Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Need Input - Draft of Eligibility Bill
butterdezillion

Posted on 11/30/2010 10:33:49 AM PST by butterdezillion

With SCOTUS AWOL, we need to find our own way to mitigate the vulnerabilities in our system. This isn't my forte so bear with me. I offer it as a starting point for discussion:

A PROPOSAL FOR A STATE BILL REGARDING PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION

Whereas the US Constitution states the requirements for Presidential eligibility and gives the federal judiciary the responsibility of interpreting and applying the Constitution but gives the individual states the responsibility of choosing Presidential electors resulting in a Constitutionally eligible President;

Whereas the President is the Commander-in-Chief of US military personnel, some of which swear to obey his orders and some of which swear to protect and defend the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, which could include an ineligible or unconstitutional President who could inflict irreparable harm to both the Constitution and the nation’s security;

Whereas the only security clearance given to the Commander-in-Chief is the vote of the people, who do not individually have authority to demand documentation necessary for such a security clearance;

Whereas the United States government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people” and yet judicial “standing” is denied when the interest of the entire nation is at stake rather than a particular individual or group suffering particularized harm; and

Whereas the Attorney General is the legal representation for the interests of “the people” and has judicial standing on behalf of this State and its residents,

Therefore be it resolved that the name of a candidate for US President may not be placed on a primary or general election ballot in this State unless and until the following steps have been completed and Constitutional eligibility is confirmed:

1. The prospective candidate must complete a sworn application stating their birth date, birth place, years of US residency, and the US citizenship status of each parent at the time of the prospective candidate’s birth.

2. The prospective candidate must submit evidence of the years of US residency.

3. The prospective candidate must sign a consent form for the Secretary of State to have access to ALL his/her birth documents from the Vital Records Office in his/her birth state, including any supplementary documentation and written and/or embedded transaction records for the birth record.

4. The prospective candidate must sign a consent form for the Secretary of State to have access to all citizenship records for the prospective candidate and his/her parents from the Department of State and INS.

5. The Secretary of State must procure all the records listed in 3 and 4, and directly on the application mark on a check-off list Yes or No for whether each of the following occurs: a) An amended/altered or late birth certificate. b) A birth certificate showing a birth date resulting in an age younger than 35 years as of the beginning of the Presidential term for which he/she desires to run. c) A birth certificate showing a birth place outside the United States. d) Insufficient proof of at least 14 years of US residency. e) Citizenship records showing the candidate having citizenship in another country at any time. f) Citizenship records showing one or more parent not having US citizenship at the time of the prospective candidate’s birth. g) Transaction records showing amendments or filing dates that do not match what is stated on the birth certificate.

6. After completing Step 5 the Secretary of State shall post on the State SOS website the application, the check-off list, and redacted copies of the documentation provided – the originals of which shall be made available for public inspection at the SOS office on request.

7. If, within 30 days of the online posting, any person files a written complaint with the Attorney General documenting reasons to dispute the veracity of the evidence presented or the way the list is checked off, the Attorney General must check Yes on item h: Check list disputed.

8. If after 30 days of the online posting every item on the check-off list is checked “No”, eligibility is confirmed and the name will be placed on the ballot if all other requirements are met.

9. If after 30 days of the online posting any item on the check-off list is checked “Yes”, then the Attorney General must file a suit with the federal judiciary contesting the eligibility of the prospective candidate, with all documentation collected throughout the process submitted to the court. If all appeals are exhausted and the court has ruled that the person is eligible, eligibility is confirmed and the name will be placed on the ballot if all other requirements are met.

Be it further resolved that if, after Step 9, the court confirms that the prospective candidate is INELIGIBLE, the Attorney General must notify by certified mail the Chairman of each national political party. If a political party nominates the ineligible candidate anyway, the Attorney General must file contempt of court charges against the Chairman of that political party.


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: eligibility; legislation
Does this close the vulnerabilities? Would there be Constitutional challenges to something like this? What might lawmakers object to?
1 posted on 11/30/2010 10:33:51 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Don’t forget passports, social security number (appears to come from Connecticut)


2 posted on 11/30/2010 10:38:48 AM PST by Mr. K ('profiling' would be much more offensive than grabbing your balls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; AmericanVictory; Red Steel; patlin; Natural Born 54; American Constitutionalist; Beckwith; ..

I don’t know who all else I’m forgetting. Since SCOTUS can’t be relied on at this point it’s all the more critical that we deal with this at the state level - especially since Congress was given the memos from the CRS saying that it’s up to the states to deal with eligibility. I want to start working with states that may be possibilities for getting something passed.

