Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jack Black

It is not obsession - it is the constitution, it is to avoid setting a precedent of the usurpation of the presidency.
This is not to drop everything else. This is to stop the destruction at its roots, as opposed to what you obsess with - to fight the symptoms. Who rings up trillions in deficits - more than all previous presidents combined? why do you think we have to fight all these marxist/commie policies? - because you are allowing a usurper to lead the marxists/commies in the fiscal destruction of USA!
Chester Arthur’s usurpation of the presidency was not known when he was serving. Obama’s is known, yet all of you knowingly validate his illegitimacy!
It is not just the interpretation of a few. It was just pointed out where the pres requirement came from yet all you can say is ‘your interpretation’!
Obama will not be replaced with Biden since Biden is hand-picked by the usurper - everything the usurper has signed or appointed/chosen will be null and void.
Removing the usurper is certainly not for the ‘fleeting satisfaction’ of anything, but for the logical, sane way to expell the leader of the fiscal disaster that you so worry about to the exclusion of all else!
So you are saying just because we have not been able to do a good job protecting the constitution for 60 years we should just forget about protecting it now, to the point of letting an ineligible person take over the presidency illegally?
You know it is not just about who obama’s father was - it is about his constitutional eligibility to be POTUS! If he is ineligible then it is totally unacceptable to let him keep the office illegally - it certainly is much more bothersome than USA giving away 150 million dollars to a terrorist group in Palestine - and who gave the money away? the usurper you want to keep up there!
Pending bankruptcy of USA, the 100 Trillion dollars in debt and unfunded mandates are all results of leaving the usurper there! We don’t care where he was born. We just care that he is constitutionally eligible. Can you understand that!?
People like you who distort the factual arguments may wish this issue to be a side show and try hard to convince people to ignore it. But like it or not, this is the main issue that goes to the heart of the matter. Ignore it to your own detriment.


68 posted on 11/11/2010 3:49:16 PM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]


To: chrisnj
" You know it is not just about who obama’s father was - it is about his constitutional eligibility to be POTUS! If he is ineligible then it is totally unacceptable to let him keep the office illegally - it certainly is much more bothersome than USA giving away 150 million dollars to a terrorist group in Palestine - and who gave the money away? the usurper you want to keep up there! "

Yes, Jack Black ( even that name should give you pause to think the source your talking to ) tried to set up the strawman argument... however, some things are lost on them.
We would not be having the US giving money to the Palestine terrorist group ( also forgot that Obama is the enemy of Israel ) if it were the fact Obama gave the green light for it... yeah, argue the fact that the US gave the $ 150 million to a terrorist group, but, forget who gave the green light for it.
74 posted on 11/11/2010 8:48:00 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson