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.
Meant to ping you
You said — “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.”
I would say that since individual states have control over their Electoral votes for President and Vice President of the United States — that means each state has complete control over who makes it on the ballot or off the ballot. I believe it’s a “states rights” issue and it should be *totally* under control of that state and its own citizens — exclusively.
In light of that, the state can have complete control over how they want to vet a candidate for President of the United States (and Vice President) and be able require proof of whether a candidate qualifies under the Constitution and whether they get Electoral College vote[s] from that particular state.
That’s why we need state laws to vet the Presidential Candidate in that they have to *prove* that they meet the Constitutional requirements for office.
—
And then you said — “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.”
I don’t like Obama and I didn’t vote for him and I didn’t want him in office but it’s obvious that the majority of the voters did and they “outvoted me”...
But, having said that — so far no one has proved any fraud on Obama’s part. If they had proved fraud, he would have already been prosecuted. Have you noticed that there are no prosecutions of fraud for Obama. Perhaps there will be in just another couple of weeks — but they had better *hurry* because once he is President, it will take impeachment by Congress to do that and we know how well Clinton’s went...
—
And finally, you said — “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.”
Well, I see my name in there... LOL...
The problem that a lot of people have is *with the facts* on the matter of Obama’s eligibility. There is no proof for the non-eligibility of Obama, which is why people are having no progress with it. And there is no proof of fraud, which is why no prosecutor is bringing a case forward.
You can’t convict someone without proof and that’s what you’re trying to do.
The thing to really do is *fix the defective vetting process* and get the states to require proof (by law) of a candidate’s eligibility under the Constitution (or else they can’t be placed on the ballot)....
That’s the only solution that you’re going to have, at the present time.