Replies

Do you think that the president should not be required to prove his eligability as spelled out in the constitution?

His eligibility was proven to the satisfaction of the states who placed him on the ballot. It was proven to the satisfaction of the electors who met and Constitutionally cast their votes for him. It was met to the satisfaction of Congress, made up of men and women elected by "we the people" to represent us, who met and certified the vote in accordance with the Constitution.

Orly has proven over and over again that she does not understand the law, legal procedures, or the Constitution - in short, she is incompetent (that's assuming the best).

His eligibility was proven to the satisfaction of the states who placed him on the ballot. It was proven to the satisfaction of the electors who met and Constitutionally cast their votes for him.

Thank you for being more specific. Obama has not been required to prove anything. Nothing has been proven! Nothing! The only document(s) provided have been a "Certification of Live Birth" which is not the same as a "Certificate of Live Birth". A “Certificate of Live Birth” is a Birth Certificate. A Certification is not, period.

There are numerous examples of persons born outside of the USA who have been given Hawaiian Certifications of Live Birth based only on a form filled out and signed by one family member. We don't even know which hospital in Hawaii he was supposedly born in. The keys to the most mighty military and nuclear arsenal in the history of the world have been handed over to a person whose documentation wouldn't even be enough to prove his age eligibility for many little league teams. He also won’t release any other records which would give us a better indication of who this person really is. This is insane.

His eligibility was proven to the satisfaction of the states who placed him on the ballot. It was proven to the satisfaction of the electors who met and Constitutionally cast their votes for him. It was met to the satisfaction of Congress, made up of men and women elected by "we the people" to represent us, who met and certified the vote in accordance with the Constitution.

As soon as "ignorance of the law" becomes a valid and legal defense for the law breakers, our republic is truly at its end. You seem to suggest that a consensus of the ignorant is sufficient to rubber stamp the crime. I respectfully, but completely, disagree. We, thankfully, do not live under a democracy, and mob rule is not the rule of law.

Everyone presumed that everyone before them had done their job. They did not do their job by verifying it. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean signed documents that confirmed obama had been vetted by the DNC, when in fact, by later statements, they did not check either, but were signing Normal paperwork. Nobody vetted him properly. Calls to vett him were made 6 months before the election and were ignored.

So no, I do not think he was vetter properly or completely, and as a result, a lot of people are in trouble, and many may go to jail as a result. But JMO

Here we go again. Now you have gone back to being a troll!

Nothing about Obama’s eligibility was proved to anyone’s satisfaction anywhere as nothing was ever investigated by anybody.

Please stop posting blatant disinformation, including fraudulent case references, (Points & Authorities) the way you did repetitively last time there was a thread.

Opinion is one thing, and somewhat sacred, but focused, repetitive INTENTIONAL disinformation that had everyone going at you last time does neither you nor the thread nor others on the thread any service.

Last time, I first thought you were just having fun teasing everyone till you became more and more intense and posting statements like this one you just posted (a repeat from last time).