With all due respect to the “traitor” comment — that sort of blurs the line between those who are flawed and those who are traitors. Brewer is flawed. McCain is a traitor. Let’s maintain that very important distinction and not cheapen terms like traitor or RINO etc. Flawed means what it means.
As I see it, there’s the distinct possibility that someone is running our country who has no constitutional right to sit in that office. If so, this would be a constitutional crisis and scandal of the highest order. If not, the least the American public deserves is an explanation why verifiable details regarding Obama’s citizenship have not been made public.
In this, we are faced with jeering contempt from half of our citizens (the left, needless to say), a media blackout, and the will of every elected (or appointed) leftist politician or judge to bury this issue as quickly as possible.
Some on our side, in an attempt to undercut this wall of silence, think it’s a good idea for the states to pass eligibility laws. “Okay... you’re not going to give us any information now, Obama? We’ll make it law that you have to give us the information if you plan to run again.”
Sounds like a good idea, right? Getting Obama out of office and saving what may be left of our country in two years?
So, why would someone who calls themselves a Republican POSSIBLY come out and undercut all this, and why should we not consider that traitorous to our party, beliefs and goals?