Posted on 11/28/2008 9:00:33 PM PST by ckilmer
The chasm between those who want President-elect Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate to verify his eligibility to hold the nation's highest office and those who simply support the Democrat is widening.
"The Constitution means what we today decide it means," opined one participant on a new WND forum that offers readers an opportunity to express their opinion on the birth certificate dispute.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Come on now....pinky promise...
You said — “You do realize this is the type of circumstance our Founding Fathers had in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment.”
I do understand that if someone takes power outside of the system that the U.S. Constitution provides (voting and the balance of powers of the branches of government) and it becomes a dictatorship and the people cannot vote as given to us in the Constitution, then this is the alternative to that kind of oppression.
We are not in any of those categories, even if Obama proceeds through two terms of Presidency and the liberals in Congress pass all sorts of liberal laws. It’s still political action that we have at our disposal. Just because you happen to be in a minority position in politics (the politics that was put into position by our Constitution) doesn’t mean you get to form an armed rebellion...
—
You said — “Why are you not willing to fight for our Nation and our Constitution?”
I’m fighting for our nation and constitution, within the boundaries specified in the Constitution. I assume you are, too — along with many other FReepers. But, if you’re in the minority, it doesn’t say in that same Constitution that you can form an armed rebellion to get out of that political minority position. The majority has spoken and that’s the law...
—
You said — “And by the way this “politically elected government” was fraudulently elected. So why are you so ready to accept it?”
I don’t see that it was fraudulently elected. It was elected by people who don’t adhere by your standards and my standards — but that doesn’t mean it’s fraudulent because they don’t agree with our standards. It means that we’re in the minority position in this political government that we have.
The plurality of the vote for Obama was such a wide gap that it far exceeds any fraudulent activity. If it had been really close, then it might have been more of a question. But, this is what I would call a “blowout” for Obama, in that so many Americans (a *definite majority of the voters*) voted for his type and style of government. I think that they are wrong — but nonetheless, they did it...
—
You said — “And don’t tell me I will fail if I wish to fight for this Nation I love. No one has that crystal ball except God. And I don’t think he has told you the outcome.”
You will fail and if you don’t know that, then you’re a fool.
—
And finally — “We will fail only if people like you stand in our way.”
I will stand in the way of any kind of armed revolution at this point. All things must be done in our political system and through the balance of powers that we have in our government and through the electorate.
AND..., furthermore, what is more important to be done, which would solve the political problems of this country, is that people need to repent and turn to Jesus Christ as their personal savior. This is the true solution to the problems of our nation and not being under the judgement of God for the sins of this nation. This is the thing that has always been the solution, according to the Bible.
You said — “You are probably right, comrade!”
It’s unfortunate that we call the solidly Republican areas “red” — because that lends itself to all kinds of stupid jokes.... LOL...
You asked — “Seriously, how much kool-aid have you drank?”
Well, a cute little phrase from the Jim Jones days... but not applicable here, unless you’ve been drinking it in regards to succession and armed revolution just because we’ve lost an election...
—
You said — “The way you see it, most Americans will line up, turn over their weapons, and get into the train cars.”
No, I would say that they way you see it is that when you lose an election to someone like Obama, that you think this means you will see people being required to get into train cars and people being required to give up their guns.
You seem to have forgotten that those things are unconstitutional and we still have a political system and three branches of government and that the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the Second Amendment, even recently.
None of what we’ve seen is worthy of an armed revolution or succession from the United States. It’s still a political fight and will remain that way for a long time to come.
—
You said — “But I do know if this BO eligibility issue is swept under the rug, we true conservatives and patriots will begin to make decisions on a proper course of action.”
You know..., this birth certificate thing was an issue for a long time before the election and most of the Republicans, themselves wouldn’t pay any attention to it. I don’t know why you’re thinking these same Republicans are going to start paying attention to it now... considering that a significant majority of the voters put Obama in office.
You’re the one who seems to think this birth certificate issue is more important *now* even though it’s been around for a long time and definitely long before any elections took place.
I’m going by *previous example* of what happened. No one wanted to pay too much attention to it. What’s going to happen now? Well, pretty much the same thing, hardly anyone will want to pay attention to it, just like before the election.
