The 100% fact is people who spent 2012 talking about Obama's birth certificate, were HELPING Obama. They were distracting from the story of the economy etc. under Obama. The latter is what could have kicked him out of office.
My question to you, is would you rather pursue and be right about your pet theory, and Obama have MORE power, or would you rather defeat Obama's agenda, but have to let him "get away" with certain things? It seems like a lot of people are in the former camp, which I think is crazy.
So “people who spent 2012 talking about Obama’s birth certificate” distracted you “from the story of the economy etc, under Obama.”
I hope your day job doesn’t require multitasking.
“The 100% fact is people who spent 2012 talking about Obama’s birth certificate, were HELPING Obama. They were distracting from the story of the economy etc. under Obama. The latter is what could have kicked him out of office.”
Romney went to the public and hammered Obama on the terrible economy under his belt and Obama still won.
The election was stolen. Nothing any of us did made any difference, because nobody would take the rule of law seriously. Crimes have been committed but nobody would do anything about the eligibility crimes so why would we expect them to do anything about the election fraud crimes? After all, folks like you were saying that the rule of law isn’t a politically relevant issue...
BULLSHIT.
Lets continue with debating these "facts". He WAS elected, then REELECTED. This in itself means absolutely nothing from a legal standpoint. The U.S. Constitution, Twentieth Amendment, Section Three is an instruction to Congress naming an interim President in the event of two circumstances. 1. If the President Elect shall have died before taking the oath of office, or 2. If the President Elect "shall have failed to qualify".
There is no such person as a President Elect until Congress has ratified the electoral college results and named someone as President Elect. Before this happens, someone simply has more electoral college votes than someone else.
Since it takes the act of ratifying the electoral college votes by Congress in order for a President Elect to be named, the portion of Section Three dealing with a "President Elects" failure to qualify has nothing to do with the election results. The fact is that the only thing left in the Constitution having to do with "qualifications" are the eligibility requirements from Article Two.
Congress is instructed to name an interim President if the President Elect fails to qualify. This means that they, Congress, must be made aware of whether or not they have to act. If the President Elect cannot prove to Congress that he meets the eligibility requirements of Article Two, he/she can NEVER be a legal President. He/She thus becomes a Usurper. This is all fact.
I have no problem comparing/weighing theories about Obama. The fact that he had the votes for election only adds to the mystery of this enigma. Until matters are sorted out for a final judgement I will just continue to wear my skeptics hat in peace, hopefully.