Posted on 02/26/2009 1:15:06 PM PST by jackofhearts
I have it on impeccable authority but cannot disclose my source within the Fox Network. Rest assured that Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdock are sitting on the Obama eligibility/birth certficate story. Everyone else wants to jump all over it, including Sean Hannity.
I say storm the Ailes/Murdock fax machine/email servers--let them know (politely) we need this issue thoroughly.
Maybe someone has the email/fax numbers?
Well, in regards to you saying that he was fraudulently elected, even though I’ve seen reports of various kinds of voter fraud, I can’t see the 10 million vote fraud taking place.
That seems to me to be a large number of people “jumping on the bandwagon” of support for Obama (for various reasons, ranging from “he’s black like us” to others saying “we should have a black in office” to others saying “He’s a Democrat and I’ll vote for him” and so on...)
I have seen nothing that indicates a 10 million vote fraud going on, while one can say there is voter fraud going on. It’s just not at that level.
But, I’ve addressed that issue before, several times, saying that we need a national voter, picture-ID card and a “real-time” database that indicates when you vote (updated in realtime). So, that if you try to vote again, it immediately shows up and disallows it. And then an investigation is done on your Voter ID to see why it’s showing up twice.
I’ve presented “real-life” and practical solutions to all these things that people are talking about here. With the documentation issue — it’s the state laws. With voter fraud, it’s a national voter ID card and a database. You take care of these things one thing at a time and get them done.
It’s already being done with the state laws, right now.
So, what I am “pushing” (as you put it) is how to solve problems that people bring up here as “problems”. I’ve given you two solutions, one of which is being done right now in two states — and the other (voter ID) has been discussed, but I don’t know what is being actually done about it. I think we should get the voter ID card, online, as quickly as possible, before the next election. Do it state-by-state, as the individual states do control their own elections.
Solutions are the answer...
You’re insane.
You said — “There’s the thing. No executive order he signs is legally valid if this breaks. No bill he signs into law is either, I would surmise.”
Everything was valid with President Chester Arthur (21st President) even though he was not qualified to be President per the Constitution (you can see that Leo Donofrio has documented that this President was not qualified, per the Constitution, to be in office and he covered it up, at the time...).
So, it’s already happened and nothing went wrong with all those bills and laws that were passed, before...
What are you talking about?
While certain ones, here, may like to put funny labels on me, at least I don’t have “Obama Derangement Syndrome” — as is written about nationally, and even has a “definition” listed... LOL
—
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/avoiding-the-clutches-of-obama-derangement-syndrome/
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQyOTgxM2M0YWMxOTdhZDcwMzlmMDU1ZGYxNzFkMmQ=
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16306.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=obama%20derangement%20syndrome
You said — “That is a phony argument. Nobody applied for the ballot by requesting it from ordinary citizens.”
You said it was a phony argument, and yet you used that argument with me, when I posted to you. You said in your post to me...
“Let a crook run for office and get elected...”
Ummm..., why are you using that argument to me, then?
—
You said — “Your ‘law’ won’t be enforced. How can we expect that if we cannot remove a crooked liar from office? “
I don’t know why it won’t be enforced, since it’s in the state of Oklahoma and they control who is on the ballot. One does that state-by-state, and by meeting the requirements of the state to get on the ballot.
It’s funny that you say (on the *one hand*) — someone should have done something about Obama. And then (on the *other hand*) — when someone does propose to “do something” about Obama, you say “It won’t work!”.... LOL...
—
You then said — “Its not conservative of you to allow a crook to remain in office. Its not conservative of you to pretend that a new law would be enforced, when clearly election laws are clearly being flaunted by Obama and his crooked community organizing groups and crooked ballot counters. It’s a laugh.”
Ummmm..., here you go again. If “I” am allowing him to remain in office — then I ask you — “Why are you allowing him to remain in office?”
Apparently this only works *one way* — towards my side, but it doesn’t work towards your side... :-)
-PJ
A call has been made for Obama to demonstrate his eligibility.
It should be done. Equal justice for all.
I usually include others in the answer, who were part of an earlier response. That does not always indicate that my comments are directed at them, but rather, I’m following a sort of “Freeper-tradition” which includes others in the reply (from what I’ve seen).
Also, I did say “certain ones here” which is not naming individuals... So, it’s “open-ended”.... (I say, to whomever it fits, then it fits... :-) ... ).
And I didn’t think it fit you, but you might find it interesting to read, anyway, since the prior response was to you from the other poster.
—
But, do note, that this is a *natonally identified label* for a particular malady, by nationally recognized writers and by conservatives. So, it doesn’t originate from me, and I never indicated that I invented the term. It has made it’s way into the urban dictionary, too...
