Censorship and the constitution

Nick_A

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Dear reader, are you in favor of censorship pertaining to a potential constitutional crisis? Do you respect the constitution enough to stand against censorship of issues pertaining to such crises'? Your choice.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/obamas-birth-certificate-9729.html

I got an PM this morning announcing that the Obama thread is closed and that I am beating a dead horse. Every day more and more people are signing petitions demanding Obama to release the long form of his birth certificate to prove he is eligible to be president. Obama and the DNC have spent over a million dollars so far to avoid releasing what you or I would be proud of. Would you spend a million dollars to avoid showing the long form of your birth certificate if you had nothing to hide?
So each day the question grows and any citizen has the obligation to stay current as to constitutional issues. Apparently not so on this site.
There was even a full page ad signed by an increasing amount demanding Obama come clean. I posted the ad and the thread closes.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ChicagoTribune-ObamaLtr-Nov-2008.pdf

Before the economic crisis, people avoided the problem and then it finally hit. If we avoid this problem and it became revealed that Obama was not eligible, then there will be riots as he is removed with probable deaths. Well dear reader, for all of you that look the other way and do not want a quick resolution, you will be partially responsible for these deaths that could have been avoided if people had supported revealing the necessary documents rather than being PC and looking the other way.

As long as this thread is censored, for what it is worth, I will not support the site and its apparent censorship of a potential constitutional crisis.

This is not as was said in the PM "beating a dead horse," this horse is alive and kicking and growing stronger each day. I'm surprised as to how low some people around here can go to protect some ill founded notion of political correctness even at the expense of probable deaths if Obama were proven unqualified at a later date.

But again to be politically correct, the mortgage mess was allowed to grow leading to the suffering we see now. But censoring a potential constitutional crisis is really bringing the bar down and I want no part of it.

You dear reader must make the choice in regards censoring the issue of a potential constitutional crisis or not. If you choose censorship be sure to accept partial blame if the worst happens.
 
Well, Nick, given there's no legally rational basis to all those spurious lawsuits, those promulgating them and, by extension you, are in way trying to ride if not beat a dead horse.:p As to whether folks here are going to continue to ride it, that's there call. earl
 
oh, so the economic crisis is a result of Obamas victory, is it??
Im not an economist however it doesnt take a few short weeks for this "crisis" to happen.... Also and to insinuate that people other than your way of thinking are partially responsible for deaths that may or may not occur (?) is insulting.....

He won, the other guy didnt, get over it. If he does a bad job, well, theres always another chance to vote him out, isnt there.?.
 
Well, Nick, given there's no legally rational basis to all those spurious lawsuits, those promulgating them and, by extension you, are in way trying to ride if not beat a dead horse.:p As to whether folks here are going to continue to ride it, that's there call. earl

Why is it that you know more than the lawyers initiating these suits? Oh I forgot, you are one of the educated ones that believe there is nothing at all suspicious about spending over a million dollars to avoid revealing what one should be proud of. And if anyone dies in the future as a result of these attitudes, you and your denial will be partially responsible.
 
oh, so the economic crisis is a result of Obamas victory, is it??
Im not an economist however it doesnt take a few short weeks for this "crisis" to happen.... Also and to insinuate that people other than your way of thinking are partially responsible for deaths that may or may not occur (?) is insulting.....

He won, the other guy didnt, get over it. If he does a bad job, well, theres always another chance to vote him out, isnt there.?.

I never even implied that the economic crisis has anything to do with Obama but rather a mortgage policy that was enforced by political correctness. People approved political correctness so the crash had to be.

It is politically incorrect to support the constitution in this issue but there is too much money for the person that smuggles out the BC not to have the truth come out. When it does and there are riots because people will believe thqt supporting the constitution is somehow racist, people will die because the matter wasn't resoslved when it should have been and you will be partially responsible.

Right now the site seeks to suppress a potentially violent constitutional crisis. I hope it will feel justified if people die from this bowing down to political correctness.
 
Dear reader, are you in favor of censorship pertaining to a potential constitutional crisis?
I don't think you're really interested in anyone's response to this, as attested by the fact that the rest if your post is merely a continuation of the thread that was closed.

Do you respect the constitution enough to stand against censorship of issues pertaining to such crises'?
There is no crisis.

Every day more and more people are signing petitions demanding Obama to release the long form of his birth certificate to prove he is eligible to be president.
We spent how many pages on the other thread explaining that this is not the crux of the matter??

Obama and the DNC have spent over a million dollars so far to avoid releasing what you or I would be proud of.
Your source for this?

