Wednesday, January 12, 2011
"Hawaii guv suddenly 'mum' on Obama birth 'certificate'"
Here's the latest from WorldNetDaily on the Obama birth certificate issue.
Some say there nothing to this issue, and then there's this...
Some say there nothing to this issue, and then there's this...
Jerome R. Corsi reports about it and reviews much more:
"Although Hawaii's newly elected Democrat governor, Neil Abercrombie, has recently given a flurry of high-profile media interviews condemning 'birthers' who question Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, suddenly he is declining to answer a few hard questions."
Comments:
<< Home
Big deal. He refused to talk to WND. That does not mean that he is "mum." It means that he does not like WND.
For Obama to have been born in any other country than the USA requires the combination of:
(1) Travel by his mother during late pregnancy (highly unlikely because of the high expense and high risk of such a trip in 1961);
(2) Birth outside of Hawaii (also unlikely);
(3) Birth abroad despite the absence of any foreign documents or photographs showing either that Obama was born in a foreign country or that his mother was in the country at the time (highly unlikely);
(4) The willingness of the parents to lie about his place of birth (unlikely since it would be a crime to file a false government document, and the lie would be unnecessary since for most purposes naturalizing a foreign-born child would be just as good as his being born in the country);
(5) Successfully smuggling the child into the USA without a US travel document (extremely unlikely), and;
(6) Convincing the officials in Hawaii that he was born in Hawaii (also extremely unlikely).
ALL of these six things would be required for there to be a reasonable case that he was born in any other country than the USA. What are the odds of all six of them happening?
The willingness to believe that Obama was born outside of the USA despite the overwhelming odds against it and despite all the evidence that he was born in Hawaii is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly all call birthers crazy.
For Obama to have been born in any other country than the USA requires the combination of:
(1) Travel by his mother during late pregnancy (highly unlikely because of the high expense and high risk of such a trip in 1961);
(2) Birth outside of Hawaii (also unlikely);
(3) Birth abroad despite the absence of any foreign documents or photographs showing either that Obama was born in a foreign country or that his mother was in the country at the time (highly unlikely);
(4) The willingness of the parents to lie about his place of birth (unlikely since it would be a crime to file a false government document, and the lie would be unnecessary since for most purposes naturalizing a foreign-born child would be just as good as his being born in the country);
(5) Successfully smuggling the child into the USA without a US travel document (extremely unlikely), and;
(6) Convincing the officials in Hawaii that he was born in Hawaii (also extremely unlikely).
ALL of these six things would be required for there to be a reasonable case that he was born in any other country than the USA. What are the odds of all six of them happening?
The willingness to believe that Obama was born outside of the USA despite the overwhelming odds against it and despite all the evidence that he was born in Hawaii is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly all call birthers crazy.
# posted by 
: Thu Jan 13, 04:54:00 PM EST
: Thu Jan 13, 04:54:00 PM EST
Thank you for your comment.
As for me, I don't know what to believe. Your points are well made; however, odds are just odds. As great as they made be, they don't PROVE anything.
It seems that it would be relatively easy to put this issue to rest with the publication of one or more items that are apparently being shielded from scrutiny. In fact, requests for those items are being disputed in the courts. If this were you or I, I think we'd just go to our filing cabinet, make a few copies for the "birthers" and be done with this issue. Of course, I have nothing to hide and I'm sure it's the same with you.
I guess time will tell.
Post a Comment
As for me, I don't know what to believe. Your points are well made; however, odds are just odds. As great as they made be, they don't PROVE anything.
It seems that it would be relatively easy to put this issue to rest with the publication of one or more items that are apparently being shielded from scrutiny. In fact, requests for those items are being disputed in the courts. If this were you or I, I think we'd just go to our filing cabinet, make a few copies for the "birthers" and be done with this issue. Of course, I have nothing to hide and I'm sure it's the same with you.
I guess time will tell.
<< Home
