Replies

1. Just because he published a book that outlined his dualie status, it does not mean that he didn’t commit a fraudulent act by signing the DNC document stating his eligibility for office! What twisted logic!!! In verity, the book could support the fraud argument as he admitted dual status and still said he was qualified! Let’s say he ‘didn’t know dualies weren’t qualified’ which is absurd, ipso facto, due to the Senate thing w/ McCain, It still does not fly. If one is running for office the onus to determine and ensure eligibility is incumbent upon the candidate. No one else.

2. Just because SCOTUS hasn’t shown an interest does not mean he hasn’t committed fraud and is qualified. That is amongst the worst straw-man arguments I’ve ever heard!

Don’t you think that some prosecuting attorney, any prosecuting attorney would have convened a Grand Jury investigation by now? Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency in February, 2007. To date, there has not been a single grand jury investigation in any jurisdiction for campaign fraud, election fraud, forgery, altering documents or any other offense. No member of Congress has called for impeachment hearings on fraud.

Just because you think reality is a “straw man argument” doesn’t mean that the facts in evidence don’t speak for themselves. There will always be folks touting some conspiracy theory akin to “we never really went to the moon.”

“If Tea Party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts. This includes 9/11 deniers, ‘birthers’ who insist Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion.”
Karl Rove, February 17, 2010, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009