Re: BTW, Johne...

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011, Karl Swenson wrote:
> **and before I get accused of being a birther, I am not, I am 100% 
> convinced that Obama was born when and where he said he was.  But I am 
> appalled at the notion that an actually constitutional requirement is 
> being treated dismissively when Obama can end it with a simple phone 
> call.

FWIW, one of the people who "unfriended" Johne seemed to be upset that the 
issues around John McCain's birth were being ignored too.  Apparently, 
according to this person, McCain was not born on a military base but, 
rather, was born in an off-base hospital, and therefore McCain was *not* 
born on U.S. soil and was *not* eligible for the presidency either.

So again I say:  This part of your Constitution really, really needs to be 
amended.

> The truth is that the ownership of birtherism is Obama and the 
> democrats, which makes the birthers dupes.

FWIW, I'm sympathetic to this.  I might even agree.  But at the same time, 
even if Obama has not shown everyone the original form that they're all 
clamouring for, I *have* to say that the computerized duplicate form (or 
whatever you'd call it) is good enough for just about anything in your 
country, right?  I mean, it would be good enough if he were using it to 
get a passport or a driver's license, etc., etc., so for everyone to 
suddenly say it's not good enough for *this* is just weird.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot