CONS: Barack Obama Is Qualified To Be President... Isn't He? (by Jim Marrs)

Just a simple little point, and suggestion. If someone, anyone, questions the ability of a President-to-be...shouldn't that be investigated??? I think so, regardless WHO it is. In fact...to run for President you should have to have a full background investigation into matters that would preclude you from taking office.

Isn't that just common sense? I mean, when you apply for a job...they check to make sure you are qualified. Heck, look at what couples go through before adopting a child. But to be the President of the United States...do they just assume?

Now I'll go off on a little tangent. I think, as one of the people of this great country, that we should know EVERYTHING about someone running for President. From their health, legal status, financial status, affiliations, etc. Not by the media but by a "Presidential Qualification Panel". They should have to be fully investigated. That is, of course, if we haven't taken that final step of ignoring the Constitution because of attitudes like "ohhhh...come on...does it really matter?". I say YES...it does.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

---

Why? If there is no credible evidence then it is a complete waste of our president and legal system’s time. Some people think that George Bush is a reptile. You really think he should be forced to prove to the people that he is not just because one conspiracy guy out there decides he has to prove himself? There were a lot of people who thought Reagan and Bush Senior were pedophiles or homosexuals without tangible evidence far as I’ve seen. Should they have been forced to defend such claims in a court of law or to prove themselves to the people?

[edit on 26-1-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

---

The constitution doesn’t support any such “panel” you’re proposing. Hm, who’s ignoring the law of the land here?

Replying to both of the above posts...

What I am saying, that apparently scares you is that we should know the person, their background, etc. that we are, or may be electing. Not just what they decide to say and definitely not just what the media decides to say about them. Such a background-check only tells the consumer (or voter) the details of who they are considering. Are you suggesting that we, the voters, shouldn't know the background of the person we may elect to represent us and our country? Or that (since politicians never lie) we should believe whatever they choose to say?

I'm very surprised that anyone would have a problem with knowing the person you are considering choosing for a job.

And the constitution comment...I was referring to the requirements of the presidency. Age, etc.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

---

Obama has shown this to the American people, not his fault that you don’t believe it. Show me a president that has explained and revealed more of his past and present than Obama has? He’s done everything that was needed, and the majority of voters agreed because he was elected.

What you were asking for in that post is not required of someone running for president. It is not the law of the land. If you’d like to have this changed by all means go for it, good luck. And do not blame Obama because the presidential running standards are not to your liking, he didn’t create the law of the land, our founding fathers did.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

---

Also you mainly ignored this post:



I’ll ask again, if you think anyone should be able to make claims that a president/nominee is forced to counter then do you not think this could be a catastrophic mess? Do you not think it could be a waste of time? Do you not think that credible evidence is important and should be produced before dragging a nominee to court?

Its pretty odvious to even me a mere layperson that it dont make no difference either way the ruling elite do what they want and so do we thats the deal they say we do everyone happy and out of the fema camps just go along with it and you'll be ok keep your head down and do there bidding and you'll be ok its always been that way since the beginning of recorded time yes its a 2 face world so just accept that and move on before the government agency mark you for deletion yeah they rule we follow thats the way of things everyone knows that .

Last time...

I am saying that at least, all the requirements in the constitution to become President must be proven by those who wish to run for President. To the best of my knowledge, there remains an unanswered question as to Obama's citizenship due to the birth certificate issue. If that is true...if a question remains...which is to say that if proof of citizenship has NOT been presented and verified...there is a problem that must be resolved.

My second and further reaching point was simply that we must know who we are electing.

That should clearify everything...right?

Ooops...missed one there...

You said "Do you not think that credible evidence is important and should be produced before dragging a nominee to court?"

My answer is YES!

However, I also think that credible evidence is important and should be produced before letting anyone become President.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

---

These "unanswered" questions were made up by conservatives and fringe groups and at this point there is absolutely no proof to them whatsoever. There is no certificate issue, the document he has shown is completely reliable and all that is required. And no one has yet to prove otherwise, yes they throw their opinions or conspiracy ideas around but FACT of the matter is they are just jabbering. They have nothing to support their views or accusations.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

---

U HAVE MY SYMPATHY...34-200880000096-CUWMGDS .... DO A SEARCH ... IT'S NOT MADE UP ... IF THAT PIECE OF TRASH WAS THE REAL DEAL WHY WASTE MONEY ON LAWYERS TO KEEP IT OUT OF THE COURTS ACROSS THE NATION ...

EVEN TO BE FAIR U MUST ADMIT AS THERES MORE EVIDENCE THAT HES NOT ELLIGABL THAN THERE EXISTS THAT HE IS... VERBAL TESTIMONIES GIVEN BY HIMSELF HIS HALF SISTER & HIS LATE GRANDMOTHER AMONG OTHERS ...

*NO NEED TO CORRECT GRAMAR IM NOT GETTING GRADED OR HIRED*

[edit on 30-1-2009 by n0tsympl]

[edit on 30-1-2009 by n0tsympl]

reply to post by n0tsympl

---

Sources. Sources. Sources. CREDIBLE sources.

Please.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

---

DO A SEARCH 34-200880000096-CUWMGDS WILL BRING U TO HIS CURRENT LAWSUIT IN SCOTUS WICH IS FURTHEST FROM NEVERNEVERLAND

Jim, it's so incredibly disappointing that you've bought into this nonsense.

Do you HONESTLY believe that this man would be president if this was a legitimate concern? Do you really believe that it would have been above the McCain campaign to bring this crap up if it was true?

I can understand the right-wing freepers and groupthinkers buying into this crap. But you Jim? Come on.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by ModernDystopia]

reply to post by n0tsympl

---

I've searched my little heart out; so far everyone making these claims fails to substantiate them. Just because you say this is not true does not make it so. I’m open to anything you’d like to show me, one credible link would be nice. Instead the same people rant and rave and always post the same old tired propaganda.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

---

its realy quite sympl... u talk of an investigation wasting time ... obama already is " wasting time " not to mention who knows how much on lawyers ... and if u want proof then u, my frend, are on the wrong side...he could end it litteraly without any effort whatsoever by simply agreeing to disclose what he is hiding...the proof... either way the truth will come out sooner or later and those who defed the fraud will have to answer to themselves for not requesting the proof from the one who has it

[edit on 5-2-2009 by n0tsympl]

reply to post by ModernDystopia

---

u wana take a look at his choices for cabinet positions

I remember the reaction of conservatives over the stink of trying to track down Bush's military records. I believe this argument is all relative depending on who you support and who you do not.