Replies

You seem incapable of realizing what swearing in an ineligible affirmative action fraud will do to the contract We The People have with our federal government. Does the word ‘abrogate’ mean anything to you? ... You don’t seem to care if the Constitution is abrogated and want to focus people on how to ‘fix the poor proofing of candidates’, as if it will even matter once the demcorat party has accomplished the demise of the initial contract. And that’s why some feel you’re merely a lying agitprop working FR for your squirrel messiah from Chicago’s criminal political sewer.

You said — “You seem incapable of realizing what swearing in an ineligible affirmative action fraud will do to the contract We The People have with our federal government. Does the word ‘abrogate’ mean anything to you? ...”

Well, as soon as someone is able to prove this has happened, then something can be done. Let me know when the proof arrives...

—

And then — “You don’t seem to care if the Constitution is abrogated and want to focus people on how to ‘fix the poor proofing of candidates’, as if it will even matter once the demcorat party has accomplished the demise of the initial contract.”

When a law is broken and someone “gets away with it” — it doesn’t abrogate the law. It only means that a person has gotten away with it. The law is still intact. And furthermore (along those lines...) if a prosecutor sees that a current law is not sufficient for convicting someone, he will petition for a stronger or more precise law that will make it possible to convict, whereas it wasn’t before.

BUT, along with that — a prosecutor also knows that regardless of how “tight” a law you have, if you don’t have *any proof* of a crime — you cannot convict. And that’s the problem you’ve got right now. You can’t get around that one...

The Constitution remains intact and it is still going to be the same viable document after four years (or more) of Obama, as it was before and from the beginning. It takes 3/4 of the states to approve any Constitutional Amendment or any kind of change to the Constitution and that will never happen, because the conservatives have a greater strength than only 1/4 of the states. The Democrats can’t change the Constitution without putting forth some kind of Amendment process. And if they try it, they’ll fail, especially so the more radical they try to make it. They know it and you should know it, too. There’s nothing that is going to happen to the Constitution.

—

Finally — “And that’s why some feel you’re merely a lying agitprop working FR for your squirrel messiah from Chicago’s criminal political sewer.”

It might be true — if — I wanted Obama in as President and I voted for him. However, all one has to do is see my posts before the election about Obama, plus the fact that I didn’t vote for him. Therefore, you’ve got a problem explaining that one... :-)

In fact, I would very much like to see Governor Palin running for President of the United States. That would be my pick out of this mess (but I suspect she won’t do that the next election).

If there is something that I’m “agitating on” (if you want to put it that way), it would be simply that we’ve discovered a flaw in the system that Obama was able to use to his benefit. It’s not the first time a flaw has been discovered in the Constitution. We have amendments to make corrections and add things in (or remove things) that we want. The 12th Amendment corrected some of this process for getting a President. The 20th Amendment corrected some more. There were things that were *not good enough* (or sufficient) so that the 12th and 20th Amendments were put into place.

So, it shouldn’t be surprising that we have to “close up” another loophole or problem by putting into place state law that require candidates to prove that they are qualified under the Constitution. It could be a Constitutional Amendment, too — but I think that would be more difficult and take too long. State laws would be much easier and quicker.

And one more thing: the actual proofing of eligibility is a federal function, not a state function. It may be/it is the job of SoS and election commissions in the various states to vett candidates for federal office. BUT it is a federal function to force proof of eligibility based upon the Federal Constitutional provisions. This is done via the Congressional reception of the electoral votes and SCOTUS verification of the Constitutional requirements.

If this particular fraud, Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, is exposed as ineligible in such a way that we may assume he knew himself ineligible and went ahead soliciting hundreds of millions of dollars, then he may also be exposed to the Federal Executive branch via the Justice Department.

By his own admission, Obama had a British citizen father and he, Barry, held British citizenship at birth. The founders sought to prevent a man of divided loyalties hold the office of president and wrote basic eligibility requirements into the Constitution as they fashioned the contract We The People have with our federal government.

It is telling that obama's sycophants/defenders/apologists have to resort to lies, ridicule, condescension, and dissembling to deflect the truth of this man's blatant ineligibility! Now we can expect Non Sequitur, curiosity, allmendream, xlib, Drew68, Star Traveler, tublecane, zarodinu, CitizenBlade, and a host of other trollish brutes to take aim at this exposition. The behavior will be instructive of Axelrod astroturfing, if nothing else.