[curiosity]

curiosity wrote: What possible motive would granny Toot have to risk a purjury conviction and fraudulantly register her grandson's birth in Hawaii, if there were a simple and perfectly legal means for securing his citizenship if he really were born abroad?

fr_freak wrote: My entire post was to address precisely your point above...and you missed the whole thing.

Sorry, but you did not address it in your post. In fact, you still haven't addressed.

Let me give you another chance:

"What possible motive would granny Toot have to risk a purjury conviction and fraudulantly register her grandson's birth in Hawaii, if there were a simple and perfectly legal means for securing his citizenship if he really were born abroad?"

Can you answer that question? Enquiring minds want to know!

[fr_freak]

Sorry, but you did not address it in your post. In fact, you still haven't addressed.

I'm going to help you out here, and cut and paste the relevant parts from my previous post, because I'm not wasting any more time with you or any other illogical people:

"Given Hawaii’s lax attitude regarding that [birth reporting] in 1961 (as in, you can tell us days or weeks after the birth that the kid was born in your house and we’ll treat it the same as if he were born in a hospital) it would have been zero risk and avoided tremendous legal hassle for the grandparents simply to report the birth after the fact as having been in Hawaii. Who would know better? Who would ever care enough to research it? The grandparents couldn’t have known that one day Barack would run for president, so they would have no reason to worry that someone would look into it."

[Star Traveler]

I like your home page....

Recently I've become somewhat obsessed with debunking birthers. Not sure why, but I find it somewhat addictive.

Please, dear God..., tell me this is not some kind of symbiotic relationship going on here... (and I'm talking about myself here, too...) ... LOL...