- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,366
- Reaction score
- 14,543
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
AFAICT, it listed the place of birth. It gave Honolulu as a place of birth.But that document had numerous inconsistencies and did not specify if he was born in the US or given a US birth certificate based on his mother's citizenship...which could have been invalid. This document does what the other doesn't and that is show that Obama was born in a hospital in the US.
If you like I can provide the link again to the State Dept's list of what a BC must have on it to qualify as usable for getting a passport. What was shown already would pass muster.
And how did the speculating? Obama or the birthers?But they'd have had nothing to speculate about if this document had been made public.
No, I am not the leader of a nation. But, that's not the point I am trying to make.You also aren't the leader of the nation. There is a different standard. From here forward we should require all Presidential candidates to prove they are qualified for the position. It is a simple process.
I am saying that to myself and prob'ly some other people the sudden invention of this different standard is the result of birthers who wouldn't accept what has been the acceptable standard until very recently.
And, because this new standard is of such recent vintage, I suspect that many people see the birth certificate issue as reflecting more strongly on the birthers themselves rather than on Obama.
The birthers created this new standard for Obama. Obama didn't create it.