Skip to comments.Orly Taitz - Response to Bill O' Reilly's smears "It is time to protest FOX NEWS"
Posted on 10/28/2009 12:51:53 PM PDT by Jean SEdited on 10/28/2009 12:53:40 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Orly on O'Reilly coming up on Fox - (After an hour of teasers, no Orly)
I agree. Unfortunately, in the meantime, Obama will remain in office, wreaking havoc on America while those challenging his constitutional qualifications are dismissed as loons. The left has neatly marginalized those questioning Obama's citizenship as 'birthers' and the public seems to accept the concept as one of right-wing desperation and - to the consternation of some - has greeted it with a yawn.
Eventually discovering that Obama didn't qualify for the office of president based on his place of birth outside the U.S. would be little more than maddening irony when America has already fallen under the weight of his Marxist schemes to destroy our economy and tear down our institutions. Too late for recriminations when all you can say is 'I told you so'.
I don't know about Bill O'Reilly but I will refer you to post #160.
I agree with others that responded to my post of 10/28 on this issue -I don't have the time to reply to all - that the election of Barack Hussein Obama and a Democrat party voting majority in congress has placed our beloved country in very real danger of being effectively destroyed.
I wholeheartedly agree that Obama's qualifications for the presidency are wanting on multiple fronts, even if his place of birth proves to not be a legal obstacle to his ascendancy to the Oval Office. However, the thread is about the 'birther' issue and I responded to that.
A quick review of any of my previous posts related to Obama's presidency over the past months will demonstrate that I need no instruction in why this man is a looming disaster for America and it's people.
I simply don't view the Obama birthplace issue as having any traction with the general public. At this point, I see it becoming a political side show with no real influence on anyone's thinking and precious little chance of harming Obama's ability to remain in office. Like many, I can find numerous questions to ask about Obama's background but the time for that has essentially passed. He is not going away and calling him an 'illegitimate' president may feel good but it's preaching to the choir, much as the left cried about George W. Bush's presidency being 'illegitimate' based on ultra-narrow margin of victory that the left disputed for years afterward, to basically no avail.
George W. Bush was harmed by many things during his 2 terms in office, including his own inability to effectively respond to the endless attacks on his policies and his motivations but Democrats calling his 2000 election 'illegitimate' was pretty far down the list. As compelling as the 'birther' movement is to some conservatives, I seriously doubt that Obama will ever be brought down by this strategy.
Thanks for the nice welcome. I’ve been here again (was a member for 3 years approx. ‘99 - 02) about 6 months now and written a couple thousand posts. I’ve seen a number of the threads you referred me to.
There is no actual on point cite on that page to any Federalist paper concerning the natural born Citizen clause. Your assertion remains BS. You can’t cite to any actual Federalist paper on this because it ain’t there.
The rest of your little screed pertains to who Congress has decided is naturalized at birth by statute. Congress has the power to say who may be naturalized and how. It does not have to power to redefine words.
I have not wagered money on the matter of usurper Barry’s lack of eligibility to serve as President.
Hope this helps.
I said explicitly I was not a constitutional scholar and attributed the arguments to real scholars who were discussing the accusations of a few who said McCain and Dodd weren’t eligible to be president.
It was not a partisan debate.
I have no desire to go thru the Federalist Papers just for this minor point, tho it might be invigorating after all these years.
What your argument seems to say that the constitutional term of “natural born” means what YOU want it to mean, i.e., born within the territory of the U.S.
The writers of the Constitution were precise when they wanted to be and fuzzy when they wanted to be.
I actually have never heard from a person who makes the leap from ‘natural born’ to ‘born within the territory of the U.S.’ Many believe the Constitution is clear on the point to state explicitly that it defines a person as eligible for the presidency only if that person was born within the yada yada, but you’ve obviously read the document. How do you make that leap? I’d be interested in reading the argument. One is obtuse, one is crystal clear. “Natural born” doesn’t mean anything to mean.
If you're going to admit upfront you have no idea what you're talking about; that is a good indication that you have no business posting anything at all -- unless you just like to hear yourself type.
I have no desire to go thru the Federalist Papers
Then stop making things up about them.
“(no answer)” came the stern reply.
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.