Skip to comments.Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, others to leave a Legacy of COWARDICE
Posted on 02/19/2012 3:57:01 AM PST by Chance Hart
First off, I am a conservative and have spent countless hours listening to and reading the books of all these men. Reading Levin's Liberty and Tyranny was compelling, as were many of the publications of these Patriots. With the VAST amount of Constitutional research accumulated in order to write these best sellers, there is and has always has been one important fact known to ALL these men to be a Constitutional FACT missing. That non negotiable FACT is that according to the Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT eligible to be placed on the ballot, let alone occupy his present position as President of the United States of America! Obama himself touts the fact that his father was a British Subject at the time of his BHO 2s birth, making him at the very least a duel citizen and not eligible to hold the office as president. Furthermore, Daddy was NEVER a citizen of the United States, again making Jr. ineligible with that fact alone. None of these men (as far as I know) served in the military for whatever reason and I think there may be some suppressed guilt because of that when I hear their accolades regarding current and former Men of Honor. As they refer to many of their callers and guests as Brother, they at the same time have never felt compelled to commit the heroic act of jumping on a Firecracker, let alone a Grenade to help save their Brothers and in the end help save this Nation. Levin is the one that has disappointed me the most when I heard him disenfranchise many of his loyal listeners on Jan 19th, 2010 (may have been the 20th) by referring to those that even questioned the eligibility issue as (paraphrasing) ignorant and foolish. He followed that comment by saying that Obama was of course eligible to be President. He, in my opinion is an expert on the Constitution and knows full well that his statement was an out and out lie. When the truth finally reveals itself, I can almost hear the excuses from these Less than Honorable radio and TV Patriots now 1. I was given strict orders from station bosses not to bring up or allow discussion on the eligibility issue and to refer to those that do bring it up as ignorant Birthers. 2. Yes, I of course knew the simple truth, but decided it was the wrong approach to be honest when the proper way to handle this was at the Ballot Box. 3. Book sales were BOOMING and I was too GUTLESS to show the Courage that I ask my listeners to display on a daily basis. 4. There are a few in the business that are standing their ground on this issue and Liberals are calling them names. Sticks and Stones will break my Bones and even Words would really hurt me because I AM A COWARD! By the way, there are thousands of these Cowards walking the halls of Congress and other places that have at least to this point failed to MAN UP. All this makes me admire all the more the few that in their heart really do trust God Almighty and FEAR NO EVIL.
This is a strawman.
No one here on Free Republic has suggested that any talk show host spend **all** their time on the citizenship issue.
It is hard to defend a strawman of **your** creation.
That should say:
No one here on Free Republic has suggested that any talk show host spend **all** their **energy** on the citizenship issue.
If you have read this thread you will note there is a very specific reason why I think Mark Levin is a coward. Very simply he completely ignores Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution. And because he continues to do that and refuses to accept criticism about it, I label him thin-skinned and someone you would not like to end up in a foxhole with. Got it?
And who is calling who names?
By the way, the Great One is, and will always be Jackie Gleason.
And Levin's "get off my phone" spiel is directly copied from the great radio talk show host, Bob Grant.
You're doing the same thing! Look at what you just said!
In order for him to be eligible in the first place he had to qualify as one able to do so. A natural born citizen would never qualify much less be eligible to either claim or refuse it!
You've also just established that he has dual nationality, whether it was claimed or not, and isn't a natural born citizen.
Why don’t you try reading the thread before you make a comment like that.
Whether you realize it or not, there has been an ongoing dialogue.
Is SR511 law?
Look in the mirror. See the monkey?
More personal attack that is directly specifically to the poster.
It is difficult to respond to personal attack.
How old are you, ten?
Didnt even Ankeny state that Ark wasnt a NBC?
Another example of personal attack directed specifically to the poster. This time it is the poster, Chance Hart.
It is difficult to respond to personal attack. What is a poster to say? That they are not a “monkey”, “nutcase”, or “dufus”?
Fact: Obama took three years to post a clumsily photoshoped image of birth certificate when he had every opportunity to present clean and certifiable ( court acceptible) proof of his birth place.
