Obama was on Indiana Primary Ballot by Fraud

[EEllis]

Oh, but to hear the liberal-progressives tell it, there is no voter fraud, it's just a bunch of mean conservatives trying to deprive folks (read: Democrats) of their voting rights.

As for me, I wish we could get a do-over on the whole thing!

Ummm it's not voter fraud. It's petition fraud and forgery

[E10]

My questions are whether Mr. Obama knew about the fraud and whether he did anything to cover it up. I still remember 1973: "What did the President know and when did he know it?" (Sen. Howard Baker, R-Tenn).

[K.Mooneyham]

Oh, but to hear the liberal-progressives tell it, there is no voter fraud, it's just a bunch of mean conservatives trying to deprive folks (read: Democrats) of their voting rights.

As for me, I wish we could get a do-over on the whole thing!

Ummm it's not voter fraud. It's petition fraud and forgery

Yeah, yeah, I knew someone would say that. However, if one can be done, so can the other.

[VMI77]

I was being somewhat sardonic, I suppose, but let's look at your assertions:

If the country was still under the rule of law Obama would never have gotten out of Chicago without going to prison --he certainly wouldn't be president.

Maybe. What "crime" was he guilty of pre-President? Getting Jack Ryans' divorce records unsealed? Arguing in court for sub prime loan extortion as a community organizer?

And we wouldn't have 46 openly Treasonous Senators still infesting the US Senate.

Ahh, no. This is undoubtedly exaggerated. You must be referring to some vote that you disagree with. Voting the wrong way is not generally regarded as treason by most rational observers. Voting for a law that is later held to be unconstitutional is not treason. This is a statement of political opposition, at most.

In an episode of The Unit, the CO's wife says there isn't one law for the rich and another law for everyone else --there is no law for the rich.

This must be from a TV show or something, making it fiction. If it were actually true, those governors from Illinois wouldn't be in prison, but they are.

if you're rich and politically connected you can do anything you want, especially if you're of a certain "liberal" political persuasion.

This is certainly an exaggeration. Lots of rich liberals get convicted. Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed from office as a judge for taking a bribe. He missed a criminal conviction because the bribe'or took the 5th and refused to testify, and don't forget those governors.

Obama is untouchable. He could be televised killing a child and get away with it.

Hyperbole, most certainly. Look at Nixon. The career prosecutors at DOJ kept on going, and got convictions of the key players. Nixon would have been convicted but for the pardon by Gerald Ford. We may debate whether Ford was smart to do this, but whether he had the power to do so is undoubted.

Conventional wisdom is those two police beat reporters at WaPo caused Nixon's downfall. Baloney! They just got the publicity. The prosecutors were doing their job, made the cases, got Mitchell, Dean, Haldeman, Erlichman and the others because of sound prosecutorial tactics, not because the names were in the papers.

Hopefully, we will never have to find out whether you are literally right. Obama enjoys a certain freedom of action to get away with a lot, including having a Vice President that the thought of him as President would make most Americans wake up screaming in the middle of the night, and a comfortable position in the Senate. I wonder about Benghazi, though. There may be a lot more "stuff" there than one fan can handle.

Too lazy right now to nest quotes, but I'll go in order.

1. Yes, conjecture, but I think there is circumstantial evidence to indicate he fraudulently obtained assistance as a college student. And yes, I"m assuming some additional conjecture due to his involvement in Chicago politics.

2. I'm referring to the vote to subordinate the US Constitution to a foreign power. At a minimum it is a violation of their oath. It's not a matter of interpretation in the manner of some esoteric debate on the Fourth Amendment, or even the expedient interpretations of the 10th, which are clearly unconstitutional yet have been ruled constitutional. But yes, I agree that whether or not their vote constitutes "adhering to the enemy" or giving an enemy "aid and comfort" is open to interpretation. I think it isn't Treason by the intended meaning of the Founders, but may well be under the current claims made by the same government they serve.

3. You omitted the rest of my explanation in your quote. I guess it all comes down to what you mean by the rule of law. Have a few politicians been convicted of a crime here and there? Sure. However, the Attorney General of the United States has said that when criminal acts are conducted by members of institutions that are "too big to fail," they won't be punished. That is itself unconstitutional, and it is just one of many ways the law is unequally enforced --systematically. Note, I didn't say there is no law. They had laws in the Soviet Union too, but they didn't live under the rule of law. Yes, the quote is fiction, from the pen of David Mamet, but reflects a perception based on the reasonable observation of current practices, if not the literal truth.

4. You say lot's of.....we can't possible know though, can we? since we don't know how many are not prosecuted. Those who do get prosecuted are often those who "betray" their "co-conspirators" (in the general not the specific sense) in one way or another, and thus lose their political support (and I don't mean voter support). So, you can call it an exaggeration, and you might even be right, but you can't be "certain" because neither one of us can possibly know what we'd need to know for certainty.

5. What you seem to miss in my previous post is that this is not the same US that existed when Nixon was president. As I said, John Mitchell wasn't even responsible for killing anyone like Holder is, and Mitchell went to prison. I also contend that even back then, if Nixon had the same media love as Obama does today, we would have never even heard of Watergate. The media covers for The One across the board. Yes, the killing the child part is hyperbole used as illustration, and even as much as I detest Obama and what he has done to this country, I'm not suggesting he would kill a child on TV. What I am suggesting is that if such a probably impossible event did happen --a hypothetical-- he would get away with it, and I don't think it is hyperbolic to say he would get away with it. I described in my previous post how that would play.