LIE!
You totally blew off the admin mod's post to you in #46 and continue to do so. Just like Obama & Alcee Hastings making up the rules as they go!
and I’ve always been cooperative
Then you replied ...
LIE!
Here's an example of being cooperative. Jim Robinson posted in regards to the issue of the natural born status for Obama and many people responded, including me.
This is an example of being cooperative, not flaming, not calling people names and stating the case as it is. That's the kind of cooperative nature that we should have on the board. That's what is needed and not name-calling and/or accusations regarding the person ... but rather, just the issues which need to be discussed.
From ...
My post #76 ... (and you should see the respect and cooperative nature of discourse there...) ...
Anyone who has been an "honest-to-goodness FReeper" here would ever disagree with the goal of removing Obama from office. As far as I can see, that's never been the issue -- that is -- some disagreement in that some say he should not be removed from office and others saying that he should be removed.
It's always come down to the question of how? ... that's all the argument has ever been here... nothing more and nothing less.
And the issue has somewhat "divided" into two sub-categories, too. One category has been to "see the birth certificate" and the second category is his "natural born status" per his father's citizenship.
The first category has been totally unsuccesful in seeing the birth certificate (which I've asked for, prior to the election, but saw that fail). That's why I have always said that the solution for the first category is to make it a state law to require a candidate's birth certificate to be shown, or else he cannot be on the ballot. That's a "structural way" to definitely get the birth certificate out in public -- guaranteed, 100%.
However, I don't think the real issue with Obama's qualifications per the Constitution is going to be solved by seeing the birth certificate. I think all that anyone is going to see is that Obama was born in Hawaii and that his father was not a citizen of the U.S. at the time he was born.
So, that brings up the second category (of this overall issue) -- that "natural born status" of Obama, given that his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time Obama was born.
To me, that's been the "crux of the issue" all along.
And that brings me right back to the "how" question. I've said in several posts that the "how" would have to be -- some case brought before the court, in which you know either side would not "give up" and would thus "appeal" the case -- and therefore, it would be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, for a decision on that court case.
That's the "how" of the matter as I see it. But, I don't look at that particular "how" -- to be very comforting or reassuring or likely to succeed in getting Obama out of office. For one thing, one doesn't even know if the Supreme Court will even "hear" such a case. They should..., but one just doesn't know.
Remember, I believe that not a single person here (who is a FReeper) wants to keep Obama in office, the only real question is how to get him out of office.
I've posted recently that from my viewpoint it will take two things to get Obama out of office. One is getting that state law passed that requires a candidate to show his birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot in that state.
The second is to "vote him out of office" -- because I don't see a Supreme Court decision coming sooner than the next Presidential Election arrives. So, I expect to see the next Presidential Election as the next opportunity to get Obama out of office.
BUT, if someone else has some methodology to do that sooner, then they better get to working mighty fast, because the next Presidential Election is not going to be that far away. I believe "campaigning" for it -- will begin in maybe 12 months from now, with "candidates" who are undeclared (but you know they're "running") doing so right now.