Skip to comments.Is Being a 'Truther' Really a Bad Thing?
Posted on 07/24/2009 12:22:38 AM PDT by lquist1
This is my first (and maybe only) writing in FR, but I wanted to address this issue about Obama's eligibility to be POTUS....
It's sort of like, The court ruled OJ is innocent. We as Christians need to accept it and move on.
You seem to have the facts known to this point straight. And you are right to point out that some conservatives fail to grasp the gravity of the situation-! Thank you, and welcome to the club-!
You are wrong, they are both accurate statements that have been reported. His paternal grandmother told Corsi that she remembers Obamam Jr. being born in a Kenya hopital, and the Ammbassador said something to the affect that a statue or monument would be erected near where he was born on a radio program.
Obama will not release any documents pertaining to his college days as well, and no being someone that loves their country and wants their Constitution upheld is never a bad thing.
The opposit of a Truther....Liar??
The reality is that politics, like Islam, is all about lies. The Democrats are skilled liars.
Both Democrats and Muslims are proud of their lair skills. Who is the Father of lies? Republican politicians also lie but the do not flaunt it openly.
I believe, firmly, for instance that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, acting alone. I dismiss all 9/11 troofers as cranks.
But 0bama’s unwillingness to “answer the question” does naturally raise suspicions about what, exactly, he is hiding. It may be something simple like his father claiming to be “Caucasian”, a reasonable claim for an Arab or some other trifling matter that might dent the 0bama mystique or mar the Barack brand. So far, no one in a position to do so has actually made him explain himself.
His reluctance to easily and simply put this matter to rest makes me wonder, “what is he hiding?”
First, welcome to Free Republic, and then!
I denounce You!
Then, I denounce my own sef'!
... for Questioning Duh!1®.
Next, I trun oursef's over to
to have our attitudes adjusted...
Small correction to an excellent post: he didn't refuse his orders: having standing from the fact of receiving orders he mounted an enquiry to clarify their legitimacy. This was to assure himself of legal protections in the future.
Let's get the terminology correct to begin with. "Truther" is generally used for those who believe the government had something to do with 9/11. You would be a "Birther".
Had the matter not been made moot by the revocation of the orders, it's extremely unlikely that any court would have ruled that he had legal standing based on the claims he was making.
This complaint really puzzles me. If the question is whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president then his college records had absolutely no bearing in proving that.
I'm curious too, in light of the following:
In a court proceeding do they not try to include facts that go to credibility of the person?
If it is relevant, then sure. But credibility really doesn't enter into this. Either Obama is eligible or he is not. If he is, then his college transcripts are irrelevant. And if he's not, then their irrelevant as well. It's the circumstances of his birth that is the question, not what happened 18 years later.
It boils down to whether he listed himself as a foreign citizen when applying for a student loan. But it also pertains to his claims of openness and transparency that he promised during his campaign yet he won’t even allow those to be released. Why?
Wow, I have to admit that I didn’t know that.
Thanks for the lexicon update.
If I had to pick a word that describes someone who thought Bush engineered 9/11, I would have thought the best word to do that would be more like a DOPER?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.