Replies

If none, then what benefit would there have been to produce the COLB, if it wouldn’t have ended the lawsuit?

Again, my FRiend, it just opens up the can of worms once prima facie is introduced in front of a judge.

You and the After-Birthers are working DAMN HARD this weekend to minimalize a case which has (per your assertions) NO chance of winning and will NEVER go anywhere. There are MILLIONS of things to blog about this weekend ... and yet here you are, seemingly wasting your time, conversing with "crazy people" (the name- calling doesn't seem to work anymore either, does it?)

Yeah ... you should be concerned.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

“In particular, the Court noted the Constitution's requirement that the President be a “natural-born citizen,”
a condition whose meaning could be derived only by reference to English common law in existence at the time” - Judge John W. Guendelsberger, appointed by Barack Obama to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), referencing US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and Minor v. Happersett (1874), in turn.

Again, my FRiend, it just opens up the can of worms once prima facie is introduced in front of a judge.

Non-sequitur. Rather than answer the question, or admit straightforwardly that NO case would have been resolved through the production of the COLB, you've diverted the subject. Frankly, you've implicitly admitted that Obama would only be put through *additional* trouble by producing the COLB.

You and the After-Birthers are working DAMN HARD this weekend to minimalize a case which has (per your assertions) NO chance of winning and will NEVER go anywhere. There are MILLIONS of things to blog about this weekend ... and yet here you are, seemingly wasting your time,

Ad hominem. Rather than respond to the factual errors and logical fallacies I've pointed out, you've attacked me personally.

conversing with "crazy people" (the name- calling doesn't seem to work anymore either, does it?)

Factual error and ad hominem. I haven't engaged in any such name-calling. Specifically, despite your use of quotation marks around "crazy people," I don't believe I've called anyone crazy in any comments here. If I have and have forgotten, please point it out. If you cannot, then I ask that you not attribute any false quotations to me.