And yet you fail to disprove my points, claiming that they are nothing more then "ignorance".
My points stand. Prove them wrong.
So, let me get this straight --- you want me to prove a negative?
When anyone presents an argument, they must provide evidence to support their argument. You failed to do just that. Your counter-argument is to insist I provide evidence to dispute your unsupported argument.
You made the claim Maya Soetoro has a certificate of live birth from Hawaii, thus you must provide the evidence to support your claim. Stated in contest, Maya openly admits to being born in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Gib, the Birthers made it up, and I'll explain why they made it up: During the time they were attempting to claim the Certificate of Live Birth was forged, a rumor started that the original certificate, prior to being forged, belonged to his younger sister. Later, when it was found that his younger sister was born in Indonesia, the Birther stories changed to accommodate the original allegations. Do I have evidence? No, but I don't have to prove my speculation as to why a lie domino-ed into a bigger lie. The fact they have no evidence to support their allegations stands as evidence, de-facto. The burden of proof is with those who made the claims, not with me to dispute those claims.
Moving on, to the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. I cannot provide court documents proving there were no court proceedings. That's the "proving a negative" I indicated earlier. Court documents are publicly accessible and thus, if such ever occurred, a Birther would have been able to obtain a copy. They have not been able to do so, which logically indicates there was never a hearing. Without a hearing, without court proceedings, without documents to substantiate this allegation, we can safely conclude it is false. Why? Because a certificate of Hawaiian Birth is a court-authorized document. The burden of proof lays with those making the claims.
Let's put it this way: If I were to say you were a three-time felon, a convicted murderer and arsonist, I should be able to provide evidence in support of this claim, because documentation of this is readily available, publicly accessible. If you were to sue me for slander, and I cannot provide evidence in support of this claim, I would be found guilty of slander. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not the person defending himself against the claim.
You made the claim that Ann Durham perjured herself in obtaining Certificates of Hawaiian Birth for both her children, and that Obama perjured himself for claiming to be born in the U.S. in order to obtain a government position (federal offense). Let's get this clear here: You are claiming that Ann Durham and Barack Obama both committed a felony.
Obama, and Ann Durham's (deceased) other relatives, have all legal rights to sue you for libel (written lie). The burden of proof would be on you, for having made the allegation. You would be subject to a tort of defamation and possible criminal charges.
So, there it is -- prove it. Prove in defense of your allegations or be deemed guilty, by public opinion, of libel.