[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The “truth” that you think you know is incorrect. The United States legal system since the founding of the republic has operated under the ancient legal doctrine of “presumption of innocence.”

Presumption of innocence is the tradition of prosecution, not of qualification. Qualification requires vetting. And just because our leaders have been indoctrinated by colleges to ignore truth doesn't mean that the entire nation is brainwashed.

When the Constitution enumerates a requirement of eligibility, I would say that means you must prove your eligibility. That prevents some unknown stranger from running. I would call Obama an unknown stranger who hides his past.

[jamese777]

“The “truth” that you think you know is incorrect. The United States legal system since the founding of the republic has operated under the ancient legal doctrine of “presumption of innocence.”
Presumption of innocence is the tradition of prosecution, not of qualification. Qualification requires vetting. And just because our leaders have been indoctrinated by colleges to ignore truth doesn’t mean that the entire nation is brainwashed.

When the Constitution enumerates a requirement of eligibility, I would say that means you must prove your eligibility. That prevents some unknown stranger from running. I would call Obama an unknown stranger who hides his past.”

---

The following is from a former Republican state Senator from Columbus, Georgia appointed to the federal judiciary by George W. Bush on the recommendation of Senator Saxby Chambliss:
“The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”).
A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”
–US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay D. Land in dismissing “Captain Connie Rhodes v MacDonald” September 16, 2009

In Arizona, Obama had to sign a statement attesting to the fact that he is a “natural born citizen” in order to get on the ballot. I’m reasonably certain that he signed similar statements in other states. If those signed statements are false, he could be charged with election fraud in any jurisdiction where his name appeared on the ballot. To date, no jurisdiction has initiated a Grand Jury investigation for election fraud, forgery, fraud or tampering with official documents and there has been not one single call for a congressional investigation by any member of Congress.
Here’s a link to a scanned copy of the Candidate Nomination Paper for Arizona that Obama signed:
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf