Replies

Of course it's entirely possible and highly likely that a teen-aged liberal arts major was so well versed in U.S. citizenship law that she immediately knew that her baby boy's status as a natural born citizen and future president was in danger, so within hours of birth she initiated a long distance conspiracy from her base of operations in a third world armpit of a city to make sure that the proper paperwork was forged and filed.

Apparently you did not actually read the post you replied to. You are engaged in the same fallacy that many "anti-birthers" engage in, where you assert that some grand conspiracy to make Obama president is necessary for his mother or grandparents to want to ensure his citizenship. That is simply untrue, and is, quite frankly, childishly illogical. If you want to make a real argument, re-read the post and address the points made. Otherwise, you are just making yourself look silly.

Here is another example of your lack of coherent logic:

Except that if you read all the birth announcements from both papers for that day they are worded identically and are obviously the product of some bureaucratic filing.

The assertion that these are "obviously the product of some bureaucratic filing" is pure supposition on your part. You have no idea where these announcements came from, yet you are willing to accept, as fact, a theory that you just pulled out of your rear end. That is fine - absent the proper documentation, theory is all we have to go on, but it is supremely ironic that you'll accept your own supposition as fact while ridiculing better-grounded suppositions of "birthers". Once again, you are demonstrating non-logical thinking.

That is simply untrue, and is, quite frankly, childishly illogical.

Not nearly as childishly illogical as those who concoct elaborate explanations on how Obama could be born in Kenya but his birth announcement still made it into the paper in the same issue as all those children born in the same week were. Those strain all bounds of credibility.

The assertion that these are "obviously the product of some bureaucratic filing" is pure supposition on your part.

As opposed to all the other explanations?

. You have no idea where these announcements came from, yet you are willing to accept, as fact, a theory that you just pulled out of your rear end.

Where do you get your theories from? A dozen or so birth announcements, for the same children, worded exactly the same way, in the same order, in two different papers. How do you explain it if not some data dump from the local governmental department?

Once again, you are demonstrating non-logical thinking.

OK, then demonstrate logical thinking. What's your explanation?

You have no idea where these announcements came from

Yes we do. If you look at the top of the page, the paper clearly indicates that they come from the Department of Health. A spokesman for one of the papers also confirmed that in 1960's, all the announcements came directly from the department.