Evidence Obama birth certificate 'fake' heading to Congress

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That's not what she said at all.

There's some very good reasons to discredit 0bama and lessen his ability to continue to influence the course of our nation.

Such as?  Because I don't see how showing "gee, maybe you weren't eligible at all" will materially influence his post-Presidency influence at all.  The people likely to be influenced by him simply won't care.

[the_doc]

The thing I have to ask is this: What can be gained from it?

All of the laws Obama signed will still be law. All of the money spent during his administration will still be spent. The damage has already been done. Furthermore, it's not like we haven't heard these things when he was campaigning; the vast majority of people simply refused to believe it, and as 2016 showed, even irrefutable proof will be refuted in the eyes of the public.

All anyone gets out of it is a talking point against a term-limited ex-president, and maybe some vindication for the same crowd that embraces the 9/11 truth movement and thinks Ted Cruz's dad was involved in killing JFK—is that really what we want?

If it can be proven in a trial that Obama was born in Kenya, then a lot of legal experts maintain that none of the laws that Obama signed can remain as law (unless they were passed by a veto-proof majority, perhaps, which I suspect amounts to roughly none of them).  By the same token, all of Obama's executive actions, including all of his appointments, including but not limited to Federal judges, would be instantaneously invalidated by his conviction for a fraudulent claim to be a natural-born citizen.  All of the bureaucratic overreach by his agencies will be nullified, too, I think.

The key legal point is that the laws passed and the appointments that were made never passed necessary Constitutional muster, since we did not have a legitimate POTUS presiding over the processes at any point in the processes.  Now that makes perfectly good sense, doesn't it?

Just in case you suspect that the above legal position is dubious, then consider this:  if it can be shown that Obama was born in Kenya, then it will be easy for a court to declare that he committed perjury when he took his (strange!) oaths of office.  And as I understand Federal law, perjury of one's oath of office makes every official act of the officeholder a felony--no matter what the act was.  Obama's laws and appointments were illegal, not legal. 

There is a lot of stuff up for grabs here, friend.  We could crush the Alinskyites and the DNC for the next several decades at least.  We need to quit being intimidated by them.  This is an all-out war for the survival of the Republic.  And we are by no means out of the woods at this time.  Trump is not our savior--even if he does a few things right.  Pardon my frankness, but Trump is a self-confessed liar ("deal-maker") who promised to put HRC in jail.  Now that he has achieved his goal of becoming President-Elect, it's back to a now deceptively Trumpean version of politics-as-usual.  And politics-as-usual is the mess that we always see from the egotistical, selfish, cowardly GOPe--the very same mess that has turned our nation into a pot of Boiling Frogs.

In short, the pot is still simmering.  Unless we stop the politics as usual, the pot will eventually boil over in a war on American soil--a war that America will lose. 

To drive my point home, I will flatly declare that Edmund Burke was dead wrong.  Burke was unwittingly the Architect of the Boiling Frog scenario.  Why do I say this about a good guy like Burke.  It's because Burke's single most famous quotation is that All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. That sounds lovely, of course, but a lot of "good men" will take ultimately ineffectual steps to thwart evil and still stupidly count on their worthless good political deeds to be adequate ("We tried our best, don't you know?")

***

Forget the 9-11 Truther insinuation. Some Truthers are Birthers, but most of us are not. So, please quit calling us the same crowd.   

[Emjay]

Because there would appear to be no purpose to the investigation other than vindictiveness.  Heck, you basically admitted that yourself:

Ultimately, there was enough gray in this issue that it was something left up to voters to decide for themselves, and they twice elected the guy.  Even if it were possible to prove after the fact that "oops, he wasn't really born here...", so what?  That's just a factual dispute, not a moral or legal one.

Apparently there is not much sentiment among conservatives even here to support this investigation.

Which is odd because nobody is proposing a lynching or an assassination... just an investigation.

Are we so afraid of being called 'birthers' or nut cases that we don't want to even look into something.