I’ve tried to deal with the critical vulnerabilities we face right now, such as standing, SCOTUS refusal to define “natural born”, corrupt state bureaucracies such as in Hawaii, etc.

Let’s tweak it however we have to in order to get the best thing we can and then let’s go for it. The more honest the feedback the better. Invite anybody who cares about this - especially if they have legal expertise.

Thanks!


3 posted on 11/30/2010 10:40:52 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Do you think passports and SS#’s should specifically be mentioned in the context of citizenship records? Is that where those would fit in?


4 posted on 11/30/2010 10:42:35 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bgill; Las Vegas Ron; edge919; Kenny Bunk; Candor7

Ping.


5 posted on 11/30/2010 10:46:42 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

*All Aliases...AKA Tater Salad.


6 posted on 11/30/2010 10:52:02 AM PST by Deaf Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deaf Smith

Whatever the wording the opposition will insist it is un- necessary. Or too broad/ or vague. OR some judge will claim it violates the Constitutional rights of politicians to LIE cheat or steal an election and therefore un-Constitutional.
There will be some State may agree in concept only— others
that will insist they will not be required to do what Congress ought do —while Congress-especially those members addicted to Power will refuse to ratify such a reasonable Amendment.


7 posted on 11/30/2010 10:59:41 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Deaf Smith

Ah, good point. I forgot about that. How would a SOS be able to find out aliases, or how could that be incorporated into the process of verification? How might an alias affect eligibility? (Just trying to clear things in my mind)


8 posted on 11/30/2010 11:01:50 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

All name changes by the Courts...adoptions, marriages, limited partnerships, incorporation, professional licenses ect.


9 posted on 11/30/2010 11:08:09 AM PST by Deaf Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

Maybe there should be a Whereas like this:

“Whereas the Congressional Research Service informed Congress that the states, and not Congress, have the responsibility to vet Presidential candidates...”

There were actually 2 different CRS memos that I’ve seen where they claimed this. And it’s what just about all the Congress-critters sent out to constituents.

Do you see anything in here that would be unnecessarily antagonistic or seem unreasonable or unwarranted?

Basically this just requires the SOS to collect the information and documentation, screen for potential Constitutional problems, and pass on to the courts anything that could be problematic, for the courts to interpret and apply the provisions of the Constitution to the particular case.

I was thinking about McCain, for instance. He’d get flagged because of his birthplace. The courts would then have to decide where he was born and whether the circumstances of his birth render him ineligible.

I was thinking about Jindahl, Rubio, and Schwartzneggar. Same thing with them - and this WILL inevitably come up sooner or later. The courts HAVE to decide this.

I was also thinking about Ronald Reagan, who (I’ve been told) didn’t have a birth certificate because his folks didn’t bother with it. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but in such a situation there would/could be a late birth certificate, and states have particular ways of deciding what certificates are legally probative. A court would decide that.

So basically this is just to provide a bridge between the states (that are supposed to handle elections) and the courts (that are supposed to interpret and apply the Constitution and laws). And to force the law enforcement folks (AG, SOS, courts, etc) to actually serve the needs of the people and the Constitution, without hiding behind “standing” or corruption.


10 posted on 11/30/2010 11:12:20 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I believe it will be necessary to get some petition like this moving ASAP. I would suggest that it be finalized with the critical suggestions . The petition need not be in most refined form. Get it to WND , Canada Free Press ,etc for a million or more signatures. Take it to all three fed bodies as a citizens petition. Some day some how the voice of millions will ring out. I can’t expect the derelicts i.e. SCOTUSA to be bothered but a nerve of patriotism will be active. Changes will result.


11 posted on 11/30/2010 11:55:00 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

12 posted on 11/30/2010 12:04:57 PM PST by Bean Counter (Stout Hearts!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

What seems to be shaping up is that the first matter to deal with is to hold all public officials , including SCOUSA, to their sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. I wish that in all the wording of any Constitution there was a provision that allows any person to bring action against any of those not defending the Constitution by virtue of neglect to citizens claims for address instead of dismissing citizens claim based on ‘no standing’.


13 posted on 11/30/2010 12:11:39 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

What seems to be shaping up is that the first matter to deal with is to hold all public officials , including SCOUSA, to their sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. I wish that in all the wording of any Constitution there was a provision that allows any person to bring action against any of those not defending the Constitution by virtue of neglect to citizens claims for address instead of dismissing citizens claim based on ‘no standing’.


14 posted on 11/30/2010 12:11:59 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

How about including that every Presidential candidate undergo a rigorous Security Background check, since it is my understanding that the President is the only offcial in any administration that hasn’t had one, or am I mistaken?

Any individual who meets the Constitutional requirements is allowed to run for President.


15 posted on 11/30/2010 1:41:53 PM PST by matchgirl (May God bless our troops and bring them home safely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I would certainly include them

You have to be a citizen to get them

you can’t get them if you renounce your USA citizenship to go to an Indonesian grade school or something

If you have a fake one it needs to be shown.


16 posted on 11/30/2010 1:44:15 PM PST by Mr. K ('profiling' would be much more offensive than grabbing your balls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Whereas the US Constitution states the requirements for Presidential eligibility and gives the federal judiciary the responsibility of interpreting and applying the Constitution but gives the individual states the responsibility of choosing Presidential electors;

Whereas the President is the Commander-in-Chief of US military personnel, some of which swear to obey his orders and some of which swear to protect and defend the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, which could include an ineligible or unconstitutional President who could inflict irreparable harm to both the Constitution and the nation’s security;

Whereas the Congressional Research Office has stated that the only security clearance given to the Commander-in-Chief is the vote of the people, who do not individually have authority to demand documentation necessary for such a security clearance; (Use the CRO wording though)

Whereas the United States government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people” and yet judicial “standing” is denied when the interest of the entire nation is at stake rather than a particular individual or group suffering particularized harm; and

Whereas the Attorney General is the legal representation for the interests of “the people” and has judicial standing on behalf of this State and its residents,

Therefore be it resolved that the name of a candidate for US President may not be placed on a primary or general election ballot in this State unless and until the following steps have been completed and Constitutional eligibility is confirmed:

17 posted on 11/30/2010 9:29:04 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Overall it looks good Butter. Find state sponsor(s) to get this into a bill. :-)


18 posted on 11/30/2010 9:30:00 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
My thought is that rather than have the whereas recap all the failings of the system, like the judiciary, just go directly to the problem, that nobody checks the creditials of presidential candidates. You could even point out that a green card holder was on presidential ballots in some states distracting votes from legitimate candidates. But I think I would do that as supporting information and argument for the bill, rather than put it in the bill itself. As far as the other stuff that was mentioned by others, the SSN, and passports, etc. The more you add into it, the more ojbection you will have. I'd keep it as close to the minimum to verify Natural born status and eligibility as you could.

I liked that your's requires approval for all birth certificate records, that resolves getting the long form. What it doesn't do, and what none of the other legislation that I have seen does, is actually define what documents are acceptable or what Natural born citizenship means.

The Hawaiian short form shouldn't be considered evidence since it's not even acceptable to other government agencies. Without guidance as to what "Natural Born" means, state election officials may treat it as synonymous with citizenship. But at least your law, collects the necessary information and provides a method for a challenge.

19 posted on 11/30/2010 9:48:54 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: matchgirl

I thought of that but I wasn’t sure how that would work. For instance, Barack Obama couldn’t have passed even the most lax background check in the military just because of his past and continuing friendship with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. If a state required a background check and they found terrorist connections like that, would the intelligence agency come out publicly and say he couldn’t run for office because he has suspicious connections?

It seems crazy that somebody can get control of the nuclear football without any kind of security check, but it’s also scary if the spooks could drum up dirt on somebody and blacklist them from becoming POTUS also. Like somebody might do on Sarah Palin, for instance - who quit the governorship because of crazy stuff people were drumming up on her.

So things get a bit tricky when you need somebody to protect the national interest but don’t dare give them a blank check either because it could be devastating in the power of corrupt people. Like Janet Napolitano, who can do anything to us that she wants in the name of protecting us but still acts deaf and dumb to the threat by real terrorists. It’s such a fine balance between protection and tyrannical power.

I think that’s where the free press is supposed to come in. It could be oppressive for government to forbid somebody to run for POTUS because they are good friends with terrorists, but those connections should absolutely be explored by the free press, and people should know that if they don’t vet the candidate, nobody will since nobody is authorized to do so.


20 posted on 11/30/2010 11:01:07 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Do you think the parts you struck out are extraneous and/or distracting or could otherwise cause resistance against a bill like this?

