Commies yes, 'birthers' no

WND ^ | 9/15/09 | Joe Farah

[pissant]

Before Barack Obama uttered the first word of his speech on nationalizing health care to the joint session of Congress, the New York Times had already done its part to discredit the congressman who would deliver the rebuttal.

Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., had been ambushed several weeks ago by an agit prop specialist from the Huffington Puffington Post, along with about a dozen other Republicans. The question posed: Do you believe Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as president?

Boustany gave a thoughtful and accurate answer: "I think there are questions, we'll have to see."

On that basis, of course, knowing the nature of the Huffington Puffington Post, Boustany was labeled a "birther."

And on that basis, the New York Times put it only a little more gently: "The Democrats circulated copies of a video in which Mr. Boustany seemed to support the so-called 'birthers,' whose claims about the legitimacy of Mr. Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate have been largely discredited."

Now, I don't know exactly what it is that "birthers" are supposed to believe. But I guess the label now includes any one who believes there are legitimate questions about Obama's eligibility. If that's the case, I am a "birther." That shouldn't surprise anyone, of course. For the questions I have raised – notably, "Where's the birth certificate?" – I have even been labeled the leader of the "birthers."

More interesting is what "claims about the legitimacy of Mr. Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate have been largely discredited"?

The primary "claim" is simply that Obama hasn't shown it to us. Actually, that's not a "claim." It's a fact.

[pissant]

The SRM's desperate attempt to marginalize the birthers has backfired.

[pallis]

I guess I’m a birther because I believe Obama’s grandmother, and I know Obama is the only person who can settle this. He has instead spent millions to avoid doing so. As far as Obama being a Communist goes, ...does anyone really want to make a credible argument that he isn’t? He grew up on a steady diet of Marx, and spent twenty years wallowing in liberation theology. How Marxist does one have to get before it is permissible to call him a Communist. The black liberation version is as radical as it gets. Calling Obama a Communist isn’t extreme. On the contrary, it shows a lack of the self-imposed ignorance so many Americans are laboring under. Understanding who and what Obama is helps us to understand what he is doing, and where this is going.

[Dryman]

“FREE THE LONG FORM!”