My only hope out of this inquiry is that it will discredit Obama.  Those who say it won't may well be right because his worshippers are akin to Trump worshippers in that nothing against their hero sticks.

I just have a hope that after Obama leaves office enough bad stuff will emerge about him to diminish his influence ... and he does plan to have major influence.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If it can be proven in a trial that Obama was born in Kenya...

What trial?  Who are the parties?  There's really no way that can even happen.

then a lot of legal experts maintain that none of the laws that Obama signed can remain as law (unless they were passed by a veto-proof majority, perhaps, which I suspect amounts to roughly none of them).  By the same token, all of Obama's executive actions, including all of his appointments, including but not limited to Federal judges, would be instantaneously invalidated by his conviction for a fraudulent claim to be a natural-born citizen.  All of the bureaucratic overreach by his agencies will be nullified, too, I think.

No.  That will never, ever happen even if it was proven he was born on Mars.  He was lawfully inaugurated and granted all the legal powers of this office.  No way in a million years that any of that would be unwound.  Any legal experts saying that may be amusing themselves with a stupid thought exercise, but shouldn't be taken seriously.

[the_doc]

Apparently there is not much sentiment among conservatives even here to support this investigation.

Which is odd because nobody is proposing a lynching or an assassination... just an investigation.

Are we so afraid of being called 'birthers' or nut cases that we don't want to even look into something.

I honestly suspect that a lot of the lack of enthusiasm is rooted in the fact that so many guys and gals on TBR are (unconsciously?) suppressing their chagrin at the fact that they had scoffed at the Birthers for the past eight years.  Some who had flirted with the Birther theory and then abandoned it as either incorrect or inconsequential are too proud to admit publicly that they were wrong on both points.  This would explain the morphing of their position on this very thread from Arpaio and Farah and Corsi are fools into Why did it take them so long? and ultimately into Hey, it doesn't matter now anyway.

That is the greased pig stuff of a bad conscience, IMHO.

***

By this post, I would call on guys like my heroes Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin to publicly admit that they turned a blind eye to the Birther theory when they shouldn't have.  Arpaio's proof of the Hawaiian certificate forgery is utterly riveting. Continued silence by our most esteemed radio talk show hosts at this point is unconscionable.  They too-conveniently let our nation down by their bad opinions over the past eight years.  Now they need to pick America back up by loudly publicizing the facts of their own mistakes.

How about it, gentlemen?  Your fans will forgive you if you come clean, as it were.  And if you get back on track, our Constitutional Republic will eventually follow you, I think.  So, let's put a stop to this crap that It's too late to matter.  My goodness, it will always matter if the Birth Certificate is a forgery.  This is not politics.  It is not a matter of vindictiveness on the part of Birthers or racists, but a matter of America's retributive justice, a matter of protecting our Constitution from further rapes by facilitating the vengeance of the Constitution itself.  (The Constitution is a piece of paper.  It is completely without defense if We the People do not enforce it at all costs.) 

In short, claiming to be a Constitutional conservative and saying for political reasons that we have to let Obama skate (or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton) is a political travesty on a par with the fraud itself.

[INVAR]

Again… let's discuss REALITY.

The REALITY IS - NO ONE in Congress or the Courts ( even talk radio for that matter) is going to permit any findings that will illustrate them to have been complicit in criminality, treason and/or totally derelict in their duties to uphold the law and even demand it be upheld.

Get that through your heads.

Not only that, HALF the population does not care whether or not Obama was born here.  He could be shown to have been born in Indonesia and they will applaud it and go into campaign mode to make the presidency open to anyone from anywhere.  The time to pursue this was during Obama's first term, and it was successfully spurned and ignored by those whose duty it should have been to look into it.

Barn door.  Horse gone.

It's silly to close it now, and a waste of time, energy and money.

Perception was made reality.  Morality is now irrelevant in the culture, and it should have been expected that the law would shortly follow - and it has.

Deal with it.  Or not.

