Wrong. Truth is an absolute defense to any claim of defamation. If Obama brought such an action, and Rush defended on the grounds of truth, Obama would have to put up or shut up...one can not sue on those grounds and then claim that the subject of the suit, in this case the BC, is barred from examination due to reasons of National Security.
I’d like to introduce you to a startling new concept in humour that has been around for eons....the sardonic reply.
Sardonicists like myself have elevated ourselves beyond mere sarcasm and cynicism, to lofty heights of derision through pointing out what to some is rarely brutally obvious or those things to which the common man are oblivious.
It is a burden I wear like the smile of Mr. Sardonicus, whose visage was inflicted upon me at an early age.
It is not a sly grin in the least, but rather a horrifying facial contortion which pays tribute to the world in which we find ourselves slowly sinking into, where the most insane things have become reality.
Here in the law we say “ Truth is an absolute bar to the charge of defamation” - but they both mean the same thing. What the sam heck could be in anyone’s Birth Certificate that would cause it be a case of National Security??? What horse puckey that is. No, it’s strictly a matter of the fact that he’s a FRAUD!! He’s not qualified, in fact, he’s dangerous as y’all are finding out. CO