Posted on 07/21/2009 9:58:29 AM PDT by pissant
Do you think that a someone who has committed FRAUD to get into office should be allowed to serve out his term in that office???
Office Current Officer
1 Vice President Joe Biden
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd
4 Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
5 Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner
6 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
7 Attorney General Eric Holder
8 Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
9 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
10 Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke
11 Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis
12 Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius
13 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan
14 Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood
15 Secretary of Energy Steven Chu
16 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
17 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki
18 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano
Answer my question:
Do you think that a someone who has committed FRAUD to get into office should be allowed to serve out his term in that office???
I realize that you’re asking someone else, but MY answer to your question is that a conviction on a charge of fraud SHOULD result in impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors and removal from office.
Look how fast a Democrat controlled legislature in Illinois removed a fellow Democrat, Rod Blagojevich.
I agree with all of your points. Hillary and Biden were raised in America, BO was not. Biden would never get reelected either.
You said — Answer my question:
Do you think that a someone who has committed FRAUD to get into office should be allowed to serve out his term in that office???
—
To “cut to the bottom line” of that particular question — I’m going to assume (for my answer) that this has been already proven in a court of law. And having said that — then the candidate needs to be removed from office, per what the law says about removing such a candidate.
In the specific case of a President of the United States we have a procedure in law, specified for how he is to be removed from office.
So, if evidence has been produced that shows he needs to be removed from office, we have spelled out how the President is to be removed. The House of Representatives makes the charge and produces the evidence, after doing an investigation and/or simply presenting the evidence it has — and the Senate judges the case on whether the President is guilty or not.
I would advocate that procedure be followed.
Last night on his show, he showed the clip of the woman at the meeting with her congressman holding up her BC and demanding to know where BO’s BC is.
The sole function of the FEC is to enforce campaign finance laws. That was what they were created for, and that's all they do. Expanding that to check presidential qualifications would require new legislation.
touche’...perfect finish to that!!!
That was great...
“Thats fine with me. Biden may be a moron but I dont think he hates America”
No, he’s just a whore.
MSNBC — right now
getting ready to address- “Oboma not a citizen”
At least Daddy taught you good manners.
Do you think that a someone who has committed FRAUD to get into office should be allowed to serve out his term in that office???
I answered it and answered it very specifically in regards to Obama..., in post #145
Oh really??? Where??? Was it a "yes" or a "no" answer to my question???
No, on the conditions specified in Post #145..., but you knew that already... LOL...
Note that I thought Clinton should be removed from office, on the basis of the evidence presented by the House of Representatives. However, the Senate disagreed with me, and Clinton remained as President. In that case, I would accept their judgment even though I think it was wrong, in the case with Clinton.
So, to get back to what is *relevant* in *real life* — it doesn’t matter what I think about a President being removed from office, while he is still in his term of office, but it *does matter* what the Senate thinks in that regard... per the Constitution...
Yes, thanks!
No biggie. It’s just been a pet peeve of mine since the whole eligibility question first came up. I’m tired of being defined by the left. I don’t think we’re “wing-nuts,” “right-wing extremists,” “tea bagging rednecks,” or birthers either. I’ll accept “birther” when they accept “commie traitor s.o.b.”
Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother, attended the University of Hawaii during the fall of 1960. She was enrolled at the University of Washington in autumn of 1961.
Between these start dates, Miss Duham became pregnant with Obama on Nov. 1, 1960 while she was 17 years of age. Claims are that she married Obama Sr. on February 2, 1961. If this is correct and Obama Sr. was already married, it would constitute bigamy. Bigamy is outlawed in Hawaii, but legal in Kenya. Thus, chances are that Obama’s mother had moved to Kenya residing there the months preceding Obama’s 1961 birth.
Obama’s own grandmother states that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. Thus, he would not be a natural born citizen. Obama is reported to have been born August 4, 1961.
Now, how could Obama be born in Kenya or Hawaii and then have his mother enrolled at the University of Washington later that same month? Unlikely movement!
Is there any witnesses to Stanley Ann Dunham’s location and movement in 1961 up through Obama’s birth. Any medical clinic visits in the U.S. during her pregnancy? I have not heard of any which is a good indication that she was in Kenya.
Claims indicate that Obama was adopted and became Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. He would then have lost natural born citizenship if he even ever had it. He attended Occidental College as Barry Soetoro. Occidental College informed Newsweek that Obama enrolled as a foreign student (info at FreeRepublic).
By simply releasing his original long form birth certificate, Obama could prove whether he is a natural born citizen or not. By spending an enormous amount in legal fees to keep his birth certificate hidden, it leads one to think that he is NOT a natural born citizen.
So then you think that someone who has committed FRAUD to get into office should be allowed to serve out his term in that office???
You said — So then you think that someone who has committed FRAUD to get into office should be allowed to serve out his term in that office???
—
I think I said no, on the conditions specified in post #145...
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.