It doesn't matter if you and I still think the law should be upheld.  The law is irrelevant when no one will uphold it when it was required.   Ideology has replaced the supremacy of law. 

It's too late for remedying what Obama has gotten away with now anyway.  Congress and the courts have rendered themselves illegitimate and irrelevant in matters of justice when they repeatedly refused to uphold the law while ignoring those laws they disagreed with and having shot down the ones that threatened their lawlessness.  The entire structure of the federal beast is corrupt beyond measure or redemption. 

This is where the country now is: a lawless miasma of behemoth central planners upon a population of mostly ignorant emoting people dependent on their subsidies.

The rest of us are a horrifying minority.

[INVAR]

In short, claiming to be a Constitutional conservative and saying for political reasons that we have to let Obama skate (or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton) is a political travesty on a par with the fraud itself.

Why? 

Trump claimed to be a Constitutional Conservative and he himself has said to let Hillary skate on her treason.

I guess you agree with our assertion that Trump is a political travesty on par with the fraud itself.

[GrouchoTex]

What was that crazy ladies name, "Orly"?
I think that whole nonsense turned off a lot of people who may have taken a more serious look at this.
I would look up these stories, and eventually, I got tired of hearing about it, because nothing ever became of it.

I am not sure what to make of it now.
I mean, it has been 8 years, and the question I have is "what took so long?"

Seems like every 6 weeks or so, Sheriff Joe was going to come out with "breaking news", only to call it off.
Now we are only 35 days from Obama leaving.

If it is true, what, if anything, will happen now?

[the_doc]

No.  That will never, ever happen even if it was proven he was born on Mars.  He was lawfully inaugurated and granted all the legal powers of this office.  No way in a million years that any of that would be unwound.  Any legal experts saying that may be amusing themselves with a stupid thought exercise, but shouldn't be taken seriously.

You dismissed my post by scoffing at it.  I am getting a bit tired of such sanctimony here on TBR. 

Anyway, let me go over it again, Major Bill.  If Obama's Hawaiian birth story is a fraud--to be more specific, if he was actually born in Kenya--then Obama was necessarily not lawfully inaugurated and necessarily not granted all the legal powers of POTUS.  If he was born in Kenya to an 18-year-old mom from the U.S., then he is not a U.S. citizen.  The Constitution specifies that he was illegally inaugurated, illegally so by virtue of his larger perjury.

Fraud trumps everything in your argument.  And if our government-to-be has the guts it needs to have, you will see what I mean.  Of course, posts like yours may very will give Trump et al encouragement to be gutless, indeed.  Puh-leez don't aid and abet the gutless by your presupposition of futility.

(P.S. Your screen name is hilarious under the circumstance of what you are refusing to face.  [How can I be sure that you aren't Obama, the Man Who Never Was?]  Please pardon the teasing, but I think you have earned a bit of it, friend!)

[the_doc]

Trump claimed to be a Constitutional Conservative and he himself has said to let Hillary skate on her treason.

I guess you agree with our assertion that Trump is a political travesty on par with the fraud itself.

You made my point.  The operative word is "claimed." 

We must not let Obama skate if he is not a U.S. citizen.  So, what are you doing about that prospective travesty?  (I know your a priori arguments that Obama was born in Hawaii, the son of Uncle Frank, but that still doesn't really explain the forged BC, in my opinion.  I think you are losing necessary focus, brother.)

[Bigun]

You dismissed my post by scoffing at it.  I am getting a bit tired of such sanctimony here on TBR. 

Anyway, let me go over it again, Major Bill.  If Obama's Hawaiian birth story is a fraud--to be more specific, if he was actually born in Kenya--then Obama was necessarily not lawfully inaugurated and necessarily not granted all the legal powers of POTUS.  If he was born in Kenya to an 18-year-old mom from the U.S., then he is not a U.S. citizen.  The Constitution specifies that he was illegally inaugurated, illegally so by virtue of his larger perjury.

