Touched a nerve, did I? I'm merely pointing out that in your letter the evidence you offer supporting your claim Obama was born in Kenya is pretty bogus. So to criticize Obama on the one hand for something you're doing on the other is kind of hypocritical.
You should live up to the same standards you expect of others and provide a source.
Google is your friend.
Nope. Whether it is swahili, luo, mandarin or vulcan doesn't matter. For that matter, do you speak swahili or luo? How do you know which language was even being spoken.
You said it was Swahili. Don't you remember? In Berg's affidavit it was also claimed the interview was in Swahili.
But we don't know that, now do we?
You don't have any solid evidence he wasn't.
Only the same nerve that anyone cherry-picking an issue to attempt to stifle debate and being obnoxious about it touches.
"I'm merely pointing out that in your letter the evidence you offer supporting your claim Obama was born in Kenya is pretty bogus."
I have already acknowledged it is weak, but not necessarily bogus. It isn't my evidence, it is someone else's. But how about this? I admit that I do not speak what ever language was being spoken on the audio. This same woman is in an Obama puff piece, the video of the 'born in this village' piece and your wiki reference. The subtitle in the 'born' piece reads like the audio sounds. What ever language that is, it should be pretty easy to debunk if it is a mistranslation. Where is that debunking? There are several luo-english dictionaries available. I don't have one handy, but I'm sure any enterprising debunker could get a hold of one to find out what 'nate dhalani' actually means.
"Google is your friend."
Google isn't my friend. They sold out to the Chinese and as a matter of principle I avoid using Google. I use other search engines, which ARE my friends. Google is apparently your friend, so how is it that I am expected to provide sources and you are not?
"Wikipedia, USA Today"
Not everything on Wikipedia or USA Today is true. Neither of them is entirely objective. Wikipedia is subjective by design, and USA Today is a typical 'drive by' medium. Did you notice that Wikipedia says she is a Muslim ("Sarah Obama herself is 'a strong believer of the Islamic faith,' in her words") and USA Today says she is a Christian ("She, too, is a Christian"). Yet both use the exact same quote from her when they make those assertions: "In the world of today, children have different religions from their parents." I wonder what's going on there.
"You said it was Swahili. Don't you remember? In Berg's affidavit it was also claimed the interview was in Swahili."
My assertion that it was Swahili was based on the content of the video. Take your straw man back to the corn field where he belongs. You seem to have an issue with Berg. Why are you bringing him into this? In any case, I have been on the record as saying that Berg's case would fail. That doesn't mean that I said all his assertions were false.
"You don't have any solid evidence he wasn't."
I have anecdotal evidence that he wasn't and no comparable evidence that he was. It isn't up to me to prove he wasn't, it is up to him to prove he was. I am not the presumptive President, he is. A very simple task that would shut this whole thing down. When the same type of questions were directed at McCain he produced the necessary documentation. I expect no more, and no less, from Obama than was expected from the candidate I (reluctantly) supported.