Posted on 05/03/2011 4:46:53 AM PDT by Huck
Yes, if you call yourself ‘native American’ as your ‘race’ you probably have ruddy skin and black hair.
I’m in Catalina, AZ now. I love the boondocks, with the mountains for a back yard ;-)
Say Huck, do you know how fast the Boeing 757 A/C were going when they hit the Twin Towers?
Just what does that have to do with this thread?
FReegards,
Huck
Quite often on the radio from various sources, including, I believe, Rush, Mark Levin, and Done Wade from WLSAM.
Wow, a lot of comments to this thread. I pity your inbox Huck. ;d
I can’t blame anyone being upset about Obama taking credit for this. The good thing is no one will care by 2012.
Imagine DU if they had shot an unarmed Bin Laden under Bush. LOL.
Ditto..
“And at this point, thats what birthers have become.”
It’s not what they’ve become, it’s how they’ve been painted.
“We should stop treating irrational conspiracy theories with the respect they dont deserve.”
Obama’s eligibility is not an “irrational conspiracy” theory, it is a a legal question that needs to be resolved. Is the son (or daughter) of a non-US citizen a natural born citizen? Are we going to follow the constitution or not?
Thank you. First I heard of it.
And at this point, thats what birthers have become.
“Its not what theyve become, its how theyve been painted.”
well .... both.
We have multiple independent sources for his birth in Honolulu, including now an INS report written in Aug 1961, alongside the newspaper announcements which where based on state birth records and the certified copy of the long form BC which corroborates and confirms it. Maybe back in June 2008 it was reasonable to have doubts, but all this evidence over the years has piled up, and you either accept it or rationalize away reality. Birthers doubting those facts have dismissed the facts as doctored and devolved into conspiracy theories to explain how such massive fraud could happen.
His long form BC and official statements and other 3rd party info (as mentioned above) verify his birth facts in spades. It’s time to definitely lay to rest the bogus “born in Kenya” claims and call it the BS that it is. That’s what I mean by: We should stop treating irrational conspiracy theories with the respect they dont deserve.
“Obamas eligibility is not an irrational conspiracy theory, it is a a legal question that needs to be resolved.”
First, you are (deliberately?) confusing dubious legal arguments with the even more dubious birthPLACE arguments. I was talking of the conspiracy theories that are now required to ‘justify’ the bogus claim that Obama hasnt proven he was born in Hawaii.
NOW ... Here’s why the legal argument is dubious: Nobody worried about Spiro Agnew or Chester Arthur having a non-citizen Dad when they were born. It was assumed that birth in USA was sufficient. That’s been the rule and common understanding. Won Kim Ark enshrined the interpretation of the Constitution that you are a citizen at birth if born in the US, no matter what the citizenship of your parents.
” Is the son (or daughter) of a non-US citizen a natural born citizen?”
Yes, if born in the US. See Ankeny court ruling on this very matter.
” Are we going to follow the constitution or not?”
Indeed. We must follow the Constitution, which includes the birthright citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment. Here’s how Ankeny court ruled and any other court would rule: Obama’s birth in Honolulu makes him a citizen from birth and therefore eligible. These courts would say that to claim Obama isn’t eligible is to go against the Constitution.
The Constitution also says the only way to remove a President from office is impeachment. That’s the Constitution. If there are no impeachment hearings on this, its a dead issue. The only way to get Obama out of office soon is the Nov 2012 elections.
The public has not been shown one bit of tangible proof that anything Barry O has stated as so-called ‘fact’ — ever even happened. Barry O has lied and conned his way all along, right into the White House.
“Heres why the legal argument is dubious: Nobody worried about Spiro Agnew or Chester Arthur having a non-citizen Dad when they were born.”
“Nobody worried” is not a legal argument. And Chester Arthur deliberately hid the fact that his father wasn’t a US Citizen when Chet was born during his political career, to the point of destroying records.
Please see the research done by attorney Leo Donofrio at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/. He explains the rulings of Wong Kim Ark, Ankeny, Minor v. Happersett, etc. If not on the main page, sift through the archives.
“Birthers” seem to include anyone who questions Obama’s eligibility - his place of birth or his natural born Citizen status. The legal question relates to whether the son (or daughter) of a non-US citizen father is a natural born Citizen for constitutional purposes. Until this point is resolved, where he was born is immaterial. His birth certificate is only important in that it establishes who his father was. His producing a document showing his father as a non-US citizen may be much more damaging to him in the long run, if we can ever get a court of competent jurisdiction to rule on this matter. It would please me no end for a court to rule him ineligible while he’s in office or even after he leaves office.
Being a “citizen” at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born Citizen.
“The only way to get Obama out of office soon is the Nov 2012 elections.”
Maybe so, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time. What’s the harm in pursuing both avenues of removal?
Admittedly, it does something to the national psyche to be lied to, to be urinated on and told it is raining--not just once, but repeatedly. It is hard knowing you are lied to, and yet being treated with contempt by the media, ersatz conservatives, and those we handily deem RINOs, much like being subjected to the howling derision of the gathered allegedly great thinkers when we have the temerity to utter our belief that the world is not flat.
The level of distrust of this administration and their syncophantic lapdogs in the media has reached the point where we will not just shut up and cheer even when presented with what appears to be good news, especially when the timing is suspiciously advantageous for those who have been lying to us all along.
We quietly and hopefully pray the news is indeed true, and if so, reservedly celebrate the demise of one who has been the leader of an organization which has brought so much pain and death to our shores. We also mourn the loss of our freedom because of the actions of the (hopefully) deceased and his minions, as we mourn still the loss of those who died in the attacks not just on, but leading up to and after 9/11, and grieve for the pain and suffering of our troops and their loved ones even as we praise their efforts and accomplishments as the conflict continues.
I was talking with a former Brooklyn police officer the other day, who lost a close brother officer and friend on 9/11, one who had been trying to get him to transfer to the precinct near the WTC. To paraphrase, 'When the new tower's up and there is no mosque in sight of them, then and only then will we have some closure.'
I agree.
This is a vital and important step along the way, but only one step.
Sadly, we are robbed of our joy at Bin Laden's demise by the lack of honesty and the criminal assault upon our Republic from the highest levels of our own government, even as the one who claims credit makes the announcement.
In a nutshell, we don't trust the messenger, and that, sadly, is a distrust he has profoundly earned.
I find it sad that FReepers and others who have paid attention to the fact that we have been repeatedly told one thing and been subjected to another are viewed with sadness, derision, or disgust, after all, it is a heavy burden to rip away the veils of a fairy tale world and point out the myriad inconsistencies between the fable and the reality. It's no more fun than pointing out that Rapunzel either had the world's best conditioner or had split ends and tangles from hell, not to mention neck problems. But, after all, we are adults here, and 'happily ever after' is not something we expect in this life, but, with God's mercy something we pray for in the hereafter.
We have been lied to so often we no longer 'trust, but verify', for few of us believe our Republic can withstand even those starry eyed moments for the numerous and powerful enemies of the Republic to operate in the absence of critical scrutiny.
In that, Huck, we've been robbed once again.
Yeah! Why would anyone question the acccounts of what happened...? (sarc...)http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/the-slippery-story-of-the-bin-laden-kill/238261/
You don’t have to point me to Leo’s blog. I’ve already chased those rabbit trails. It’s a dead end. Find a tenured law professor out of the thousands of them out there to believe these dubious claims. Find a court to consider it. But wait, they have - Ankeny considered and rejected the claims. Leo and Taitz are 0 for 89 or so by now.
“Whats the harm in pursuing both avenues of removal?”
Because the birther avenue has 0.000000000% chance of success ... and its wrong anyway.
Nice theory, but its both wrong and out of sync with what courts will say the Constitution says and requires. You cannot make the case that Obama isn’t eligible because his Dad is a non-citizen, because in fact he is, due to his birth in the USA, which makes him a citizen since birth, which makes him a natural-born citizen. The End.
Just wondering if he (Huck) has studied the incidents - like I have -
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.