Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SaxxonWoods
I think they have no real evidence to back up their assertion that Obama was ineligible to run and become president.

Cart before the horse. Obama was born in the last state added, which comes with it additional questions of eligibility.

It is Obama's responsibility to show his eligilibity, not for his opponents to show he "isn't". It's hard to prove a negative.

And the Democrats (politicians, not just bloggers and journalists) DID question whether McCain was eligible.

Obama himself may have even made a comment questioning whether McCain was legally qualified.

22 posted on 07/28/2009 2:19:35 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: a fool in paradise

“Obama was born in the last state added, which comes with it additional questions of eligibility.”

Sorry, I have no idea what that sentence means.

“It is Obama’s responsibility to show his eligibility, not for his opponents to show he “isn’t”. It’s hard to prove a negative.”

Obama has no responsibility to do anything regarding this issue. He applied to run and stated that he met the eligibility requirements. He was accepted as eligible by the people charged with the task of certification in each state. Did they do their job properly? I don’t know. None of them have complained that Obama fooled them. He has been elected president. The only way to change that is to demonstrate that he lied on those applications.

Obama committed a crime if he lied about his eligibility on his applications to each Sec of State in the country. Those who profess to hold the Constitution sacred must agree that Obama is innocent until proven guilty. Also, they must agree that he is not obligated to incriminate himself. He has not been charged with any wrongdoing, and doesn’t have to answer any questions or prove anything.

There is no need to prove a negative here. Accusers need to ascertain Obama’s citizen status. His status is a fact, not a negative. If his status cannot be ascertained by his accusers he is off the hook.

The statment by the Hawaiian official carries weight. Why, you ask? The accusers here have nothing to lose if they are wrong. That official has a lot to lose if she is lying. If she is lying there is a document proving she is lying that could be released. She has no control over the possible release. So her statement carries more weight than statements by accusers with nothing to lose and no evidence to present.

None of this makes me happy, especially the fact that I probably have 3.5 years of Obama to survive ahead of me. It’s time to resist his policies rather than chase conspiracy theories.

Bush didn’t steal the election, we did land on the Moon, Obama was born in the USA, Elvis is dead, and I don’t feel so good myself. Good night.


31 posted on 07/28/2009 11:01:48 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (Charter Member, 58 Million Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson