Actually what would convince me would be the 'birth certificate' being released for validation. No one has answered the question as to why that hasn't been released to the press, or if it might prove embarrassing, to a federal judge.
What you posted is an excellent example of hysteria in place of an actual argument.
1. Berg and his supporters further assert that the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama was altered or forged.
The Certification of Live Birth was altered by blacking out the serial number. According to the document itself that renders it invalid. IT WAS ALTERED! How can any rational human being claim that COLB's come with blacked out serial numbers? Why black out the serial number if you are attempting to present proof of birth? That act renders it invalid, so what was the purpose of doing so?
The Certification of Live Birth IS NOT a 'birth certificate' and is not fully accepted by the State of Hawaii as such. Why should we accept a document image that has clearly been altered from a secondary source friendly to the Obama campaign such as the DailyKos or FactCheck as representing anything? Why wasn't the document made physically available for validation directly from the Obama campaign to the press?
See post #1020 (TheCipher) for other problems.
2. They claim that the contemporaneous birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama’s birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there. (Did a fortune-teller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?).
This is simple ignorance. The newspaper announcements are placed in the papers from Health Bureau statistics when a child is registered with the state of Hawaii, regardless of origin. That is not proof of Hawaiian birth, only proof of registration. There are no time machines or fortune-tellers required so Michelle can lose the hysterical ranting.
3. And they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law.
No one has done any such thing. The only one painting with a broad brush regarding accusations are those like Malkin who descend into name calling in place of rational argument. As to usurping the rule of law, David Horowitz made his disdain for the constitution pretty clear in his editorial. I would suggest you read it. He wants to pick and choose what parts of the constitution to follow.
Your attacking the messengers (Berg = truther and asking questions = conspiracy nuts) rather than addressing the substance of the argument is a rather clear indication you in fact have no argument.
If you are right, then why does no major conservative publication or writer agree with you? National Review, Weekly Standard, Washington Times, Fox News, none of them. Are they blind? Are they in on the conspiracy? Why are they silent on this?
As an example, Michelle Malkin is a fire-breathing take-no-prisoners conservative writer and commentator. I’m not saying she’s right on anything, but when she says there’s nothing to the Obama birth certificate thing you have to take that into account.
Just please consider these things.