Posted on 12/29/2011 4:22:24 PM PST by Smokeyblue
Newt Gingrich routinely fields questions during his campaign stops and during the event showcasing Art Laffer's endorsement, a woman who had been sititing on stage behind him asked Gingrich for clarification about President Obama's country of birth.
SNIP
"All I can report is the state of Hawaii has certified that he was born there," Gingrich continued.
Gesturing to his wife beside him, he said, "We both were with a taxi driver one day who showed us the hospital. There is every reason to believe he is a citizen of the United States. The fact that he's already a terrible president, we don't have to go beyond that and try to find something beyond that."
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.blogs.foxnews.com ...
You're not able to analyze this issue on your own?? All you're doing is creating an excuse not to be fully honest.
“Big Rubio supporter for future higher office and not a fan of the birther movement”
This admission just about sums up your true interest in this topic.
You want to be able to do what Obama had done, namely, usurp the Constitution.
OK, I read your FR home page - and I think I know where you are coming from now. So, with due respect, and I mean that, I offer the following thoughts:
A: I have not bitten, and will not bite, on your doubts about my credentials on my page. You are free to believe them or not, and I don’t mean that snarkily. Just literally.
B: You find my credentials far more interesting and relevant than do most posters. I have hardly given that home page a second thought since I quickly posted it. This is only an observation, not a criticism.
C : You mention a deep concern over the tone of how folks conduct their discourse. No doubt my tone offended that. I find it interesting however that you found no problem with the tone aimed at me. Most of my sharper comments were actually direct responses to attacks on me. Is that a justification? Perhaps not. But I do find it very interesting that you only saw it from one direction when it clearly was cross fire.
Much of FR debate is just that.
D: Far as I am concerned, we are all more or less on the same side here and I’m just doing “sport debate.”
E: My wife is a Christian adventure author, and may be interested in a beta trade with you.
sorry you took offense, none was intended. The birther crowd has been extremely insulting to me at every opportunity for many months. Perhaps I bring that baggage to these threads.
I was referring to Thomas’s eyebrow-raising comment about “avoiding the issue.” What is plain is that the courts either 1) fear the social ramifications of hearing this case on it’s merits, or 2) fear they’d be overstepping their bounds by wading into it. Or possibly a third, that being fear of retribution.
And so I will grant you your point, that no living jurist has yet to agree with the “birthers.”. I would then turn it around and ask you a question, Mr Horse Ass Labeler: what living constructionist jurist has stated that the definition of NBC includes children of non-citizen parents? Has Bork spoken on this? Alito? Of course not. I submit that my fear hypothesis is the reason why.
Instead they avoid the issue, while America burns. How incredible that the very reason for the NBC clause in our Constitution, that being to avoid an intentional sabotage from a man with split or no allegiance to America, is precisely what is driving us over the cliff! What foresight they had! How terribly we’ve failed them.
And people like you who make clever comments while applauding yourself for your intelligence. I’m sure John Jay would’ve been persuaded by you to change his famous NBC letter to Washington.
But I digress. Let’s hear your list of current constructionist who have clearly defined NBC to include children of non-citizen parents.
Actually I have analyzed it - but have not reached a conclusion. It is rare where this is the case. I find it interesting that instead of honoring an attempt to find the truth, you assume I am creating an excuse.
Let’s assume everything you say is right - and it may be. There is still one huge problem with your thesis: America is not burning because of where Obama was born or where his parents were born.
America is burning because of his Marxism and that of too many in congress who damned sure were born here and whose parents were also born here. On that, no one has an argument. And it is on that he will be, or will not be, defeated.
Thus, my interest lies more with the unquestioned Marxism than the still highly questioned issues you raise. Meanwhile, I earnestly seek answers on your issue and am met with derision and insults and false choices and straw arguments.
