Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Apparatchik

I respectfully disagree. Until this “gentleman” demonstrates, unequivocally his eligibility to hold the office he currently occupies, he must be presumed to be a usurper. Since he has not demonstrated said eligibility (and online images of purported “original documents” don’t count), the presumption must be that he has something to hide, and therefore that he is in fact ineligible until proven otherwise. This is not a court of law where there is a presumption of innocence until proven “guilty”.

It is incumbent upon the aspirant to office to establish fitness, both in terms of competence and eligibility, rather than for the electorate to demonstrate to the contrary. Obama has not, ever, shown with any degree of reliability that he is eligible to hold the office he currently occupies.
Otherwise, I appreciate your sentiment.

Warm Regards,
FJ


3 posted on 09/05/2011 1:22:21 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Flotsam_Jetsome
Until this “gentleman” demonstrates, unequivocally his eligibility to hold the office he currently occupies, he must be presumed to be a usurper.

The conspiracy nuts known as "birthers" have repeatedly shown that they will accept nothing as evidence of Obama's eligibility. Every piece of evidence offered becomes more evidence for the conspiracy.

With two valid birth documents produced, along with statements from the State of his birth confirming their legitimacy, Obama's birth is better documented than any President in recent memory.

15 posted on 09/05/2011 7:40:36 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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