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.
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.