new

For the sake of argument, let's dispense with the liberal "birthers" bullshit. There are millions of aware, troubled Americans who are NOT willing to suck the "historic" Marxist's dick because of his skin color and ignore the very real question of his constitutional eligibility for the office of POTUS. Insultingly dismissing concerned, politically savvy citizens with a mindless buzzword is what liberals do. It's akin to calling critics of Gorebull Warming "deniers". Never mind the arguments. Just defame them.

[...]

If [Obama] is proven to be ineligible, it's not a matter of, "Will it happen?" By definition, a bill that has been signed into law by a person who is not qualified to sign it has not been enacted. It is not a law, no matter how much one wants it to be so. Ignoring that reality would change nothing, and it would signal the collapse of the US legislative system.

A world-shaking constitutional crisis would result from Obastard being proven to have been unqualified for office. For one thing, America would have been without a president since January 20, 2009, in violation of Article II of the Constitution. As such, nothing involving the POTUS performing an executive action was valid, by definition. If a person is not legitimately the President of the United States, the person could not have acted in that capacity.

It matters not one phucking iota that the result of that revelation would be devastating. One cannot escape the consequences by pretending that the causes did not happen or are irrelevant. To say, "Well, it's done and we can't change it, so we must live with it," is intolerable and more disastrous to America than the ineligibility of the president for the office. Elections and reelections don't alter reality. If the person in that office is not there legally, he is not the POTUS, period, no matter what tens of millions of deceived voters thought.

It behooves America to get the cold, hard facts. All of the credible evidence points to Obastard not being a natural-born US citizen. What do deliberately forged birth certificates say? What does a faked SS number say? What do millions of dollars spent burying every trace of his past say?

"Barrack has led by example, when we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test." What does that unjoking admission by Moochelle during a June 2008 campaign speech say?

This country MUST know the truth. It wouldn't be "nice" to know. It is mandatory to know. Even if he had been out of office for a decade when the facts were proven, the consequences would be no less horrific. Everything he did in his eight years of illegal occupancy of the People's House would be nullified. And the longer we wait, the worse it will be.

I for one would be relieved if that asshole DID prove his legitimacy. Then he could be opposed strictly on his record. However, anyone who isn't lip-locked on his phallus knows that he and his lackeys have gone out of their way to avoid answering the question of his eligibility. What the phuck is he hiding?

Clueless appeasers trying to bury the issue with chants of "birthers" are doing no one any favors.

"I see no problem with theory (and speculation)."

Nor do I, but when every aspect of a "science" consists solely of theory and speculation; when there is no possible way to test and falsify theory and speculation; when theory and speculation become quasireligious doctrine; when theory and speculation are are enforced by the legislatures and courts; when we are told that our kids cannot understand the natural world unless they are required to base their understanding on theory and speculation; when the true believers in theory and speculation attack as "ignorant" and "unscientific" anyone who dares to question the theory and speculation; then theory and speculation cease to be rational and becomes cultic.

As for artists' drawings becoming evidence, need one mention the infamous Nebraska Man, Hesperopithecus haroldcookii? Why have evolutionists swept it under the carpet rather than openly admit that it was bullshit from the getgo?

For the curious, Nebraska Man was the centerpiece of the preposterous Scopes "Monkey Trial" in 1925, immortalized in the egregiously inaccurate movie, "Inherit The Wind". Ol' Nebby's species, an entire race of early "man", was fleshed out from a single tooth, and the invented creature was used as proof of evolution. The smug, arrogant evolutionists sneered, "See THAT, you blankety-drat creationists? Evolution is a FACT!"

Evolutionists have been strangely silent about this lamentably bad science ever since the single tooth was later discovered to have come from an extinct peccary — a pig.

A pig made monkeys of evolutionists. Not surprisingly, Hollywood did not make a sequel titled, "Disinherit The Windbags".

When you lament that your kids' rooms look like pig sties, remember their predecessors.

At least Southwest Colorado Man had a somewhat more noble ancestry. He was invented from the tooth of a horse. The evolutionists never owned up to that blunder, either.

Did Kettlewell see peppered moths landing on tree trunks and being eaten? No. In fact, he glued them there for his infamous photos. Peppered moths almost never land on tree trunks. They much prefer the underside of leaves where they are not visible to hungry birds. And, Kettlewell did not explain why this mythical "evolution" did not occur in even one of the hundreds of other species of moths and butterflies that inhabit the British Isles and were therefore exposed to exactly the same influences. Lastly, he did NOT elaborate on the fact that the various shadings of peppered moths have existed together for however long they've been around, and that changes in populations of existing species do not constitute evolution.

Why is Ernst Haeckel's "recapitulation theory" ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") still found in textbooks even though it has long since been proven to be a colossal fraud? Ditto the Piltdown Man, another hoax created by a Jesuit priest name Tielhard de Jardin, who was trying to harmonize evolution with Christianity and had to invent his own evidence when nature failed to provide it.

• The Java Ape Man, Pithecanthropus erectus, was constructed from a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh-bone, and three molar teeth, found over a year and a range of 70 feet in a river bed full of bones of extinct animals. There is no consensus of opinion on its worth.
• Another Pithecanthropus found in Java in 1926 was invented from the kneebone of an extinct elephant;
• Every trace of Peking Man has vanished;
• Etcetera etcetera.

In Origin of Species alone, Darwin used subjunctive-mood expressions such as "Let us assume", "We may well suppose..." etcetera over 800 times. That's a mighty schitteload of assuming and supposing for the so-called "central theory in biology".