One of the things I struggled with was the feeling that folks would think these requirements are overkill, so I wanted to try to address that in the whereas part. Do you think people would understand the importance of the measures? The basic idea of these requirements is that a state could confirm eligibility in very straightforward cases, but if there were any wrinkles involving the definition of “natural born citizen” the Constitution gives the responsibility of interpreting to the courts so there has to be a legal bridge for the state to defer to the judiciary.

And based on the fiasco we’ve all observed there has to be a way for the people to force the AG to represent them; it can’t just be left to political discretion because that is precisely the unaccountable crap that has gotten us where we are today.

I don’t know. Maybe there doesn’t need to be anything to explain the vulnerabilities that need to be closed.

The CRS didn’t really talk about security clearances, but did say that the states are responsible for handling eligibility issues.

It is a common misperception that elected officials go through a security check before they are given critical responsibilities but my understanding is that they don’t. That’s based on what people who have had high-level security clearances have told me. Probably would be good to have more solid documentation on that. I wonder if somebody could help me on that. Where would I get definite confirmation of that?


21 posted on 11/30/2010 11:16:54 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Deaf Smith

Should add to have the applicant include on the application their full legal name and any previous names used - and then require all birth and citizenship documentation filed under any of those names.

There may not be any Indonesian citizenship records for Barack Hussein Obama II but there may well be for Barry Soetoro or Soebarkah (or however that was spelled). Of course, the applicant could just lie, like Obama did when he told the Bar that he had used no other name.

Knowing previous names would also be important for somebody like Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro/Sutoro, who used a different combination of initials and names every day of the week practically - because citizenship records could have been stored under any of those names.

And the maiden/married names for women candidates or for the mom of the candidate (to determine whether the mother was a US citizen when the candidate was born) would also be needed to get to the right documentation.

So I think you’re right; knowing all the names involved would be important.


22 posted on 11/30/2010 11:24:48 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

I wonder what timelines are involved for legislatures introducing bills and for petitioners filing to have a referendum on a ballot.

What I really need is some legal eagles who know how this stuff works, as well as an “in” with strategic people at the state level in states with good potential for passing a bill like this.


23 posted on 11/30/2010 11:28:31 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Yeah, we have to have a definition for “natural born citizen” before anybody can actually determine whether any specific individual qualifies as one. And this is going to come up; already there is talk about Jindahl and Rubio, and their eligibility would have to be resolved as well.

Somebody had suggested that a bill actually define the term, which would probably be challenged in the courts forcing the courts to rule on the definition. But it would also probably get the law thrown out, which would put us back to square one on requiring that eligibility be verified at the state level.

You brought up something else that I wanted some direction on also: how to go about “selling” this kind of bill to legislators. Everything that’s in this draft is a result of the crap that’s gone on. I tried my best to come up with easy, concrete ways to eliminate the possibility of corrupt bureaucrats messing with the documents, for instance, because the HDOH has been incredibly corrupt in all this. I tried to come up with language that would force both the SOS and the AG to take the concerns of “we the people” seriously and translate it into “standing” in the courts. Etc. I just wonder how much of all that history would be helpful for legislators to know as they consider whether a bill like this is necessary.

You’re probably right that the rationale or “selling points” might not need to be in the bill itself.


24 posted on 11/30/2010 11:39:34 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

You don’t ask much, do you? lol.

I do have my eye on a couple states that look hopeful. I’m not sure how to go about approaching the leaders though, and especially since I’m not in their state and I’m a lowly housewife. I wish I had some big guns to stand with me.

Do you know any big guns?


25 posted on 11/30/2010 11:41:47 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
"Somebody had suggested that a bill actually define the term, which would probably be challenged in the courts forcing the courts to rule on the definition. But it would also probably get the law thrown out, which would put us back to square one on requiring that eligibility be verified at the state level."

You could put a severability clause in the bill that states that the eligibility process would remain in tact, in the event that the courts determine the original intent of "natural born" is different than the definition of the bill. The process would then confirm that the court's definition is met.

26 posted on 12/01/2010 8:17:47 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
"I wanted some direction on also: how to go about “selling” this kind of bill to legislators. "


27 posted on 12/01/2010 8:26:36 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
"Do you think the parts you struck out are extraneous and/or distracting or could otherwise cause resistance against a bill like this?"

Yes which is why I struck them out. If it's perceived as an attack on the Judiciary for failing to do their job, then legislators with friends in the Judiciary might balk.

I think you need to have as an external argument, why the courts aren't the solution. And there you can recap the difficulty people have had with getting thrown out before the election and then being told it's too late after the election.