The time to have *really* exposed this as an issue and for the public to have *responded* to it would have been *before the election*.
If you think they’re going to respond any differently now that they’ve elected him, I believe you’re sadly mistaken...
Our Founding Fathers set up the second amendment in order for us to overtake a government which has stopped representing us or stopped following the Constitution.
When I said Obama’s election was fraudulent, I meant that he is probably ineligible to become the POTUS because he is not a natural born citizen.
Also please don't tell me you believe that the demorats did not put in fraudulent votes to push BO’s numbers over the top.
It matters not if everyone in this nation voted for BO. If he is ineligible to serve as President then he is disqualified. The rule of law stands above the whims of the voters in this election.
We are a nation of laws or we are not.
And by the way, BO did not win in a blowout. Go back and look at the numbers and stop believing every piece of spin you hear by the MSM.
Lastly, do not ever call me a fool. I am not one.
Actually it is not I who will fail, I believe you have failed in your attempt to bring down people on this board.
If we fail in this endeavor, it will not be because we did not do our best.
Now please step back and let us handle this grown up situation.
You:
“You’re the one who seems to think this birth certificate issue is more important *now* even though it’s been around for a long time and definitely long before any elections took place.”
______________________________________
You don’t know anything about when or what I took seriously.
I have been following and supporting the ineligibility issue many months before the election.
It has the same importance now as it had months ago. And it will still be important even if BO is illegally inagurated.
This will either have to be determined by the SCOTUS or by any of our elected officials with backbones.
Not by the voters.
If neither of these government institutions accept their duty regarding this matter, then “WE THE PEOPLE” must accept our duty.
I now know what your issue is in this mess. It has nothing to do with fighting for our Constitution. You actually don’t believe BO is ineligible and don’t want anyone to find out.
I can find no other reason for your complete disregard for our Nation and our laws.
Goodnight!
Who's them?
LLS
You said — “Our Founding Fathers set up the second amendment in order for us to overtake a government which has stopped representing us or stopped following the Constitution.”
Well, the seventh President of the United States, Andrew Jackson, violated a Supreme Court decision and refused to abide by it saying, ““He has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” (talking about the Supreme Court decision). The President of the United States did not abide by “laws” and ignored it and told the court to try and enforce it themselves...
And this did not result in the United States going to an armed revolution. And the United States was around for many more years, continuing with its Constitution and the political action of its citizens.
The same thing will be true now, no matter which way it goes...
—
And — “When I said Obama’s election was fraudulent, I meant that he is probably ineligible to become the POTUS because he is not a natural born citizen.”
Well..., that is definitely the question all right and that’s what I’ve been saying long before the election. But, apparently no one else wants to listen (or at least not enough to make a difference). As to whether any court will listen, either, remains to be seen.
As of yet, we really don’t know if it was fraudulent, but we should have known, absolutely and positively *before* the election, not afterwards. And that’s a bigger problem, because I think it becomes almost impossible to make a difference now.
—
And then you said — “Also please don’t tell me you believe that the demorats did not put in fraudulent votes to push BO’s numbers over the top.”
Well, the Democrats themselves have documented Democrats acting illegally. Hillary’s campaign has filed papers about all the illegalities by the Obamites... And I tend to believe Hillary’s campaign, since it’s one of their own, speaking out against another one of their own candidates.
—
And you also said — “It matters not if everyone in this nation voted for BO. If he is ineligible to serve as President then he is disqualified. The rule of law stands above the whims of the voters in this election. We are a nation of laws or we are not.”
Yeah, we’re a nation of laws and we’ve been known to ignore them, too. That’s why we’ve got so many court cases going at any one time. Even Presidents ignore the law. Sometimes they do things under cover, because they don’t believe that the laws that have been passed are right and they set up things that get around the law. Other times, they will enact “executive orders” because they can’t get a law passed and they know it, so they accomplish things this way, by “direct order” of the President all by himself.
Sometimes the Supreme Court won’t abide by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution and reinterprets these laws in such ways that they come out upsidedown and backwards (you might consider the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court) and also abortion laws and decisions).
So, although we are a nation of laws, those laws are ignored, bypassed, gotten around and overturned all the time. There is a *semblance* of being a “nation of laws*....
