Posted on 08/14/2009 12:49:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Tulsa World again showed its bias against Sen. Jim Inhofe in the headline for its article on the questionable evidence of Barak Obama's natural-born status ("Inhofe weighs in on Obama birth site," July 28).
Inhofe specifically said he didn't weigh in because he hadn't studied the facts. Jim Inhofe said, "No comment," but he "weighed in"?
Your article derisively calls all who wonder if Obama is a natural-born citizen, "birthers," while Obama has blocked access to his long form birth certificate.
Two Hawaii hospitals have claimed to be the hospital where Obama was born. No hospital has produced the long form certificate that lists the attending doctor.
His Kenyan grandmother said she was present when he was born in Kenya. He was accepted into an Indonesian school, which would require him to be an Indonesian citizen. He has blocked attempts to see the passport he used in traveling to Kenya and blocks all his school records. Why, if he has nothing to hide?
Fifty eight percent of an AOL online poll said he should show his long form birth certificate, and 49.3 percent of the scientific Wenzel poll agreed. If about half the U.S. want these questions answered, you shouldn't call it a side issue.
The appearance from your editorial ("The 'birthers,'" July 29) and cartoon is that your agenda is to destroy the messenger if you don't like the message.
More than half of your readers voted for Inhofe. It is amazing you have so little concern for their thoughts and abandoned any semblance of fairness and truthfulness toward him.
Wayman Patterson, Tulsa
Editor's note: Inhofe did not say "no comment" in response to questions about Obama's birth. He said "I believe those people who are concerned about his birth certificate, about whether he is a citizen and qualified I encourage them to do that.''
In an interview with the Tulsa World he stressed repeatedly that Obama's citizenship is not an issue he has taken on and added in a subsequent statement that he is not a legal expert on the subject and has given Obama "the benefit of the doubt." But he also said in that statement, "If there are legal experts who have concerns, I would encourage them to continue looking into it."
“Why are you telling me? I agree.”
*******************
I just used your comment as a jumping-off point.
“That makes you treasonous in my eyes because you are disloyal to the U.S. Constitution and should know better.”
MLO - I was way too over the top when I wrote that. I regret it and apologize publically. Questioning your loyalty is just not appropriate, and unwarranted. I don’t agree with your stance, but again, that does not warrant what I wrote. The kind of rhetoric I used is dangerous because it can get out of control quickly. I needed to sleep on it to realize I should chill.
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.