Sen. Hillary Clinton proclaimed "Bush Knew!" from the floor of the Senate in February 2002.
.gif)
Posted on 05/18/2010 12:58:51 PM PDT by Mozilla
As I wrote last year, I find it amazing that the "Birthers" are considered more dangerous and evil than the "Truthers." The Birthers believe that an ambitious man who travelled a lot as a kid has concealed the circumstances of his birth so he could be eligible for the presidency. I don't think they've made their case. And, frankly, I'm not sure I'd want them to at this point. Aside from the horror of a Biden presidency, I for one don't yearn for a constitutional crisis. And while I am sure there are more elaborate and crazier versions of Birtherism, the basic allegation isn't that crazy, at least in the abstract.
Now, Trutherism, on the other hand, is a really insidious and evil claim: that the White House was "in" on 9/11 and that it either passively or actively aided and abetted the murder of 3,000 Americans and the attempted murder of tens of thousands more (surely the hijackers hoped to kill far more people inside the World Trade Towers). Indeed, the upshot of Trutherism is that "the government" sought to kill countless congressmen and effectively incapacitate the legislative branch and our military leadership indefinitely. Depending on which version of Trutherism you buy into, you'd have to believe dozens or even thousands of government agents were in on the whole thing, too.
And yet, "Birtherism" is dangerous and paranoid and "Trutherism" is quirky and no big deal, according to liberals.
Here's the New York Times on the Truthers (if you can't get through the firewall, here's the Newsbusters synopsis). The Times called them "a society of skeptics and scientists who believe the government was complicit in the terrorist attacks." Skeptics and scientists! No wonder even the Truthers hailed it as favorable coverage.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
All we want is to see the original BC
what’s so bad about that?
Unless ................
his wife must be a birther as she said that Kenya is Baracks homeland on two different occasions .
still we’ll never know until people look into it which won’t happen especially from the media because they either love him or they want their invite tot he white house
People who dismiss, out of hand, concerns about the eligibility of the President to hold office demonstrate they have no concept of authority in respect to the chain of command.
Sen. Hillary Clinton proclaimed "Bush Knew!" from the floor of the Senate in February 2002.
In Hawaii they passed a law (which is set to expire in 2013, just long enough for Obama’s re-election campaign) to shield freedom of information requests.
Why stifle and coverup? Why? Why rewrite law for ONE man?
People who believe, out of hand, every crackpot theory to come down the pike demonstrate that they are gullible morons.
Not surprised it is not being reported widely but even the conservative media outlets aren't touching it!
I read this as some kind of backhanded acknowledgement that there is a legitimate question here. Maybe I’m reading too much into it.
And of course trying to come up with some kind of political version of “moral equivalence” is an intellectual trap. Just because the left does something stupid, it doesn’t mean that it can’t be discussed without also bringing up some activity on the right that one strains to label as similar.
To paraphrase Churchill, one doesn’t need to discuss the “good points” of uncontrolled fires to show “fairness” when discussing the benefits of fire fighters.
Good point about the sunset provision - why is it needed if it’s not just for this one situation?
This could be seen on the Cooper Anderson video. Anderson had to stay hyperaggressive and contemptuous, because if the interview settled down, Anderson would be at a disadvantage.
Yeah, I agree with the article. If both issues just rode off into the sunset I wouldn’t miss them.
But, a thought on the Birthers... The Constitution defines eligibility for the Presidency, what’s wrong with positively determining if someone is indeed eligible? Maybe the Supreme Court - since it is the Chief Justice who administers the oath - should investigate and satisfy themselves that the President-Elect is indeed Constitutionally eligible PRIOR to administering the oath? Maybe actually doing the due diligence and not just assuming it away? Just a thought...
as I’ve said many times before,this issue will not die,and can lead to some real trouble if it is proven that the birthers are right.And an entire political party would come crashing down
Jonah,
First the term ‘birthers’ is a term that is meant to demean people who believe that President Obama is not Constitutionally eligible to be President and that the Courts should rule on the case. By Obama’s own admission he was born with dual citizenship (there is nothing hidden there) and by the definition used at the time of the Founding of our nation he would not be considered a ‘natural born’ citizen. Of course there are also many other issues (or distractions) surrounding this issue as well. Was he adopted and made an Indonesian citizen? His real legal name may not even be Obama at all but instead most probably is still Barry Soetoro (the AP has already published his Indonesian school record whereas he went by this name), so when did he legally change his name back to Obama? Did he register as a foreign aid student? And of course why will he not release any of his previous school records or original long-form birth certificate?
The fact of the matter is that it is an outrage that the Courts can claim that no one has standing on such an important issue as our Constitution. The Court should allow discovery, allow arguments to be heard and to make a ruling on the meaning of the ‘natural born’ clause of the Constitution. It is a travesty that they have not.
No, it goes deeper than that. Government is afraid to correct the mistake of Obama’s ineligibility because of the unrest (riots) that may ensue. They rather condone deception than reveal the truth.
What should not be overseen but remembered by the voters is that no congresscritter so far has had the spine to call for an open investigation of this whole sordid affair.
Arizona had a piece of legislation pending to require such eligibility paperwork for the 2012 ballot. The Republicans there shelved it.
The following week came the 1070 law for illegal immigration.
Barry’s hostility at Arizona isn’t masked. I hope at least one state our of fifty follows through for the 2012 election.
This could be seen on the Cooper Anderson video. Anderson had to stay hyperaggressive and contemptuous, because if the interview settled down, Anderson would be at a disadvantage.
How stupid is that?
>People who believe, out of hand, every crackpot theory to come down the pike demonstrate that they are gullible morons.
I was in the Army (National Guard) for 9 years. For a promotion the onus of proving eligibility for my promotions fell to me; if the admin guys lost the PT score card it was “well do you have a copy?” (And that was for a lower-enlisted promotion.) Why should the promotion to the highest rank in out military be any less stringent?
Birthers are much more dangerous than Truthers (to Obama). Birthers may well be onto something. Birthers don’t have much real (documentary) evidence yet, but Truthers have none after almost 9 years. That’s why they always say they are just “asking questions.” They’ve got no evidence, and their speculations don’t make sense.
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.