[eDebate] Sanchez: article 2 is too difficult 4 obamatrons
Sun Mar 1 14:45:41 CST 2009
Sanchez doesn?t need an argument. He just needs to peck away with one
distraction after another. His latest distractions are answered below and
they?re plain awful. I can?t wait to see his next attempt to bypass
article 2 and today?s supreme court ruling that requires obama to respond to
berg?s writ a certiori by december 1. Sanchez is absolutely right.
There is no possibility of a constitutional crisis if obama can?t produce a
vault copy of his hawaiian birth certificate.
1. mccain and obama were both born overseas. Grant. The difference
mccain is still a natural born citizen. His father was stationed
overseas. That?s why mccain has actually submitted his birth certificate
to the media and third parties. That?s why mccain doesn?t have to forge a
birth certificate in arizona and his family is not mixing up which phoenix
hospital he was born in. how the fuck dumb are you?
2) you?re misframing the question and still do not understand article 2.
It?s not about where you?re born. It?s about whether or not you are a
naturalized or natural born citizen. Like I said before Mccain is %100
natural born. His father was deployed on the panama base. If obama was
born in kenya, then he is not natural born because his mother was only 18
years of age. This is why he forged the hawaiian birth certificate. Duh.
If he and mccain?s foreign birth were equivalents then there would be 2
cases in front of the supreme court. 1 questioning obama like the berg case
and 1 questioning mccain like the case that does not exist. And if they
were equivalents, then obama like mccain would have submitted an actual copy
of his vault birth certificate to the media and not just behind closed doors
to fact check.
3) last night, ron paul did publicly join the new york civil liberties union
and other citizens concerned about obama?s abrogation of the constitution.
Ron paul spent an hour last night being interviewed about the coming
?Congressman Ron Paul (TX) will be a guest on Lan Lamphere's show tonight,
Monday November 3rd at 10PM EST to discuss Berg v. Obama and the state of
You were spinning yarns last night when you said:
this is what YOU - not the constitution, not ron paul - are choosing to talk
about this evening,?
Ron Paul and I were both talking about the constitutional crisis over
article 2. Why do you make up shit like that? Distraction.
4) the supreme court ruled today that obama has to respond to berg writ a
certiori by december 1. You?re absolulety right not the constitution but
the supreme court is talking about what ron paul and I were talking about
last night. The stay of the election was denied but the defendants, obama
and the DNC, are required by justice souter and the supreme court to respond
to the writ by december 1. If you understood article 2, then you would
understand the reason why the supreme court is requiring obama to respond
and did not completely dismiss the case. The mainstream media has
trivialized justice souter?s response perpetuating the hawaiian birth
certificate fraud but the ruling still exists.
Justice Souter?s Clerk has informed Mr. Berg that Mr. Berg?s application for
an injunction to stay the November 4th election has been denied. (The U. S.
Supreme Court Docket is below.)
The defendants are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari by December
first, after which Mr. Berg will have an opportunity to respond.
5) natural born citizenship was in the founding of the nation and still is a
check against enemy infiltration. Article 2 is a check against a foreign
nation hostile to the united states from installing a manchurian candidate
to subvert the constitutional system. In the early days, the concern was
obviously the british. It would have been absolutely stupid not to have
article 2 in place to prevent a british born, naturalized US citizen from
subverting the intents and purposes of the american revolution through
allegiance to the british crown. Article 2 was part of the genius of the
american innovation in the political system. Today, article 2 is still
relevant as a check against enemy subversion of the constitution. This is
not to deny internal threats to the constitution like dick cheney or to
assume that all foreigners/naturalized citizens are threats to the
constitution. Article 2 is one of many checks in place and by no means on
its own guarantees the preservation of the constitution.
You?re drifting towards no requirements for the eligibility of the
presidency. Age restrictions are ageist. Anyone, anywhere, anytime can be
president. Why not remove the elections that are required by the
constitution like in china and iran?
6) you said:
?after all, jack isn't writing 'open letters' to john mccain, now is he? ?
Yo dipshit, king of distractions, I didn?t write the ?open letter to barack
obama?. I posted the open letter of the NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION.
Yeah, they were real pro-bush and now they?re real pro-mccain. Why do
make up shit in your argument? The only thing I can think of is that you?re
distracting from your ignorance of article 2. At least admit it, when
you?re way out of it. When did I ever post an open letter of my own to
And what do you have against the new york civil liberties union?
You won?t answer that bad distraction you just created. You?re going to
make up 7 new distractions to stay off point.
7) your obama protest rant sucks. You can?t defend FISA. Obama spun
warrantless wiretapping as requiring ?judicial review?. That was a load of
shit but it allows obama to spy on the opposition and more easily thwart
their attempts at resistance. Quit dropping the FISA vote. And not just
the vote, mr. King of distraction, but the actual bogus defense.
HOW IS FISA GOING TO ENABLE RESISTANCE UNDER OBAMA AND MAKE HIM MORE
VULNERABLE TO PROTEST ACTIVISM?
WHY IS SANCHEZ SO NA?VE TO THINK THAT OBAMA WON?T USE WARRANTLESS
WIRETAPPING TO SPY ON PROTESTORS?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman