I happen to believe Obama was constitutionally, though unwisely, elected president.
If I “muddy the waters” when “Obama is attacked on constitutional grounds” it is because I believe the arguments made for his ineligibility are not valid. I think this “clears the waters” rather than muddying them.
Is it really so difficult to comprehend the difference between opposition to a politician, and refusal to accept the validity of every argument against him?
A classic example being, “a Natural Born Citizen has TWO citizen parents.”
This is not a fact, no matter how often it is capitalized. It is a contention or argument. It has some points in its favor, but after considerable research I have decided it is incorrect. The only thing that would settle it definitively would be a Supreme Court ruling on the issue. If they were to decide that you are right, I’d be happy to accept the ruling.
Till then, it is a highly debatable point, not a fact.
I want Obama to be voted out of office. I assume you do, too. Is that not more important now than obscure argumentation about Vattel and Wong Kim Ark?
You assume correctly.
At this point I'm not assuming there will be an election this November, let alone that it will be fair.
I will continue to do all I legally can to both eliminate him from office AND invalidate all he has done as a fraudulent occupier of the White House.
Please do feel free to continue doing everything you can to denigrate any attempt to question his legitimacy.
I'm sure the haters of the American Dream appreciate every iota of support you provide to defend Obama's allah-given right to rule over this country.
Perhaps the allahgator will eat you last.