Replies

Who does the law require him to prove anything to? And what should that proof be?

Congress seems satisfied.

The USSC seems satisfied.

For that matter the entire judiciary seems satisfied.

The Electoral College seemed satisfied.

The conservative think tanks seem satisfied.

The GOP seems satisfied.

MCain and Palin seemed satisfied.

All of BHO’s opponents in the Dem primary seemed satisfied.

The vast bulk of the Military seems satisfied.

The GOP AG and governor of Hawaii seem satisfied.

VP Cheney seemed satisfied.

GWB seemed satisfied.

Any district attorney or state attorney general in the US could subpoena the desired records, but they do not. They seem satisfied.

But a small number of people who don’t seem to appreciate what they are asking, or accept the facts as they stand want to use the military as a tool for another fishing expedition.

Yeah. A real strong basis there.

“I would have the joint chiefs approach the president and present the issue.”

Maybe they did this last Tuesday. And came away satisfied.

What some folks don’t seem to grasp is that getting a “legitimate answer” doesn’t mean that it will be the answer they happen to want.

Unbelievable. Here you constitutional primer. The constitution requires him to be qualified by certain standards. Now I asked you first to whom and where and how did Obama prove that he was qualified. I didn' not ask if anyone "seemed satisfied." I asked when did he establish his qualifications?

You listed a lot of people who blinked when they could have said prove it. Now you want the military to do the same and carry out orders from someone who may be serving fraudulently.