Your argument here is called circular logic. “Because Obama hasn’t been challenged by politicians, then he must be legitimate.” It’s a logical fallacy. Also, this has been addressed several times, and Obama apologists ignore that it has been addressed. Politicians are politicians whether they are Republican or Democrat and some issues give the appearance of being toxic, no matter who brings it up. This is one of those issues because Obama’s supporters have made it toxic by accusing anyone of questioning Obama’s legitimacy as racist. And there are a lot of dumb Obama supporters who buy into this more than they do the idea of “free healthcare.” Politicians don’t want to lose potential voters from the other side of the political aisle. If they think an issue will lose voters for them, they will try to stay as neutral as possible on that issue. Second, they don’t want something like this to come back and bite them if they decide to run their own questionable candidate later.
The plain facts of the matter are that doubt exists:
(1) as to the constitutional eligibility of the candidate.
(2) as to the place and circumstances of his birth
(3)as to his actual identity (after all, he was removed from the Illinois Bar because of an "identity" issue, among others.)
It is a logical error to combine "Constitutional Eligibility" with "Place of Birth." Team Obama has spent many millions to make it so, but we need not believe it.
Until the SCOTUS actually spells out what a "Natural Born Citizen" is (or indeed what "citizens" are) one party's views are as valuable as another's. As a practical matter, one party is flying on AF 1 and going to Hawaii, but from a logical POV, that really doesn't change matters.
In regard to Sheriff Joe's evidence, it deserves a look, at the very least. However, he is a county official. If his own county or state won't look, that is over.
The only thing that would have worked here is if one (1) state official had reacted to the very real doubts and removed Obama from his state's ballot.
The doubt exists. That does not make the issue a "conspiracy."
Politicians are politicians whether they are Republican or Democrat and some issues give the appearance of being toxic, no matter who brings it up. This is one of those issues because Obama’s supporters have made it toxic by accusing anyone of questioning Obama’s legitimacy as racist.
Let me get this straight.
Everyone knows that Obama shouldn't have been able to become president in 2008, including Sarah Palin, who would have been VP if Obama had been disqualified. After having the election stolen from her, rather than running out and hiring an army of lawyers, she sat around for four years watching an illegal president destroy the country. The reason why Governor Palin hasn't stood up for truth or justice is that she is worried about being called racist. Even she's been called much worse, and, in fact, liberals have mercilessly smeared her family and even her infant child, the threat of being called a racist is apparently enough to bully her into silence. Of course this is because she's a "politician" who is worried about "votes" even though she hasn't run for anything since 2008.
Did I miss something? Is that what I'm supposed to believe?
Here's what I'm going to continue to believe: Sarah Palin, a conservative known for being outspoken hasn't brought up the eligibility issues because it's a non-issue. While Obama's election may have been a tragedy, it wasn't a crime and she's not going to pretend it was because she understands what's going on in this country. In fact, I think she was the only potential 2012 candidate who saw a Republican defeat in the cards. Sarah Palin said that Steeleman could be McCaskill and if people had listened to her, we'd have another conservative in a Senate seat.
When asked about the issue in August, Palin suggested that Trump would use his money to settle the issue (which he did not for some reason). Her position? Obama was born in Hawaii. At no time did she suggest that Obama wasn't eligible. I tend to take her at her word. Do you?