Posted on 08/01/2009 9:52:37 AM PDT by myrage
A friend just invited me to join a Facebook group called, "Birthers for Intellectual Honesty." This is probably a joke, and he is a friend, so I will not get mad at him.
Whatever the circumstances of Obama's birth, they cannot now constitute the basis of an effective political attack. So any further attempt to advance along that line is wasted time or, worse, giving fodder to those who delight in portraying conservatives as kooks. Mitchell Blatt writes:
[D]id you know that NBC was planning on asking [Michelle Malkin] if she is a birther conspiracy nut? . . NBC wanted to ask Michelle what she thought of where Obama was born even after Media Matters themselves noted that Malkin thought the theory was insane. Malkin said at her book signing [Friday] that NBC producers were actually asking her about it before she went on . . .
It is inarguable -- and I've been watching this steadily develop on Memeorandum for several days that the Left is pushing this "Birther" thing.
Any conservative who thinks that the Left is interested in a rational discussion of facts (whatever the facts may be) needs to wake the hell up.
Please pardon my French, but if they actually cared about facts they wouldn't be the Left, would they? The Left wants propaganda, and they clearly think that this Birther meme serves the propaganda purpose of portraying everyone on the Right as a tinfoil-hatter.
Ergo, STFU, IYKWIMAITYD.
Both National Review's anti-birther editorial and Andrew C. McCarthy's extended discussion of the related issues are but the latest exhibits for the prosecution in the continuing case of Why Rich Lowry Should Have Been Fired No Later Than 2001.
(Excerpt) Read more at rsmccain.blogspot.com ...
There sure are a lot of whiney pundits around these days.. and way too many publications and talk shows that give them time to whine. jmo
Rotsa ruck with intimidating, threatening, or ridiculing us into silence. Ain’t gonna happen.
Let’s cut to the quick of the matter: what if it’s shown that Obama was not born on US soil? What then?
We have the Judical Committee of the House approving articles of impeachment. Then the entire House votes on the articles. If they are passed, they are sent to the Senate for trial. If the Senate agrees, the then the President is removed.
Now, given who controls the Committee, the House, and the Senate, just how realistic is it that President Obama would be removed?
Keep looking into it, but use your powder on electing conservatives to the House and Senate; that’s the ONLY way that any action can come from Obama’s birth status if indeed he is not a natural born citizen.
Hey Rage Boy. We don’t use profanity like that here.
I really don’t see how the left is gaining anything here. If they want to raise the issue in hopes of making “birthers” look like nuts...OK - Each time they do, they give it more publicity. Some of them might recall that John McCain was asked to produce his own BC before the election, and he did, without whining and without calling in a team of lawyers. What’s to be gained here? Well, if obama is shown to not be qualified as president, the democrats will be seen as the party who didn’t care enough to vet their candidate. They certainly don’t want that.
Just to respond to your point that they give it more attention: Their whole purpose is to give it more attention. Most people know he was born in Hawaii or don’t care if he was born elsewhere (logically, if he was born in Kenya or Hawaii, that doesn’t change the fact that his policies are failures that result in $1,800 billion deficits). Something that gets attention doesn’t make people believe it. Like if I wanted to say liberals are idiots, I could talk about how they think 9/11 was brought down by Dick Cheney. Me bringing it up won’t make anyone else believe it; it will just make liberals look like idiots.
I know what you’re saying, but I don’t think it does make the birthers look like idiots. The 9/11 conspiracy theory was (is) irrational, because there’s never been any shred of evidence to back it up and it just makes no sense. In the BC case, all the birthers are saying is that obama’s not offered up his BC for all to look at. And, in fact, he’s going out of his way and spending money, apparently, to avoid it. I don’t see those two scenarios as equivalent, and IMO only the most die-hard obama fans would equate the two. So my thinking is that the more air time the BC issue gets the more questions it will raise for those who are not inclined to support obama no matter what.
Since neither party examined the question of Obama’s qualifications competently as they should have, the courts will decide.
No need argue with those kooks who think the constitution is not the law of the land.
I don't either. Withholding important documents merely makes Obama seem dishonorable.
An honorable man would be pleased and proud to provide all documents needed to prove he was a natural born citizen.
Also...Surely tyrants around the world are watching Obama’s actions regarding this natural born matter. What are they concluding about Obama’s character and honor?
He is President right now; he may have lied and committed fraud to become President, but he is in that position right now. I think the only way remove him would be impeachment. It’s a high crime, but that is resolved by the Congress.
If he is not an American citizen or is one by natuuralization only, he has committed perjury and committed document fraud to get elected, thus the election is void and Pelicanosi is President until new elections can be held and the affirmative action figutre fraud can be tried and sent to prison. Roberts the pirate swearing him in as many times as he wants doesn’t change that he failed to qualify.
What do they conclude? ... That he’s a shuck and jive pretender of low moral character and a malignant narcissist. Just the sort of thing the Democrat Party wants in power as they sweep aside the Old Republic.
You don’t impeach someone who was never legitimately sworn in.
Oops, I should have read the entire thread before repeating your well stated post.
Case law, please? Or any legal opinions rendered in court? The Constitution provides only one way to remove a sitting President from office, and that is impeachment.
And in fact, we even have an example of fraudulently attaining an elected position in Robert Wexler (living outside his district). He's still the Congressman for a district where he doesn't reside, clearly against the Constitution, but it will take Congress to bump him out.
Essentially, the body charged with throwing out Congressmen, SC Justices, or the President or Vice President is Congress. If they do not take it up, then he's in the office.
You don’t impeach someone who was never legitimately sworn in.
He was legitimately sworn in under potentially false premises. Impeachment is the remedy, per the Constitution and high crimes and misdemeanors which includes perjury. Perjury is violating an oath, which Obama could not have done until he was sworn in to office.
90% of people believe he was born in HI and 90% of people believe bin Laden did 9/11.
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.