|
Several states have pending legislation
requiring future candidates
for president and vice president to provide legal proof of their
constitutional qualifications for that office. The
question then is, who in bloody hell can argue against enacting?
Srsly. This is a proposal that in other words says "all in favor of following the law say aye."
That this is even issue ought be mind boggling to everyone, and yet,
like
here in Georgia, Democrats are fighting it.
- Glenn Baker of
Jonesboro said he did
not fully understand the bill's ramifications when he signed it and
quickly removed his name.
There can be just one ramification
(help me out here). That this
requirement will show that President Barack Obama is unable to produce
lawful proof of his citizenship. Democratic state Representative
Glenn Baker of
Jonesboro, in other times, would be led to the town square, where
50
lashes would be laid upon his bare back. And justifiably
so.
Because this is not going away (See Donald
Trump and others).
What I'm asking here is this. If any of you have knowledge of
reasons
being given for not passing this common sense requirement, please share
with us in the comments. I am truly, really, interested in
hearing
them.
|
|
Dems don't want to admit there is an elephant (not the Republican symbol either)in the room.
ReplyDeleteLt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick
I know Dick, but I want to hear actual reasons being given for not supporting this initiative. Quotes.
ReplyDeleteAs far as GOP candidates are concerned, I would suggest the have to pass a general knowledge and sanity test ;-)
ReplyDeleteWe have to produce our birth certificate to get a damned driving license for goodness sakes! We need to identify ourselves for any number of reasons as we wend our way through our lives. Why should this be the slightest bit different? Because it's goring Barry's wetback ox?
ReplyDeleteI can think of several reasons why such a requirement should not be levied on candidates, all of which are secondary to the biggie:
ReplyDeleteBecause it would be R-A-A-A-A-C-I-S-T.
So that's settled, then . . . n'est ce-pas?
Someone has used that?
ReplyDeleteMy point is that while these bills are stuttering along amidst Democrat opposition, I have yet to read any argument about why this is a bad idea?.
ReplyDeleteI love Gayle. And Juice.
ReplyDeleteRodger, I haven't heard a legitimate reason voiced, but I'm sure the Dems have offered the usual lame excuses such as it would inconvenience some people, like having to show photo ID before being allowed to vote. As Gayle said, it would be racist, disproportionally handicap the underprivileged, the brown skins, the poor, yadda yadda yadda.
ReplyDeleteIf I had my druthers, such an office holding and voting requirement should go beyond that, because it is relatively easy to forge such documents.
I'd like to see a requirement for sworn testimony, much like a chain of custody in evidence, where the candidate/voter to be must produce witnesses that will swear they knew me when and where and who my parents were, etc.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick
Answer:
ReplyDeleteBarry plans on running again in 2012.
You're actual real answer:
ReplyDeleteBC would require name of mother/father. Obama is not the only liar in the liar's club.