Replies

LOL.

The bottom line is that when After-Birthers have to revert to “the bottom line is ...” it’s obvious they’re running out of talking points.

Let me recap yours on this thread:

Post 42 - 14th Amendment
Post 58 - former Presidents with immigrant parents
Post 93 - Obama must be eligibility because he was sworn in
Post 218 - Obama ceased being a British subject in 1964
Post 235 - Wiki NBC and dual citizenship references
Post 248 - the old “jus sanguinis” rather vs “jus soli” argument
Post 251 - 14th Amendment (again)
Post 266 - 14th Amendment (once again)
Post 267 - former Presidents with immigrant parents (again)

Are you slow or just following a script?

By jove, I think he’s finally got it! Yes, there is indeed a “script” and I’m following it, slowly but surely. The “script” is called “the laws of the land” from the 14th Amendment to the Immigration and Naturalization Act to one hundred years worth of US Supreme Court rulings to the State Department’s guidance documents on dual citizenship.
Congratulations BP2! I didn’t think that you were capable of reading for comprehension, but you have proven me wrong!

THE BOTTOM LINE for me is that Vice President Dick Cheney would NEVER have certified Barack Hussein Obama’s electoral votes if he was ineligible; the Republican Senators and Representatives would NEVER have allowed Obama’s eligibility to go unchallenged when it only took any TWO members of Congress (One Senator and One Representative) to challenge his eligibility and an investigation would have had to ensue; Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would NEVER have sworn in Barack Hussein Obama if he was ineligible to assume the presidency; and finally John McCain, Sarah Palin and the National Republican Party would have filed suit, entered as co-plaintiffs in existing lawsuits or at least filed Amicus Briefs in support of lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility if he was truly an ineligible candidate.
When the state of Hawaii, through its Director of Health, its Registrar of Vital Records, its Republican Governor and its Republican Attorney General confirmed Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth in that state, all but the truest of true believers accepted their statements as facts.

THE BOTTOM LINE for me is that Vice President Dick Cheney would NEVER have certified Barack Hussein Obama’s electoral votes if he was ineligible

Well, let's evaluate your assumption about the certification of Barack Hussein Obama’s electoral votes.

Although I have immense respect for Dick Cheney, he is a politician. As a pivotal player in this Electoral Process, Cheney may have had motives to NOT intervene by openly questioning Obama's Eligibility.

Telling America that Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro has questionable Eligibility just 12 days before his Inauguration in 2009 — at the height of the MSM's slobbering lovefest for America's FIRST-EVER Black President — is something I don't even think Cheney had the cojones to do.

McCain clearly lost the vote. However, if you need more motive for Cheney's "action" in Certifying the Electoral Vote, you need look no further than the Bush Administration being more than happy to turn over the US Economy — over $10 Trillion in debt at the time — to Team Obama and the Democrats. A political game of "hot potato."

If you need even more motive, Obama and Cheney are cousins. Most people forget that factoid.

But again ... your operating assumption is that Cheney "certified Barack Hussein Obama’s electoral votes."

Have you looked at U.S. Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, § 15 lately? It deals with "Counting electoral votes in Congress."

The section is 809 words total. But perhaps some of the most important words are conceptually similar to Step 2 of the basic requirements for any contract: offer, consideration, acceptance.

Did Cheney allow for "consideration," or an opportunity for "objection," as required by US Code?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

"Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof ..."

If you go back and review the video of the 2009 electoral vote count (Youtube), at about the 27:00 minute mark, you'll see that Cheney CLEARLY did NOT called for any "objection" as required by US Code.

That said, Cheney was wearing a suspiciously jolly sh!t-eating grin. In light of the motives outlined above, the reason for Cheney's joviality (by Rovian design or otherwise) is anyone's guess ...