Your ability to perceive the truth or reach a conclusion doesn’t need to be based on someone else’s opinion and resume ... unless you just don’t understand English or unless you lack self-confidence or integrity. You do understand that this idea that “someone of merit” needs to agree about an issue is a logical fallacy?? The Supreme Court is composed of NINE people of merit, yet they don’t all agree all the time. Basing a conclusion on a third-party opinion from a so-called person of merit doesn’t mean that person is more correct on the issue than anyone else.
“America is not burning because of where Obama was born or where his parents were born.”
In this case, actually it is.
Without the usurping of the office of the presidency he would have no power to enact his Marxist agenda.
There are plenty of Marxists in this country who are NOT the president.
Of course not all non-NBC’s are Marxists but Obama is one.
I’m not assuming you don’t have an answer, and I understand the whole issue of priorities. You’ve presented a reasonable stance and I can respect that. I do hope you realize that the SCOTUS justices have given clues that something is not right in all this:
For instance, Alito’s refusal to have an ex parte meeting with Obama.
Roberts’ invitation for what he knew would be an ex parte meeting (issued right after SCOTUS dismissed Donofrio’s case but before that fact was publicly known - precisely the time when it would most have seemed a glaring ethics violation), as well as botching up the oath of office so that there was never a public video of him administering a Constitutional oath of office.
Scalia’s comments to Taitz implying that they he was unaware of the arguments in the eligibility cases - especially when coupled with the filing issues with SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickel.
Thomas’ comment that Sotomayor does best being a SCOTUS justice because there’s not a requirement that she be born in the US, and follow-up “joke” that they’ve been evading the issue of whether a President has to be born in the US.
There are other issues with the eligibility judges as well. Judge DAvid Carter is one of the most blatant ones - hiring a clerk from the firm defending Obama right before totally reversing both his opinion and his public attitude/demeanor on Obama’s eligibility issue. He HAD to know that would give the “appearance of impropriety” (because it WAS an ethics breach), and it leads me to wonder if that was precisely why he did it.
Kind of like Roberts giving the absolute worst-appearing timing for his unprecedented invitation to meet with Obama, who would have many pending eligibility cases appearing before SCOTUS at the time. That just seems too deliberate and too blatant to be an accident.
So though the SCOTUS justices haven’t said whether they agree with the de Vattel definition of NBC, they have given clues that something stinks on the whole Obama eligibility issue. And Sotomayor and Kagan’s refusal to recuse themselves from the decision on whether to hear the Hollister case strongly suggests that there are enough justices who would like to take the case that Sotomayor and Kagan would be needed to keep this issue under the rug. Apparently one of the conservative justices is the one wavering on this issue. I would really, really like to know why.
Regarding Obama’s documentation, I hope you’re aware that the seal on the COLB had to have been photoshopped onto the scan of the photograph, and that the supposed long-form is not legally certified according to the Administrative Rules governing vital records. So we know - at the very least - that Obama has allowed to believe that forged records were genuine. That is a felony - the same felony that Blogejevich was initially sitting in jail for: violating the federal general false statement act. For Obama to commit a felony in order to not show his BC says to me that there is something even more serious than a felony at stake his real BC that he’s been using all these years - wherever it’s from. Abercrombie told Mike Evans HI doesn’t have one for him, and reportedly implied the same thing to a columnist for the Star-Advertiser.
I concur that his Marxism is the actual problem, and also agree that our politicians as a whole have facilitated our slide towards and into socialism.
Common ground! I appreciate your continued engagement, even if we still differ on some important points.
One such point is the reason for the NBC safeguard clause. Again, I agree that as a whole our society’s and collective political zeitgeist has created the atmosphere of decline. However, our founders knew that the President carried such a more centralized, focused power (I.e. The entire executive branch and power resides in a single person, essentially), that critical care must be taken in considering eligibility. And so yes, Marxism is the true problem with O, but his hatred of America should have been stopped by our founders’ brilliance, had we heeded the Constitution.
The firewall was there, but intentionally ignored and nefariously obfuscated in many ways.
