Of course I know no more than Mr. Sweeney,and give him much credit since the scenario that Republicans were planning strategically by running the ineligible McCain had not occurred to me. Following Sweeney's analysis, could it be the Repub. assumption was that, as Obama’s actions conform to the background hidden by the press, but exposed by Howard Kurz and Trevor Louden, Obama too would be unelectable in 2012. What if Obama too was intended to be sacrificial? Dems knew he would be hated by or before 2012. Accepting that Obama would do the dirty work of pushing every unpopular issue down the throats of the public, Hillary could play a moderate, accepting the removal of some of the socialism imposed by Obama, and be around to supply pork until 2020?
We agree that Republicans were complicit, including McCain. That may be why Sarah Palin has kept her distance from the party, and them from her. Should Republican complicity be magically exposed before the 2012 elections - probably by a Democrat - the popularity of Republicans like Boehner, and even the sometimes good guys like DeMint, will disappear. They all lied to the public. The numbers suggest that the Tea Party supporters are almost twice as numerous as moderate (Rino) Republicans. Democrats are masters at dividing the house, and there may be mileage in the late term exposure of Republicans who all signed Senate Res 511 in which Pat Leahy agreed with Chertoff that a natural born citizen is born of two citizen parents. Democrats can claim, as they do now, that the Constitution is dated - the framers couldn't anticipate the globalism of the future; but Republicans will not get the votes of conservatives who believe it is the foundation of our freedoms. They/we won't support representatives who chose to play ignorant to its meaning, even when it was explained to them by Patrick Leahy and Clair McCaskill.
I read your posts and thought you laid out the case with eloquence, power and decisiveness. I care profoundly whether Obama is Constitutionally qualified or not, and I agree that the pols and judges have failed us miserably. However, I think it’s understandable that we are wondering who Obama’s father is. LTC Lakin’s judge reignited that question by stating, in so many words, that the revelation of Obama’s BC would be ‘embarrassing’ to him.
What a weird, inane thing for a judge to say. On what did she base this bizarre statement? No one knows. Can you really blame us for wondering if it could be connected to Obama’s father, and to the cultish narrative O has built up around it? What if even that is a lie? Of course we’d like to know, and since almost all the relevant records are sealed off and out off limits, we speculate.
I do think it’s telling that the judge never intimated there were no eligibility issues. She merely claimed hers was the wrong venue in which to resolve them. If you believe her excuse, then it would be like taking a broken arm to the pharmacy, and being told that is not the place to have the bone set. In no way is the pharmacist denying the medical emergency, just advising the patient to head for the hospital.
[I think Lakin’s judge should have pursued the issue, incidentally. If she knew enough about the BC to pronounce it ‘embarrassing’, then she was supposedly privvy to the document, and should have resolved the matter as opposed to stirring the pot with her silly ‘embarrassment’ comment.]