Geez, we must have English teachers who are skipping the lesson on deriving the main point from a writing.
The point is that the statements have been scrubbed and altered, and screencaps prove that. Why have they altered these various places?
And it’s not just the places where Kenya is named as his place of birth. Sources saying that he was born at Queens Hospital - including snopes.com - were edited when they settled on the claim that he was born at Kapiolani instead.
Why have all these citations been altered, as proven by screencaps?
The larger point being made was that there was no point in addressing the definition of NBC if Obama was born in Kenya so that’s why people were focused on his place of birth rather than on the definition of NBC.
And to this date we have not seen a genuine Hawaii birth certificate for Obama. We’ve seen 2 forged birth certificates, as confirmed by the HDOH which still claims that Obama has not waived his privacy rights on his genuine BC. If either of the BC’s Obama presented were genuine he would have waived any privacy rights.
So we STILL don’t know where he was born or who his parents were - both of which factor into natural born citizenship, as unanimously confirmed by the US Senate in their resolution’s rationale for saying McCain was NBC. We can’t get to the issues of law until we have resolved the facts of the case, and what we’ve gotten instead of facts is criminal activity by both Obama and the HDOH (which had a legal responsibility to report the forgery to law enforcement as soon as Obama posted each of the forgeries, or else be guilty of misprision of forgery).
“Why have all these citations been altered, as proven by screencaps?”
Why? Because the information originally included was incorrect. Are you not familiar with the concept of corrections? Or do you simply disagree that online articles *should* be corrected when errors are brought to the attention of the author? Does every factual correction carry with it the implication of a secret cover-up?
“The larger point being made was that there was no point in addressing the definition of NBC if Obama was born in Kenya so that’s why people were focused on his place of birth rather than on the definition of NBC.”
No, that’s absurd. The argument that NBCs must have two citizen parents would mean that Obama was ineligible no matter WHERE he was born. It would mean that, by his own admissions in his memoir, he could never be President. Birthplace would be totally irrelevant. There’s no point in addressing birthplace if there’s a more basic eligibility requirement he fails on.
What you said above is like obsessing over a Presidential candidate’s birthplace when he’s only 30 years old. If he’s 30, game over. If NBC *really* required two citizen parents, game over. But it doesn’t. And that’s why people didn’t bring it up.
“And to this date we have not seen a genuine Hawaii birth certificate for Obama.”
You’re right. We haven’t seen “a” genuine one. We’ve seen two. Which is two more than we’ve seen from any other sitting President. And they’re “forged” to the same extent that the moon landing photos are forged.
“So we STILL don’t know where he was born or who his parents were’
There’s a difference between knowing and accepting. You know where he was born and who his parents were; you just don’t accept it. Do you know where Joe Biden was born and who his parents were? Based on what? Mitt Romney? Rick Perry? Herman Cain? Sarah Palin? How do you know where *they* were born or who *their* parents were? They haven’t released any birth documentation. Why aren’t you curious what hospital Romney was born at? Or what Perry’s legal first name is? Or who Cain’s parents are?