Rush Limbaugh another Obama enabler: Source sez OP just got the ZOT

http://moralmatters.org ^ | April 5, 2013 | Nathan M. Bickel

[Yooperman]

Mark Levin last night said he dosen't like to use the word Marxist.

Rush Limbaugh another Obama enabler: Moralmatters.org reader says Limbaugh is a political prostitute April 5, 2013

Limbaugh talks big, but falls short in conveying the reality about Obama. He, like Hannity, Levin, Laura Ingraham and a host of (so-called) “Conservative” talk show hosts continue to whine and wring their hands over Obama’s political actions and agenda. But, when it comes down to brass tacks, these self-proclaimed “Conservatives,” fall woefully short. They will not expose Obama for his identity frauds and forgeries, even though now, it has been legally evidenced that Obama’s (needed and required) documentation for the office of president has been found to be (felony) fraudulent. Incidentally, this web author finds it hypocritical on the part of some of these so-called “Conservative” talk show hosts that they advertise a show sponsor service source of prevention for identity theft fraud for rank-in-file Americans; yet, these same (hypocritical) talk show hosts go out of their way to ignore Obama’s ID fraud and forgeries.

http://moralmatters.org/2013/04/05/rush-limbaugh-another-obama-enabler-moralmatters-org-reader-says-limbaugh-is-a-political-prostitute/

[Kenny Bunk]

They tell us to feel utter contempt for the usurper in the White House. That’s not enough. Did our feelings of contempt remove Obama? The conservative media needs to tell us to take action. They have millions of “listeners”, but do they have any “doers”? Only Beck had the nerve, many months ago, to remind our military of their constitutional responsibility. But even he backed off when the left began to cry, “Sedition! Treason!” I for one am sick of hearing about “conservative revolution” that results in nothing but talk, talk, talk, while the Kenyan continues to amass power.

Although because of your heretical views, you may be ineligible for our Sleep-Numba Bed Giveaway, you can still win a Gold Bar for listening!

If Obama doesn't pay the former rock'n'roll DJs, he ought to. Their only accomplishment IMNHO is to have "oersonalized" a non-person, thus removing any semblance of intelligence from campaigns. They provide Obama with the massive misdirection he needs to remain in office. "Conservatives" will be bitching about Obama all the way to the Gulag.

2014 will tell the tale. If Team Obama loses the Senate and whatever the opposition looks like keeps the House, I will instantly apologize and buy Sean Hannity 5 gallons of the very best hair oil.

Where do you want your gold brick shipped?

[noinfringers2]

First of all I don’t believe that your comment about Vattel is anywhere close to reality as to what is taught about the framing of the Constitution and I can’t say that there are many who claim to know about Vattel from school days who are involved in the eligibility matter today. It was Obama who generated the public scrutiny of eligibility. I have years of paper documents taken off the web including FR. My short/quick reference pile has a FR posting dated July 26,2009 as to Obama’s eligibility. There are earlier documents from other sources. As to references to Vattel on FR, I refer you to a posting on October 04,2009 ‘Obama’s certificate of live birth data wasn’t “Accepted” it was only filed’. So the issue of/with Vattel goes back at least before the last election. As to your opinion that the ‘citizen’ noted in ‘Article one’ includes the “natural born citizen” noted in Article II is just not consistent as to the Founders in Their writings as to defining specific intentions for the new Nation.

[allmendream]

2009 was after 0bama’s election in 2008.

Where were all the “two citizen parents and born on U.S. soil” advocates BEFORE 0bama was elected in 2008? Why was this such an unknown point of view on one of the preminent conservative and Constitution advocacy locations on the internet if so many NOW claim it was something they were taught in High School? Where are the textbooks advancing this claim that they were taught from?

And when, in Article I, it mentions that one must be a U.S. “citizen” to be a Senator - that is not it’s own category as should be obvious to all but a moron. It is inclusive of all three categories. We have had naturalized citizens as Senators, we have had natural born citizens as Senators, and we have had those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution as Senators. The intention was not that only a ‘generic’ “citizen” would qualify - any of the THREE types of U.S. citizen mentioned in the U.S. Constitution could qualify.

