By “I know you’re trying to plug your blog” — I clearly meant that you should transpose the entire contents of it into one post over here. Haha. Good grief.
Like I said — the intricacies of the issue are less important than the fact that it is going nowhere. Quoting further intricacies, therefore, won’t convince me that the issue isn’t dead. Whether the issue should be dead isn’t really relevant ... the reality remains, the issue is dead.
SnakeDoc
The main points of it have been posted here already. But to be able to click on the documentation that I posted you have to go to my blog. I wanted the documentation to be available when John Charlton posted the article at The Post & Email but the only way I knew to upload it was by starting my own blog and uploading documents to there.
If you didn’t know the things I mentioned then you deceive yourself by saying you know enough already.
And if none of those items - the lawlessness and unaccountability - seem worthy of further scrutiny on the part of our media and law enforcement, then what exactly are you thinking that “conservatism” will be able to do for this country - give us a little bit more benevolent dictator than Obama? This is the rule of law we’re talking about. If that’s ho-hum to you then there’s not much left for you to stand on.
It’s hardly dead if Barry Soetoro brings it up at the National Prayer breakfast.
Brief contemplation reveals the fact that anti-birtherism is deader than birtherism.
Though not in huge leaps, the birthers have advanced their agenda since this thing started.
The only side having to yield ground has been the anti-birthers.
So there you have it—anti-birtherism is like a big pumpkin. Looks good and sizeable but it’s been picked and is really just waiting to rot.
Birtherism is a small, slow-growing seedling with the potential to become massive.
If it's so dead, why did The One bring it up at the prayer breakfast?