.

[Kozak]

No having delusions about Obama being removed from office over citizenship does.

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, good grief. That's not an argumentum ad populum. Never did I say you were wrong because nobody believes you.

An argumentum ad populum means "argument by people" meaning that you are arguing that you are correct (or that someone else is wrong) because a lot of people think this or that. The truth is not subject to a consensus. Pointing out how many agree or disagree does not make an argument correct.

What I said was that if you can't even convince people here of the rightness of your cause, then you're not going to get anywhere with the broader public audience, which is FAR LESS friendly to your claims.

What makes comments like this annoying are they don't really address the topic of this thread which is: "We had a chance to get him kicked off the ballot if he didn't submit his paperwork, but everybody wanted to ignore this opportunity by claiming the ballot box was the only way."

Here you have the friendliest audience possible, and probably something more than half of us believe you're off your rocker.

I would be surprised if half of Free Republic sided with your side. I am, and have always been under the impression that MOST Freepers think there is something to the eligibility issue. I have argued with many of you, and I have presented clear and easily understood arguments in support of my position, and what most of you do is immediately start talking about what this or that court says.

I have consistently asked that people look at the EVIDENCE, not what some court says about it, but what can be gleaned from one's own personal investigation into what the founders meant and intended. It has long been my position that the Courts are ABSOLUTELY WRONG on Roe v Wade, Wickard v Fillburn, Kelo v New London, and many many other cases.

They are just WRONG. Therefore I do not regard their pronouncements as infallible, especially when they are contrary to common sense and History.

Consider that a test run as to the results you can expect elsewhere. Well, in fact, that's turned out to be a great test run. From the reception here, you might expect that the broader world is going to almost 100% treat you as lunatics. And that in fact is exactly what's happened.

The broader world isn't even aware of this issue. Most people don't know any better than to believe what they've been told for years. I don't count their opinion based on ignorance as having any significance. But let me show you the opinions of two conservative thinkers whom I respect. ( and I presume you do as well.)

George Will.

Ann Coulter.

People here didn't help "throw your hammer away" mostly because we didn't think it would work. (And by the way, nothing anybody did here could have possibly have stopped you from "beating him with it," if it had been as good a "hammer" as you thought it was.)

My point was, by not helping to get this issue taken seriously by at least one state election official, you contributed to it's defeat. (The effort to get official Hawaiian documents in front of the Election officials.)

There was nothing unreasonable about this effort, but so many of you were full of hatred and bile for the "birther" issue, that you would not voice support for a piece of it even when it made perfect sense. What would it have hurt to get a State to require his proof of birth within the United States? It would have hurt nothing, and it should be the standard operating procedure whenever a candidate of uncertain providence emerges. (Like Roger Calero, who DID get kicked off ballots.)

People here helped "throw your hammer away" (from here, at least) because not only was it a bunch of hooey, you were in quite significant danger of whacking fellow conservatives in the head with it.

Yes, the effort to get some actual proof of birth in the United States from a candidate who had been telling people for years that he was born in Kenya, is obviously stark raving lunacy. Funny though, we didn't seem to mind doing it to this guy.

The judge I mentioned didn't rule on some past precedent. He listened to everything that Orly and her super-snazzy "experts" had to say. They requested that he hear their case on its merits, so he did. And then, after doing so, he said, in effect, that they were a bunch of clowns who only imagined that they had a case.

Orly is a scatterbrain and much of what she brought forth was irrelevant to the point. Even so, the Judge could only have relied on Precedent to ignore the actual points of law which were made. To believe other than that the Judge ruled on his understanding of Precedent is just nonsense.

[DiogenesLamp]

You have to look at what “natural born citizen” always meant. It never required anyone to have citizen parents. So if you were born in the United States, then you were and are eligible to run for President.

That is in dispute, and the evidence that this understanding is wrong is abundant. The fact that it required special laws to make slaves and Indians into citizens is merely the most obvious proof that this understanding is incorrect.

"Anchor Babies" apparently did not even exist until the 1970s. I know the Eisenhower administration deported Hundreds of thousands of Mexicans, babies and all.

[DiogenesLamp]

Persuading anyone is not going to work for these two reasons:

1. The MSM is the propaganda arm of the revolutionaries.

2. The election was stolen and the next one won’t be any better. Elections don’t matter any more.

Amen! Exactly right.

[DiogenesLamp]

They will be standing among the charred ruins saying to themselves, “Well, at least I’m not a birther.”

Some people have put so much passion into their position that they regard it as unthinkable to walk it back. As General Custer said in the movie "Little Big Man."

You're miserable life is not worth the reversal of a Custer decision.