Quote:
Originally Posted by djplong
Not to sound snarky, but do you believe the birth announcement in the Honolulu papers at the time of his birth are also fake?
That's one reason I dismiss the birther's claims. There's just no way that such a conspiracy could have been either hatched nearly 50 years ago or implemented so quickly in 2007. The corroborating evidence goes beyond a "preponderance of the evidence".
|
I disagree emphatically. This whole thing is getting pushed under the rug, and I have no faith in the bureaucrats of Hawaii signing off on this Presidents birth certificate which is just a copy that had a lot of questions before, and now apparently fails preliminary forensic testing in Sheriff Arpaio's investigation.
There is absolutely no "preponderance of evidence". There is a copy of a paper that apparently has been compromised.
You can accept it, but don't pretend you know diddly about any authentication of these documents. You only have the word of bureaucrats whom you know nothing about.
You have blind faith and cannot claim more than that.