Oh, and speaking of lies, who can forget this whopper?
‘”Evidence” is simply something that tends to prove (or disprove) a matter. One bit of evidence doesn’t preclude the existence of contrary evidence. (In a legal case, both sides can submit evidence that points to differing conclusions.). I’m saying the fact of occupancy is itself evidence of eligibility because the rather adversarial process (one candidate versus another, one party versus another, the media versus all) raises the stakes for having an ineligible person run or nominated. That’s not to say there can’t be counter evidence.’
“the media versus all”
Did I miss something? I.e.: did you ‘substantiate’ that the media is as equally ‘versus’ the Dems as it is ‘versus’ conservatives?
Or is this not the biggest, most blatant lie on the thread?
I never claimed the media was equal about anything; that's more "in other words" erroneous, dishonest paraphrasing on your part.
How about the claim you have made numerous times on this thread that the media vetted Obama?
I never said "the media vetted Obama." I've not used the word "vetted" at all. You keep using it; I never have. This is just more erroneous, dishonest "in other words" paraphrasing on your part.
In any event, the topic here is eligibility, and no matter whether the media "vetted" Obama a lot or a little or not one teeny bit at all, Hawaii's verification of Obama's birth facts means he's eligible. Hawaii's verification of Obama's birth facts moots your inquiry in to "pregnancy witness" and "birth home photos."
I keep making these points. You've never addressed them, and you lied when you claim you had.
My central point on eligibility not being contested, that point prevails. So I'm in wrap-up mode here. If you wish to address the central eligibility points, I'll consider those. But I'm done with your tangents and distractions.