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.
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.