Too Much to Debunk or Those Who Don't Fact Check Should

This is the single worst article I've ever read. I'm not joking.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/29/is-obama-losing-his-grip-on-reality/

Paragraph 1:
The phrasing here posits that the only correct answer for the President to make is to admit that he isn't a valid President due to the place of his birth; if it isn't true doesn't he have the right to speak out against a lie?

Paragraph 2:
“Childish Rant of a compulsive thug who bamboozled...” only applies if you believe he isn't a valid presidential candidate. This is empty rhetoric, it's written to evoke a set of thoughts and emotions.

Paragraph 3:
Of course the man is aware that people don't think he was born in the United States. He only has to address his invalidity to the position if he is indeed stating his invalidity (which he is not).

Paragraph 4:
Hawaii doesn't release the original copies ( http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf )
Oil spill, what is Obama supposed to do? Swim to the bottom of the gulf and plug it up himself, but more importantly, at the time of their vacation the oil was no longer spilling. There is much cleanup to be done, but what is Obama going to do about that? Whisk it away with his African magic?

Paragraph 5:
see paragraph 4 notes above.

Paragraph 6:
Beyond the wild, unfounded conjecture of this paragraph sits a bold faced lie, that the President, called a cheater, “in his own words knows that he is ineligible to serve as president and realizes that he is over his head because the American people will demand the truth about him.” No where in the Brian Williams interview does he say anything remotely like this.
( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38907780/ns/nightly_news )

Paragraph 7:
Is a single line that makes a very good point, unfortunately, it continues to invoke an idea that his little basis in fact.

Paragraph 8:
Barack Obama cannot control the free speech of his “former” pastor, whose remarks have already caused the President grief during his Presidential campaign.

The only thing Barack Obama supports about partial birth abortions is a clause to allow them in situations where the mother's life is in danger. Abortion is legal in the United States, as for his “pandering to killers such as Planned Parenthood” he is a “Pro-Choice” politician, it's a part of his platform to support a thing that is allowed by the laws of the land, abortion (though any citizen is allowed their opinion on it's morality). As of 2003, partial birth abortions are banned in the United States; the ruling of the supreme court upheld it in 2007 as well. However morally reprehensible one may find the idea of partial birth abortions, support for the idea does not make one a criminal or unfit to lead. Dissent is part of what makes this country great.

The hyperlink to his “upbringing” shows a very rational response (in newsweek) to the myriad of influence he encountered in his international upbringing, which may be bizarre but the link to his “bizarre and dysfunctional” childhood is simply a link to his mother's wikipedia page. “Devoid” has to do with hosting his grand-mother's funeral service at a Unitarian church, and his bouncing from church to church. The man calls himself a Christian, who is anyone to say he isn't? Isn't that between the individual and the God that he believes in? The “Christianity” link is to an indonesian site, that supports the Kenyan birth idea and if anything, explains his lack of religiosity as a child as well as the reason why he was registered as a muslim in the indonesian public school system (because his step-father was a Muslim and the father's religion determined the religion for the records).

Kenyan Birth Certificate debunking:
( http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/feature/2009/08/03/birthers_kenya )

The “become” link again references the above linked newsweek article (which is a pretty good read I might add).

the final link in paragraph 8 leads to a conspiracy/UFO website that has plenty of 9/11 truth information on it. 9/11 “truthers” believe conspiracy theories about US complacency or involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Signing the 9/11 Truth petition is what got Van Jones in so much trouble as being unamerican. Although I don't believe in “poisoning the well” I have a tendency to doubt information coming from the same sources as 9/11 truth BS. And as somewhat of a non sequitur, logically if Barack Obama is so horribly anti-American, why would a site associated with such unamerican things as 9/11 truth be outing him, as someone who suffers from “narcissistic personality disorder,” which is, I might add, not being done by a trained psychologist after a proper amount of sessions and perhaps a peer review – just a poster on a comments area of the site.

Paragraph 9:
the link that highlights, “groveling,” is a link to his constitutional support of the the constitutional right to freedom of religion. While the sentence continues without basis with,” at the feet of those with terrorist ties,” though possibly an Ayers reference, I'm confused as to the connection the author is attempting as the remainder of the paragraph deals with Arabs and Islam – Rauf perhaps? But Rauf's refusal to denounce HAMAS as a terrorist group doesn't make him someone with “terrorist ties.” Rauf has a track record as a bridge builder, in not denouncing HAMAS he is keeping a connection with borderline muslims who would take his denunciation as proof of his westernization (which translates as roughly with the ignorant and uninformed of the muslim world as anti-islamic as muslim translates to anti-american to the ignorant and uninformed here).

Barack Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia. People do that to kings. Our last president held his hand. If he's bowing to his “saudi masters” it's not because he's a Muslim, it's because our country is, and has been, in too tight with this repressive regime with the extra deep pockets.

The Clintons had an Eid al-Fitr (end of Ramadan) dinner in 1996; Bush started the Ramadan iftar tradition following 9/11. I'll throw that one back at you again, Bush started the Ramadan iftar tradition following 9/11, and continued it throughout his presidency. If you have a problem with it, it's not with Obama, that's just a scapegoat move.

