Posted on 07/30/2009 8:35:25 PM PDT by Edward Watson
The entire birther argument, that Obama was actually born in Kenya instead of the US, making him ineligible for holding the office of the President of the US, is a spurious argument. It plays into Obama and the liberals hands - they want this to continue since it makes regular conservatives and opponents into fringe wackos.
Not one of us would've looked harder at his legitimacy than Hilary Clinton and the entire Clinton smear machine during the Democratic primaries. That magic bullet would've given Hilary the presidency - and yet nada, bupkis.
There are many valid reasons to oppose Obama and the liberals, but his birthplace isn't one of them.
I don't doubt that you're attacked for disagreeing with birthers on any point. That's the typical response. I'm sometimes attacked as a troll by fellow birthers and it is very clear that I support the eligibility movement. I just ignore the accusers or call them out and argue point for point with them. It's all you can do.
That’s the opposite of what many say.
Those chanting "Where's the birth certificate?" are going to be sorely disappointed in the end. World Net Daily and Orly Taitz have successfully distracted the thinking public with their mantra.
And that is not an ad hominem attack. You are buying what the left is selling.
Remember the thread is about Obama’s birthplace, not the other holes in Obama’s bio.
It's all the same cloth. All of it. Parsing won't change that.
“taking the side of the MSM”
Really? Try the side of National Review, Coulter, Malkin, Horowitz, Medved, Scarborough, my own hometown radio hero Jason Lewis, etc. I’ve seen Rush packed in with the movement, but I don’t think he’s made much of a stink outside a few off-hand comments. Glenn Beck has been associated with the movement as well, but I’ve never personally heard him address the issue.
“You continue to prop up your assertion that Obama was born in Hawaii with the statement from the Hawaiian Health Director,”
... that was just ONE of SEVEN points of evidence pointing to Obama’s birth in Honolulu ...
” but you’re willfully ignoring the point that that statement is not hard evidence of fact. It’s simply a bureaucrat’s press statement. Nothing more.”
Which is like calling any official document ‘just a piece of paper’. Actually, this statement has a lot of weight as it comes from a state official in charge of records. Her credibility and career is on the line if she deviates from truth. People like this are in the position to know the truth and she simply made a statement about what Obama’s records show. There really is no reason to doubt this, unless you concoct some wide conspiracy to deceive. If for example, Obama’s records did not show him being born in Honolulu, like some suspected, she could have just stayed silent.
“You can argue that “she wouldn’t lie, would she?”, but that would just be propping up your already weak supporting article with a huge assumption.”
It’s not a huge assumption at all, since every vital records office in the country is based on the SAME assumption. If this is not believable evidence then every official birth record in the country is suspect. Claims that she is being dishonest are just baseless and come from some assumption of political tampering. That’s circular logic (”If she says nothing its proof something is amiss, if she validates the official story, its proof she is in on the fraud.”) you can get to any loopy conspiracy theory with that mindset. At some point common sense view has to take over.
Again, I dont take her statement as sole proof, but as solid evidence if corroborated by other facts (which it is) and lack of realistic alternative scenario (nobody has explained how/why state of hawaii birth records would show a non-US birthplace for Obama).
“For all of your posting on this thread, you have not once provided a single shred of real evidence to support your contentions.”
Baloney. You are engaged in the fallacy of calling evidence that doesnt convince you ‘not evidence’. The state of Hawaii making an on-the-record statement saying Obama was born in Hawaii *IS* evidence. it’s your choice to disbelieve or dismiss evidence, but dont call it ‘not a shread of evidence’.
This is evidence too...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
You can dismiss all the evidence, you can have some excuse for discounting it, but dismissing the evidence shared and then claiming ‘there is no evidence’ is fallacious.
If people are bound and determined not to be convinced, then there is no evidence that will be sufficient proof for them. So be it. You can lead a horse to water ...
“...Admittedly, the distinction between a citizen-at-birth and a natural-born citizen is a hard sell to the general population....”
ya think? in court it shouldn’t be ‘tuff’
“I don’t doubt that you’re attacked for disagreeing with birthers on any point. That’s the typical response. I’m sometimes attacked as a troll by fellow birthers and it is very clear that I support the eligibility movement. I just ignore the accusers or call them out and argue point for point with them. It’s all you can do.”
That’s all I have done. For those ‘birthers’ who are polite to me, I’ll be polite in return. like you ;-)
“Those chanting “Where’s the birth certificate?” are going to be sorely disappointed in the end.”
I agree on this, and have said repeatedly that Obama will *not* get impeached/removed over this and will only release that information which is to his benefit. This thinking is why a lot of mainstream conservatives think its an unhelpful distraction.
“Birthers is not accurate...I don’t care WHERE he was born. His father was Kenyan.”
Just to be clear, his father being Kenyan has to do with his birth every bit as much as where he was born. It has less to do with wanting to see his certificate. But being an advocate of blood right is still reflected by the term Birther.
“I want to see all his records”
How about I call you a Recorder? As for the rest of the Birthers, you must understand seeing non-birth records is ancillary. There would be no movement without the birth issue. And it is the movement that we’re nicknaming, not you personally.
Enough with your silliness - where is your evidence for Obama being born anywhere else but Honolulu Hawaii?
Who’s the gullible one?
That statement may apply to you but.............
I know of a lot of Constitutionalists that want to see all his records. They have a list. I posted it in Post 599
“I don’t. I doubt it’s Hawaii. Nothing he says is the truth. Nothing.”
Wow. What an elightened opinion. Burn any heretics lately?
“ya think? in court it shouldn’t be ‘tuff’”
Without any law to go by, nor any court precident, and plenty of law implying the oppostie, yes, it should.
We are not even talking about Obama’s words or statements. Those are no relevent for determining where Obama was born. I dont trust him either.
For example, distrusting Obama’s words has nothing to do with this Honolulu newspaper announcement on Aug 13th, 1961 announcing his birth:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
So I get back - if you don’t care about the issue of where Obama was born, why are you so adamant to dismiss such above independent evidence of Obama’s birthplace?
And if you doubt his Hawaii birthplace, do you have *any* evidence for any alternative scenario, and if so what is it?
“I know of a lot of Constitutionalists that want to see all his records.”
Let me break to you plain:
1. I am a Constitutionalist, of the Scalia/Thomas type.
2. I want to see Obama’s records. That would be great. He has hid alot.
3. I believe the evidence is clear that Obama was born in Honolulu
4. I believe based on #3 and based on 14th amendment Obama is eligible to be President.
Now ... are we in 100% agreement? If not, where do we differ? and how does ‘Constitutionalist’ help distinguish our positions if we are not in the same camp on #3 and #4?
Clearly there are “Disagree with #3” types and “Disagree with #4” types.
“I know of a lot of Constitutionalists that want to see all his records. They have a list”
It is my opinion that such a list would never have been pushed without the birth issue. Or at least there wouldn’t have been a clearly identifiable movement without the birth issue at its center.
There would be, as always, people complaining about the double standard whereby Democrats aren’t guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the media, and that they have wider latitude to hide secrets than the opposition. There would also be lingering complaints about Obama coming out of nowhere, and not having a long enough public past on which to have built such trust in his honesty, abilities, etc. But no splinter movement, if you will. Just like there’d have been libs to yell at Bush for being a Neo-Con if the Truthers never were.
“He was not born in Hawaii nor in any other states. “
What is your evidence for him being born anywhere other than Hawaii? Plane tickets, birth announcements, certificates ... anything???
And what in your post proved that Obama isn’t a liar? Your post was a personal attack while I simply gave an opinion of the Liar in Chief.
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.
