Tweet
Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'In Arizona, more birther buffoonery (attempting to preempt Zullo & Corsi in HI?)', which was started 5/22/2012 by 'Seizethecarp'
The thread references a 5/21/2012 article titled, 'In Arizona, more birther buffoonery' appearing in the Washington Post.
View the complete Free Republic thread at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2886525/posts
The following is COMMENT #5, by 'Red Steel', in the thread:
“See related thread tonight with WND revealing that Mike Zullo and Jerome Corsi have been in HI under MCSO deputy guard this week investigating aspects of Barry’s HI birth claims and alleged evidence thereof: “
A clickable link :-)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2886507/posts
The following is COMMENT #21, by 'ecinkc', in the thread:
This kind of editorializing infuriates me! How can they have it both ways?
For years we’ve been subjected the liberal press insisting that birthers are kooks because Hawaiian officials have already confirmed that Obama’s published birth certificate is legitimate.
Now we have a situation wherein S.O.S. Bennett, a single principled public servant with jurisdiction, decides to take the matter seriously and realizes that Hawaii has only implied (deceptively) various unofficial and subtly conflicting endorsements of Obama’s nativity claims. So, he sets out to get the answer in the form of an official, on-the-record legal verification of Obama’s claims. The result? Hawaii stalls and takes considerable effort to drag out layer upon layer of red tape and legalese about who can ask and how. And still, after more than eight weeks, no one in Hawaii’s government has rendered an answer to this one simple request.
So now the liberal press is obliged to switch up on their strategy, right? They can be expected to resort to their old standby inflammatory mutterings like, “They never asked a white candidate for evidence of his birth place.” Or, they could certainly revisit some other favored falacy like, “Look, we’ve seen the newspaper announcements, so unless his parents were planning an impossibly prescient prenatal scheme to smuggle their foreign fetus into an eventual U.S. presidency, we can trust those announcements as reliable proof of citizenship.”
Whatever their approach, surely the press can no longer continue to say “Hawaii has already officially verified this numerous times over.” Because, if that were true, then the press must also realize that there would be no pain for Hawaii in shooting off a quick e-mail to Bennett or publishing to its website an official statement saying . . .
I mean, if--as the press keeps insisting--Hawaii has verified the birth certificate up one side and down the other, what’s the harm in doing so one more time for the confused Arizonian, right?
That iceberg of truth the press is compelled to acknowledge (at least through a tacit change in strategy) is that the yet unyielding 60 day stonewall is, itself, incontrovertible proof that Hawaii must not have actually been officially verifying Obama’s claims all along. They must have been offering something less than legal verification. Hmmm?
BUT NO! The press is attempting to have it both ways. Now, they say at one point in a given article that Bennett and the birthers are unreasonable to ask Hawaii for verification (I expected that much), but then within the same article they still remind us that Hawaii has already flooded the continent with a tsunami of official verification.
Now listen to what the geniuses at Washington Post opine in this latest propaganda piece, right alongside their brutal ridicule of SOS Bennett:
If that is really, truly what Hawaii has done, then how can WaPo now give a pass to Hawaii for their unwillingness to reply to Bennett by simply copying and pasting the same legal verification verbiage that they have ostensibly been busily spewing all over the galaxy for an epoch already?
You cannot have it both ways, lying liberal press.
EITHER
#1) Hawaii freely and publicly provides legal verification that Obama's story and documents are legit.
- OR -
#2) Hawaii drags the duly elected Arizona Secretary of State through eight weeks of red tape and stonewalling in response to his simple request for legal verification.
If #1 is true, then #2 cannot be.
But, we all know that #2 is happening right before our very eyes.
And, if Hawaii’s verifying statements thus far have not been legally sufficient, then of what use are they?
. . .
Ah well, Dan Rather also resisted the inevitable, tooth and nail, and in increasingly profound absurdity, for a similar long time. Perhaps you, WaPo, have an appetite for a demise like his?
I think it would suit you just fine.
The thread references a 5/21/2012 article titled, 'In Arizona, more birther buffoonery' appearing in the Washington Post.