Fact: Why spend hundreds of thousands of private and tax dollars sending attorneys across the nation to prevent the release of a document that he claims has nothing embarrassing on it?
Fact: A real natural born citizen would be HONORED to promptly prove with the best evidence that he was eligible to be president and Commander in Chief. He would be especially pleased to do this for a member of the military.
Fact: Rush, Levin, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Ingram, Medved, and the other yappers have IGNORED Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
My conclusion is that these talk show personalities are cowards and have no real commitment to conservatism except that it fills their bank accounts. My conclusion is that if real tyranny comes to the U.S. they will be completely untrustworthy. I conclude that they will sell their talents to the fascist oligarchy and spit shine the jack boots crushing our necks.
I stand with JohnG45. I would **not** want these yapper guys and gals in my fox hole.
How old are you, ten?
Sorry, I misunderstood your post. Please disregard post #159.
And just to show how even the court in Ankeny can get things wrong I give you this...
@Ankeny v Governor of Indiana
How could the court make such an error?
No, the person being castigated and denigrated simply asks the person to qualify as to what makes them the thing they're being called.
How exactly am I a monkey/nutcase/dufus?
What have I stated that leads you to make such a determination?
And if the person chooses to take another "stab" at you, instead of proving their assertion, you say...
That in no manner indicates that I am a monkey/nutcase/dufus.
Ask the same question again and also ask...
Do you not have strongly held beliefs as well that you are willing to defend?
I certainly hope this old ogre didn't kill your thread.
I’ve met plenty of Freepers. The point about being anonymous is that anything said isn’t on the public record. Mark Levin’s job depends on what he says. All these useless idiots attacking him can say whatever they want.
Of course the clear sign that the author of this thread is a complete and utter moron is that he presumes Levin is a coward because he disagrees with Levin. The missing link in his non sequitur is the further required presupposition that Levin’s job, indeed, depends on Levin says.
ping to talk radio failure to address eligibility thread...
Having defined NBC children as no doubt those born in the country to citizen parents, MvHs doubts were about the citizenship of non-NBC children which MvH divided into two categories:
1. Those non-NBC children considered citizens at birth
2. Those non-NBC children NOT considered citizens at birth
The WKA court declared that WKA was in the first of these two non-NBC categories.
The sentence in MvH in which doubts are expressed has citizens as the subject, NOT natural born citizens.
From Minor v Happersett:
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
Yet some people insist on substituting natural born citizens into that sentence for citizens.
Is SR511 law?
Here, let me help you out...
@Ankeny v Governor of Indiana
Does SR511 have ANYTHING to do with being born in the USA? No. It only dealt with those born outside the USA.
“Didnt even Ankeny state that Ark wasnt a NBC?”
No, it did not. It said the court did not make a formal ruling that Ark was a NBC because it did not need to. However, the court’s argument used in WKA did lead to the conclusion that Ark was a NBC. Therefor, “the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a natural born Citizen using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial.”
“In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
“’The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Id. at 167-168.’
“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong! This is an erroneus interpretation and Malihi's embrace of the interpretation is erroneous.
Reading the "black letter" dicta, the Minor v. Happersett court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a CITIZEN, not doubts about whether a child of alien parents is NBC. These non-NBC children of aliens or foreigners are the persons about whose CITIZENSHIP there were doubts. There were no doubts that these persons were not NBC because these persons were explicitly “distinguished from” NBCs:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
IOW, if a person born in the US had one or more alien or foreigner parent, they were “distinguished from” NBC persons. That is explicit and that definition of NBC as having NO alien or foreign parent is a definition which is “never doubted.”
As philman_36 has noted, even the Ankeny court stated in dicta that the WKA court did NOT say WKA was NBC. The Ankeny court's misinterpretation of the MvH dicta was cited in dicta as justification for including Barry in the class about whom the MVH court said there were doubts that they were NBC and Ankeny resolved those doubt in favor of Barry.