Fraud trumps everything in your argument.  And if our government-to-be has the guts it needs to have, you will see what I mean.  Of course, posts like yours may very will give Trump et al encouragement to be gutless, indeed.  Puh-leez don't aid and abet the gutless by your presupposition of futility.

(P.S. Your screen name is hilarious under the circumstance of what you are refusing to face.  [How can I be sure that you aren't Obama, the Man Who Never Was?]  Please pardon the teasing, but I think you have earned a bit of it, friend!)

I'm generally on your side in this but I realize something that you apparently do not. That being that our Constitution was overthrown a LONG time ago!  1860-65 in fact!

[Applewood]

Maybe we need to face the reality that it's over, nothing will come of it and if there was any wrongdoing, Obama will get off scot free...for now.  But I do believe that at some point, he will pay for the things he has done, if not in this life, then in the next.  No wrongdoer escapes punishment. 

Look at OJ Simpson.  He skated on two murder charges, but his life was never the same.  Ultimately, he was punished -- not specifically for the murders -- but for a subsequent robbery.  Perhaps not the punishment some would have expected or wanted.  But OJ's good life is, for all practical purposes, over.   He is suffering as he should be. 

Life isn't always fair.  There are plenty of supposed heroes, living and dead, who have turned out to be bastids.  God knows all of us, good and bad, and sooner or later, He will meet out whatever punishment he believes to be appropriate.  Maybe it's time we leave this in God's hands.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You dismissed my post by scoffing at it.  I am getting a bit tired of such sanctimony here on TBR. 

Anyway, let me go over it again, Major Bill.  If Obama's Hawaiian birth story is a fraud--to be more specific, if he was actually born in Kenya--then Obama was necessarily not lawfully inaugurated and necessarily not granted all the legal powers of POTUS.  If he was born in Kenya to an 18-year-old mom from the U.S., then he is not a U.S. citizen.  The Constitution specifies that he was illegally inaugurated, illegally so by virtue of his larger perjury.

I'm not sure how to put this delicately other than to say you -- and whatever alleged legal experts you are citing -- are not thinking this through.  If your interpretation is correct, then not a single law passed during his Presidency is valid.  None of his cabinet appointments or Supreme Court picks lawfully held their positions either, and so nothing they did was lawful.  That means that every single expenditure of federal money -- including paying salaries to the military, contracts ordering any goods or services used by the military or any other part of the government --
are unlawful, invalid, and could legally be recouped.  Think about the repercussions of everything that would mean.

Now, if you know anything about legal jurisprudence, then you should know about the incredible judicial distaste for invalidating things retroactively that have ancillary effects.  It's the same consideration courts use when considering stare decisis -- the element of reliance and structural integrity can trump even the desire to reverse an erroneous decision.  Sometimes, bad decisions are left in place simply because it would be too disruptive to reverse them, and that would apply in spades to anything reversed retroactively.  That's a line of reasoning accepted by every justice currently sitting on the Court.

In other words, there wouldn't be a single vote on the Supreme Court to invalidate legal actions taken during Obama's Presidency, even if Scalia were still alive.  What you'd get is a decision saying "well, too late."  If there was something like a Supreme Court nomination still pending confirmation, then the Court might stop that.  But what you're seeking goes so far beyond anything the Court has ever considered doing that it's just...out there.

Fraud trumps everything in your argument.

No, it doesn't.  Prudential considerations of this magnitude would trump fraud every single time.  In other words, it is not enough to prove that your argument that he wasn't eligible for the office is correct.  You'd also have to convince the Court to invalidate everything he did after being sworn in, and that's something they would never do.

[Emjay]

Maybe we need to face the reality that it's over, nothing will come of it and if there was any wrongdoing, Obama will get off scot free...for now.  But I do believe that at some point, he will pay for the things he has done, if not in this life, then in the next.  No wrongdoer escapes punishment. 

Look at OJ Simpson.  He skated on two murder charges, but his life was never the same.  Ultimately, he was punished -- not specifically for the murders -- but for a subsequent robbery.  Perhaps not the punishment some would have expected or wanted.  But OJ's good life is, for all practical purposes, over.   He is suffering as he should be. 

