The press and even conservative pundits and Republican politicans are doing nothing but laughing about the “birther” theory and criticizing people for buying into it. What they fail to do is to refute it point-by-point.
I thought it was a kooky theory, too, at first. But, there’s much more to it than Obama’s place of birth, such as:
Does his father’s nationality affect his natural born status?
Does his stepfather’s adoption of him and his living in another country as a child affect his status?
And so many more questions.
Most of us aren’t legal scholars. But, when these questions arise, the press should answer them. Tell us. Cover the story point by point.
But, no, instead they’re demonizing anyone who even dares to talk about the story (for example, Dobbs).
Natural-born citizenship is a function of birth. Other questions can be asked as to whether Obama could have ever officially and legally given up his citizenship, and if so, if he could get it back; but assuming he got it back, he’d still be “natural-born” if he was born in this country.
That's what authority figures do when questioned or challenged and they don't have the answers.
And no, I don't view the MSN and Congress as gneuine authority figures but they see themselves that way.