Again, the doubts in MvH were clearly whether persons with alien or foreigner parents were CITIZENS, not whether they were NBC, which they could not be under the MvH holding that was used to place Mrs. Minor in a class of citizens...that being NBC. This NBC class was DISTINGUISHED from the class that had one or more aliens or foreigners as parents.
Note that by their own admission, neither the Ankeny court nor Malihi were able to cite a single federal cast affirming their claim that WKA set a precedent NBC definition under which Barry is NBC. Not one federal citation in over 110 years!
Good point! Good strategy! :-)
Absolutely! It is disregarded.
Didnt even Ankeny state that Ark wasnt a NBC?
No, it did not. It said the court did not make a formal ruling that Ark was a NBC because it did not need to.
Okay, if that's how you want to read it then who am I to disagree.
Perhaps I should have posted where that footnote came from...
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.14 Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 (snicker) and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born Citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
So then we come to this in Ankeny...
The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States.
Wasn't WKA ruled a citizen, and not a natural born citizen, and the court ruled that he was a citizen @by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and not on the basis of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?
And let me further ask you this...
Why would a court use a case that had nothing whatsoever to do with determining the NBC status of the person before them when they could have used a case that had the very definition of NBC in its holding?
Read 164. Talk about stump stupid!
It seemed when Rick Buckley passed away last year things really spiraled down the tubes. As you note, they pre-empt 1/2 hour of Savage to bring audio of Brian Williams NBC Nightly News, they have a big drumroll every half hour touting some kind of "power of NBC news," and they force Gambling and others to put on the monkey face guy to preview his Meet the Press show each week.
I was hoping that Malzberg would replace the 10AM WABC guy (Crummy) but they gave that slot to Geraldo Rivera! I have the impression that Gambling has to watch his Ps & Qs or they will boot him out the door as well!
It certainly does, doesn't it!
That makes three of us then. These yappers are people that are in the entertainment business, it just so happens that their chosen segment is focused on “conservative” issues designed to attract a conservative audience. These yappers will never stray anywhere that is harmful to their bottom line (and more specifically their ability to stay on the air). No one should ever expect a courageous, principled stand from any of them if it will jeopardize their ability to stay on the air. So they will continue to offer “conservative” entertainment, and not anything more.
There ya go! A picture is often worth 1,000 words, isn’t it!
Gypsy Lee Rose, a true beauty in her time. She drove many a man to...uh...ahem...distraction.
Speaking of following the money, these excellent points about conservative media being AWOL on the eligibility issue beg a question: Why not at least try to put our influence in play?
How many Rush, Hannity, Levin, Hedgecock and Beck listeners are supportive of at least allowing this issue to be properly heard in court and aired in pubic?
I have listened to each of these broadcasters since I began listening to Rush in the mid-80’s. I picked up on Beck in 2001. I hear at least one of these bloviators nearly every day. That said, I am more than willing to stop listening to ALL them and their advertisements until they give the eligibility issue the respect and air time it deserves.
I seem to recall polls suggesting that upwards of 40% of the conservative media audience describes themselves as “suspicious” of Obama’s citizenship and eligibility status. I would say it is possible that 20% of that audience tends to believe that Obama is a usurper.
If that is so, if Birthers are 20% of the conservative media audience, then we are plenty strong enough in numbers to move these talking heads who rely on our attenion for their impressive salaries.
Certainy, our foundering Constitution is worth rejecting the passive infotainment system which has rejected us. Anyone who can do a Web search has access to news and opinion without feeding the ratings of these cowards who are jeopardizing our republic for the sake of their personal interests.
To be effective, such an effort would need a proactive, organized campaign. But if we interrupt their ratings numbers, we WILL get our concerns heard with the respect we are due.
What do we risk by trying? What is at risk from failing to act?
How about a Birthers’ boycott of TV and radio news until the eligibility issue hits newspaper headlines over details that reasonable express our concerns?
Brother, I’m way ahead of you. I don’t listen to the radio and I don’t watch any news on TV. I haven’t done so for a number of years now.