Life isn't always fair.  There are plenty of supposed heroes, living and dead, who have turned out to be bastids.  God knows all of us, good and bad, and sooner or later, He will meet out whatever punishment he believes to be appropriate.  Maybe it's time we leave this in God's hands.

Very good post.  I really don't care where Obama was born and I don't know if it can be proven either way.  I just don't see the harm in conducting an investigation and I'm not afraid of being called 'whatever' for saying that.

I know, and everyone should know by now, that Obama has major plans to be a substantial political influence in the future.

I also know that it will not be an influence for good.

I also know that the media has NEVER investigated or even spoken against Obama. 

The O.J.Simpson analogy was a good one.  O.J. was a hero to many and people only knew surface facts about him.  Even though he was acquitted, the trial took every bit of shine off of this man and he's been a pariah ever since. 

Admittedly, O.J. worship was never as deep as Obama worship and had no importance in our lives.  But he did eventually pay.

Very few here seem to think going after Obama for anything is ethical or worthwhile.  I disagree.

I would love to see him tarnished enough that people would look at the truth of how much harm his administration has done to the country.

But ... as they say ... I'm outta here.

[the_doc]

What was that crazy ladies name, "Orly"?
I think that whole nonsense turned off a lot of people who may have taken a more serious look at this.
I would look up these stories, and eventually, I got tired of hearing about it, because nothing ever bacame of it.

I am not sure what to make of it now.
I mean, it has been 8 years, and the question I have is "what took so long?"

Seems like every 6 weeks or so, Sheriff Joe was going to come out with "breaking news", only to call it off.
Now we are only 35 days from Obama leaving.

If it is true, what, if anything, will happen now?

Actually, Orly Taitz is not crazy.  She is just a very agitated (ex-Russian!) DDS and lawyer who loves America and is alarmed (as many of my ex-Soviet bloc patients are) at America's now rapid descent toward full-blown, jackbooted, violent Communism.  Because of her relative inexperience in the viciously difficult arena of the courts, she fumbled some cases and also got incredibly frustrated by the treatment she got from a plethora of crooked judges and also from the media--i.e. in the media accounts that you happened to read.  (Remember:  Taking the media at face value is a cardinal sin, GrouchoTex.  What you should have done is dig below the media accounts, as I did.  It would have been a real eye-opener.)

Anyway, I would urge you to re-think your pessimism.  I honestly suspect that it is tainted with a prior prejudice against Birthers.  (I was saddened to see Orly Taitz sort of crash and burn, but I would still applaud her for her almost singlehanded efforts on behalf of her adoptive America.)  And if we have too many folks who think it is only futile to press forward with a national-level investigation--based on what Arpaio has clearly proven--then that prophecy of futility will be self-fulfilling.

My point is that if the Birth Certficate is a forgery, it's now a necessary matter of Damn the torpedos:  Full speed ahead.  We'll just have to see what happens--not just scoff at the proverbial Watchmen on the Wall. 

***

P.S.  Please don't complain about the fact the Arpaio investigation took so long.  Arpaio's team ran into incredible legal obstruction in the five years that Arpaio was leading the investigation.  (Arpaio did not become a Birther until three years into Obama's first term.  He launched his investigation to prove that the first three years of the Birther Movement were just a bunch of groundless accusations against his President.  He picked up steam only after he realized that the Birthers, like Orly Taitz, were not crazy.)  And I believe some of Arpaio's press conferences may have gotten quashed by Obama's buddies in the courts--who have had Arpaio's gonads in multiple wringers.  As a matter of fact, some of Arpaio's most recent findings were not even included--for legal reasons, I think--in his most recent press conference.   (Unlike Taitz, however, Arpaio had the resources to continue digging for a full five years.  I'll bet you would have thrown in the towel.  Thank God, Arpaio didn't.) 