I think another external argument is that Congress is not going to ever want to initiate a review of the credentials of a viable Presidential Candidate, because he already has significant popular support and such a move will anger that portion of a legislator's base. But a predefined process that occurs before a candidate is placed on a ballot is neutral, and doesn't require action by congress that would anger constituents.

28 posted on 12/01/2010 8:34:17 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Do you know any big guns?

I do have my eye on a couple states that look hopeful.


Personally no. Kansas Representative Todd Tiahrt ("Birther") would be a good bet to send your proposed state bill, although, his term ends in January. He lost to Moran in the Kansas Senate (R) primary. Nonetheless, he could point you in the right direction on who would be receptive in Kansas. Repub Sam Browback will become the new Kansas governor so any presidential eligibility bill should get signed if it hits his desk. Remind the state reps and senators that are contacted of the presidential ballot legislation in Arizona and Texas, et al. It's a team effort. ;-)

Nebraska appears to be a state that also would be receptive to a new presidential eligibility statute; new Repub governor. There should be a "Birther" in the new 2011 state rep crowd. :-)

29 posted on 12/02/2010 12:31:37 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Oops on the "new" R governor from Nebraska. I see it is the same Gov who won reelection.


I’m not in their state and I’m a lowly housewife.

Not so. You have boundless energy of persuasion. A dog with a bone who won't let go. ;-)

30 posted on 12/02/2010 12:41:55 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Did you just call me a female dog? lol

Serves me right. I’m definitely stubborn, whether that’s good or bad. The HDOH sure didn’t seem to like it much. lol

Thanks for dropping the name. Between that and the Tea Party maybe I can find an “in”.

The crux of the proposal is to require consent from the applicant, allowing the SOS to collect the documentation and flag potential problems, which are then required to become part of a lawsuit so the courts have to decide the issue. The legal snag that I need to check out is whether an AG can file a pre-emptive lawsuit, such as one “contesting the eligibility of the prospective candidate”.

If not, then I’m wondering how it would work to require the SOS to deny placement on the ballot and then require the AG to file a lawsuit on behalf of the prospective candidate - so there is automatically a lawsuit to find out whether the person is eligible but there would be no doubt that the AG’s lawsuit is within the provisions of the law.

Of course, that would only work if a state AG can file suit against that state’s SOS. lol. Do you (or anybody else) have any idea if there would be any legal problem with that?

Reading about Anderson Cooper’s resistance to something as no-brainer as Texas’ proposed law, I do realize that if a state tried to pass a law like this they would get hit by the media. BUT that could provide a great opportunity for interviews, and if lawmakers were aware of why these measures are so necessary, it could be a very educational experience for the entire country.


31 posted on 12/02/2010 1:02:35 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Reading about Anderson Cooper’s resistance to something as no-brainer as Texas’ proposed law, I do realize that if a state tried to pass a law like this they would get hit by the media.

Yes, and if a dozen states or more have "Birther" legislation, Cooper is going to be look'n stupid opposing the no-brainers even to some of his brain-dead audience.

The legal snag that I need to check out is whether an AG can file a pre-emptive lawsuit, such as one “contesting the eligibility of the prospective candidate”.

Yeah, state laws pertaining to state ballot eligibility should be reviewed.

32 posted on 12/02/2010 1:15:24 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The table of contents of Kansas statutes.

http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/articlesList.do

And Nebraska statutes listing by chapter.

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/browse-statutes.php


33 posted on 12/02/2010 1:30:38 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

One thing about Kansas, too. The Hutch News is a paper that got nationwide notice when they retracted their endorsement of a candidate because they said he was a “birther”. But I have the documentation showing that the editor of The Hutch News knew he was printing factually incorrect information and refused to correct it or allow me to correct it in an editorial.

If I was The Hutch News I would tread very carefully, because printing what you know to be false on a matter of federal jurisdiction is a federal crime.

One of the beauties of the “birther” issue is that just about every piece of infrastructure that the communists have been using to destroy this country and get us into the big mess we’re in - not just about eligibility, but about everything - has been utilized in perpetrating this fraud. That means that if we take on this issue we get to hit ALL the corruption right in the gut. It took ALL the infrastructure corruption to pull off this coup, and one by one we can expose them for what they are, and work towards restoring integrity to the systems the communists have seized over the last 50 years.

So if we address the eligibility issue we will also be taking on the media helmet to helmet. I say bring it. I just hope some of the elected folks are willing to say the same.


34 posted on 12/02/2010 1:32:52 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson