Saturday, April 23

Q: Where was Obama born? Liberal A: It doesn't matter!

Last night at dinner with a liberal friend of ours, the question of Obie’s birthplace came up. And as we listed more and more of the suspicious facts that have either been simply ignored or sneeringly dismissed by the MSM--without ever being answered or addressed--she used what I'm guessing will be the new Democrat defense for 2012:

“It doesn’t matter.”

Say what?

“Yes, it doesn’t matter. Because he was elected president.”

Me: “Wait a second: Do you agree that the Constitution says you have to be a “natural-born citizen” to be president?”

Lib friend: [shrug]

Me: “So what you’re really saying is that it really doesn’t matter what the Constitution says, if Democrats want to do something different. Is that it?”

Liberal friend: “We already elected him, so I’m saying it doesn’t matter.”

==

I've seen this defense advanced by lots of liberal commenters, and I get the impression that rather than claiming the Constitution isn't the supreme law of the land--a tough proposition to argue--their reasoning is more along the lines of fait accompli--because he was elected by a majority, he's president regardless of what any silly piece of paper may require or ban.

Needless to say, I'm less than persuaded by this reasoning.

A second line of argument is "If you wanted to raise this issue, you should have done it before the election. Now it's too late."

Pointing out that the issue was not only raised, but several actual lawsuits were filed--only to be thrown out on the grounds that the filers--American citizens all--lacked "standing" to sue, results in blank stares. It's like you're speaking in Kenyan or something.

Finally, I try saying Okay, how about if we raise the issue NOW, before the 2012 election? This gets the response, "He's already produced his birth certificate."

They are SO well rehearsed. Does no good to try to educate them on the differences between Hawaii's ridiculously uninformative "short form" and the verifiable "long form," which lists the hospital, name of doctor and so on.

It's also amusing to note that the Obama team floated, as a woefully bad trial balloon, the claim that Hawaii had discontinued use of the "long form" by the time Obama was born. This claim lasted only as long as it took for conservatives in Hawaii to find kids born after Obama who were issued long-form certificates.

Conclusion: Though it seems highly unlikely at this point, Obama may indeed have been born in Hawaii. In that case, why has he refused to produce his long-form birth certificate? Seems to me only two conclusions fit: Either he doesn't have one (due to having been born elsewhere), or there's something on the long form that he believes would damage him more than the current stonewall.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home