Quote:
Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com
Why? I didn't say he was. In fact, I haven't represented anything about Obama, other than I can't keep track of all the theories/positions you birther types have been espousing here in support of your proposition.
Before CF climbed into the SOS campus clocktower and started spraying this thread with pump-action posts by the dozens (at which point I changed channels), from what I could gather, there were three essential points being made:
1. Obama was born outside the United States and is therefore ineligible to be President.
2. Obama never attended Columbia.
3. Whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii is irrelevant, because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen and, therefore, he shouldn't hold the presidency.
To a man, you Birther-ites agree that the former Senator from Illinois has no legal business occupying the White House. However, the assertions you folks roll out in support of your position are so varied, often times conflicting, and mostly requiring extensive conspiracies involving parties with wildly disparate interests to be accurate, that they strain the limits of credibility. Guys, you can't even agree on what the story is. So let me ask you, who really killed JFK? Was it the Cubans, the mob associates of Onassis or the CIA?
|
It doesn't matter what people agree to. What only matters is what is beyond debate. The only thing that is truly beyond debate is that his father was not a US citizen. Not only is this beyond debate, but it also puts into dramatic highlight the crisis of US citizenship that has come to bear at this point. Anchor babies are the issue here and the fact that we have a fraud in the white house that should not be there at a time when the issue of birthright citizenshiip needs to be confronted the most is no accident.
This is just like the weird JFK conspiracies theories and the other weird conspiracie theories surrounding the WTC terrorist attack. They exist to deflect from what is clearly apparent and beyond debate.