[the_doc]

I'm generally on your side in this but I realize something that you apparently do not. That being that our Constitution was overthrown a LONG time ago!  1860-65 in fact!

Well, we agree on that, too!

[GrouchoTex]

Actually, Orly Taitz is not crazy.  She is just a very agitated (ex-Russian!) DDS and lawyer who loves America and is alarmed (as many of my ex-Soviet bloc patients are) at America's now rapid descent toward full-blown, jackbooted, violent Communism.  Because of her relative inexperience in the viciously difficult arena of the courts, she fumbled some cases and also got incredibly frustrated by the treatment she got from a plethora of crooked judges and also from the media--i.e. in the media accounts that you happened to read.  (Remember:  Taking the media at face value is a cardinal sin, GrouchoTex.  What you should have done is dig below the media accounts, as I did.  It would have been a real eye-opener.)

Anyway, I would urge you to re-think your pessimism.  I honestly suspect that it is tainted with a prior prejudice against Birthers.  (I was saddened to see Orly Taitz sort of crash and burn, but I would still applaud her for her almost singlehanded efforts on behalf of her adoptive America.)  And if we have too many folks who think it is only futile to press forward with a national-level investigation--based on what Arpaio has clearly proven--then that prophecy of futility will be self-fulfilling.

My point is that if the Birth Certficate is a forgery, it's now a necessary matter of Damn the torpedos:  Full speed ahead.  We'll just have to see what happens--not just scoff at the proverbial Watchmen on the Wall. 

***

P.S.  Please don't complain about the fact the Arpaio investigation took so long.  Arpaio's team ran into incredible legal obstruction in the five years that Arpaio was leading the investigation.  (Arpaio did not become a Birther until three years into Obama's first term.  He launched his investigation to prove that the first three years of the Birther Movement were just a bunch of groundless accusations against his President.  He picked up steam only after he realized that the Birthers, like Orly Taitz, were not crazy.)  And I believe some of Arpaio's press conferences may have gotten quashed by Obama's buddies in the courts--who have had Arpaio's gonads in multiple wringers.  As a matter of fact, some of Arpaio's most recent findings were not even included--for legal reasons, I think--in his most recent press conference.   (Unlike Taitz, however, Arpaio had the resources to continue digging for a full five years.  I'll bet you would have thrown in the towel.  Thank God, Arpaio didn't.)

Fair enough about Orly Taitz, I suppose, but you have to admit, every time one of these 2 came out and said "Huge Breaking news in 72 hours" and then we'd get crickets, it got pretty old after a few years.

Yes, I can imagine they were both stone-walled, but why even come out with this every few weeks "we're gonna blow the lid off this" if not just to play us for ratings?

Yeah, I am cynical about it. I won't deny it.
They can either share the findings or just go away, at this point.

You say I am against the "birthers" but I've kept an open mind, especially in the beginning of it.
I was intrigued.
It just got real stupid real fast, whether due to experience in a courtroom or this "just wait, wait until next time, and it'll be great!" nonsense, it still got stupid.

Maybe it was the media that did this, and made them out to be kooks, but which media?
You can't blame the MSM this time, they wouldn't go near this thing.
It didn't exist, as far as they were concerned.

And why not Blame Sheriff Joe for taking so long?
He doesn't have the same excuse as Taitz, of not knowing how the law works.

Hey, if it turns out I am wrong, so be it.
It either is or it isn't real, and so far, people say they have the evidence, but no one has seen it.

[txradioguy]

Wait...so now we're not Conservative is we don't support this birther wild goose chase?

 

[Cripplecreek]

Wait...so now we're not Conservative is we don't support this birther wild goose chase?

 

I just say OK fine, I'm a federalist.

[Elderberry]

Fair enough about Orly Taitz, I suppose, but you have to admit, every time one of these 2 came out and said "Huge Breaking news in 72 hours" and then we'd get crickets, it got pretty old after a few years.

Yes, I can imagine they were both stone-walled, but why even come out with this every few weeks "we're gonna blow the lid off this" if not just to play us for ratings?

