I don't think this is an editorial mistake that somehow slipped through, I think Obama used his "differentness" as a selling point at various points when it suited his early career goals.
Noen of which means he wasn't, in fact, born here in the U.S. of course. Dishonesty in PR to sell oneself at an early age does not mean a source document is fraudulent. And on this, I trust that the Federal Govt. did a review of the qualifying documents and found them legitimate.
It does raise one question though......who in the Federal Govt. does that review of elligibillity source documents? I have to admit, I have no idea.
Who knows what the truth is, but to categorize birthers as "the lunatic fringe" is comical. Obama was a client to multiple literary agencies from the early 90's to as recently as 2007 who clearly stated that he was born in Kenya.
It's an archived book jacket. It's not going to be edited after the fact, and even if it was, that act too would simply engender more "look, coverup!!!!!" wargarbl.Obama was a client to multiple literary agencies from the early 90's to as recently as 2007 who clearly stated that he was born in Kenya.
The lunatic fringe is defined by the center, and the center thinks truthers and birthers are *&^%ing nuts.
As for the 9-11 truthers, the "evidence" they give is almost invariably a skewed and belabored interpretation of incidents and actions that are frankly open to interpretation (as loony as the interpretation might be). The two pieces of evidence I provided are not open to that same interpretation: they clearly state in no uncertain terms -- by two different literary agencies that Barack Obama worked with -- that "Barack Obama was born in Kenya."
This is 2012, he's been President for four years, released his birth certificate, the Governor of Hawaii confirmed he's American born and there have been countless partisans trying as much they can to "prove" he wasn't born here.
The inside of a book jacket doesn't mean d*ck compared with all the above, and you know it. But you're just looking to throw sh*t at a political enemy, regardless of whether it's true or not.
In any event, the point (for me) is that you'll get vastly better traction amongst undecided voters with issues than with conspiracy theories.
You're having the typical angry lib meltdown reaction of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "blahblahblahblahICantHearYoublahblahblah."
As far as "throwing sh:t at a political enemy, regardless of whether it's true or not" -- you've perfectly defined the Obama campaign here in '012 as defined and executed by David Axelrod and the shameful lapdog media.
It pains them so much to gravitate to Romney they must defend and extend their stupid enabling of B. Hussein by conflating any reasonable inquiry into his opaque past with debunked-from-day-1 trooferism.
Assocations w/ terrorists, commies and other miscreants foreign and domestic, past and present - None of America's business