The idea that Ann moved away to give her husband the cold shoulder should strike anyone who has read the various news reports and interviews touching on their relationship as nonsense. More likely, from everything we know about the relationship, is that he disrespected her and tossed her aside, perhaps months before she gave birth. She was probably humiliated and it may well have been her parents' idea to have her go back to Seattle.
Please name a single US president to have provided such evidence.
A disingenuous, intellectually dishonest point. Name a major party candidate in any US presidential election in the modern era other than McCain and Obama where being a natural born citizen was raised as a campaign issue and prompted the filing of lawsuits.
but there's nothing to rule out the possibility that she paid her bills with a part time job.
Except for the babysitting problem. The babysitter said she sat for him at night while Ann attended night classes. See the article I cited in my previous post.
That's more than reasonable speculation. It's preponderance of evidence.
Based on incomplete evidence. The key piece of evidence on which one could base a conclusion, the information set forth on the long-form birth certificate, has been withheld.
Scenarios of a Canadian or at-sea birth are so implausible that any reasonble person can easily dismiss them.
Perhaps we would be in a position to dismiss the other possibilities if we could see the information on the long-form birth certificate, such as in which hospital he was born and who was the doctor who delivered him.
Not true. A short-form birth clearly lists the place of birth.
Except that all we have are purported images of a COLB on a friendly website. And what was the basis for the place of birth? Did Barry's grandmother go in and claim that he was born at home? Who knows? These questions would be settled by the long-form birth certificate.
What peculiarities?
The possibility that at that time a Hawaii resident could register a child born outside Hawaii or purportedly born at home has already been discussed at length. Google it.
I'm not sure why you believe this to be so strange, given that she had lots of friends in Seattle.
The eyebrow-raising part is that someone would transport a newborn infant from Honolulu to Seattle. But that is obvious, so you are being disingenuous again.
Can you name a single candidate for office who has done anything more than that?
Again, an intellectually dishonest point. As to what other modern major party presidential candidate besides McCain has this been an issue?
Not true.
McCain's birth certificate was in fact submitted in evidence, and you can see it here at an anti-McCain website:
http://panamajohn.dominates.us/articles/McCain_Certificate_1_1936x2.jpg
Then work to pass a law requiring candidates to present birth certificates to some legal authority. I would support such a law. With regard to Obama, it's a moot point now, as there is no legal obligation for him to present anything to anyone.
Your argument is a false choice. It's not either-or. Yes, we need the law clarified at the state levels to require reasonable evidence of eligibility prior to having a candidate's name placed on a ballot. But that has nothing to do with whether the American people should reasonably expect our highest public servant to demonstrate candor and openness on such a point. And it has nothing to do whether under current law, properly interpreted, a plaintiff such as an ordinary American taxpayer, a rival presidential candidate, a presidential elector, or a commissioned officer has the standing to require a demonstration of constitutional eligibility.
Lawayers often work for free to help their politician friends. Also, lots of these routine briefs would be covered under retainer, so there's no incrimental cost to Obama.
Trying to pass off constitutional questions of presidential eligibility, and the related questions of standing to raise a particular constitutional issue, as some kind of "routine brief" is nonsense and again, intellectually dishonest.
This isn't even in the same league as a routine issue you might have local election law counsel retained in order to handle.
Anyone who thinks that Obama and the DNC have not engaged leading constitutional lawyers to provide advice on this, and is not centrally managing all of these local counsel through lead counsel, and that lead counsel does not vet every single document that goes out in every one of these proceedings in every jurisdiction against Obama and the DNC, is fooling themselves. It is inconceivable that Obama, the DNC and their lawyers are not fully prepared with their research and arguments on the merits, as well as all of the conceivable standing challenges.
Litigating constitutional issues with high quality counsel is expensive. The idea that this is all "pro bono" or covered by routine "retainers" is laughable.
“The eyebrow-raising part is that someone would transport a newborn infant from Honolulu to Seattle.”
Is this more or less eyebrow raising than someone transporting the same newborn from Kenya to Seattle?
That's a very plausible story. In fact, I would say it is probably the most likely scenario, given the facts we know.
Yet you still find it odd she traveled to Seattle. Why?
A disingenuous, intellectually dishonest point. Name a major party candidate in any US presidential election in the modern era other than McCain and Obama where being a natural born citizen was raised as a campaign issue and prompted the filing of lawsuits.
