[tired_old_conservative]

Like another poster, you're assuming that because you aren't satisfied with the vetting, it didn't occur. That's not true. Whether it was adequate vetting or not, it met the legal requirements that exist. There was no omission on Obama’s part, and therefore no pre-Presidential liability.

If you don't like the vetting requirements, work to change them in your state. But what's done is done.

[OafOfOffice]

But what's done is done.

Okay,tired. You believe that Obama may have become POTUS through fraudulence but it is all good because he was able to pull it off.

Gotcha!

Show me where it says Obama must stay in office if proven not eligible?

[OafOfOffice]

Like another poster, you're assuming that because you aren't satisfied with the vetting, it didn't occur. That's not true. Whether it was adequate vetting or not, it met the legal requirements that exist.

There is no assumption on my part. Obama's online BC verified by his people means as much to me as Obama's ACORN recently saying they did nothing wrong by their own investigation. If there was proper vetting Hawaii would be allowed to release Obama's BC.

It was assumed Obama had been vetted properly by Chicago thugocracy. Pelosi wanted power so bad she signed off on the vetting. Obama WAS NEVER VETTED properly.

And if there was a inkling to vetting you mention, Cheney would be first to show the records as he was mentioned in a lawsuit. Cheney was duped by the false vetting and he knows it.

You see tired, when someone is caught in multiple lies, most people do not believe them. At that point you need to show some validation. Other wise you get a whole lot of lawsuits and poll numbers dropping like climategate validity.