What I do or do not mock is irrelevant to the law.
We sold our ability to hold him in check, because we deemed “the rule of law” people to be too embarrassing for the “cool kids”
Ah. I see. It's my fault for not upholding your majic birfer mojo.
Had I but embraced Orly Taitz and "who be his daddy this week" then the world would be full of unicorns pooping out cheeseburgers.
And that was (and apparently still is) you. You would not stand for the rule of law requiring Obama to prove his eligibility
Again, you assign too much power to me.
I'm just one guy. I control nothing in law or government.
You sound like my ex-wife, who blames my lack of enthusiasm for Sarah Palin for causing her not to run.
Give me one good reason that Obama and his shills shouldn’t treat you the same way as you have treated us “rule of law” people
Don't they? Seems like they do. You don't see me whining about it.
using the exact same language and techniques as you and your ilk have employed against those of us who believed the Constitution and rule of law matter.
I have ilks? Who knew?
Of course the Constitution matters. What does NOT matter is my opinion of kookery.
There are serious means of accomplishing things.. and also kookery.
When you trot out lunatics like Taitz and folks who claim Obama's
daddy was Frank Marshall Davis last week and Jimi Hendrix or
James Earl Jones or somebody else the next.. you won't be taken seriously.
That's how the world works.
Why do you support only one of those?
Just covered that, see above.
I use the term “cool kids” because that’s how that Alinsky crap always goes
Ah, jeez.. not that tired old Alinsky crap again.
Got news, sweeticakes.. Alinsky didn't invent mockery.
Mockery predates that guy by thousands of years.
Has anybody figured out yet that this is serious?
Then I'd suggest that you should have gotten someone to present the case that wasn't a smacktard clown.
Being consistent and on-message counts too.
"He's Kenyan! He's Indonesian! Frank Marshall Davis! Subud!"
Pick one. When you have a new "theory" every week how can you expect to be taken seriously?
I have stayed out of the theories. What I have said is that having a foreign enemy combatant as commander-in-chief is the business of every person in this country - and right now I’ll add that it is our business even BEFORE we get our heads sawed off by the Islamists that Obama has funded, trained, armed, and made excuses for. There is no frickin’ way that any court or judge in this nation should be saying that as long as everybody is being screwed it’s no big deal. No. Frickin’. Way.
The lawsuits - especially by the military folks who could end up being framed for Extortion-17-type extermination via Obama’s Islamist friends - should have resulted in legal standing, the issue being heard on the merits, the evidence sorted out, and a legal answer given.
That’s what I have been saying all along.
But no, Orly Taitz has cooties so ISIS can have the nation without even a fight, because the people of this nation have no brains and no b@lls.
Every person has the power to control one person: him/herself. If you saw fit to pick on Orly Taitz’ cooties rather than stand for the rule of law BEFORE the invasion of ISIS, then you are responsible for that decision - as are all the others who made that decision. You didn’t have to start fawning over Orly or anybody else; all you had to do was refuse to mock THE ISSUE of Constitutional eligibility and the rule of law. Just being quiet would have been enough.
Who on Free Republic is saying that 2nd Amendment supporters are engaged in “kookery”? If they said it, would you agree? After all, the “cool people” in the media don’t like the 2nd Amendment, and that seems to be the going definition of “kookery” - anything the “cool people” think is stupid or “extreme”.
I’ll ask it flat-out: Should documentation of eligibility be required, to earn a wage in this country - including for the position of POTUS? Is it “crazy” to expect the law which requires documentation to be enforced - from the lowliest janitor to the POTUS and beyond? Should an employer be legally prevented from obeying that law and prosecuted if they try to obey it? Should they be ridiculed as a nutcase if they say they take the law and their responsibility seriously?
We are Obama’s employer. As some of us have been saying all along, if he’s able to kick us in the rear while all the “conservatives” yuk it up with him over his great superiority over the rubes who think we the people still matter.... that tells us exactly what he’s going to do on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. And we were right.
I don’t say this to gloat but to say it’s time for the rest of y’all to wake the heck up, unite, and fight this beast. This lawless beast who laughs at laws, the Constitution, and we the people. The first thing we need to do is take that sickening smirk off his face and tell him we’re not laughing at his lawlessness any more. The second thing we need to do is throng every Congress-critter’s car, house, office, etc until THEY take that putrescent smirk off his face by impeaching - and CONVICTING - him of treason.
The putrescent smirk has to go. From all of us. We need to fight in earnest, before the window of opportunity is gone, if it isn’t already gone.