A presidential candidate is not obligated to respond to every absurd allegation raised by fringe elements on the other side. Nor is any candidate obligated to take seriously frivolous lawsuits filed against him.
Except for the babysitting problem. The babysitter said she sat for him at night while Ann attended night classes. See the article I cited in my previous post.
And, of course, it's impossible that someone else sat for him while she worked during the day./sarcasm
Based on incomplete evidence. The key piece of evidence on which one could base a conclusion, the information set forth on the long-form birth certificate, has been withheld.
The Hawaiian COLB suffices to prove birth in Hawaii. It's good enough for the State Department to get a passport, provided it is filed within a year of birth and lists Hawaii as the birth place, which Obama's was. There is nothing additional in the long form necessary to prove his natural born status.
Perhaps we would be in a position to dismiss the other possibilities if we could see the information on the long-form birth certificate, such as in which hospital he was born and who was the doctor who delivered him.
And how exactly are the hospital and doctor relevant to establishing Hawaiian birth?
Except that all we have are purported images of a COLB on a friendly website.
Hard copies were also provided to a website funded by a foundation whose founders were life-long Republicans and McCain supporters.
And what was the basis for the place of birth? Did Barry's grandmother go in and claim that he was born at home?
Are you seriously alleging that the state of Hawaii would issue a birth certificate for a home birth based on such flimsy evidence? Gee, isn't it strange that the state department doesn't have the same concerns as you?
The possibility that at that time a Hawaii resident could register a child born outside Hawaii or purportedly born at home has already been discussed at length. Google it.
I've researched this in past months and found that it is nonsense.
The eyebrow-raising part is that someone would transport a newborn infant from Honolulu to Seattle.
Given that she had friends in Seattle, and it is very plausible that she was having problems in her marriage, I don't see why this should raise anyone's eyebrows.
Perhaps you find it strange that she would take an infant on a six hour flight. I don't. People take infants on commercial flights all the time. I've seen people with newborns on transatlantic flights, which are far more greuling than the relatively short Honolulu-Seattle route.
McCain's birth certificate was in fact submitted in evidence,
No it has not. McCain privately showed it to a single reporter. He never made either it or photographs of it publicly available.
and you can see it here at an anti-McCain website:
That image is a fake. It was not posted by McCain or made available to the website by him. It was never presented as evidence in any legal proceeding. It was fabricated by his opponents in an attempt to claim he is not eligible for the presidency. This has been exposed long ago. You are really behind the curve.
Your argument is a false choice. It's not either-or. Yes, we need the law clarified at the state levels to require reasonable evidence of eligibility prior to having a candidate's name placed on a ballot. But that has nothing to do with whether the American people should reasonably expect our highest public servant to demonstrate candor and openness on such a point.
Perhaps they should, but they haven't. The American people were obviously satisfied with the COLB images on Factcheck. They elected him anyway. That train has left the station, my friend.
Trying to pass off constitutional questions of presidential eligibility, and the related questions of standing to raise a particular constitutional issue, as some kind of "routine brief" is nonsense and again, intellectually dishonest.
Motions to dismiss based on lack of standing are pretty rountine.
Anyone who thinks that Obama and the DNC have not engaged leading constitutional lawyers to provide advice on this, and is not centrally managing all of these local counsel through lead counsel, and that lead counsel does not vet every single document that goes out in every one of these proceedings in every jurisdiction against Obama and the DNC, is fooling themselves.
Anyone who thinks that there are no high-power leftist lawyers willing to work for free for their Messiah is fooling himself.
Litigating constitutional issues with high quality counsel is expensive. The idea that this is all "pro bono" or covered by routine "retainers" is laughable.
Okay, so show me the evidence that either Obama or the DNC has spent a dime on any of these proceedings.
First of all, most of the lawsuits filed against him don't have anything to do with the birth certificate. There are the lawsuits claiming he's ineligible because he was a dual citizen at birth. There are other lawsuits claiming he in ineligible because a natural born citizen needs two citizen parents, and his father wasn't a citizen. Finally, there are the lawsuits claiming he lost his citizenship while in Indonesia.
Even the lawsuits related to the birth certificate wouldn't go away. Suppose he presented a judge with a birth certificate. The lunatics would come back with another lawsuit claiming the certificate is a forgery. Or they'd claim it's not sufficient to prove his natural born status because Hawaii's handed out BC's without sufficient proof. Barring that, they'd find another excuse to sue.
The idea that everything would just "go away" if he only provided a $15 copy of a BC to a court is no less laughable than any other birther claim.