Please accept my abject apology.
In your #16 I thought you were including yourself in the “eligible” crowd that mocks we Constitutionalists. On any BC/NBC thread any number of otherwise credible FReepers show up to belittle our theories and efforts.
I admire the great work that our brethren have made in trying to provide a background history of the pResident from the time he first made himself a candidate.
Every aspect of his past reeks of a created identity however its been most frustrating to me that even given his life story, even allowing his stated Hawaiian birth that he should not be NBC eligible for the Presidency.
There were ten plus states that at least had bills in their state governments after 2008 that focused on BC proof requirements and they’ve all failed. Jan Brewer in AZ vetoed a good candidate qualification bill.
Why the various state didn’t coordinate their efforts with a “best of all” qualifying provision designed for SCOTUS review I cannot understand.
His BC, on its face, denies NBC status and yet here we are, without standing, no progress and a bad possibility that he’ll be re-elected. How the NBC issue has not made it to at least appellate review is preposterous.
Again, my apologies for confusing you with the “who cares” crowd. I owe you one.
Charlie
Please accept my abject apology.
I can hardly blame you for wanting to out a possible troll.
However, you should at least look and see where the poster stands before you make your comment. It's not that hard to do.
Peace pipe smoked with you as well.