Would you spend a million dollars to avoid showing the long form of your birth certificate if you had nothing to hide?
This is a rhetorical ploy that adds no new information and overlooks the legitimate reasons why Obama has refused to cooperate with an unlawful process.

So each day the question grows and any citizen has the obligation to stay current as to constitutional issues.
You've never explained the issues even though you've had ample opportunity. I don't recall a single comment from you regarding the origins and intended purpose of the citizenship clause. You don't seem to be interested in the Constitution at all.

There was even a full page ad signed by an increasing amount demanding Obama come clean. I posted the ad and the thread closes.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ChicagoTribune-ObamaLtr-Nov-2008.pdf
The Foundation's open letter adds nothing to an understanding of the issues, which are legal in nature. The author, Mr. Schulz, is not a legal professional. The document serves no informative purpose. Nor did you explain its value or critique the content. Your uncritical copy and pastes remind me of someone wallpapering a room. You have taken this approach for weeks on end.

The Foundation's open letter alleges "a violation of the Constitution" and the author evidently expects Obama to respond as though the violation has been proven, so that Obama now presumably has an obligation to take certain steps to correct the situation. Mr. Schulz acts as though he has legal authority equivalent to a court in tems of an ability to adjudicate a constitutional controversy and in terms of an ability to impose something resembling a court order.

Again, Mr. Schulz has no legal background, which might explain why he does not seem to understand that individuals are not in a position to obtain redress in connection with an alleged grievance. Nor does Mr Schulz seem to understand that Obama is under no obligation to comply with an enforcement order that is legally meaningless. Like some of the other sources you have cited, Mr Schulz is play-acting at having court adjudication and injunction capabilities. Totally ridiculous. Your completer failure to examine the merits of the arguments and representations leaves little doubt about your agenda.

If we avoid this problem and it became revealed that Obama was not eligible, then there will be riots as he is removed with probable deaths.
This is inflammatory.

Well dear reader, for all of you that look the other way and do not want a quick resolution, you will be partially responsible for these deaths that could have been avoided if people had supported revealing the necessary documents rather than being PC and looking the other way.
This is absurd. There is no quick resolution and the suggestion that the possibility of it is dependent on Obama's actions is a gross misrepresentation.


But again to be politically correct, the mortgage mess was allowed to grow leading to the suffering we see now. But censoring a potential constitutional crisis is really bringing the bar down and I want no part of it.
Respectfully, you have done very little to garner support. Your continued and shameless use of this forum for obvious partisan purposes is offensive. Your persistent tendency to treat allegations as though they are actual legal findings is dishonest and manipulative. To boot, your arguments are repetitive and redundant and show no intellectual curiosity about the Constitution or about law in general.

I can only deduce that you see yourself as a propagandist. If you like what the Foundation is doing, they have a Paypall account, as does Phil Berg. I'm sure they'd be pleased to accept your contribution. Alternatively, you coud start your own website and copy and paste all of the latest buzz on your own web pages at your own expense. Just some helpful suggestions.
 
I don't think you're really interested in anyone's response to this, as attested by the fact that the rest if your post is merely a continuation of the thread that was closed.

There is no crisis.

We spent how many pages on the other thread explaining that this is not the crux of the matter??

Your source for this?

This is a rhetorical ploy that adds no new information and overlooks the legitimate reasons why Obama has refused to cooperate with an unlawful process.

You have never explained the issues even though you've had ample opportunity. I don't recall a single comment from you on origins and intended purpose of the citizenship clause.

The Foundation's open letter adds nothing to an understanding of the issues, which are legal in nature. The author is not a legal professional. The document serves no informative purpose. Nor did you explain its value or critique the content. Your uncritical copy and pastes remind me of someone wallpapering a room.

This is inflammatory.

This is absurd. There is no quick resolution and the suggestion that the possibility of it is dependent on Obama's actions is a gross misrepresentation.


Respectfully, you have done very little to garner support. Your continued and shameless use of this forum for obvious partisan purposes is offensive. Your persistent tendency to treat allegations as though they are actual legal findings is dishonest and manipulative. To boot, your argments are repetitive and redundant and show no intellectual curiosity about the Constitution or about law in general.

I can only deduce that you see yourself as a propagandist. If you like what the Foundation is doing, they have a Paypall account, as does Phil Berg. I'm sure they'd be pleased to accept your contribution. Alternatively, you coud start your own website and copy and paste all of the latest buzz on your own web pages at your own expense. Just some helpful suggestions.

The Obama campaign requested that discovery be delayed until after the November 4th election and Obama has refused to produce an original hospital birth certificate with the Governor of Hawaii placing the document under lock and key. The Obama campaign and the DNC have spent approximately one million dollars to prevent release of Obama's Birth Certificate.

WikiAnswers - When will the lawsuit over Obama's birth certificate be settled

Typical mindless name calling. the bottom line is that you will be partially responsible for these deaths if and when they happen as a result of Obama being revealed as lacking the necessary qualifications. Suppression in this case is an assault on the constitution. I want no part of such censorship.
 
So dear reader the question becomes if you prefer censorship or not as pertaining to the constitution and a potential constitutional crisis. People get insulted but does insult rule the day or is supporting discussion more important then supporting politically correct insult?

Don't think anyone knows how to handle this. It is potentially too explosive for most too be brave enough to take responsibility. But is it for you as well? Are you willing to continue being interested in why people spend over a million dollars to hide the qualifications they should be proud of. Does the constitution mean enough to you to assert that it should be discussed openly or do you prefer censorship and the possible disastrous consequences that may result from avoiding the issue. Your choice. I've made mine.
 
Does the constitution mean enough to you to assert that it should be discussed openly or do you prefer censorship and the possible disastrous consequences that may result from avoiding the issue.
You are expecting people to take a stand on hypotheticals.

You have not demonstrated that the Constitution is in jeopardy. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no rulings in this matter at all except to dismiss a flimsy lawsuit and appeal by Philip Berg.
 
Okay, I have a question: how does the constitution define "natural born citizen?"
 
This is from a source I trust: snopes.com: Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen of the U.S.?

I'm backing off now.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

This is how it usually is. We decide what we trust and try to get the rest of the world to bend to it. We refuse to admit another side and prefer censorship to defend our line of thought. It is the basis of selective morality that leads to the ill founded notion of political correctness. Is it any wonder that it must lead to the horrors that it does?
 
This is how it usually is. We decide what we trust and try to get the rest of the world to bend to it. We refuse to admit another side and prefer censorship to defend our line of thought. It is the basis of selective morality that leads to the ill founded notion of political correctness. Is it any wonder that it must lead to the horrors that it does?
This adds nothing to an understanding of the issues and involves pure speculation and fear mongering.

Much as you have tied to frame this as a political bias issue, this is a matter of law. Your tendency to confuse these areas provides clues as to your propagandistic intent.

Again, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no rulings in this matter at all except to dismiss a flimsy lawsuit and appeal by Philip Berg.
 
This adds nothing to an understanding of the issues and involves pure speculation and fear mongering.

Much as you have tied to frame this as a political bias issue, this is a matter of law. Your tendency to confuse these areas provides clues as to your propagandistic intent.

Again, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no rulings in this matter at all except to dismiss a flimsy lawsuit and appeal by Philip Berg.

The law it seems states that the people do not have a right to know if a person meets the qualifications to be president. They don't have standing. Yet anyone with half a brain knows that no one spends over a million dollars to hide their birth certificate if there is nothing to hide pertaining to the question of eligability. So the bottom line is that this is such a dangerous question that only a few have the guts to confront it. If and when the worst happens it will be the mindsets like those like yours and a certain mod here that will be partially responsible.

The same thing happened with the mortgage crisis. Loans were given because it was politicaly correct to do so but knowing full well increasing expenses in energy and taxes would make them impossible to pay back. So we were politically correct and now in an economic crisis. You can be PC all you like. I prefer to be realistic for the sake of the constitution and the probable loss of life if Obama were proven unqualified and removed.
 
The law it seems states that the people do not have a right to know if a person meets the qualifications to be president. They don't have standing. Yet anyone with half a brain knows that no one spends over a million dollars to hide their birth certificate if there is nothing to hide pertaining to the question of eligability. So the bottom line is that this is such a dangerous question that only a few have the guts to confront it. If and when the worst happens it will be the mindsets like those like yours and a certain mod here that will be partially responsible.

The same thing happened with the mortgage crisis. Loans were given because it was politicaly correct to do so but knowing full well increasing expenses in energy and taxes would make them impossible to pay back. So we were politically correct and now in an economic crisis. You can be PC all you like. I prefer to be realistic for the sake of the constitution and the probable loss of life if Obama were proven unqualified and removed.
This adds nothing to a legal analysis of the Constitutional issue under consideration.
 
This adds nothing to a legal analysis of the Constitutional issue under consideration.

True, but it suggests how much politics is under the influence of ignorance and corruption. How could The DNC support someone hiding evidence? Now that it has it is stuck and can only hope the truth if revealed that obama is not qualified, never comes out. Nice way to respect the constitution which should be primary to politics. Fat chance.
 
Back
Top