The thing I have to ask is this: What can be gained from it?
All of the laws Obama signed will still be law. All of the money spent during his administration will still be spent. The damage has already been done. Furthermore, it's not like we haven't heard these things when he was campaigning; the vast majority of people simply refused to believe it, and as 2016 showed, even irrefutable proof will be refuted in the eyes of the public.
All anyone gets out of it is a talking point against a term-limited ex-president, and maybe some vindication for the same crowd that embraces the 9/11 truth movement and thinks Ted Cruz's dad was involved in killing JFK—is that really what we want?
Oh, please. I'm relatively sure that Ted Cruz's dad has no involvement in JFK. That is a totally weird and unwarranted conspiracy theory.
I don't think you can relate the question of Barack Obama's background and eligibility to that in any way, shape or form.
And I don't claim to know that much about Obama's background. Well, nobody does. Everything about him and his past has been covered up for some reason. We don't know anyone who knew him at Harvard ...we don't know anything about his grades there. We don't know why Bill Ayres chose him or wrote a book for him.
He was our president for 8 years and we don't know. If he was actually planning to ride off into the sunset and grow pineapples or something, I wouldn't care. He's not. He wants to have a big influence in the government and it won't be for good.
I have to see people I consider sane post the picture of the Obama family with the same kind of adoration and awe once reserved for the Pope.
Yes, I would like to discredit him if it's possible.
No, I don't think it's a silly, vindictive thing to do.
All I'm saying is why not investigate?