Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Obama--Not Eligible Say Democrats


Tennessee Democrats finally admit that Obama might not be qualified to be President. Yes, that is what they said in a motion in Tennessee.  Of course, if one really thinks that it will deter "his hindendedness" from his radical agenda and the  "sheep-like" lefties from continuing to support him, you have something loose! 


This country's only hope is to defeat him and his minions in November.  If we do not, this country is finished. The damage that has already be done will be magnified 20 times over prior to the next election. This is a scary time!


 Conservative Tom




Dems Admit Obama’s Not Eligible
JUNE 23, 2012 BY DOUG BOOK

Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States– and that it doesn’t matter.
According to a motion filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit, “…Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office.”
In numerous previous lawsuits questioning the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats have maintained that voters, not the Constitution, should be the final arbiters of presidential eligibility. Though a disgraceful assertion on its face, such mindless rambling was about all that desperate Democrat attorneys had in their arsenals, apart from the perpetually employed “plaintiffs lack standing” defense.


But now, the cat is out of the bag, and the true sentiments of Democrat Party officials have finally been aired. It seems that, according to the left, as long as the acting president has the requisite contempt for the United States, is willing to work tirelessly to destroy the national economy, and will ignore both the rule of law and his Constitutional duty to enforce it, he is eminently qualified to hold the country’s top job.
In February, Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi ignored Supreme Court precedent, made a shambles of case law, and distorted the rulings of other courts in a pathetically obvious mission to find Barack Obama eligible for the Georgia presidential ballot. Although the first judge to decide an Obama eligibility case on the merits, his contempt for an honest judicial process certainly did nothing to mend the rapidly deteriorating reputation of the American legal system.
On Wednesday, United States District Judge S. Thomas Anderson joined a long list of robed colleagues, ruling that plaintiffs in the Tennessee case “lacked standing” to point out Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility for the presidency. That is, plaintiffs could not claim sufficient personal harm should the Manchurian Candidate remain in or be re-elected to the White House.
Strange how the law works. After 3 ½ years of cynical disregard for the borders, language, and culture of the United States, one would think that some 240 million people have suffered “sufficient personal harm” to claim legal standing for a crack at His Royal Highness in a court of law! There are only 30 million illegals currently residing in the United States, and those the Attorney General refers to as “his people” might actually lack legal standing in the eyes of an honest arbiter.
At any rate, Democrats have finally admitted what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Barack Obama is NOT qualified to hold the job won for him by the national media in 2008. But it seems only the voters will have the authority to reclaim it from him. God willing, the vast majority who exercise that authority in November will be both American and alive.

1 comment:

  1. Here is the quote from the article…

    “…Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office.”

    Please, can we have some logic? Any party has the legal right to nominate an incompetent candidate. Both parties have done it many times. A party that acknowledges that fact is not thereby also acknowledging that the candidate they just nominated is, indeed, incompetent. What I find most ridiculous is that these people have managed to appeal this nonsense up to the U.S. District Court level.

    Anybody who is 35 years old and has been certified as a U.S. citizen by a valid birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii is eligible to be president of the U.S. under the Constitution. Elections officials are vested with the legal authority to disqualify a candidate if they have evidence that his proof of citizenship birth certificate is fraudulent. If that were to happen, that would be the time for both sides to take their cases to court.

    Meanwhile Tom, your paranoia is getting out of control again. Don't you have any confidence that Senate Republicans under Mitch McConnell will continue to filibuster whatever they find necessary? They may even retake the majority in the Senate, but will, in any conceivable scenario, retain 40+ votes. It is also unlikely the Democrats will retake the House. We are headed for 4 more years of gridlock, or, as Boehner calls it, "kicking the can down the road." That's my prediction. We will know for sure in the lame duck session, regardless which of these turkeys wins the presidency. My candidate has already lost, but I'm voting for him anyway.

    --David








    --David

    P.S. From the OWS perspective, we will be no less subject to banking disasters under Romney than we were under Clinton, Bush, or Obama. We have already lost this election, regardless.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.