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.
That’s the second time you have used that male S&M image - what’s up with that?
Don’t yell at me - go yell at the courts.
But his mother was an America citizen and subject to the jurisdiction of. Looks like little Obama was ok. Neither Ann or George seem to support a two citizen parent rule.
You really think either one thinks Obama is not eligible? Don’t make up stuff about what you think they believe - show where either one thinks Obama is not eligible.
You are also the most obtuse person I've ever known who has the audacity to proclaim that "There is no such thing as Positive law." and who continues to do so despite being shown NUMEROUS times that you have no idea what you're talking about.
We are discussing the common law.
I'm discussing your status as the resident village IDIOT!
443 - @There is no such thing as Positive law.
And no fewer than seven replies later you state this!
But why a naked guy?
Because you were right on the positive law. But it still doesn’t change the fact that we are a common law country. Just wanted to make sure you didn’t confuse the two.
Still, a college Professor that knows how to research and write. I see you make only an Ad hominem attack, and nothing on the merits of his argument.
Charles E Rice is not the president of Notre Dame, just a retired professor. He does not argue for two citizen parent. He wants Congress to investigate. He says Obama may be eligible.
Oh yes, people who think he is eligible WANT an investigation. Obviously there is nothing there, so we MUST investigate! In any case he *IS* a legal scholar. You said there were none.
Alexander Porter Morse. 1904? He is talking only about children born overseas. He does not explicitly support the two parent rule in America:
I'm beginning to think this guy is Blade Bryan, or one of the other Fogblows. No way can someone read that stuff that fast. His point is still valid. It requires Citizen Parents to make a citizen child. Do your Dogs have Kittens?
Ramsey? Prior to the 14th Amendment. Superseded.
Only under the THIRD interpretation of Wong Kim Ark. (You know, the simple minded stupid interpretation that gives us "Anchor Babies.") According to the Debates on the 14th amendment by the Congress that passed it, Dr. David Ramsey is exactly spot on. While i'm thinking about it, It is quite likely possible to see the Debates in the State legislatures regarding the meaning and intent of the 14th amendment. Another avenue of research!
Your Breckinridge Long essay? You understand he worked for Woodrow Wilson and this is a political hit piece on Charles Evans Hughes who in 1916 was running against Wilson?
Yes, his understanding of the law is completely compromised because he was a Wilson Supporter. Ad Hominem Attack. Can't you do a Non-Fallacy argument? Again, a dismissal without review of the merits of his argument.
George Collins? A tiny snippet from a losing lawyer embedded in a long news article? Really?
Now see, this is where you are telling on yourself. You came on this website pretending to be someone who was objective, and interested in debating the issue, yet you happen to know that extremely esoteric piece of information about George Collins. As I have mentioned, the only people researching this stuff are the good guys, (us) and the bad guys. (Fogblows.) Tell me again what you think about Roe v Wade?
The Book from Harvard? Out of context snips on a birther website in a essay written by Linda Melin, citizen researcher?
Good point. Would you like to see the book page that that quote came from? I can't post it because it's a violation of the terms of service used to obtain it, but I have a copy of it. :) I'll have to check to see if I can obtain the rights to reprint it.
Solum is a good article but makes no stand either way. His paper is a discussion on the proper way to interpret Constitutional language to determine original intent.
Of COURSE you don't read anything! Let me try and focus your attention on the SALIENT point in his Article.
What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a natural born citizen.
You obviously aren't blade bryan. His attacks were more focused and directed. Your's are all over the place, and weak. You make up for in VOLUME what you lack in intellect.
Atty., Dr. Herb Titus: Obama Not A Natural Born Citizen
I FORGOT about him! I have a copy of his comments somewhere. One of these days I need to organize my bookmarks. :)
My smart ass side replies...you're the embodiment of "The Emperor's New Suit".
This can’t be good for your blood pressure. Since you seem to lack the self discipline to ignore my posts, would you like me to give you a break?
But don’t worry - I still enjoy our give and take.
