Following from Intellectual Conservative:

[...]

But the Republican-controlled House of Representatives did not fear the dark of night, nor the political arrow that flies by day; they impeached the randy Mr. Clinton despite the potential political ramifications. Why did they do that? Because they understood the arguments, understood that what Mr. Clinton did was not a personal matter between himself and Monica Lewinsky (and Hillary and Chelsea) but involved a wrong committed against a largely unknown woman from Arkansas. Clinton was not impeached over Lewinsky; she was simply evidence of corruption, of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and perjury.

Perjury. Keep that word in mind.

There has been a simmering issue, one that began before Barack Hussein Obama took office. The Obama camp has spent over a million dollars to keep his birth certificate (and other documents) from being examined. Everyone assumed that the birth certificate issue would go away, but like the killer in a bad horror flick it continues to rise from the grave. Why? The issue could be laid to rest very easily, yet the Obamaniacs refuse to do so. Perhaps they are playing the “birthers” as chumps?

A quick point on that; “birthers” is intended as a pejorative, much like calling George Bush “shrub.” We should not be using it on our side, whether one agrees with what I would call the disclosurists or not. Frankly, I am mindful of Saul Alinsky:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

The attempt here is to tie the disclosurists in with the right-wing nuts in the pro-life camp, you know, those people that DHS has dubbed as domestic terrorists . . ..

Are they playing the disclosurists for chumps? Remember, Obama was a community organizer and devotee of Alinsky. Another Alinsky rule:

Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.

The crushing defeat of Republicans by Obama and his Party have given us chronic bullied syndrome; we think they are unbeatable. The enemy sees this bunch as having far too many weapons at their disposal. Sometimes a thing is exactly what it seems.

And it seems that somebody has something to hide.

Watergate was not about the crime (which, it seems likely, Nixon was not behind) but about the cover-up. Remember, it’s not the nature of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge.

Once again, we should take a page from Alinsky:

Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

The enemy has demanded such disclosures from Republicans as a routine matter; remember Dan Rather’s fake Air National Guard story? Proof was demanded from President George W. Bush that he fulfilled his obligations. Remember Clarence Thomas having to prove he was not a sexual predator? Remember the demands that Sarah Palin prove she was the mother of her Down’s Syndrome child?

And the Democrats never judged their own wing nuts; how many members of the Democrat caucus were present at the screening of Fahrenheit 911, and how many rose in thunderous applause at the end? Yet this steady drumbeat of falsehood, innuendo, and out-and-out lies eroded support for President Bush and Republicans in Congress. In short, it worked; the nature of the evidence was immaterial because the public was soured by the accusations.

Now, here we have a President who swore an oath that he was qualified to be president, and yet he refuses to allow the American People to verify the veracity of that claim – and his refusal has cost him a million dollars.

Is this a case of perjury? President Clinton was impeached for perjury.

The media used to howl about the “public’s right to know” yet remain silent here.

Many good conservatives are telling the disclosurists to shut up, to stifle themselves (you gotta love Archie Bunker) in a manner almost identical to the Obama Administration, which is demanding silence from critics. Now, I’m not impugning their motives, but I am saying they are wrong to attempt this; it suggests an embarrassment, a sense that, yes, we are a bunch of kooks who are trying to keep quiet lest the general public get wise. But this is about more than just politics (though it is a solid political weapon); this is about the rule of law.

We heard much about the rule of law during the Clinton impeachment. The whole reason the House went forward was to uphold the rule of law. The Constitution lays out the qualifications for office holders, and Congress codifies those qualifications. One qualification is that a person must be either born here, or be born to citizens. In the case of Obama the law at that time specified that a woman could not pass on her citizenship if the father was a non-citizen and the child was born overseas, if she had not reached the age of majority. Under U.S. law at that time Barack Obama would not be a citizen, since his mother was only 18 IF he was born in Kenya – something his maternal grandmother has claimed. Oh, and Obama was a dual citizen of both Kenya and the U.S., a point he neglected to tell the American voters.

The point is…

Read the rest of the story…

Connservatives4Palin.com website is one of my favorites.  That being said this is the first time I have read something on the blog that I take issues with:

“This website is, I’d like to think, a premier community for Sarah Palin’s supporters. As all of our readers know, we have a banning policy for anyone who posts comments about the Obama birth certificate conspiracy. Obama was born in Hawaii. He is an American citizen. We don’t tolerate conspiracy kooks. In other words, we have nothing to do with these birth certificate conspiracists, and we are deeply offended that Gov. Palin and her supporters are linked with this.”

Then in the very next paragraph:

Obama himself can put to rest this conspiracy nonsense any time he wants to. All he has to do is release his official birth certificate (not the “certification of live birth”). John McCain released his. What’s the big deal? It’s not an invasion of privacy. It’s just a document. What’s the problem?

Hello!  That is exactly, and I mean exactly what 50% to 90% of us “so called birthers” request.  Why are we labeled kooks for taking the exact position?    Most of us are suspicious of Obama’s birth place but have not cemented our position in stone.  The point is no one knows for sure where BO was born because no one has seen the birth certificate.  Your/their position is just as much a statement of faith as those who believe he wasn’t born in the USA! No ONE knows for sure.

Then next paragraph says?

These conspiracists are driven to these nutty theories because no one really knows who Barack Obama is. His biography is full of holes, as this article by Andrew McCarthy at National Review makes clear

This is the danger of being so dismissive.  It is obvious the person who wrote the above quotes has not taken the time to learn the “birthers”, “conspiracists”, “nonsense”, “nutty theories” position.

My take, is that Obama is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees to hide something, if not his birth place them perhaps something in his college records.  One of the first things he did after becoming President was to seal all his personal records.  That isunprecedented.

One more point….

Those who claim:

He [Obama] doesn’t want to put it to rest because it benefits him politically for people to keep pushing this conspiracy theory.  Do you not realize this?

So then non-birthers are taking the position that “Politics as Usual” should be supported – that truth doesn’t matter it is only what is expedient politically that is important.  Sorry I don’t buy that…  That is exactly what is wrong with the country and why we love Sarah, she is the antithesis to “Politics as Usual”.

Also see:

Has Obama Committed Perjury?