The State Department lost mine when I sent it to them in 1991 to prove I was me so I could get a passport. And mine was just some photostatic copy from the 1950s purportedly showing me to have been born in Oakland, California to individuals whose names were redacted (cuz I'm adopted). The President's looks much more legit than mine!
Let me just add that if you really think those dumbass "birthers" have any kind of legitimate case, well, uh, your wheels may be turning but your hamster is dead.
The best piece of evidence in Obama's defense (as if he should actually have to spend any time on red herrings cast about by idiot racists) might actually be his birth announcement (as pointed out in this article from Gawker):
One last word about this—the thing that I've personally had the most trouble understanding about the "birthers" is how they can possibly discount the birth announcement below that ran in the Honolulu Advertiser announcing the birth of a son to a Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama on August 4, 1961, which just so happens to be the president's birthday. Now, I can sort of maybe understand the argument that official documents like birth certificates can be forged to cover something up, but what explanation do the "birthers" have for this piece of historical newsprint, something that's been preserved on microfiche for years now? I mean, in order to discount this you'd have to make the argument that Obama's family planted this item in the paper almost 50 years ago just in case he was to someday run for president. It's just all so ridiculously nonsensical.
Post a Comment