No mention of the father; it’s all about Obama Jr:
‘“Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation.Vetting34
He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.”’
But to get back to the pathological liar issue. It really is foundational to the whole discussion. If, on the one hand, Obama had a long and solid history of telling the truth, one would still find the many contradictions and anomalies in his records troubling. Yet one would give an honest person the benefit of the doubt, and try hard to reconcile his various issues.
But when a man has proven himself to lie pathologically, to lie when he speaks, to lie without compunction or guilt of any kind, that does make it different. In fact, it makes all the difference. Unless and until you, CpnHook, can admit that Obama’s lying is such that it indicates a serious underlying personality disorder, there will always be a fundamental disconnect. You will be defending what you believe is an honest man of integrity, while I will be discussing a pathological liar. There is no way those two narratives can even overlap, much less find resolution.
No. NO. NO! I've told you before (and have made similar statements to others on this forum since 2013) that I am not defending "a man." I am defending either of two things pertaining to what are generally termed "Birther" or "eligibilty" issues: a) that as to his birth, there is (i) both documentary and testamentary evidence spanning a period of 50 years that all mutually corroborates BHO,II's claim of Hawaiian birth and (ii) no credible, if any, evidence of him being born in any other place, thus by any reasonable standard of evidence and proof, consistently applied, the case for Hawaiian birth stands proven; and (b) there is no "two citizen parent" requirement for Article II "natural born citizen." Precious little in proof of (a) turns on Obama's credibility. And absolutely nothing in (b) does. Yet at every turn you ignore the main points I make and keep trying to drag things into a discussion on Obama's veracity. Yours is one continuous strawman argument.