Posted on 07/26/2010 1:11:24 PM PDT by Hawk720
I’m not saying we have to insert the eligibility issue into every other issue. But a GOP candidate doesn’t have the right to start his thread and not let anybody else start their own - although I grant that this is what most politicians are like, which is one of the big problems we have. Politicians are able to evade.
If this guy is willing to state clearly ONCE that he believes Congress should mandate an investigation into potential laws broken in the eligibility saga I think he would find that he doesn’t get so many questions about it from Tea Partiers any more. Nathan Deal comes to mind. I don’t think he needs to take a lot of time. I think he just needs the courage to say what needs to be said, once.
Of course, he may get the media out to stop him by whatever means necessary. He could get the same response by saying we need to repeal healthcare reform, so what’s the difference?
The media and dems get the power to use this issue to embarrass, isolate, or triangulate us only if we give them that power by running from it.
Nobody is getting money bribing Elton John by threatening to tell the world he’s gay. Compare that with Foley from Florida and the restroom footsie guy in Oregon (forgot his name). The power is in whether the person is ashamed, or whether they are open about it. If conservatives from the very beginning had been unwavering on this issue, we would not be where we are now. Obama and a host of other crooks from all over the country would be sitting in jail.
One of the biggest strengths a person can have is to take what the enemy considers to be a weakness and make it a strength. Flip the tables. Defiantly say, “You dang right I’m for the rule of law - and I was for it even when the media was laughing in my face for it! Why are you, media, AGAINST the rule of law, as you see more and more people saying they have less rights now and historic low levels of trust for both Congress and the President and as we see our doors thrown open wide to Mexican druglords while the feds tie the hands of our brave AZ law enforcers who would defend from the marauding army?”
It’s a perfect chance to put the spotlight back where it belongs - on the lawless thugs who have put us in this mess in the first place.
At the end of “Braveheart” (which I saw for the first time recently and watched again last night) the British tried to use William Wallace’s torture and execution as a warning to the Scotsmen by hanging his head on London Bridge and sending his arms and legs to the four corners of Britain.
They thought the people would cower. They thought wrong. What they did to Wallace steeled the resolve of the Scotsmen (even the ruler) and kept the Brits from being able to have power over them by mere threats. What Longshanks thought would be his great trump card over Wallace ended up being the rally call for Scotland’s freedom even after Wallace was dead.
There’s a time to be subtle, to negotiate carefully, and win by stealth. Maybe I’m wrong and that’s what time it is now. I don’t know. I guess that’s why we’re having this discussion. I see what you’re saying. But I’m also very afraid of the elder Robert the Bruce, who betrayed William Wallace and his people because he said it was time for expedient and cunning negotiation when it was actually the day for battle.
I do know that if our leaders don’t recognize in their own guts the enemy we face - which is primarily a public dumbed-down by Marxist ideology and Marxist media, who would even THINK of electing the garbage they’ve elected - then they can’t lead us through these treacherous times.
Yep. Some impression.
I'll grant campaigning is often limited to stock speeches and sound-bytes. Press releases, campaign position statements on issues can be put on websites pretty cheaply and accessed by most of the voting public, who can, in turn be encouraged to print those statements and pass them on to friends and family. The deeper message can be made readily available, if someone wants to take the time to do it.
That would sure be a better use of time than spewing to people who can't be trusted.
As an aside, part of the whole gig is choosing staffers, and if someone isn't more careful about the company they keep, they won't be effective as every move will be known to the opposition in advance and countered before it happens.
lol. Smokin’ Joe, make sure we’re never in the same building. You are a kindred spirit. lol.
Tact has never been my strong suit. AT least not when I’m fired up or when everything I love is being threatened. That’s why lawyers get under my skin so bad.
I envision the snake in Eden as a lawyer. “Did God REALLY say you shall not eat of the fruit of any tree in the garden......? Doesn’t it depend on what the meaning of is is? Let’s interpret what God meant to say, dissect it according to established precedent, assign motives to Him, and judge Him according to our own warped, small minds...”
That’s not to say we don’t have to get the nitpicky details right, or that we don’t need to interpret laws, etc. But the oily justifications for perverting the meaning of words is something I just don’t deal with very well.
And Congress is full of the snake-oil salesmen. If I was in Congress I’d be shouting “You lie!” through the whole dang thing.
This is why I said right away that Sarah Palin could do more for this country when she WASN’T sitting in the governor’s seat as bait for anybody who wanted to make up lies and sue her.
I don’t know. Maybe this guy is the perfect person to send to Corruption City. Maybe he knows how you have to work there. I’m just a podunk hick who still thinks honesty is the best policy and we’re best off if we speak our minds plainly. I guess I belong in the heap with the old Selectric typewriters. lol.
Electric? I'm back with the Underwoods...I guess I am old fashioned.
I don't want some conniving pipsqueak in office who can lie better than the rest of the herd, I want someone in there who believes the right things and will fight for what is right.
I have a feeling that if we were in the same building we might end up fighting back to back, but it is sure we'd be on the same team.