Sigh. We are currently a nation without laws, and unless we right the ship, are doomed. I pray to God for America, that He will send us the leader we so desperately need.
Birther myth. They were NOT discussing Obama in any way shape or form. Stop falling for Farah propaganda.
Why would he do this? How would this be helpful or hurtful to the cause of justice, or be helpful or hurtful to Roberts personally.
I just don't get it. Why would he do this? Has any other president ever met with the Supreme Court justices in this manner so soon after an election?
Here we go again. You seem mired in the notion that I am taking offense. I’m not. I comment on things as objectively as I can, and sometimes a post so jumps out at me that I weigh in. Equating that w taking offense is just not logical. If I said a certain remark made by Obama was “obnoxious”, would you assume I was offended? I’m guessing the answer is yes. In fact, I can and do make such assessments w’out taking the matter personally. Obama has a knack for being obnoxious. It comes w the Malignant Narcissist territory. I’m not required to be offended by every obnoxious thing he does or says, nor am I. I just note it for the record and move on.
Likewise, I simply noted [last night] an over-the-top obnoxious remark you made, and added a couple of inquiries about it. I do admit to having my doubts. How could you be a featured AT writer and a Rush ‘ghost contributor’ and yet be either so clueless when it comes to making repugnant statements, or else just be so uncaring? Something doesn’t add up.
I’m not aware of having insulted you. Yes, I did call you immature. That is my honest assessment, and there is no malice or unkindness intended. I hope I’m wrong, and that you’re actually a reasonably mature person who only comes off otherwise due to a ‘snarky’ [your word not mine] mode of posting. Though given the first comment of yours to which I responded, I find such a hopeful interpretation unlikely.
Got one more thing to say, but look for FReepmail. It’s not for general consumption.
I currently have a Gingrich bumper sticker on my car, but when he does stoopid stuff like this (which isn’t much different from McCain assuring us we needn’t worry about Obama) it doesn’t bother me that much to see him dropping in polls.
Is it something in the GOP water?
I don’t get it.
Why should God send help to a nation that slaughters its innocent babies in the womb...and...even partially born infants who are seconds from their first breath?
Why would God send help to a nation that sends its precious children into prison-like, secular, sexually and morally corrupt, indoctrination centers ( misnamed “schools”) were they must think and reason godlessly just to cooperate in the classroom? Even Christians by the millions do this and offer excuses for doing it.
I pray daily for this nation. I pray that God will raise up capable and honest men and women who will defend the Constitution, but, honestly why should He?
Actually, all the candidates have caved. I guess it’s not fair to just pick on him.
You understand the whole point of the Natural Born Citizen requirement is precisely to discriminate based on where the candidate and his parents were born.
It is precisely to make where a candidate and his parents were born a very important issue.
You just don’t like the requirement. You want to minimize the importance of it. You want to make it irrelevant.
What????? Thomas’ comment makes no sense without Obama’s situation.
Neither does Coulter, and before you go off on her leftward movement lately - which I admit is happening - she is a Constitutional scholar of some merit.
I do not know what Bork or Scalia would say about it, but I can’t imagine they would interpret the “NBC” language as you do and keep it silent, since regardless of whether Barry Sotero was born in Hawaii or not, his father clearly puts him outside your interpretation.
I believe it is a fallacy to assume that anyone who is a constitutional scholar has done in depth research as to the correct meaning of the article II term "natural born citizen." I think that unless someone specifically researches it, they will simply accept the oft repeated and most common assumption that birth in the geographical boundaries is all that is required.
I would be surprised if Ann Coulter or ANY of the supreme court justices were actually knowledgeable on this specific aspect of the Constitutional.
I know I am learning new bits and pieces regarding it every week or so. Just yesterday I was made aware of an example where James Madison wrote on the issue (regarding a man who was born here, but denied American citizenship in 1812.) in another thread. I am virtually certain that neither Ann Coulter nor any Supreme Court Justices are even aware of this case.
This is but one example of the many birther myths that still persist.
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.