Replies

I can’t agree with you more, the information concerning the date on that document is completely irrelevant. But take this into consideration, say you are looking for a new job. You spot a great accounting job online, that requires you to have at least four years experience in accounting. So when you go in for your interview with résumé in hand, the employeer notices you put down information stating you worked as an accountant for 6 years. So they give you the job, while at work, the boss says “before we can allow you to help clients, we need to see evidence showing you’ve been in this field for at least four years.” So you bring in a copy of your résumé, and point out that it says you have six years experience. Is that proof? No. If you HAD experience, you would bring in old check stubs, a copy of your taxes, or a document from your previous employer. The fact that you would bring your résumé brings about concern if you really are trying to show actual proof. Now, this relates to mr. Soetoro in this way, when someone is claiming you are lying, or trying to deceive them, wouldn’t you bring out ALL the proof you can get? The fact that there hasn’t been a full copy of his BC obviously shows that’s the best he can come up with. It just doesn’t make sense that an innocent person would hold back evidence that could COMPLETELY clear him of all charges. Why feed the speculation by saying what you have is good enough, if you actually have the proof to remove all doubt? That fact alone says there is a reason we haven’t yet seen any original documents. The only official documents I could find were from Indonesia. Where it states he was an Indonesian citizen of the Muslim faith. I’ve seen it, so tell me where is the evidence that says in wrong?

In "Outrage", one of the last things Vince Bugliosi wrote before he went insane, Bugliosi discusses the nature of circumstantial evidence pointing out that almost all criminal cases are prosecuted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, and indeed, direct evidence is often more problematic. In the Simpson trial, the prosecution allowed the defense (and the press) to present circumstantial evidence as a chain, so that if one link was broken, the remainder would not stand up. Bugliosi indicated that the reality the prosecution failed to present is that circumstantial evidence should be viewed as a rope with numerous strands of thread, such that if one thread is discredited or invalidated, it does not automatically invalidate the remaining evidence.

IMHO, Obama's defenders are trying to use the Simpson defense in regards to his NBC status. I suspect many so-called "birther claims" may have been planted by the left precisely so they could be discredited.

What we birthers need to do is keep pushing the thread/rope analogy...let them pop the few weak threads that they themselves may have planted, but as long as the strength of the remaining circumstantial evidence holds, they will be left to account for and respond to it.