View the complete Free Republic thread at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2886525/posts
The following is COMMENT #5, by 'Red Steel', in the thread:
“See related thread tonight with WND revealing that Mike Zullo and Jerome Corsi have been in HI under MCSO deputy guard this week investigating aspects of Barry’s HI birth claims and alleged evidence thereof: “
A clickable link :-)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2886507/posts
The following is COMMENT #21, by 'ecinkc', in the thread:
This kind of editorializing infuriates me! How can they have it both ways?
For years we’ve been subjected the liberal press insisting that birthers are kooks because Hawaiian officials have already confirmed that Obama’s published birth certificate is legitimate.
Now we have a situation wherein S.O.S. Bennett, a single principled public servant with jurisdiction, decides to take the matter seriously and realizes that Hawaii has only implied (deceptively) various unofficial and subtly conflicting endorsements of Obama’s nativity claims. So, he sets out to get the answer in the form of an official, on-the-record legal verification of Obama’s claims. The result? Hawaii stalls and takes considerable effort to drag out layer upon layer of red tape and legalese about who can ask and how. And still, after more than eight weeks, no one in Hawaii’s government has rendered an answer to this one simple request.
So now the liberal press is obliged to switch up on their strategy, right? They can be expected to resort to their old standby inflammatory mutterings like, “They never asked a white candidate for evidence of his birth place.” Or, they could certainly revisit some other favored falacy like, “Look, we’ve seen the newspaper announcements, so unless his parents were planning an impossibly prescient prenatal scheme to smuggle their foreign fetus into an eventual U.S. presidency, we can trust those announcements as reliable proof of citizenship.”
Whatever their approach, surely the press can no longer continue to say “Hawaii has already officially verified this numerous times over.” Because, if that were true, then the press must also realize that there would be no pain for Hawaii in shooting off a quick e-mail to Bennett or publishing to its website an official statement saying . . .
“As always before, YES, the Hawaii Department of Health, and the Vital Records Registrar and The Attorney General all DO continue to officially declare and verify the Birth Certificate image released on the White House web site IS FULLY ACCURATE in its every detail to the one and only original hand-signed Birth Certificate currently residing in our files for the person known as Barack Obama II, born by that name, at Kapiolani Gynecological on Aug 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann and Barack Senior.”
I mean, if--as the press keeps insisting--Hawaii has verified the birth certificate up one side and down the other, what’s the harm in doing so one more time for the confused Arizonian, right?
That iceberg of truth the press is compelled to acknowledge (at least through a tacit change in strategy) is that the yet unyielding 60 day stonewall is, itself, incontrovertible proof that Hawaii must not have actually been officially verifying Obama’s claims all along. They must have been offering something less than legal verification. Hmmm?
BUT NO! The press is attempting to have it both ways. Now, they say at one point in a given article that Bennett and the birthers are unreasonable to ask Hawaii for verification (I expected that much), but then within the same article they still remind us that Hawaii has already flooded the continent with a tsunami of official verification.
Now listen to what the geniuses at Washington Post opine in this latest propaganda piece, right alongside their brutal ridicule of SOS Bennett:
“Never mind that Hawaii has confirmed publicly and repeatedly, since before the 2008 presidential election, that Mr. Obama was born there; that the Hawaii Department of Health has released both the short and long forms of the president’s birth certificate; and that all this information, along with clear-as-a-bell explanations, is available to the public online.”
If that is really, truly what Hawaii has done, then how can WaPo now give a pass to Hawaii for their unwillingness to reply to Bennett by simply copying and pasting the same legal verification verbiage that they have ostensibly been busily spewing all over the galaxy for an epoch already?
You cannot have it both ways, lying liberal press.
EITHER
#1) Hawaii freely and publicly provides legal verification that Obama's story and documents are legit.
- OR -
#2) Hawaii drags the duly elected Arizona Secretary of State through eight weeks of red tape and stonewalling in response to his simple request for legal verification.
If #1 is true, then #2 cannot be.
But, we all know that #2 is happening right before our very eyes.
And, if Hawaii’s verifying statements thus far have not been legally sufficient, then of what use are they?
. . .
Ah well, Dan Rather also resisted the inevitable, tooth and nail, and in increasingly profound absurdity, for a similar long time. Perhaps you, WaPo, have an appetite for a demise like his?
I think it would suit you just fine.