What makes you think he hasn't? Have you been living in a cave the last 2 1/2 years?
Apparently I have been - where is it then - can you point me to it?
Why would he need to take his birth certificate to the Supreme Court? Do you know anything about the vetting process for citizenship?
It was just a suggestion - someone earlier made the "public" disclosure an issue of concern so I suggested it be done in a venue that wouldn't require prying eyes and one that would put the issue to rest once and for all.
Stop right there. He has. It's the CT kooks like Jerome Corsey and Orly Taitz that cannot accept his presidency who are still fighting this long lost battle.
...and Philip Berg, and a host of others.
Those "estimates" are from the CTists and have no basis in reality. Look at these Google results. It's all
cranks and kooks.
Fine - I really don't care what the amount is. That it's anything is more to the point.
Maybe you should look at some of those links yourself - it seems for every crank and kook on one side of the issue there are as many on the other side of it too. ("For" cranks) - ("Against" cranks) = 0 Proves nothing. Where is the real document and why won't the president himself produce it?
You mean other than the TWO birth announcements in the Honolulu newspapers and the birth certificate he's already produced? That's more than enough proof for reasonable, rational people.
Forgery - just like the Kenyan certificate was a forgery. ("For" cranks) - ("Against" cranks) = 0 Nothing proven.
If it were me - I'd quell the issue and simply produce it. I wouldn't be relying on some
newspaper in Honolulu to be my defacto "truth source." And I would do so out of respect for the office of president - over and above my personal interests, the office of the presidency being far more important an institution to this country than any one mere individual. I would go out of my way to quell all rumors for the sake of the institution and my respect for it and for the people of this country that institution represents (or is supposed to represent).
You don't appear to be familiar with CTists. Have you ever taken a look at the claims of 9/11 truthers or Holocaust denialists? A lot of their "arguments" are similar to those offered by birthers.
LOL - So what? It sounds like my lack of familiarity with the CT-ists is a good thing. What does "CT" stand for anyway?
Are you suggesting that the legitimate process of proving one's citizenship (in the presence of a challenge to such a claim) need only be to equate the argument of such a challenge with "similarities" in arguments put forth by 911 truthers or holocaust denialists? Is that really and truly your standard of "proof?"