Posted on 06/16/2011 10:57:52 PM PDT by RobinMasters
A radical leftist sidekick of Bill Bryan, aka "PJ Foggy," who writes Internet comments typically supporting Bryan on pro-Obama extremist websites such as Politijab.com and Fogbow.com is Kurt Coleman, who posts under the username "Rikker."
Among the claims by PJ Foggy and Rikker are that they have taken steps and have encouraged others to take steps to interfere with presidential eligibility litigation brought by attorney Orly Taitz and to abuse anti-Obama posters on Fox News host Greta Van Susteren's blog.
In a 2009 Internet post, Rikker identified himself as a male in his late 40s living in Florida, as seen here in Exhibit 1:
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
but if he dares come over to Free Republic he will get zot(ted).
When I’m driving, and I see an 0bama sticker, my wife has to keep me from ramming into the idiot with my SUV. I’m way past the point where I will be more than happy to cause “problems” right back for 0bamunists and members of 0bama’s core constituency. “Don’t Tread on Me” is more than an anti-tax slogan!
What is zot(ted)?
Are you series? Welcome to FR.
“Zot” is a hugh part of FR culture.
I’d help you now but I have to take a shower.
What got me started arguing with them is one post by Dr. Conspiracy claiming that the exemption in Article II for other than natural born citizens was just to do Alexander Hamilton a favor. They argued that EVERYONE born in the Colonies was a Natural born citizen. I pointed out that George Washington was a "Natural Born Subject" of Great Britain, and it hardly seemed logical to claim you could also be a "Natural Born Citizen" of a country that didn't exist when you were born.
You should have heard the screams and howls! :) They invoked English law all the way back to the 1500s. As a matter of fact, they seem to regard it as a particularly important aspect of their argument. I pointed out that we threw off English law in a little event they may have heard of called the AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE!
It was fun, but it is really a waste of time to discuss logic with asylum inmates. Even educated ones.
The founders put the natural born citizen wording in for a reason. The “exemption” was because, as you said, there were no natural born citizens in the US eligible to be president.
Tell me what you think the difference between citizen and natural born citzen is. Or, in your opinion is there a difference?
“Zot” is a hugh part of FR culture.
I’d help you now but I have to take a shower.
I've read the website off and on for a few years, but I only recently joined and started paying more attention. It is one of the few places that "birther" threads can be discussed rationally (Most of the time.) with other people who are also interested in the subject.
The only example i've seen of "Zoting" is for a recent post by "barflyonthewall." The only thing I can tell that may have happened, (other than everyone saying he was "zotted" and posting pictures of lightning strikes and fly swatters) was that his comment went behind a link. Any further explanation would be appreciated.
Tell me what you think the difference between citizen and natural born citzen is. Or, in your opinion is there a difference?
A "citizen" is a person who is a lawfully recognized member of a nation by any means. Regarding a "natural born citizen", If you go by the strict interpretation of that collection of English Words, it means someone who is born naturally as a citizen, but in the Context of Article II it is a term of art with a specific meaning; that of being born without allegiance to any other nation.
This is the how the Founders regarded the term, and that principle is the salient aspect of Article II. They never envisioned the concept of Dual Citizenship Marriages, because in 1789, there were no such things. In every nation on earth, the wife automatically acquired the citizenship of her husband, so ALL children were born to two citizen parents, regardless of country.
Zot:
verb; transitive;
to forcibly one remove for cause, to evaporate one as punishment for innapproppriate posting on the FREE REPUBLIC.
Such zotting is frequently performed by Viking Kitties [of Led Zeppelin lineage] with lightning strikes at the command of such kittens.
See alternative explanations: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2035915/posts and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1686991/posts
Also see example: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/805251/posts
And finally, a FRexplanation: http://www.freerepublic.com/~adminmoderator/
BTW, it was “Are you series” [not “serious”] and the other oddity was “hugh” [not “huge”]. Both hugh, series, showers, cheese, moose, et al can also be found in the FRictionary.
... just sayin’...
Some would argue that Barack Obama is not a citizen cause his father was not a citizen. It seems in the reply you posted that you agree.
“In every nation on earth, the wife automatically acquired the citizenship of her husband, so ALL children were born to two citizen parents, regardless of country.”
Such zotting is frequently performed by Viking Kitties [of Led Zeppelin lineage] with lightning strikes at the command of such kittens.
I thought that might be the case, but after the guy was zotted, his thread was still there. Does zotting not remove the thread?
... just sayin’...
Thanks.
What would be the fun in that?
The Viking Kitties are “kitties” because they like to PLAY with repulsive little vermin.
I would say his citizenship status is in question. It actually depends on what is the truth. If he was born outside the territory of the United States (such as in Canada) i'm pretty sure he wouldn't be an American citizen IF Barack Obama Sr is indeed his father. (Something I am not yet satisfied about.)
If he were born outside the United States, (such as in White Rock Canada) but his father IS an American Citizen (such as Frank Davis) then he WOULD be an American citizen, unless we go by the old legal notion that the Husband of the marriage is legally the Father of Children from the marriage, in which case we are back to Barack Sr. (IF there really was a marriage,( and IF it is considered legal with Barack Sr.'s bigamy and all,) which hasn't been completely nailed down yet.)
On the other hand, if he were actually born IN Hawaii or Washington, a lot of people would say he had 14th Amendment Citizenship, but that wouldn't qualify him for Article II eligibility.
About the only way he can be legally qualified to be President is if his father IS an American (disregarding the children of the marriage thing) and he was born in the United States.
Unfortunately, we do not know for certain which of the possible conditions he satisfies, and therefore his citizenship status is indeterminate.
The Viking Kitties are “kitties” because they like to PLAY with repulsive little vermin.
:)
I think you and I agree.
Just so I understand. You’re saying if Obama Sr. is the father, then there is no way Jr. is eligible to be president.
I believe that’s pretty clear. Most times the simplist interpretation makes the most sense. People really overanlyze this subject, you get into all kinds of obscure readings of court cases from years ago, and that’s were the confusion comes in. Confusion IMO, that is designed to, well, confuse a really simple matter.
JimRob is currently working on a hand-held zot device that will work on elected officials. It will leave them fully intact, but strip them of their power to write/vote on legislation.
Yes. If Obama Sr. is the Father, then he doesn't meet article II eligibility requirements. He would not be a valid president.
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.