I’d gladly fight on the same team. And I’d fight on the same team with 70times7 and probably most people here. Probably with Buck too.
The hard part is knowing how best to fight. It’s a fair question.
Maybe we need some to fight hand-to-hand while the others appear to turn tail and run only to flank them from the backside so we can meet in the middle when we’ve cleaned up our particular side of the battle.
I won’t begrudge Buck wanting to sneak in through the back, nor would I shoot him for appearing to leave the battle I’m directly in. I just need the assurance that he knows who the real enemy is.
Maybe we could use “dumbass” as a code word so we know it’s the non-Muslim version of taqiyya - to say the opposite of what you really mean in order to deceive people and gain power. He could call us dumbasses and wink, and the media would fawn over him and we would know he was just BS-ing the media to get power so he could hit the enemy from behind. I could live with that I guess.
I should have pinged you to this one too.
The Battle of Cowpens...
Read your Sun Tsu, and the 'Rogue Warrior', --even Mao's little red book, they apply to politics, too.
I’ve never read those. Judging by the quotes you’ve got on your profile page, if you recommend a reading it’s probably good. Those are fantastic quotes you’ve got!
I’ve fought a few “Battles of Cowpens” in my day, but that’s just because we had to let the cows out to pasture every spring and bring them back in every late fall. lol. (Maybe guarding the gate without flinching while we sorted calves from cows was good preparation for what’s ahead. Courage is always a good thing.)
So, you’re saying that the official Tea Party line is that Obama isn’t an American citizen? You are an idiot. This whole birth certificate issue is a total non-starter, unprovable in the current political setup, and has already been tried, and has failed, in the last election. So, why do these birther dumbasses keep bothering a gubernatorial candidate about it in public? I can only hurt his candidacy, and in no way at all can it help. Newbie.
How nice of you to show up - a day late - to a thread and start calling names without reading the post or the replies and state things I did not say.
Take your time. Read it out loud if it helps.
Ahah, finally something clever comes off your keyboard! Keep this up, and you’ll soon be making intelligent posts!
Maybe you could start by telling them to STOP asking about a birth certificate because it isn't necessary.
The fact his father was a foreign national here on a student visa makes it impossible for Zero to be a natural born citizen.
I'm not saying it was ok to malign tea partiers - that pissed me off too. I am saying that his reaction to those few knuckleheads who keep on banging that one useless drum is understandable. If you want to create a case that the guy is a RINO go get the intel and post it.
Very well said, Joe. Excellent post.
No worries - we are SO clearly on the same team - and I’m proud to be a part of it.
To be fair, Buck said the remark was directed at a few people who show up and disrupt every campaign stop. That ain’t no way to win support for your cause.
FWIW, I’m voting Buck in the Primary.
Very good point - I wonder if some dims were following the guy around pressing the birther issue to get that “oh $#!+” comment he finally provided.
It is provable, if we had one honest US attorney, DOJ, or state Attorney General who was more concerned about doing his job than about politics.
Multiple crimes have been committed by multiple people at multiple levels. The evidence is straightforward. On the criminal level this should have busted out long, long ago. It hasn’t because law enforcement power is centered in political players who are not interested in genuine justice - and that is a vulnerability we need to remedy, regardless of what happens with Obama. I don’t know how any “conservative” could say otherwise and don’t think it is helpful for any “conservative” to blast as “dumbasses” anybody who pushes for non-politicized law enforcement in this country - which is my major bent on this whole subject.
Constitutionally/judicially speaking, we already know that Obama COULD NOT have qualified by January 20, 2009 as the 20th Amendment requires, because his birth certificate has been amended and Hawaii law requires a special procedure to legally determine the facts of birth. Obama’s birth is LITERALLY legally undocumented. There is no person on earth who can legally say how old he is, where he was born, or to whom. Not Pelosi or Germond, not Fukino, not Congress, not SCOTUS (without first having the BC presented as evidence to them).... because according to Hawaii law that BC has to be presented AS EVIDENCE to a judicial or administrative person or body so they can determine the probative value of that BC and it even CAN mean anything legally.
Obama refused to present it as evidence to anyone. State SOS’s (not knowing they could get it without Obama’s approval because the HDOH Administrative Rules were illegally hidden) did not ask to see it as evidence. And judges refused to demand it as evidence. All the legal avenues for that piece of paper to have legal value beyond that of toilet paper were obstructed. Obama should have been BEGGING the Secretaries of State to look at his BC because without them doing so it has ZERO legal evidentiary value.
So we know for a fact that Obama COULD NOT HAVE qualified by Jan 20, 2009, regardless of what Congress said. They are legislative; not one of them could look at Obama’s BC and declare ANYTHING about Obama’s birth facts, because they don’t have the power to legally determine the birth facts.
The 20th Amendment does not allow Obama to have the presidential powers, and anybody with standing to sue over his unconstitutional use of the presidential powers could break this thing open legally - if SCOTUS would do their jobs. Again, a big “if”, given their past behavior.
But that is also something that “conservatives” should find appalling. How is a country to function if the only people who CAN enforce the Constitution refuse to do so?
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.