Replies

I have said from the beginning that individual states have the right to establish safeguards so that people who claim to be eligible for office, are indeed eligible. Currently, most if not all states, have provisions that demand such candidates affirm under penalty of perjury, that they are indeed eligible. I can find nothing unconstitutional, or in violation of federal law in a state investigating and authenticating the candidate’s claims. This is the route that should be taken, and supported by concerned citizens. It is too late to do anything about Obama’s current term, but it is not too late to do anything about the term her aspires to.

It appears, that the SOS for 50 states did not do their jobs when accepting Nancy Pelosi’s statement of BO’s eligibility, ie. they removed his constitutional qualification from the statement. Does perjury fall to the level of removal from Office? Surely this is not the intent of the people, nor their will.

"It appears, that the SOS for 50 states did not do their jobs when accepting Nancy Pelosi’s statement of BO’s eligibility, ie. they removed his constitutional qualification from the statement."

Ah yes, the great internet meme about Pelosi's affidavit to the states about Obama's eligibility. Don't believe it.

It is perhaps possible that some states accept a pro forma affidavit from the major parties attesting that their candidate is eligible for the office they aspire to. But, the two states that I'm most familiar with - Ohio and Florida - require the appropriate party representative (or candidate themselves) to complete and sign under penalty of perjury the state's propriety form. Neither state accepts a pro forma affidavit as a "Deceleration of Candidacy"

With respect to Ohio specifically, you can find photocopies on-line "Deceleration of Candidacy" that is signed by former presidential candidates, and have been posted by historians who have researched particular individuals - John Glenn's form - signed by Glenn himself - is available.

That Canada Free Press story was bunk.

These people all know that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen as none of them are able to say so publicly.

They resort to changing the words of the question, or trying to deny the legal historical traditional meaning of the phrase, and yet have none other to replace it.

Or they just try to discredit anyone who reminds them of the absolute meaning of the phrase from historical writings, even when those writings come down to us from jurists, scholars, lawyers, and historians that the pompous claim to be solely qualified to speak on the issue.