But, in spite of all these failures and people ignoring them and Presidents getting around the law and a President setting the precedent of ignoring the law — we still go on, in our political system and we don’t go to armed rebellion.
—
You said — “And by the way, BO did not win in a blowout. Go back and look at the numbers and stop believing every piece of spin you hear by the MSM.”
You need to take a look at the *facts* and stop thinking that everything you read is MSM bias... LOL...
I call 52.8-45.8% a blowout [68,465,974-59,417,826]. My comparison is what happened with Bush and what happened with Clinton. Obama did far more than either of those guys...
Take a look yourself —
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/states_map/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
Obama’s election (2007) — 52.8-45.8 [[68,465,974-59,417,826]
Bush’s last election (2004) — 50.7-48.3% [62,040,610-59,028,444]
Bush’s first election (2000) — 47.9-48.4% [50,456,002-50,999,897] - Bush lost the popular vote; won electoral college
Clinton’s re-election (1996) — 49.2-40.7% [47,402,357-39,198,755]
Clinton’s election (1992) — 43.0-37.7% [44,909,806-39,104,500] - another, third candidate in election
Compared to what has gone on before, Obama was elected by far greater majorities than any of these Presidents in the last five elections (including the present one)...
—
And — “Lastly, do not ever call me a fool. I am not one.”
I won’t if you don’t engage in armed revolution over losing an election... LOL...
—
And then, your parting remarks — “Actually it is not I who will fail, I believe you have failed in your attempt to bring down people on this board.
If we fail in this endeavor, it will not be because we did not do our best.
Now please step back and let us handle this grown up situation.”
I have no attempt “to bring down people” — unless looking at the facts and stating things *as they are* is something you call “bring[ing] down people”.
And, of course, everyone will do their best, but that doesn’t guarantee success by itself. Only if God allows and wills it to be so. But, considering the sins of the nation, it looks more like judgement upon this nation rather than God giving us success in a “righteous cause”.
There can always be those who act on behalf of a righteous cause and if they fail, it will be because the opposing forces were greater — and sometimes, it can be the case of the judgement of God, too. In this case, I believe that’s exactly it. “The people” got what they voted for and that’s “judgement in and of itself”...
So, even with those acting on behalf of a righteous cause, they can still be judged, as a nation, because the nation does not go along with their idea. And this is exactly what has happened here.
If you want success for this country and to be under God’s provision and protection, in the same way as the founding fathers stated in many of their writings and talks..., then pray for the repentance of the nation and the coming to the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, on behalf of the majority of its population. This is what will bring our nation around — not armed rebellion...
You said — “I now know what your issue is in this mess. It has nothing to do with fighting for our Constitution. You actually don’t believe BO is ineligible and don’t want anyone to find out.”
You *think* you know what my issue is in the mess..., but apparently you don’t. I’ll state it clearly, as I have posted many times in the past and before the elections, too.
It’s very clear that John McCain was able to produce a birth certificate when he was questioned about the issue. And likewise, Obama should do the same thing. He has refused.
I’ve also posted that when Obama spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyers and court costs to prevent anyone from seeing his birth certificate, which is only about a $10 document — that this tells you that there is something seriously wrong in that document that he doesn’t want the public to see.
And I’ve also posted that it’s the courts that need to come down with a decision on this matter as nothing else will really effect any results (not petitions or hollaring about it or whatever). It’s going to take a court decision. I don’t know if there is really going to be a court decision over the matter, though (compelling him to show it...).
And finally, I’ve also said that Obama’s refusal to show the birth certificate will result in “lawsuits without end” as every piece of legislation is challenged by someone whom it affects, because they can claim that Obama doesn’t have the legal authority to sign such legislation or that there isn’t a President in office with the authority to veto legislation either, so there isn’t a “balance of powers” in place like the Constitution requires.
Now, that’s what I think... LOL...
—
And then you said — “I can find no other reason for your complete disregard for our Nation and our laws.”
Well, that might be a valid statement from you if I did have “complete disregard for our Nation and our laws” — but since that’s not my position, it’s an invalid statement...
Barack Hussein Obama is hiding something. If a person wants a job that has citizenship requirement, then it makes only sense is for that person to produce the proof. Otherwise anyone can lie about it.
