Replies

“He can’t run for a second term.
Arizona, at the very least, will demand a birth certificate. More states are likely to follow suit.”

My friend, you aren’t thinking from your enemy’s viewpoint.

What follows is a FR first — you have not read this anywhere else, nor
seen it in the media — but here’s my prediction re your assertion.

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that one or more states enacts laws that require a considerably more stringent “proof of citizenship” than that which exists on the books now (btw, the proposed AZ law never made it to the books, if I recall correctly). Let’s suppose that such laws require things as birth certificates, or whatever.

Now, some questions:
- Which states do you think might pass such laws?
- Liberal states or conservative states?
- The states that potentially might pass such laws, who did they vote for in 2008?
- Is it likely that they would vote for Obama in 2012?

I think you can easily answer these questions.

So, on to my predictions.

If one or more states indeed do enact strict “eligibility laws” for the presidential ballot, my prediction is that in 2012 Obama WILL NOT APPLY TO BE ON THE BALLOT in those states. He will not enter the election there, nor campaign in those states at all. He will let the Republican candidate run un-opposed.

The ‘rats will take pains to ensure that they have “no presidential presence” in those states. Without such a presence the laws enacted to ensure eligibility will be “unusable” against Obama. You can’t “enforce” or apply a law in court, until there is standing to do so.

This is exactly how the ‘rats will “skirt around” eligibility laws. They’ll ignore that those states are even having a presidential election. Heck, they aren’t going to win in them anyway. It will SAVE them money to spend elsewhere.

A FR “you read it here first”!