Posted on 04/05/2010 3:30:46 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
I have been as disappointed as you in their ridicule of those they label "birthers", but I think I somewhat understand why they do it. I think their primary motivation is that, whatever they believe about Obama's legitimacy, they think it is a strategic mistake to focus on it. They believe that the natural-born issue gives ammo to the left and their media allies to smear conservatives as whackos. Unfortunately, to some extent they are correct.
However, I can't bring myself to place political pragmatism above Constitutional principle. I really believe that if we allow Obama to get away with this (assuming that he is NOT a natural-born citizen), then we will open ourselves up to even greater usurpation in the future. As brain-dead as many of our fellow citizens are, I can easily see them saying "Sure, why shouldn't Hugo Chavez be able to run for President of the U.S.? It would just show our committment to diversity." I'm exaggerating a little, of course, but that's not far from where many people's minds are these days. All the more reason why we MUST diligently defend Constitutional principles - ALL Constitutional principles, every word.
The Army appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in November, 2008. But after the Obama administration took office, the Justice Department asked the court to drop the case, which was dismissed on May 6, 2009.
Exactly.
I (very reluctantly and with serious reservations up to and including nausea) voted for McCain and think he wasn’t eligibile either due to the circumstances of his birth.
It’s not about party spirit or loyalties, it’s about the Constutitonal standards. Words mean things.
Name calling ‘birthers’ is a lib tactic and kindergarten practice to stop one’s opponent. I laugh at it - if that’s the best they have - they have NOTHING!
And if they did have something - it would be Zero’s credentials. Where are they - behind $1.5+ to keep them protected.
Exactly. This is nothing like the Lt LT Watada’s case, were he went against orders (considered it an unlawful war) but not against the one giving the orders.
And the final results of that were - no court martial and....
The Army appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in November, 2008. But after the Obama administration took office, the Justice Department asked the court to drop the case, which was dismissed on May 6, 2009.
To: Smokeyblue
Hey genius....No shit he will be courtmarshalled. That is the whole point. A courtmarshall will force a trial. That is what the eligibilty movement has been about since day one!!! In a trial Obama will lose. That is why he and is criminal legal team have been avoiding. Any sort of disclosure or open court hearing will spell doom for the fraud in the white house. Instead he gladly spends millions our tax dollars keeping it out of court. Obama thinks that just because he safely crossed the finish line that all means of getting there is out of bounds. He does not care about the process....remember??? Health care??? Fool!!!
You’re right. It’s not as if he’s asking Obama to do something that is prohibitively difficult, impractical, or somehow beyond the pale. Lakin is also not asking him to do anything that is beyond the scope of his Presidential duties. We’re talking about a freakin’ birth certificate! Any of us could get hold of ours and show it within a few days at very most. Shouldn’t the President of the United States be able to at minimum provide the same type of proof of citizenship required of us for a multitude of mundane, every-day activities?
“TODAY he received a letter from his brigade commander warning that he faced court marshal and time in prison. “
I quoted this as an update...see “TODAY” he received a letter. Get it genius?????
I support Lt. Col. Lakin 100%. The media is not exactly covering this story. Updates are important since they are few and far between. Not sure why your vitriol is directed to me.
I have been as disappointed as you in their ridicule of those they label “birthers”, but I think I somewhat understand why they do it. I think their primary motivation is that, whatever they believe about Obama’s legitimacy, they think it is a strategic mistake to focus on it. They believe that the natural-born issue gives ammo to the left and their media allies to smear conservatives as whackos. Unfortunately, to some extent they are correct.
Many of these same people (especially Coulter) pushed for the Clinton impeachment....I think someone sitting as POTUS in violation of the Constitution is much more of an issue than a President lying about his sexual activity.
The problem with Coulter and Co. is that they Enable Obama and liberals by ridiculing and smiting birthers. If they wanted to stay out of the issue that is no problem....but they have taken it to another level....sounding like the “Liberals” they claim to criticize.
