We've got this killer rabbit to worry about. 
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.
There is no point in daydreaming.
Wasn't referring to the Judicial branch. Was pointing out that 50 state election officials did not perform due diligence TWICE.
The man had publicly claimed to have been born in Kenya. Election officials (who's responsibility it is to see that candidates are qualified for the office they seek.) should have required him to produce official proof of Birth within the United States. They did not.
Efforts to push them to do so were met with ridicule by those people (anti-birthers) who kept saying "We need to win at the ballot box." My point is, these people were WRONG. Catastrophically so.
Hey we could add some potatoes to our beef soup if we had any beef or any potatoes.
It’s not a precedent, eh?
How do you then interpret the SCOTUS ^codified^ “theory” of privacy (that has now become stare decisis?) in the Roe v Wade decision?
You’re a turtle (or, Sgt Schultz) when it comes to the survival of the USA. You provide the lick-spittle dripping from the boots of the Black Pampers in Philadelphia.
Begone.
slight misspeak there Sven
this election was about free govt crap as so stated on el Rushbo’s show days ago
Yes, a Strong Second place is so much better than a weak Second place. But who knows? Maybe he COULD HAVE BEEN KICKED OFF THE FREAKIN BALLOT!!!!!
It isn’t unreasonable.
It just takes enough people to confront the liars and not back down.
It seems there are way to many George McFlys on FReeRepulic and America. They don’t like confrontation. It is easier to say “Thank you sir, may I have another”.
I thought cowards liked to keep their cowardice hidden. Obviously not. Their MO is to ridicule honest people asking for truth and fly their white flags proudly.
We've got this killer rabbit to worry about.
Our best bet is to prevent it from happening again.
This applicant for the most important job in the country has undergone less of a background check than would any applicant for a job as janitor at the local school.
One big difference-the janitor doesn’t have access to the nuclear football.
The only thing left to do about the BC is to gather as many indisputable facts as we can, and maintain the issue for the history books. At the height of the controversy, I was telling Polarik that he’s the only one that gets something out of this, because he gets to write a book and make money from it.
You make my point. In Roe the court took a theory and made it a legal precedent by using it as a basis for ruling. In Happerset v Minor simply acknowledged that there is such a theory, then specifically stated they didn't need to rule as to it's validity, because it was irrelevant to the facts.
As for you ugly characterization of anyone who points out the obvious flaws in your inept logic, it only reflects badly on you, not me.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Oh, wait... I remember now. Birthers have taken their BS to our Republican leaders in Congress and to the courts. Again and again.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
The founders were worried that someone with loyalties to another country or to another system of government could not be trusted with the Constitution and would work to dismantle it.
Nothing to worry about here, right? Anyone who mistrusts our dear leader should be put in chains and hung in a boxcar.
Or as George Orwell put it.
Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.
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.
Not terrified, but recognizing that it rests on inadequate legal grounds, and exposes all involved to discredit and ridicule. Why do you think it's been ruled against so many times? 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.
Obviously, you can be a foreigner and be a Democrat president as long as you can hide the pertinent documents and just lie. Plenty here will make absurd excuses and red herrings, piss down their legs showing their bellies. So no problems for the Dems and their supportive media.
Do they eventually become classics?
Grassy knoll shooter?
With evolving ObamaCare regulations, the truth seekers may find themselves in a Obama psychiatric hospital. Alas the U.S.S.R.
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.