Yeah, I am cynical about it. I won't deny it.
They can either share the findings or just go away, at this point.

You say I am against the "birthers" but I've kept an open mind, especially in the beginning of it.
I was intrigued.
It just got real stupid real fast, whether due to experience in a courtroom or this "just wait, wait until next time, and it'll be great!" nonsense, it still got stupid.

Maybe it was the media that did this, and made them out to be kooks, but which media?
You can't blame the MSM this time, they wouldn't go near this thing.
It didn't exist, as far as they were concerned.

And why not Blame Sheriff Joe for taking so long?
He doesn't have the same excuse as Taitz, of not knowing how the law works.

Hey, if it turns out I am wrong, so be it.
It either is or it isn't real, and so far, people say they have the evidence, but no one has seen it.

Sheriff Joe was a late comer in questioning Obama's qualifications.

Here is a list compiled by WND as of 2009.

http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/90843/

 here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:

    New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

    Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
    Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

    Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

    Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.

    Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
    Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.
    In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
    Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
    In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
    In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

    California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:

    In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

    In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
    In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
    In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
    In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions, the biggest being why, if there exists documentation of Obama’s eligibility, hasn’t it been released to quell the rumors.

Instead, a series of law firms have been hired on Obama’s behalf around the nation to prevent any public access to his birth certificate, passport records, college records and other documents.

[the_doc]

Wait...so now we're not Conservative is we don't support this birther wild goose chase?

 

I just think we ought to get to the bottom of what might prove to be the worst political crime ever committed against the U.S. Constitution. 

This stuff we are discussing ain't 9-11 Truther nonsense.  There are a lot of conniving crooks at the top of the DNC--crooks who hate our Constitutional Republic.  These crooks include dyed-in-the-wool Alinskyites.   (I have been studying the Alinskyites for two decades.  Among other bizarre things that the Alinskyites boast about, they have a history of boasting about producing forged identities.  I have to admit that I pay attention to what they say.)

FWIW, Arpaio didn't embrace the Birthers' concerns at all when he set out to prove that their claims about Obama's birth in Kenya were false.  He completely reversed his position after seeing where the evidence led him.  (Cute scenario, huh?)

***

Anyway, I would never say that you're not a conservative.  I just fear that you suffer from the same incredulity that afflicted Arpaio for a matter of years.  This incredulity is something the Alinskyites count on to get away with their schemes. (Hey, that's who they are, my TBR and Texas friend.)  I more specifically fear that your natural cynicism is backfiring on you, causing you to scoff at the very people who are warning you:  the Alinskyites are over-the-top audacious.  (Audacity is their bread-and-butter.  They get great thrills at doing weird, evil deceptions.  They even boast about their audacity.  They are having way too much fun.)

[the_doc]

Sheriff Joe was a late comer in questioning Obama's qualifications.

Here is a list compiled by WND as of 2009.

http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/90843/

It is worth pointing out that none of the cases have ever gone to trial.  Most of the cases were summarily dismissed on the matter of standing.  As far as I know, the only case that almost went to a full trial was the case of a US Army Reserve Major who refused recall and deployment to the war in Iraq on the grounds that he could not conscientiously obey military orders when the Commander-in-Chief had failed to demonstrate that he was a lawful occupant of the White House.  The federal judge in Los Angeles (a former Marine, as I recall) said something to the effect of "Finally, we have a plaintiff with standing to sue Obama--since deployment to a war theater is hazardous duty." 

That judge was eager to try the case and immediately set the schedule for depositions, subpoenas, court dates, etc.  Within only a day or two, the Major received a letter remanding the call-up order--essentially saying to him Gee, if you really don't want to go back on active duty, you don't have to go.

I suspect that's the first time that has ever happened in U.S. military history.  Anyway, the weird remanding of the deployment order immediately after the case was put on the court's docket cost the Major his standing in the lawsuit, and the case could not go forward.  The case just went away.