Thank you. I accept your apology. :)
I have to search the Bible because I don't recall the details**. The gist is, God was going to destroy the earth again but because one man prayed/interceded, God didn't do it. I think He only destroyed the city.
God did it once, He can do it again. It is up to us to pray and ask and listen to Him.
We know that history repeats itself. We have Germany. Let's learn from their mistakes and work on changing the obvious outcome. At least half of America is not blind.
**Maybe it was the pillar of salt story.
You said — “I have to search the Bible because I don’t recall the details**. The gist is, God was going to destroy the earth again but because one man prayed/interceded, God didn’t do it. I think He only destroyed the city.”
I’m not sure which one you’re talking about, but this reminds me of Abraham talking to the Lord when the Lord told him that he was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (in Genesis 18).
Abraham pleaded for the Lord not to destroy the righteous along with the unrighteous. Abraham pleaded to not destroy it if there were 50 righteous there. The Lord agreed. Then Abraham said if there are 45, then again 40, then again 30, then again 20, then again 10 righteous. The Lord agreed to it all.
However, when it came to the time for destroying these towns, all that happened was that the angels (sent from the Lord) simply removed the righteous from the city, so the rest could be destroyed. Only four righteous were removed (Lot, his wife and his two daughters). And furthermore, the angel said that until Lot and the others were removed, he could not destroy the towns. In fact the town of Zoar was spared from destruction, because Lot hid out there (asking the angel if he could do that). Lot was told that the town would be spared on his account.
That’s as close as I can come to something...
(my words)Here again, I would argue nothing, if born on U.S. soil.
Perhaps I am discounting the descent question too much. One parent would have to be American and at least 18 to confer citizenship to a child, in my mind, along with being born on American soil. So when foreign citizenship comes into question, I suppose that the number of years the child spent in a foreign country would be most important in determining which nationality is determinant.
There are arguments that make sense, but there are also many laws involved that would have to inform the Supreme Court’s ruling if it took this case.
There are many, many laws and precedents on *citizenship.* However, very little of it, as far as I can see, in any way contemplates how that analysis goes to *eligibility to serve as President.* IOW, it’s simply not clear that a case that talks about whether a person is a citizen at birth automatically encompasses the status of “natural born citizen” as well.
If “natural born citizen” is determined SOLELY by birthplace, then John McCain is not a “natural born citizen.”
If “natural born citizen” is determined, either in whole or in part, by citizenship by descent (the citizenship of one or both parents passes to the child at birth), then John McCain is a natural born citizen.
If citizenship by descent is *necessary,* in whole or in part, to being a “natural born citizen,” then, regardless of birthplace, Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” would then depend on whether laws at the time provided for citizenship by descent from his mother (a U.S. citizen), his father (a non-U.S. citizen, assuming his father is BHO I), or whether the law required that a “natural born citizen” receiving U.S. citizenship by descent from *both* parents.
None of this, as far as I can tell, and I am no particular scholar in this area of the law, is settled, nor has the Supreme Court had the opportunity to settle it in the context of an actual fact pattern-—where not only is there (arguably) a legal cognizable controversy raised by the facts, but the candidate about whom there is such controversy actually won the election and, therefore, the constitutional harm of seating an ineligible President is actually imminent.
My point is: yes, there are lines of reasoning that make sense, but there is also a lot of more or less relevant law and caselaw to account for. Including, perhaps, foreign law, as it may be relevant what citizenship Obama’s father had and how it may be renounced, if, e.g., that were necessary.
The reason I find this story important is because it shows that prayer can change the outcome even if it is predestined.
I'm standing on God's Word and the Constitution. That's all. That's all I have.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that all Americans are harmed if the constitutional standard is not met and vouchsafed to us. Also, there is intrinsic “constitutional harm” in seating an ineligible President.
That said, one of the great problems here is that there is no procedure or process for vetting the nominee. At this point, it seems to be left solely to the haphazards of politics. However, even if a congresscritter or an elector got up the gumption to challenge a President-elect’s qualifications, the procedure for that is not clear, the *standard* is merely implied, and the remedy (who has standing to challenge the result or compliance and on what grounds) obviously is unclear.
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.