SR511 has nothing to do with Obama, so I don’t CARE. However, a Senate Resolution is not law. Unfortunately, lying birthers sometimes bring it up to support their argument that a NBC requires 2 citizen parents. Thank you for arguing they are wrong to do so.
“Why would a court use a case that had nothing whatsoever to do with determining the NBC status of the person before them when they could have used a case that had the very definition of NBC in its holding?”
Because you have it backwards. The dicta in BOTH Minor & WKA address NBC, with Minor saying ‘we all agree on x and we don’t need to think about y’, and WKA saying, ‘we need to determine y now’.
The dicta in WKA goes into great detail on what NBC means. The formal RULING did not, because it was not required for the case - just as the RULING in Minor does not in any way discuss the meaning of NBC, but only says voting is not a right of all Americans.
Neither case gave a formal ruling on NBC, because neither case involved a person running for President. However, the dicta in Minor was one sentence, while in WKA it was most of the decision. And the court in Ankeny used the argument in WKA to determine that Obama was, if born in the USA, a NBC.
So now let me ask you this...don't you find it comical that the Senate is going to have to create a non-binding resolution with no force of law behind it every time this issue comes up instead of following the existing law?
Something in the syllabus is not automatically a ruling. For example, Minor did not rule that “The word “citizen “ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.”
The ruling of Minor was:
“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”
The Senate was giving their opinion on a question that has continued to be debated - can a person born overseas be considered a NBC if his parents are US citizens?
But since McCain was accepted on the ballot of all 50 states, I think that has been settled. But if you want to worry about it, go ahead. No one else is going to join you.
Remember, Ankeny also said that question is unresolved.
” Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.”
For example, Minor did not rule that The word citizen is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
And yet what do we find in the full decision?
That's what the syllabus says but only in fewer words, right?
1. The word "citizen " is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
No argument from me. Spot on!
From the syllabus...
“The dicta in WKA goes into great detail on what NBC means.”
According to Minor v Happersett:
x=NBC=born in country with 2 citizen parents
y=non-NBC=born in country to alien or foreigner parents
We know that y=non-NBC because the Minor court explicitly DISTINGUISHED them from x=NBC.
IMO, the NBC definition in Minor is a holding that is a finding of fact that the court relied on to determine what class of citizen Mrs. Minor belonged to. Then and only then, could the court determine whether that NBC class had an inherent right to vote as a conclusion of law.
IMO, the dicta in WKA explores the y=non-NBC class that the Minor court distinguished but could not reach to determine whether WKA was in a portion of that y=non-NBC class that was entitled to citizenship at birth on US soil even with alien or foreigner parent.
The extensive exploration comparing US citizenship, including NBC and NBS was all directed at evaluating the y=non-NBC class boundaries and whether WKA fell within those boundaries. The WKA court was NOT trying to change or expand the x=NBC definition previously held and distinguished in a way that obviously excluded WKA.
After the extensive ruminations by Gray on US citizen compared to UK subject and the 14A meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction of,” Gray's majority placed numerous qualifiers on their conclusion of law that WKA was a citizen based on their finding of fact that WKA was in a class of y=non-NBC persons entitled to be citizens at birth under the 14A. The WKA majority was able to “reach” WKA and extend citizenship at birth to him, but only within the qualifiers. The WKA majority did NOT declare WKA to be a natural born citizen but only as much a citizen as a natural born citizen.
(not that I really expect anything else except that from you)
Nice try moron, but it isn’t about what I have or haven’t done, the topic under discussion is the lack of spine concerning the NBC issue and our conservative talking bobbleheads. Your tacic is from the left’s playbook, and no
I am not a syncophant Paul supporter, unlike many who are syncophants and ignore someone’s flaws.
His tory will prove that your hero’s have clay feet and were on the wrong side of this issue.
“So, do you think I can find something in the decision that will substantiate citizen parents just like in the syllabus but only in a shorter manner?”
If you had even one functional brain cell, you would know the decision is not the ruling. Hence, dicta. Look up what it means, since you don’t know.
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.