Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (16832)	8/4/2009 5:56:59 PM
From: Wayners	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Well I think you're point is the "Native Born" has never been interpreted by any court except the court of opinion. To me, it means exactly what it says, born on U.S. soil period. Most people interpret it this way. You have to admit that in 1961 HI had a beyond lax system for obtaining a birth certificate. Fill out a form, here you go, a BC. Maybe in those days most births were not in a hospital. All I'm saying is in there are only three sources of informaton to prove born on U.S. soil. 1. Hospital Records 2. Long Form Document 3. Witnesses. Anne Dunham filling out a form by herself and submitting it doesn't prove anything, which is Scenario A. That means there is currently absolutely no evidence of a hospital birth, which is really odd. Rule out number 3. Number 2, if it exists, I believe would have been released by now to end the whole thing. Don't know about number one, but would be good cooberating evidence. I'm not one to change. Release the long document like the twins have, have it examined by experts and that's the end of the whole matter.