Have you always allowed others to dictate your mood like this? Do you find that people are always pushing your buttons just to watch you explode in frothy rage?
If you're the best your side has to offer then you guys are in so much trouble!
What does your immature and petty side say? That, I suspect, would be the real answer.
Do you really think something important is happening here? That we are actually involved in a real struggle that has any impact on reality?
Because I see two laymen arguing about arcane legal matters that we may or may not understand.
Do you really think that because you win some internet debating points against a non-lawyer that some how that constitutes proof that birthers are on the right legal track? That’s pretty delusional.
I like the give and take here. I enjoy researching and learning new things. I enjoy putting my thoughts into word. And there is the possibility I can persuade some with my logic.
But there is no way I think our discussion has any impact beyond the screen in front of you.
I would agree with you that is a immature and petty response. You know yourself well.
So you think that common law and positive law are concepts that cannot coexist? Care to explain?
Because you were right on the positive law. But it still doesnt change the fact that we are a common law country.
Can you comprehend that common law (that being the concept of precedence) is just one part of our system of law and that it doesn't encompass the entire system of law in this nation?
You're heading in the right direction simply with your recognition that there actually is positive law so it shouldn't be that hard of a reach.
You're not fooling anybody either and yet somebody else may learn something from our exchanges so I endure you.
Do you really think something important is happening here? That we are actually involved in a real struggle that has any impact on reality?
You and I both know that this is an extremely important issue and you wouldn't be on these threads spreading the lies and disinformation that you are to begin with if it wasn't. A newbie well versed in the issue jumps right into the fray with a wealth of information at their disposal and you're claiming it isn't an important issue? Give me a break!
Instead, you're full bore, guns blazing, using PSYOP tactics, distraction and disinformation. And if it wasn't an important struggle then you would have blown it off and never would have bothered to engage in the discussion.
If you are so disinterested in the subject then all you have to do is leave this thread and don't ever reply on any other eligibility thread again.
Now, I'm not so foolish as to believe that such a thing will happen and after you leave this thread tonight you'll be right back to your same old schtick tomorrow.
And I’ll be right here ready to smack you one more time upon your asking.
Someone with photoshop skillz could have a field day here.
I could still wear my custom fit cowboy boots as well if I could find somebody who could craftily "let them out" so my calves would fit into them. Truly beautiful leather work.
Some things you just don't think about when you're young.
Oops! forgot the / in </a> :(
“But there is no way I think our discussion has any impact beyond the screen in front of you.”
Ignore the american electorate, sad as it is, and ignore the media, and pretend that either Santorum or Gingrich has a chance in hell of winning the general. The stuff on this forum is getting pretty pathetic, frankly. To even think that what goes on here reflects the majority of the electorate continues to be astounding. And to put so much stock in Levin, Hannity, or even Rush, as if they can direct the outcome, is truly unbelievable. We don’t have that kind of voter anymore, as much as we want it. We don’t have that kind of country anymore, either. It’s going to take a long time to change hearts and minds, and we can’t afford another 4 year delay.
None forced you to come to this place.
None forced your fingers to type your reply.
None will halt your departure if you so desire.
None shall miss you upon your goodbye.
And the same applies to me. I'll be forgotten in less time than it's taken to make this reply.
You guys have made this thread not only interesting, but probably more informative than any I have seen on the subject in recent memory. Keep it up - kinda like watching “Breaking Bad” - can’t wait till the next episode. :-) There are a few other great posters involved in this Battle Royale also. Much appreciated (at least by me anyway).
“I have listened to Rush a total of perhaps one hour in my entire life.”
So, you think yourself to be an expert?
“As far as I can tell the man dances around the edges but when the shtf he ducks for cover. He certainly doesnt do any thinking for me.”
Actually...NO. Had you bothered to listen to him, he doesn’t “dance around the edges”, as you said. He criticizes all of the candidates when they deserve it, and praises them, too.
“You do know what they call someone who sells their principles for a buck dont you?”
You are really showing your ignorance here.
But, I either need a much larger pic (pref. *.Png), or, I could make something with the same idea..
