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.
Courtesy Ping to you, Spaulding. Sorry I left you off the first. :(
Hey, at least he's a fan of the 2nd Amendment, even if his commitment to an originalist interpretation of A2S1C5 is "in doubt". . .
Right on. I don’t watch TV news or listen to radio.
And who do you think needs to hold their feet to the fire so they dont cave on issues?
“Thus SR.511 confirms that every Senator, or at least, every Senator who read SR.511, knew that NBC was associated with being born to two citizen parents. “
That you for once again lying. As you know, SR511 concerned itself with those born outside the USA.
The text of SR511 is below:
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
S. RES. 511
“Mr. Rogers states that The dicta in WKA goes into great detail on what NBC means. Hardly. Justice Gray mentions natural born subjects...”
He mentions NBS for half of the decision, because he concluded, reasonably, that the meaning of NBS determined the meaning of NBC - and that it applied. He did not write half a decision on a matter that had no bearing on the case.
But in BirtherWorld, facts and decisions don’t matter. Birthers cover their ears and eyes, and make up things - but they cannot convince a single state or court they are right.
Not because everyone in the US is a traitor, but because birthers are wrong. Clueless. And they stay wrong and clueless because they can’t handle reality.
Waste time in the courts if you wish, but Obama will be beaten in the polls or not at all.
You suggest that a person who wouldn't even be classed as a citizen of ANY sort prior to 1922, is a "natural citizen" and you think *I* have a problem with reality?
As for the courts, they don't agree with me about Roe v Wade. Do they agree with you? If not, then stop repeating that as if it proves something.
Absolutely. It has likewise puzzled me that our supposed brilliant commentators never address the factual points, preferring to say instead "because I say so."
The Funny thing is, if you read what Ann Coulter and George Will both wrote about "anchor babies", you would realize that intellectually they are 100% on our side! Unfortunately, when the name "Obama" is brought up, their eyes simply glaze over and they simply parrot what the rest of the media says.
I think I’ll wait to hear Michael Medved’s opinion on this first.
I understand that birthers reject that idea. But at a bare minimum, all ought to be able to agree that honest people can look at the evidence and disagree with the idea that two citizen parents are required.
Prior to 1922, it was not POSSIBLE to have other than two citizen parents. How can a non citizen parent rule apply to a time before it was even possible?
Also, here's another piece of evidence *YOU* won't look at. According to this newspaper from 1811, A child could only be a citizen if his FATHER was a citizen. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!
“Prior to 1922, it was not POSSIBLE to have other than two citizen parents.”
I have no idea what drugs you are on, but they must be good.
Every attempt to get a court case to be heard prior to Georgia was rejected under the claim that no one had "standing" (an injury which could be rectified by the court) to bring a case before a court.
It is like saying "You are too tall to ride this ride." It has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and everything to do with judicial procedure denying the obvious. EVERYBODY ought to have a right to demand that their chief executive is legitimate.
Whenever I try to follow the argument I get lost in a pile of esoteric legalism and questionable interpretations of the Constitution, laws, and public policy. If the so-called "Birthers" cannot provide a simple, clear argument, it is no wonder popular talk show hosts won't touch it.
The "birthers" are divided up into several groups which have some overlap. 1.There are those that think Obama was born in Kenya (All the evidence of which I am aware is against this.)
2.There are those that think his Indonesian citizenship destroyed his claim to American Citizenship. (Not true.)
3.There are those that think his travel to Pakistan in 1981 occurred using an Indonesian passport, and that if this is true, it caused him to lose his citizenship. (No proof of either theory.)
4. There are those who believe that a correct historical interpretation of the term "natural born citizen" means a person can have no ties of allegiance to any nation but the United States. (I am in that group.)
5. There are those who believe that he has yet to submit an ORIGINAL Hawaiian birth certificate, so his actual *PLACE* of birth is as yet undetermined. (I am also in this group.)
6. There are those who believe his mother was a CIA spy, and Obama is part of some master plan for world domination by the Tri-Lateral Commission, the CFR, the Bildibergers, and the other Usual "New World Order" suspects.
7. There are some people that believe all of the above.
So to address your point, what you are hearing depends upon to whom you are talking. As I have indicated, I believe that the historically accurate position of our Nation is that a child must be born of two American Citizens within the boundaries of the nation to be a "natural born citizen" as intended by the usage of the term in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. I also believe we have yet to see the truth out of Hawaii as to what Barry's original Hawaiian birth certificate looks like.
I believe what he has put forth last year is a copy of a Replacement birth certificate which was designed to appear as though it were original, but was created by the Department of Health in Hawaii under the direction of a Court Order to produce a replacement birth certificate for an Adopted Child who has had his adoption annulled.
In 1971, Barry's mom abandoned him, leaving him in Hawaii when she went to live with her husband in Indonesia. He lived with his Grandparents ever since he was ten years old, and it is unreasonable to think they did not acquire guardianship over him. Most likely they adopted him, and a new replacement birth certificate was created for him in 1971.
I think Barry only recently got the courts to order the issue of a new birth certificate which said what he wanted it to say.
I will mention at this time that *I* am adopted, and *I* have a replacement birth certificate which was created for me 6 years after I was born, so I know very well that this sort of thing is typical in the case of an adoption.
That the courts have a common and widespread misconception about the correct meaning of the term is a given. However, we should stop accepting what the courts say as the final word on the subject. It has been a long time since the courts accurately administered the law, and what respect they were previously due is no longer applicable to the modern courts.
They are wrong on Roe v Wade, they are wrong on Lawrence v Texas, they are wrong on Kelo v New London, and they are wrong on Wickard v. Filburn! We need to stop pretending the courts are always right when they are in fact WRONG.
I am in groups #4 and #5. I do no know enough about the law to take a position on the necessity of having 2 citizen parents.
I have no idea what drugs you are on, but they must be good.
Don't play stupid with me! You know very well I am referring to the Cable act of 1922. PRIOR to the Cable act, any woman who married an American Male, was automatically naturalized and became an AMERICAN CITIZEN. Any woman who married a Foreign Male became a citizen of HIS NATION. Any Children born to the couple had two citizen parents of one nation or the other.
You talk about OTHER people being dishonest, and yet here you are pretending not to know to what I am talking about! Mr. "Glass House" needs to stop lying and stop throwing stones!
Nobody does.(Without learning about it.) The incorrect interpretation is widespread and ubiquitous, especially amongst the legal people. The only way a person could know the correct interpretation is they have to research it. See where it originated, and what it's purpose was in being included in Article II.
Prior to 1922 it was NOT POSSIBLE to have parents of different nationalities. According to the laws in place at the time, Anyone who married an American Husband was automatically naturalized upon marriage. Anyone who married a foreign male took his citizenship.
The practice existed all the way back to the creation of this nation, but the codification of it into law occurred in 1854. See Section 2 below.
Care to list them? Just a few, maybe.
I wouldn't bother waiting for his reply. He regards any statement that disagrees with him as "dishonest." He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
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.