We have Hawaiian officials, including Republicans, who have verified the original document. The law of the state doesn’t allow them to make it public. Are we suggesting that they break that law to appease a group of nuts who will not support Obama anyway? And, to the guy who says that the officials in Hawaii are not experts on birth certificates and could be fooled by the original document, please explain exactly why and how the original document was forged. And, who exactly would be an expert on birth certificates if not state and medical officials?

This is silliness. I’ve never seen anything like it. Bush was different, because after all, he did come into office under unusual and controversial circumstances. Still, he was given the benefit of the doubt, and even had a 91% approval rating directly following 9/11. It was his subsequent dishonesty about Iraq, and his part in the destruction of our economy and standing in the world that caused the backlash by the left (and the middle for that matter). Obama has been facing this since before his election. Now he has only been in office for a month, and quite honestly, he has followed his campaign promises so far better than anyone I can remember, and I’ve been around a while.

This hatred is unique and personal. Some expected it. I’m terribly disappointed.

Not true. My aunt was a military brat born in the Phillipines. Both of her parents (my grandparents) were born in the USA. She is not a natural born citizen. She was effectively under dual citizenship until the age of 18 adn then had to choose which one she wanted (as if that was even a question.) By law, and the military made this clear to my grandparents when she was born), she would not be eligible to be president. I’m sorry, but there are so many people that are armchair lawyers and completely clueless. All military brats born overseas know better.

So i had to show mine to get my job but the POTUS elect does not?

— asdf

That seems to be pretty much the way things are set up.

As I see it, it’s a loop-hole one could drive a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier through at 30+ knots and the Captain would never have a worry about it.

Why fight this in court and not just show it?

— asdf

Probably because it doesn’t exist in the first place.

But once he is in office, I’ll betcha that the CIA, or FBI or SS or NSA could fabricate one that would meet muster. And therein might be another complaint.

Why is it wrong to ask questions? I had to take a drug test will he?

— asdf

Nothing’s wrong with asking questions, unless someone is afraid of answers.

I had to take a drug test will he?

— asdf

I doubt if the law requires lawmakers to take drug tests.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Only fraud and falsehood dread examination. Truth invites it. -- Samuel Johnson]

The knee-jerks who lambaste this position are either actively ignoring that or don’t realize it. They’re erroneously applying the “innocent until proven guilty” standard in order to claim that BHO is innocent of fraud until proven guilty of fraud. And what’s worse, they take this position in many cases simply because he and the media were clever enough to dupe a majority of Americans into voting for him despite his demonstrable lack of fitness for the position. And of late, we now have to include the likelihood of his being involved in the Blagospheric shenanigans uncovered this week.

But the question here is not one of guilt vs. innocence. It’s a question of eligible vs. ineligible. In any case I can think of, one is considered ineligible until proven eligible. Doctors can’t perform surgery until proven eligible. Simply producing a diploma doesn’t qualify. And I’m sorry, but a signed affidavit isn’t proof either. Neither is someone else’s word. Neither is a fake-looking ‘certification’ document that can’t stand up to the most cursory scrutiny without at least an attempt at an explanation.

When one makes a claim one needs to back it up, not wait for someone to accuse you of lying and then prove you’re wrong (while hiding the only evidence that constitutes proof under legal lock-and-key). People are laughed at on the most lax of message boards for such baseless audacity. So why should the standard be lower when determining eligibility to serve in the Office of the POTUS? When I fill out an I-9, the government won’t take my word, they require a passport or a valid birth certificate. And that’s just to prove basic citizenship, not natural-born citizenship.

All this goes double, by the way, for a situation in which objective, documented proof is known to exist, and worse, in which the person claiming eligibility has gone to enormous lengths to hide, and which no one – not even the people who know that person to be a serial liar and a fraud – seem to be interested in letting the courts resolve the issue.

The folks using the “true believer” and similar ad hominems simply lack a valid response to the self-evident fact (which you point out) that there is reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and validity of the only document BHO has produced. Absent that, name-calling is much easier than actually having to think.

…WE’RE the ones asking for the proof to be provided. And he uses this sort of approach to throw dust in everyone’s eyes, saying, “You guys are….true believers.”

When indeed we are not. We’re the ones asking for proof. A true-believer already has it fixed in their own mind what the ‘facts’ are and no proof will dissuade them.

Therefore, Robert Hurley projects his ‘true believer’-ness upon the rest of US. And he uses it as a dodge to avoid the REAL issue, which is he cannot provide a single iota of effective proof, e.g., an authentic, signed, sealed and official birth certificate from Hawaii that Senator Barack Hussein Obama is actually a natural-born citizen of the United States.

. It was no use. He was not going to be able to convince the guy with facts. You guys are just like that Muslim – true belivers who won’t admit the truth even when their facts are wrong — Robert Hurley

’nuff said.

Regards,

Chuck(le)