Conspiracy nuts' rhetoric troubling ("Birthers")

The Eau Claire Leader-Telegram ^ | August 2, 2009 | Tom Giffey, Editorial Page Editor

[SteamShovel]

If "birthers" wish to challenge the president, they should do so with legitimate political arguments

This is being done all day, every day. Haven't you heard the RATS complaining about opposition to their "health care" bill?

The question of proof of birth place is another issue entirely.

[Redbob]

"...We know this because it says so on his birth certificate, which has been available for the world to see..."

Oh really?
Surely they're not referring to the obvious forgery put up on the Obama campaign website, then taken down?

[Redbob]

"Last week, the director of Hawaii's health department... released a statement verifying she'd seen Obama's original birth documents and that he indeed was born in the United States."

As I recall, she did NOT use those exact words...

[highlander_UW]

To my knowledge, most are assuming that Obama has a birth certificate but simply hasn't shown it yet. That's not nutty...seems reasonable. And furthermore, most of those understand the Constitution requires the president to meet certain qualifications as to where he's born as well as his age. That's not nutty either unless one things the Constitution is nutty. So what most are simply asking for is that Obama release his long form birth certificate as proof of his eligibility as per the US Constitution. I fail to see how that is a “nutty conspiracy”. That being said, I'm sure there are some fringes that do take some extreme conspiracy, but most are simply asking for what should have been provided when a presidential candidate throws their hat into the ring.