Watch them jump on the bandwagon later....
Better add me and Jim Rob to that list too.
Mark Levin on his show today played the Michelle Obama sound bite where she slips up and confesses that Obama’s home country is Kenya....
However... in preface to playing that clip, he said: “I’m not a birther.... “ and then proceeds to refer to Michelle as one because of what she said.
Now... When Mark Levin said: “I’m not a birther”, what did he mean by that? That he questions where Barry was born? or that he questions his eligibility? or that he questions the importance of the constitution where eligibility is defined?
BUT... more importantly, WHY DID HE feel like he needed to say that???
He DID call Michelle a birther... because she made reference to Barry’s “HOME COUNTRY”... so if this is what a “Birther” is, what is wrong with those of us who also believe that Barry was born in Kenya???
Did Mark Levin distance himself from birthers because the media has so successfully demonized those who demand proof of eligibility? Or did he do it because he doesn’t care what the constitution has to say about this issue???
Are all birthers “jerks”??? Why?
See what happens when we turn the other cheek?
The relevance of our constitution is made moot.
Lakin knows that it will be hard to deny him standing. It is Lakin, and not the whole country, who will be injured if what he says is true. And what he charges, though I would prefer that he make the charge is principal focus, is that Obama violates Article II of our Constitution because he was born of an alien father.
The first response of the White House (and don't doubt that these responses are being orchestrated by Anita Dunn's husband Bob Bauer, the White House council), is the automatic Alinsky response, to separate the sheep and the timid with ridicule: "We suggest the Dr. Lakin undergo a brain scan." This will not intimidate Dr. Lakin, who knows something about brain scans (as do I). This is the "Birther" strategy. It will work with the major media, whose careers are built upon the assumed ignorance of their audience, but citizens are learning about our history, and those of us who have studied have learned that our founders said what they meant and meant what they said; all our current Senators said the same in 2008 "born of citizen parents", when it suited their political purpose. When their careers are threatened, they forget what they said and signed two years ago. They have all seen what happend to Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal when he sent a letter to the White House asking for some assurance that Obama was eligible; he suddenly acquired ethics charges and resigned from The House to run for Governor.
Obama’s supporters probably had to weigh his debilities against his strengths. The hint of melonin in his skin, in spite of his patrician background, would insure him the black vote. And he does have the stree hustler confidence which serves the teleprompter well. It seems likely that Obama was groomed for this position, suddenly having none of his immediate relatives available for questioning. It takes time to explore and understand the long history upon which our framers based their restriction of the presidency to citizens born on our soil of citizen parents,enough time to permit Obama to bring us close to financial collapse, and unable ot defend our borders. Natual born citizenship is a very old notion, employed by dozens of nations at various times. A dozen framers wrote about natural born citizenship extensively. The source of the definition was the most widely cited legal source between 1789 and 1820 and was used by Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Jay, Munroe, Story, Wilson, Waite, Bingham, and even by Patrick Leahy and Clair McGaskill in their scheme to insure that their opposition candidate would be John McCain, who also was not a natural born citizen, much as we may feel he is entitled because of his military record.
I hope Lakin’s legal council is competent. This is about our Constitution. Sad to see so many who are willing to glibly dismiss Article II as a provision which has gone out of fashion. If belief in the immutability of our Constitution is trumped because someones family didn't care about or understand the Constitution we are lost as a republic because all the rights being protected can be rationalized away just as they are dismissing Article II Section 1.
Or did he do it because he doesn’t care what the constitution has to say about this issue???
Seriously? Your choices are either, Levin can't figure it out for himself, or, he doesn't care about the constitution? You obviously don't listen to him or you wouldn't make such an asinine observation.
Most likely, he said "I'm not a Birther" because he's looked into it and he doesn't believe there is legal merit and/or political wisdom in pursuing this case.
he's copping out
Needs repeating, many times.
Actually the "s" belongs here... Courts Marshial
Good post. I share your hope about Lakin’s legal council.
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.