Posted on 03/04/2010 9:27:19 AM PST by Mamzelle
Please read about Breitbart's opening salvo against John Podesta and Media Matters.
This is not paranoia. Media Matters, a Soros outfit, is hiring "interns" to come on conservative forums and try to sow division, slow down momentum, forment confusion. And they are better at it than they used to be. They don't curse and swear like liberals on their own forums do.
I agree 100%.
If you are laboring under the delusion that I ever read your comments, please un-delude yourself.
I never read them, haven’t in over a year or more.
Why read crazed babble? Why look at dogpoo?
You play games like this and it just prove even more what a troll you are. And a liar. Your insult is asserting that freepers like little jeremiah have ‘obama derangement syndrome’. That tatic is disgusting when the admins allow it to continue, especially from someone who is a proven liar like you.
Thank you. I saw the earlier statement, carefully worded to avoid saying where he was born. I don’t know how I missed this one. So now I know he might have been born in Hawaii. Come to think of it, I knew that much before. But now I also know that Dr. Fukifino has put his own reputation out there by claiming to have seen the records which nobody else has ever been allowed to view. I’m not sure how this changes anything, but it’s good to know. Thanks.
You play games like this and it just prove even more what a troll you are. And a liar. Your insult is asserting that freepers like little jeremiah have ‘obama derangement syndrome’. That tatic is disgusting when the admins allow it to continue, especially from someone who is a proven liar like you.
There's no game here... it's true that y'all are getting absolutley nowhere on the issue that you've posted on from the beginning. Now, I posted from before the election that the birth certificate should be produced, but it wasn't and Obama was elected.
Then I posted that all candidate should be required, by state law, to show their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state. And now several states are actually starting to do that. I've posted on that from just right after the election when those of the Obama Derangement Syndrome criticized that very thing. I've stuck with it from the beginning.
Furthermore, on the issue of the natural born status, that's not going to be solved until the Supreme Court decides it. And I don't look for them to decide it any time soon, especially when they have no such case (about the natural born status of a President) coming up to them. And from what I've seen of the Supreme Court before, in the past, they let things like this simmer for a while before they ever decide these kinds of issues.
And then, you've got the State of Hawaii making the official pronouncement that Obama was born in Hawaii and even saying that he is a natural born citizen... that -- all of the above, to me... means that y'all are going crazy on this "wild goose chase" of yours...
And so, yes..., that's exactly my opinion of the Obama Derangement Syndrome crowd...
See Post #291 for the official State of Hawaii statement to the effect that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.
I have to ask. Most of us will never get the experience. Do you enjoy issuing a righteous zot? I mean, there has to be some satisfaction.
OMG. LOL. That was GREAT!
If you are laboring under the delusion that I ever read your comments, please un-delude yourself.
Ummm.... you just did some reading of them ... :-)
[... or else how could I have gotten a reply from you... LOL ...]
Oh, now THAT was clever! Instead of addressing the asinine statements YOU made, you addressed the clearly marked hyperbole HE made, and treated THAT as what degrades your credibility!
(yes, you are what the "I know you are, but what am I" kid looks like when he grows up)
*Note to self: Put the cup DOWN before laughing!
You are such a liar! “There’s no game here.” And yet you know very well that my reference was aimed at your insulting freepers, and the first post I made to you was in response to your little message of insult to little jeremiah. Then you try to play foolery and claim some other direction of the reason I posted your deceitful past posting. Now you’re trying to misdirect even more. See post #266 above. You’re a liar and a troll.
It depends on who the Zottee is. I personally take a sick pleasure out of zotting racists, anti-Semits, and scum of the sort.
To quote Indiana Jones- I hate Nazis.
If anyone needs zotting (and a lot do), ST, the logorrhea queen, needs it bad.
You call it an insult, and I call it just plain crazy.... so that’s a difference of opinion here between you and me.
I call it crazy and ridiculous when we’ve got the State of Hawaii already saying that Obama was born in Hawaii, and then with the other part of the issue — the natural born status — it will require a Supreme Court decision.
So, you’re basically absolutely “nowhere” with the issue and never will get anywhere... and that’s my definition of “crazy”... but please, continue being crazy if you want.
In any case, I think it’s a very legitimate thing for the states to make it a legal requirement for the candidate to show their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot — and there’s nothing wrong with that kind of action and I’m glad some states are doing it. I’ve encouraged that action from the beginning, right after the election.
Already done, go educate yourself:
• “Minor v. Happersett - yes, it’s been mentioned on FR but not fully hashed out. I don’t see how, if this was decided by the SCOTUS then they did indeed give a definition of the term NBC.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html";
Not only has it been discussed, but so too have other SCOTUS cases that have that exact definition that the framers (no doubt) used when they entered the NBC requirement without debate.
Attorney Apuzzo mentions these cases in the “Kerchner v Obama” & Congress case:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison’s notes of the Convention The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2450158/posts
I can see that. Those definitely qualify as a righteous zot.
We have had these folks forever...I will be glad to name names in my opinion.
but what’s the point?
it’s very hard to verify
I know for sure we have social liberal agitators here who collude and/or use differing monikers but may be the same person
and they target the south and racial stuff
the easiest target
P.S. Are you feeling invisible on this thread? Knowing you’re there, I’d have shut my trap awhile back.
Not withstanding his pervert musing which you pyscopathicaly think I caused:
He is a TROLL. He does nothing be stir the pot. It is HIS history!
I believe him to be a DU troll (Obama voter) that has survived a long time. IE. The topic of this thread, DUH!
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.