Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rswan6574
The point is that Obama has the burden to show his eligibilty thus allowing others to make the determination rather than him declaring himself eligible via his hiding of all his records.

Now, Democrats, being a criminal enterprise, have no problem with that and many obamanoid operatives are working FR trying to float that position, even resorting to accusing us of being fools to continue on with this issue of constitutional eligibility. But that is just David Axelrod agitprops working his astroturfing campaign for the little affrimative action Chicago squirrel.

There are also obamanoid operatives mining for points to be solved in presenting their fraudulent candidate as eligible ... the bastards want to know everything that can possibly come up or out that will resonate witht eh public so they can formulate astroturfing ways to negate them.

328 posted on 12/03/2008 12:29:51 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies ]


To: MHGinTN

“Obama has the burden to show his eligibilty thus allowing others to make the determination”

I agree. Someone should verify eligibility. I think that is what Leo Donofrio’s case is at the core. The Sec. of State was certifying eligibility without ever checking it.

“Democrats, being a criminal enterprise,”

I wonder, if they are complicit in a scam to get an ineligible candidate elected (either Obama or Richardson) strictly for the sake of obtaining power, can they be charged under RICO statutes? Or at least conspiracy to commit fraud!


366 posted on 12/03/2008 1:47:01 PM PST by rswan6574
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson