But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama could get the original paper document out of its undisclosed Hawaiian location and show it to reporters. Shouldn't he? Maybe not. He's already released a completely legal form of proof of his birthplace; to cave in to the Birthers' demands now would legitimize them. It would also likely lead to a wave of stories asking why the change in stance had happened, and what had taken so long.
Really lame rationale. Obama has no problem legitimizing every thug dictator out there, but President Transparency can't disclose his birth certificate to American citizens. What a crook! Besides, there is important historical information on the actual birth certificate that is not on the certification such as the hospital and doctor. The left has not come up with one legitimate reason why this hasn't happened.
posted on 08/06/2009 9:02:44 AM PDT
by Always Right
(The Brown Shirt Media © is coming!)
To: Always Right
It would also likely lead to a wave of stories asking why the change in stance had happened, and what had taken so long.
IOWs it is a very legitimate and compelling question to ask why 0bama is hiding his records. Even a near idiot would wonder why he did that if there is nothing seriously damaging about them.
posted on 08/06/2009 12:12:10 PM PDT
(0bama: "I can see Mecca from the WH portico." --- Google - Cloward-Piven Strategy)
To: Always Right
So Salon stands by the reason “spite” as justification for not releasing the original birth certificate.
posted on 08/07/2009 8:02:42 AM PDT
by a fool in paradise
(There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson