From One Big Ass Mistake, America on February 28, 2009 at 10:43 pm.  

This is posted @ defendourfreedoms.net

100% vs. 50%-50% odds of success. Which do you prefer?

To inform the public that all we have to do is to see BHO's birth certificate is risky and dangerous. Public perception is precious and should not be squandered on risky side arguments like the birth certificate issue.

The odds that Barak Obama (BHO) had natural born allegiances to Kenya at the moment of his birth are 100%. BHO states in his autobiography that his natural father was from Kenya. This singular fact alone disqualifies him from ever occupying the office of POTUS. It is simple and undeniable. There is no argument. This is according to 230 years of legal precedent and US State Department rulings.

The odds that BHO was born in Hawaii are contentious and only 50%-50%. The issue is open to argument, fraud and corruption. This can become a bloody argument in a very literal way. No matter what the facts prove, people will argue about this as long as BHO wants to.

Besides, what if he WAS born in Hawaii? Then what? A new campaign to argue the idea of Natural Born allegiances after opening with the teetering birth certificate issue? I personally suspect he was born in Kenya but, I wouldn't stake my case on it nor would I risk loosing the public interest (media attention) on such a risk. Act as if you are hunting a dangerous predator where you must completely disable it with one shot. A wounded predator on whom you've made war will try to stalk and kill you.

ALWAYS LEAD WITH:
His father was a foreigner. He has a natural born allegiance to the land of his father. This condition means by definition that he cannot ever have a Natural Born allegiance exclusively to the USA. It means he can not legally command our US military. He was never a Natural Born Citizen of the USA and never will be. It's simple and easy to understand.

The case is already proved 100% without the risk of what's is concealed.