For the sake of controlling corruption, a law can be neither ambiguous nor selective. There is, in fact, no rule of law, when these conditions are breached. It should come as no surprise that corruption is a progressive process in the absence of countervailing forces.

I still put it about 50/50 that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, but then I never really considered it relevant for the same reasons I didn’t care that McCain was born in Panama and I don’t care that Cruz might have been born in Canada. I find no reason to be less suspicious of the loyalty of someone born of Obama’s and Cruz’s circumstances than of a person born of two American citizens in one of the 50 states. There are plenty such of the latter who would sell this country down the river for literally nothing.

I was and will always be a Birther not because I think Obama was born in Kenya but because the factual circumstances falsify the narrative and the refusal to produce ordinary papers (and then to produce a fraudulent one!) constituted a test and foundation for later executive lawlessness.

In other words, two politicians easily take apples. One from a tree. The other one stole it from a baby’s crib and called it his natural right. Obama belongs in the later category.

Even when people have the “authority”, “power”, and “legitimacy” to declare themselves unquestionable, the problem is whether it is right for them to do so. Not whether they are or aren’t.

The goal is the process. To refine the methods.