You said — “A call has been made for Obama to demonstrate his eligibility.”
I made that “call” prior to the election, too. It went unheeded. And I’ll note that McCain had an issue with that, too and he volunteered his information. He was not required to do so, but McCain thought it was politically wise for him to do so — and he did.
On the other hand, when the call went to Obama for him to do the same thing, he did not think it was politically beneficial for him to do so (I “say that” simply from the fact that he did not do it, thereby demonstrating that he did not think the “call” was particularly “politically demanding” upon him).
And so, we have one candidate who volunteered and the other candidate who did not volunteer. So, that’s the situation.
Now..., you’re faced with a problem. If the candidate did not think it was politically worthwhile for him to volunteer the information — how do you “get it” — then?
And *that* is the problem that *no one* has solved.
I’m proposing solving that problem with the state law in Oklahoma.
What is your solution for *getting that*? [so far..., I’ve seen *nothing* that works...]
Your solution does not solve the problem of a crook currently in office.
You said — “Your solution does not solve the problem of a crook currently in office.”
And what solution has been provided that removes him from office right now?
—
[... none that I’ve seen that has any effect, at all. That’s the “derangement” part of this whole scenario of “get him out of office right now” — no one can do it..., and yet they keep saying “do it, get him out of office”... Okay — then *do it* ... :-) ... ]
You said — “No one will enforce your ‘law’ either, if the government has become this corrupt.”
Well, it’s all in the “methodology” of how you enforce something. It’s like a prosecutor who finds that he cannot win as many cases based on a particular law and its language. He goes to the legislature and says that they have to “beef up the law” so he can win his cases. So, they do, and now with the new law, he wins his cases with the crooks.
It’s the same thing here. People found out that there is a “loophole” in the law. It’s not the problem of “not enforcing the law” — it’s the fact that the law was not “beefed up” as it should have been to “enforce” what was wanted.
So, you go to the legislature and ask to “beef it up”. They do — and now you have the *mechanism* to enforce it.
I don’t know why people can’t see this simple and real life methodology. It happens all the time, in various states around the country, with prosecutors and laws and “beefing it up”...
There is no ‘loophole’. The Constitution is quite clear.
You said — “There is no ‘loophole’. The Constitution is quite clear.”
Well, this is where I come in with the “deranged” part — or maybe one would prefer — “denial of reality”.
That being the case, as you say — then why is Obama in office? I hope you see the *absolute disconnect* with your “statement” to the “reality of what has happened”.
I’m living in the “real world” where Obama *is* the President — and thus, that requires the “solution” that I’m proposing. Now, if you think it does not require the solution that I’m saying — then please *get him out of office*....
—
[... the problem? well..., one can’t do it under the present “vetting process” — which is what requires the state laws that I’m talking about...]
—
And this is the “deranged part” that I keep taking about — I keep hearing that there is a violation of the Constitution — and yet *no one does anything about it* — not “even” those who are complaining about it. And by that I mean — Obama is *not* out of office... (so apparently “you” are doing nothing to get him out of office...)
Furthermore, now that we have a “history” of what has gone on with these people who say Obama is not qualified — I know *now* — that they’ve told me that Obama will be “out of there” when a Secretary of State (of a particular state) invalidates his candidacy. Then I hear that a court will order a state’s ballots to be rejected (because Obama is not qualified). Next I hear that the Electoral College Voters will reject Obama. Next I hear the Supreme Court will overturn the election or demand that Obama produce his original birth certificate. Next I hear that the Certification in the Congress will bring up the issue and reject Obama. Next I hear that Vice President Cheney will object and demand the showing of the original birth certificate. Next I hear that the Supreme Court is just waiting until the day before the inauguration to “make it’s move” (doncha know..., it’s their “strategy” to do so...). Next I hear that the Chief Justice invited Obama over to tell him that he’s going to have to show him the original birth certificate. Next I hear that the Chief Justice is not going to swear in Obama until he shows him the original birth certificate on the podium. Next I hear that a judge is going to issue an order for Obama to vacate the Office of President of the United States and send a US Marshal over there with orders to escort Obama out of the White House. Next I hear that the military will send tanks over to the White House and demand that Obama leave, because they know he’s not the real President.
Well..., after *all that history* — I can clearly see that there are a lot of *deranged people* saying those things. I’ve got a history of months of hearing all this.
So, I’ll take the “practical route” of beefing up the “vetting process” and making it a state law that a candidate must produce the specific documentation in order to be on the ballot.
BTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.