1) The Advertiser birth announcement proves Obama was born in Hawaii;
2) Hillary would have used the birth certificate if the stories were true;
3) Obama doesn't have to produce the "vault" version because, more Gore words, there is no controlling legal authority; and
4) The courts have denied every case.
Number 4) first, I believe the rejections have all been procedural related; to wit, alleged no standing.
Number 1) - The Advertiser birth announcement column is headed "Health Bureau Statistics" and that's what is there, Health Bureau statistics; i.e., a listing of births recorded with the city/county/state. Period. Ever heard of "Delayed Registration of Birth?" Now if like other newspapers the Advertiser had listed the hospital . . . .
Number 2) Are people forgetting the Clintons' shenanigans? Do they not remember who the Clintons are? A comparable question is WHAT THE HELL DID OBAMA HAVE ON HILLARY THAT STOPPED HER FROM USING THE BC QUESTION?
Number 3) This is the biggest factor that tells me that something is wrong -- either with the birth certificate or with the man. Either the birth certificate has embarrassing information or the man is an arrogant, hard-headed, egomaniacal SOB who is telling the Constitution and a huge number of American people, F you.
1) The Advertiser birth announcement proves Obama was born in Hawaii;
2) Hillary would have used the birth certificate if the stories were true;
3) Obama doesn’t have to produce the “vault” version because, more Gore words, there is no controlling legal authority; and
4) The courts have denied every case.
Proof obama lovers are crazy 100%
That is part of the psychological reason many will not ask for more info. Many are possibly afraid of some one who is this brazen and speaks so well. They are cowering at the thought of saying to him a simple statement... show us a valid Birth Certificate and eliminate any doubt anywhere.
They are more concerned with the thought of the group saying “how could you say the king has no cloths?” This king might just get away with this because no little boy like in the story says, “sir,you don't have any clothes on. Good end to the story is the kid is thanked by the king and the other citizens for bringing up a truth that was in front of everyone.”
Part one of the story is to teach kids not to just believe the crowd because the crowd is saying it is true. It might not be and others might have their own reason to go along with the story.
Part two is that once the simple fact is finally and forcefully stated that even the king can not get away with the story any longer. Then the people also begin to see.
Now the story never tells why someone as smart as a king was so blind to the truth. That part I believe is; 1)that the king never was ignorant but it was easier to have everyone think he was dressed nicely, 2)that a nicely dressed king is exactly what the citizens wanted anyway so that was easier for them to go along with the story, 3)many were too afraid of the opinion of others thinking the were stupid and uneducated to not see the nice clothes everyone else could see... so it was easier to go along with the crowd.
BHO does not strike me as someone who will or wants to accept he has no clothes. He will make it hard on everyone to admit he has now nice clothes on.
In fact I believe bHo is counting on some of the smartest folks in the world saying he has clothes on, at least until some child finally takes a picture and prints the image that he is very naked indeed.
I guess the question now is; who will that little kid be?
Not in a million years. That would have been political suicide for Hillary or McCain to have brought it up no matter what proof they had in hand.