[stephenjohnbanker]

What a picture!

LOL!

[TheOldLady]

Viking Kitties mean business!

[noinfringers2]

I take history to show that there was little public concern about citizen eligibility for POTUSA because elections were generally above board. However this was skewed by Obama enablers especially Polosi in the certification procedures/process. I recognize that most all of the politicians and talk people do not recognize that that things were in any way done wrongly. However, as a free spirit along with many others, I use my own sense of facts to weigh that something has gone awry with Obama’s candidacy and election. The ‘what’ is becoming more apparent each and every day. The ‘why’ remains perhaps for future historians. Until then I will probably continue to hold that Obama is a usurper of the USA Constitution. Just plain logic apart from being a moron tells me, and many others, that there are two distinct and separate kinds of citizens in/between Article I and Article II of the Constitution. A moron can see a difference of wording but a iconoclast might not.

[allmendream]

So no theory as to why nobody on FR was advancing the “two parents and born on U.S. soil” theory as to the meaning of natural born citizen until AFTER 0bama’s election in 2008? Maybe it isn't as widespread an understanding as you pretend.

There are different qualifications for being a Senator or a President. To be a Senator any type of citizen can qualify. To be a President only a natural born citizen or citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution can qualify. That should be obvious.

What is not obvious is that by specifying “citizen” in Article I that the Constitution is describing a fourth type of citizen rather than an inclusive description whereby ANY type of U.S. citizen can qualify. If so then, it should be equally obvious, naturalized citizens and natural born citizens couldn't qualify to be a Senator. That is ludicrous and idiotic.

[noinfringers2]

It is apparent that you and I have different perspectives as to ‘citizens’ as spoken of in the Constitution. For example, I don’t see a ‘citizen’ as mentioned/delineated in the first Article of the Constitution as describing ‘ a fourth type of citizen’- simply incongruous. As to prior to 2008 Obama talk of ‘natural born citizen’ I noted such was not brought forward because there was little concern at the time. There was a report of an incident when Obama was running for Senator from Illinois when a question during a debate of POTUSA eligibility was raised Obama correctly and wisely noted that at the time he was running for Illinois Senator. So even at that time the question of eligibility for POTUSA was up for sidebar discussion.

[Chunga]

Is English your first language?

[allmendream]

So then you are aware that there are only three types of U.S. citizen described in the Constitution. Natural born, naturalized, and a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

Any of the three types can qualify to be a Senator, as Article I specifies they must be a “citizen”.

Only two of the three can qualify to be a President, as Article II specifies they must be either a “natural born citizen” or a “citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution”.

So do you think 0bama was naturalized? It should be obvious he wasn't a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Or do you think there is some fourth type of U.S. citizen?

And still no answer as to why nobody on FR was aware prior to after the election in 2008 of this definition you were supposedly taught in High School, and nobody seems to have located a textbook that describes what you claim to have been taught.

[noinfringers2]

Wow!!! Give me some time to digest all your expressions and thought twisting. I believe I’m getting a handle on your obtuse erudite thinking. If I change my take on what you say I’ll get back to you.

[allmendream]

I won’t hold my breath waiting for a straight answer from you.

[noinfringers2]

You sound/act like you have royal blood of some kind the way you believe anyone has to answer to you for anything.

[wardaddy]

I don’t agree with Mark on Lincoln, Reconstruction or Dixie but he is the leading opposition to GOPe

Rush is second though historically a much more relevant figure

Hannity bores me and is on Roger Ailes short leash

Thread OP is not a troll.....he’s been here a while

[allmendream]

Well God forbid you come up with a reasonable argument consistent with the Constitution! I guess you are out of your depths doing more than condemning conservatives who don’t buy into the conspiracy theories and or an obscure view of the Constitution and an argument you are unwilling or unable to state plainly.