posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:14 PM
Well, I KNOW this question won't come up, as they both have the same problem.
No no no...I'm not talking about both of them being the products of polygamy. I'm talking about both of them being constitutionally ineligible to
even be president. And heck, we should probably ask McCain the same thing. None of them are eligible to be president (thus none can ever be president,
thus Obama's rule is null and void, as will also be the case if/when Wrongney gets in). I think it would be hilarious seeing them try to answer the
question "Why is it that both of you feel comfortable committing treason by covering the fact that you are ineligible to be the president? Also, why
did we have the same situation in 2008?". In case any of you didn't know, the "natural born citizen" clause requires you to be born on US soil to
citizen parentS (see "plural").
So, McCain is ineligible, as he was born in Panama, off-base, in a municipal hospital. Even taking SR 511 into consideration, he is still ineligible,
as the Senate Resolution was in no way legally binding, and as their explanation of why they thought McCain was eligible was preposterous, and because
the inquiry and resolution was framed to try to get one of the few members of the Panel considering the resolution a legal-looking exception so he
could be president (Obama).
Obama is ineligible because his father was never even a citizen AND he wasn't born anywhere where scanning works as expected as in the states (there
are layers and other blatant signs of being a forgery in his "Scanned" birth certificate, as well as his short form). There are also truckloads of
evidence that Obama has been committing and continues to commit fraud - from his birth cert and ss# to his books, where he relies on truth "mashups"
or "composites" to sell us the idea that he is an American - or at least to sell the idea that he is eligible to be president. And no, I'm not
counting all of the real estate fraud he has committed. Nor did I decide to mention his illegal activities campaigning for a candidate of a foreign
government (highly illegal), Odinga, whose supporters burnt down 800 churches and slaughtered 1500 Kenyans, because that has nothing to do with the
"natural born citizen" clause.
Then there's ineligible little Wrongney. Wrongney's father (George) was a Mexican citizen when Mitt was born. His whole family had their citizenship
taken away (expatriated) by our government when they decided to run down to Mexico to live in their polygamist compound. The law giving them their
citizenship back (if they claimed it - we do not know whether the Romney's accepted the citizenship, rejected it, or had already conned their way
into being considered citizens merely by being white and seemingly American) didn't come around until 1948. Mitt was born in 1947. He was born a
non-natural born citizen. Might want to ask Romney why his stupid father, George, thought he could run for president, as he was born in Chihuahua,
Mexico and was born a Mexican citizen.
The pure mathematical probability of having two ineligible candidates in the two mega-parties in one election is less than 1%. It's less than 0.1% if
you take into account the next consecutive election has the same situation going on. When you factor in the human element that they know what they are
doing is highly illegal and could get them and their 'in-the-know' supporters in the RNC, DNC, Congress, Senate, and Supreme Court, as well as the
Intelligence Agencies, in an enormous amount of trouble, you would think the likelihood of it happening would be hundreds to thousands of times
smaller....but...there we have it. Right in our faces.
So..that's what I would ask. Then I would hope some people out there will start wondering why this is happening, and will be as concerned as I am.
Are we still under the rule of George Bush, who signed executive orders allowing him to remain in power if some major crisis occurred (Constitutional
Crisis?). Or is this a plan of the UN, to get us in so much trouble with our Constitution that we will have to scrap it and start over again to regain
any semblance of equitable legality (see "functional/legitimate governance")?
Meh. Silly little racist, toothless, anally-probed hick question. That's all I got....