Paragraph 10:
A single line, containing another linking to Obama's support for partial birth abortion, without stating his view of the matter, his defense of partial birth abortions when the mother is in danger. It' also contains some of his less stellar political moments. He's a politician, just like every other politician on the hill – to put my own value judgement on it: he's better than some and worse than others – just like the rest. A Christian is allowed a personal relationship with the God he or she believes in, Democrats have traditionally been pro-choice, and yes this is a very touchy and uncomfortable choice for any believer to make, but ultimately – he's a democrat, that's the platform they support and that is politics.

Paragraph 11:
A single line suggesting he's mentally ill with a link to the Mayo Clinic's definition of narcissistic personality disorder. No ties to Obama beyond the conjecture the reader may choose to draw.

Paragraph 12:
Well, thinking that you get the powers of what you eat is a little crazy, otherwise, who cares?

Paragraph 13:
A single line questions his parents... Aren't his parents, namely his Kenyan father, the one of two parts to the case of the whole “birther” movement? But just to play along, check google and look at the pictures, or look here:
( http://www.obamamagazine.com/?p=88 ) I'm no expert, but I think there's a resemblance – especially with the Barack Sr. pipe photo.

And, if you really want to read about Frank Marshall Davis being Barack Obama's father, check here:
( http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-real-father-connecting-dots.html ) it's way easier than trudging through the nine minute video the author links to (which, BTW, includes a casting of Davis' astrology chart(s)). Lastly, communist or not, Frank Marshall Davis was an American citizen, born in Arkansas – died in Hawaii.

Paragraph 14:
Showing a photo ID to vote constitutes a poll tax, which just so happens to be unconstitutional.
( http://www.firedupmissouri.com/node/4873 )

The link “opposes” links to the same site as referenced in paragraph 10, then continues into rhetoric about how “illegals can vote for socialists like him who will allow them to stay in the country,” because illegals are here to take money from? Taxpayers I suppose is the connection I'm supposed to make, but I'm not sure how they do it. More importantly, America, land of opportunity is full of hard working immigrants who are here both legally and illegally, making a life for themselves and their families. Do I agree with illegal immigration? Nope, but it's a fact of life and until people stop hiring them it's not going to stop. So when a corporation of some sort hires an illegal immigrant at an illegally low wage who's money are they taking? (the implication is that Americans don't work for that little, 'cause they don't.)

As for the Huddle study, yup, those illegals sure do cost the tax payer some dough: ~$67 per year (20 Billion divided by 300 million). Also, you don't have to be, but I am for public education. I think we could do it better, I think the system needs updating and … dare I say, regulating? And I don't care who goes to it. The more education a group of immigrants can get, the more “american” they're going to be in fewer generations.

Also, I am a firm believer that if our national guard is to be taking on any additional duties, being called into active service, it shouldn't be to fight wars on the other side of the world, but to observe and protect the borders of the country – especially with violence spilling in from the drug cartels and their ties to both terrorism and human smuggling (which I think are far more important than stopping the flow of drugs to American streets).

As for, “bankrupt the country” (the huddle link), what about our exorbidant military budget, or the fact that we're in two costly wars in other countries, and two invisible wars around the world (on drugs and terror)? How much do those cost?

Paragraph 15:
Conjectures about Brian Williams's thoughts are something we can all think about, but none can know. As for why did Obama bring up his Christianity, Williams prodded him to do so with his remarks about the recent PEW servay that sheds light on the opinions of the people of the US by taking a slice of their opinions, specifically regarding the religion of the president. (this time it's the “Christian” link that directs the reader to the well written newsweek article from July 2008)

the link, “continues to lie” takes the reader to an AP article that is simply quotes from the Williams interview, with little explanation or extrapolation.

the next link, “says” takes the reader to the same AP article that is simply quotes from the Williams interview, with little explanation.

Paragraph 16:
I don't know anything about Hawaii's “Obama File” but the link goes to a website that calls itself “an historical archive” and to its benefit has apparently been selected by the library of congress to be archived, http://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/ which really only means that it's seen as a cultural artifact.

That said, the idea of dual citizenship is AS close as I think it gets to questioning the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, that said, however, he is not a dual citizen, and has not been for over twenty years. He didn't have to take any classes to be a citizen of the US. I'm not a lawyer, but if there is anything that rings true in this article, it's this, but no one is hiding this. It's on a government web page.

Paragraph 17:
see paragraph 16 statements above.

Paragraph 18:
More empty, one-sided rhetoric.

Paragraph 19:
“The country can move on once he is removed from office for ineligibility, election fraud, wire fraud, racketeering, and extortion.  Now let’s get past all the foolishness and oust him from Washington, DC, along with all the congressional and judicial bad actors who contributed to this ghoulish charade.”

except for ineligibility, all of those crimes have been committed (in some combination) by our last two presidents (at least). But seriously, racketeering? Extortion? Wire fraud?

Election fraud? Well, maybe... but did HE do it, was it his idea? (same for Bush II)

best part about this article is that it's done. 19 paragraphs, 3 hours of my day and hardly even a half truth out of the whole damn thing. I did get to read a pretty well written newsweek article though.

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/07/11/finding-his-faith.html