Of course it is.
God Almighty I hate the professional elitists at the New York Times.
Check out this whole section now devoted to debunking the so-called birther movement.
Like a teenage girl who refuses to believe her parents as they try to tell her the boyfriend died in a car crash, the sickening, snickering, sniveling reality denialists at Amerika's newspaper of record stamp their feet and throw a tantrum, insisting over and over that it can't be true.
They are feeling the heat as more and more people talk out (Thank God!) about the whole Obama legitimacy issue.
But the weak link in the chain of reasoning of their denialist reporting on the (denialist) birthers, is that they have failed to discuss the extreme plausibility that in and of itself actually legitimizes the whole birther thing.
Noone could deny that Obama's background is highly questionable. The drivel-scoundrels on the left - those with tattoos that read "The Only Thing I Don't Tolerate... Is Intolerance" will interpret this statement as the blathering of someone unenlightened and intolerant of "otherness."
The NYT demands that we all be enlightened and attuned to "otherness."
In other words, to answer the question that the NYT asks:
"Why do 45 percent of Republicans believe Obama is foreign-born?"
Well, posits the Times : it might be racial resentment - as the Times implies in the opinions series above. it might be a lot of things, and frankly I don't really know where the Mulatto Messiah was born, but what I and all of COTT readers DO know is that his occupation of the White House is so utterly and obviously ridiculous that it has to be illegitimate, for that reason alone.
It just don't LOOK right !
To answer their own question, we would like to bitch slap them and say: "Because it is HIGHLY PLAUSIBLE, you sniveling lying elitist Obama enablers!"
Here is a comment I posted to the site "Racial Resentment At Its Roots". Please please visit this site devoted to adulation of Snivel Rights propaganda by a well-paid Ivy League Goebells-type, and post your own comment there.
We look forward to reading the comments of COTT readers posted on the NYT.
"Why does the New York Times continue to refuse to even discuss the plausibility (italics please) of Obama's "otherness"?
Doing so would serve to defuse the birther central argument.
As it is, it looks like the Times is engaging in a cover up, as they fail to point out some of the obvious plausibility points the birthers have on their side:
- Obama's father was a British subject, thus Obama inherited his father's citizenship, thus at least in the case of Britain was a dual citizen with the US ;
- Obama also had Indonesian citizenship under his step-father Sotero's household;
- Obama travelled to Kenya in 1981 using the Indonesian passport.that this citizenship allowed him.
When these facts come out more regularly in the MSM - as they are bond to do as this debate intensifies and spreads - it could appear that the NYT was covering up along along by not reporting on them.
Therefore: please when reporting on the Obama "otherness" issue, report from all angles and include all relevant facts, please."