Or, as I like to call it, the walk of shame for the lunatic fringe.  Here’s video of our nation’s most prominent conspiracy theorists expounding on their ridiculous lies about President Obama’s birth records.  Watch, pay attention, and remember:

Liz Cheney defending the Flat Birth Society

Lout Dobbs revealing his true colors

Senile Watergate criminal and Flat Birther G. Gordon Liddy getting ripped apart by Chris Matthews

Chris Matthews eviscerating Rep. Campbell about the Flat Birth crap

Sean “Waterboard Me” Hannity demonstrating he is, in fact, an idiot, a coward and a fraud

These people and all like them are liars and cowards.  Remember them.  The only antidote for their lies is repeating the truth, every time you hear one of them speak up.  Their arguments are devoid of reason or fact, and should be exposed every time they’re uttered.

Destroy them.  Treat them like the cockroaches they are, or this pathetic lie will continue to spread like a cancer.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. jonolan says:

    If their arguments are so foolish as you claim, why has neither Obama or the DNC ever dealt with the matter in the courts. Why has his long form birth certificate never been provided?

    McCain, when faced with exactly the same issue before Obama was faced with it, promptly turned his birth certificate over and let Congress decide the matter since there were some “questions.”

    All Obama has ever done is claim that American citizens didn’t have the “legal standing” to file such lawsuits.

    I’m not a “Birther,” as you Obamananians describe Americans, but I do have questions – because of Obama’s responses / non-responses to the issue even as it grows larger. What, if anything, is he hiding and why?

    • Afrit007 says:

      Excuse me? Have you been paying attention for the past year? When the first questions about his birth started cropping up, the Obama campaign went into overdrive to counter the lies. They released a copy of his birth certificate, a photograph of it showing the raised notary stamp, and every newspaper clipping and birth announcement from Hawaii on that day.

      I remember when questions about McCain’s eligibility to run for President cropped up. They were just as ridiculous and facetious as the silliness surrounding President Obama today, and were quickly and efficiently squashed. Why? First, because John McCain, the son and grandson of two U.S. Navy admirals, was indisputably an American citizen regardless of where he was born; and second, because he’s white.

      That’s what this comes down to. Racism and paranoia. Obama isn’t hiding anything. You claim you’re not a “birther”, but if you still have questions, then clearly you are one.

      • jonolan says:

        No, the issue with McCain was quickly and efficiently squashed because he handed over the long form of his actual birth certificate almost immediately. It wasn’t because John McCain, the son and grandson of two U.S. Navy admirals and he was White. Obama can’t really hide behind race anymore. Being Black isn’t allowed to be an excuse anymore.

      • Afrit007 says:

        I’m not saying he’s using as an excuse. He’s not. His opponents and detractors are. This matter has been dealt with. All the evidence – the real evidence – is on the table. What the fanatics on the right can’t accept is that their guy lost to a man they consider their social inferior.

        Obama won, and he’s an American citizen. Those are the facts. Get used to it.

  2. jonolan says:

    Obama won, and he’s an American citizen. Those are the facts. Whether or not he was born within the US, a Constitutional requirement for holding the Presidency is not a proven fact; it is supposition until definitive proof, which a Hawaiian COLB isn’t, is presented. Get used to it.

    It is a supposition that you choose to believe and I choose to reserve judgment upon.

    BTW: Your statements very much treat being Black as an excuse. The “birthers” are just angry that he’s black? McCain wasn’t challenged this was because he was White?

    The strong implication is that you believe that any complaint about Obama is based on racism. Therefor you’re using his being Black as an excuse. Just blame it on the White man and his racism; that’s so easy and it worked so well before…

    • Afrit007 says:

      I’ve been trying in vain to find a single, unified definition of “natural born” that everyone can agree on, since that seems to be the crux of the problem. This is really a sore point with me since my second child was born in a British NHS hospital, has a British-issued birth certificate and a Consular Report of Birth Abroad issued by the American Embassy in London. Does this mean she’s not really a “natural born” citizen? Were she to run for president, would she face the same challenges to her eligibility that President Obama is now?

      No one seems to be able to define exactly what “natural born” means, but there are a lot of interpretations and misinterpretations out there. And U.S. law is sometimes self-contradictory in this regard.

      Finally, re. the race thing – yes, I do believe many of the arguments being made against President Obama’s eligibility are based on sour grapes and race. When someone stands up like the crazy lady in the town hall video and screams “I want my country back”, what a lot of people hear is “get that n***er out of the White House”. Are you denying there’s racism involved? I’m just calling it like I see it. The “birthers” are hiding behind the Constitution, which very few of them actually understand, when for many the real motivation is race.

      • jonolan says:

        Yes, there’s a lot of controversy now over what the law actually is. The Naturalization Act of 1790 would definitely make McCain, Obama, and your daughter US citizens. In point of fact it would have made all of them “natural born” Americans. But, when Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795, they stripped the “natural born” language out.

        Case law on the matter is largely non-existent. There are a plethora of rulings on citizenship, but few on none on “natural born” status.

        Finally, re. the race thing – you do obviously either believe that or find it a useful weapon to use against Obama’s detractors. Is there racism involved? Assuredly, on both parties part. Are many opponents of Obama motivated by racism? Define many. That judgment may pass a Rovian sniff test, but is largely meaningless.

      • Afrit007 says:

        Yes, it’s clearly a case of everyone has an opinion on it, but no one really knows what it means.

        As far as I’m concerned, he was born in Hawaii in 1964, 13 years after HI became a state. That makes him a “natural born” citizen. HI has once again certified his Birth Certificate as real and valid, and that should end it. It should also put an end to the silly word-games people like G. Gordon Liddy are playing, trying to say that he doesn’t have a “Birth Certificate”, but rather a “Certificate of Live Birth.” It’s semantics and sophistry.

        By the way, the quality of care in that NHS hospital was excellent. Didn’t cost us a sixpence, either.

      • jonolan says:

        As far as I’m concerned, he was very probably born when and where he has claimed to be so. That makes him a “natural born” citizen. I reserve final judgment because of how secretive he has been about almost all of his personal records dating from before his entrance into politics. For a man who campaigned on “transparency,” his past is quite opaque.

        It’s not just semantics though when speaking of a “Birth Certificate” vs. a “Certificate of Live Birth.” They’re two separate documents with two separate sets of rules covering them. For example – Obama could have been legally, under HI laws, issued a revised COLB with his name shown as Barry Soetoro, his father name as Lolo Soetoro, and his father’s race listed as Asian or Indonesian (Not which would be used at that time on the form) after his adoption by Mr. Soetoro. A BC, on the other hand, is cannot legally be altered.

        Does that mean that Obama’s COLB does not reflect his RC? No, of course not – but it not just a case of semantics either.