So you don’t have any proof. That’s what I thought.
Are you and Rosie O’Donnell getting together later?
Same song different verse, and on the wrong page. Do you get paid for you performance or do you do it for the attention.
William, do not be crass! There are only 3 levels below Rosie: Garofalo, Streisand and Bernhard and the differences are minute. ;-)
Seriously though, you are missing the point. We have a glaring omission in the legal system. All stipulations in the constitution have a backing in the legal code. All states have laws on how to deal with illegal searches and seizures for example, or taking of private property.
However there is no provision in the federal election laws that specify how the natural born clause is to be enforced. This does not mean that one can ignore it. In this case it means it is up to the individual to ensure that he is a natural-born citizen. That's what happened here. Obama implied (because he has not made a statement yet) to the American people that he is a natural-born citizen.
Like all matters under the law, aggrieved parties can challenge the state of affairs in court. There is nothing wrong with that. Any American citizen affected by Obama's decisions has the right - in my humble opinion - to bring a challenge in court to his election. Astoundingly, the courts do not think so.
I would be happy to see a judge say: Where is your evidence? Sorry, too flimsy, not worth violating the president's right to privacy. I would still not like it but it would be more sound.
This whole issue is not about whether you or I believe he is qualified. It's about a process that is missing, should be there, and its absence is causing people like me, you, and your correspondence partner - which you so callously likened to Rosie - to waste far too much time on!!!