“Absolutely not. All one needs to do is listen to those who do put him on a pinnacle and read what they write to determine what he has done and said. My perspective was validated back in 08 during the run up to the election.”
So............you got nuttin’.
You would rather take the word of someone else who listened, and wrote about what they heard, instead of listening yourself, and thinking for yourself.
"How a Retread
Tire Troll is Made"
Priceless. Tell you what, first time I get a Lifecycle of a Retread Zot Ping, FR gets another Jackson for the server fund drive. :)
I've already had to dabble in basic HTML because of FR, now I'm supposed to do Photshop, too? Sheesh!
One last thing: Your FR profile page rawks!.
If he wasn’t embarrassed about his other statement, I guess he wouldn’t—though he really should—be embarrassed about this one.
NO, its that I dont need Rush, Hannity or Levin to tell me what to think.
“Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.”
Patrick Henry: Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
Keeping this in mind.
Well how about that! You’re right here in the Golden Triangle too!
The stuff on this forum is getting pretty pathetic, frankly.
...you might be better served in keeping your opinion to yourself.
How about from James Madison:
The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe[e] of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
Nice ancient history - too bad the 14th amendment blew all that away.
Only in the eyes of someone who is not intelligent enough to understand what it says. As is Mentioned in the Landmark Supreme court case of Marbury v Madison:
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. ~ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
Your interpretation of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" results in those words being without effect. Therefore Your understanding is wrong.
In any case, it conspicuously omits the words "natural born" so you are doubly wrong. (Wrong on TWO SEPARATE POINTS.)
If you want to argue he has 14th amendment citizenship, we can go that direction too. Show me proof that he was actually born *in* a state that happens to issue birth certificates to the children of Hawaiian residents regardless where they were born.
Even if we could see ACTUAL proof that he was born in Hawaii, this does not make him a "natural citizen" it makes him a citizen by operation of the 14th amendment. (Citizen by statute. 14th Amendment AND the Cable act.) "Natural citizens" existed prior to the 14th amendment, and did not require it's operation to be "natural citizens."
Looks like little Obama was ok.
Yes, a "conservative" declaring that Obama is perfectly legitimate has always felt peculiar to me. One that goes out of his way to argue the point even more so. One that rejects evidence, and twists everything he can find against it's proper and correct meaning can only be described as suffering from some sort of pathology.
Neither Ann or George seem to support a two citizen parent rule.
There you go again. You could just as well say they didn't seem to support a male/female parent rule. The one thing is axiomatic and obvious of the other. The Two parent thing is automatic. During the time frame of the 14th amendment, (discussed by both) it was not possible to have a split marriage. Women were regarded as being of the same nationality as their husbands. (We covered this. You were apparently asleep.)
"For CNN, or MSNBC, or you, Geraldo - the liberal on Fox - bringing this out as if it's an issue, you know, it's just a few cranks out there. It's like when the networks bring on the three remaining Klanners in America."
Huckabee, now a Fox News host, was asked by Steve Malzberg, a talk radio host, this:
Dont you think its fair also to ask [Barack Obama] . . . how come we dont have a health record, we dont have a college record, we dont have a birth cer why, Mr. Obama, did you spend millions of dollars in courts all over this country to defend against having to present a birth certificate. Its one thing to say, Ive youve seen it, goodbye. But why go to court and send lawyers to defend against having to show it? Dont you think we deserve to know more about this man?
Huckabee should have replied, Ive seen paranoia, goodbye.
But the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons.
I don't think either is on your side. Why would they secretly embrace the two citizen parent argument while publicly saying Obama is eligible?
I’m not the first and I won’t be the last to say it.
Your profile quote, not mine.
Levin has for obvious reasons scrubbed that 2010 comment to the best of his ability, although I will find it. While I am looking, take a listen to this. His 2011 feeling about We the People who question Os eligibility is stated Loud and Clear by Levin himself and I dont appreciate it. Remark starts at 4:26 and runs through 4.34
Just wanted to be Post #500 :-)
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.