The news services never mentioned this.  And they never gave the salient details of any of the other cases that disappeared before they could be tried.  On the other hand, the MSM has repeatedly insinuated that Team Obama has won all of these challenges--whereas Team Obama actually just blocked them all.  (The MSM are co-conspirators by their carefully sloppy way of reporting.  [What else is new?])

[Elderberry]

It is worth pointing out that none of the cases have ever gone to trial.  Most of the cases were summarily dismissed on the matter of standing.  As far as I know, the only case that almost went to a full trial was the case of a US Army Reserve Major who refused recall and deployment to the war in Iraq on the grounds that he could not conscientiously obey military orders when the Commander-in-Chief had failed to demonstrate that he was a lawful occupant of the White House.  The federal judge in Los Angeles (a former Marine, as I recall) said something to the effect of "Finally, we have a plaintiff with standing to sue Obama--since deployment to a war theater is hazardous duty." 

That judge was eager to try the case and immediately set the schedule for depositions, subpoenas, court dates, etc.  Within only a day or two, the Major received a letter remanding the call-up order--essentially saying to him Gee, if you really don't want to go back on active duty, you don't have to go.

I suspect that's the first time that has ever happened in U.S. military history.  Anyway, the weird remanding of the deployment order immediately after the case was put on the court's docket cost the Major his standing in the lawsuit, and the case could not go forward.  The case just went away.

The news services never mentioned this.  And they never gave the salient details of any of the other cases that disappeared before they could be tried.  On the other hand, the MSM has repeatedly insinuated that Team Obama has won all of these challenges--whereas Team Obama actually just blocked them all.  (The MSM are co-conspirators by their carefully sloppy way of reporting.  [What else is new?])

Orly's 2012 Georgia primary challenge went to trial.

2012 Georgia primary challenge

Five Georgians, including one represented by Taitz, filed challenges with the Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, regarding Obama's inclusion on the March primary ballot.[71] Kemp referred the challenges to Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi, an administrative law judge, who denied Obama's motion to dismiss them and scheduled a hearing for January 26.[72]

On January 23, Malihi denied Obama's motion to quash a subpoena issued by Taitz to compel Obama to appear, saying that Obama did not show why he should not be at the hearing or how his testimony would not be helpful.[73] On January 25, Obama's attorney requested that Kemp halt the proceedings, and indicated that Obama would no longer participate in the litigation pending Kemp's decision.[74] Kemp denied their request and warned that their non-participation would be "at your own peril".[75]

Neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the January 26 hearing. This normally would result in a default order, but the challengers requested Malihi to allow them to go ahead with the hearing and rule on "the merits of their arguments and evidence".[76][77] Taitz called eight witnesses (including herself), and presented seven exhibits in support of her claims that Obama was not a natural-born citizen, has used multiple names, has multiple Social Security numbers, and used a fake birth certificate. Taitz asked Malihi to find Obama in contempt for failing to appear.[78][79][80]

On February 3, Malihi recommended that Obama remain on the ballot. Concerning Taitz's case Malihi wrote: "The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations".[77][81] The Drudge Retort described the hearing as, "Empty Table 1, Orly Taitz 0".[82]

On February 6, Kemp accepted Malihi's recommendation.[83]

On February 13, Taitz filed for review,[84][85] but on February 15 her application to appear pro hac vice was denied "at this time".[86]

Rhodes v. MacDonald
In September 2009, Taitz was retained by Captain Connie Rhodes, a U.S. Army physician. Rhodes sought a restraining order to prevent her forthcoming deployment to Iraq.

[the_doc]

Orly's 2012 Georgia primary challenge went to trial.

Oh, you're right, I overlooked that.  It was a blunder for Orly Taitz to ask for a ruling on the merits.  The judge probably would have been delighted to have an "out" to rule for Taitz based on Team Obama's non-appearance at the trial.  (Obama would have ignored the ruling, and I suspect that the Georgia Secretary of State would have ignored it, too.  But at least, it would have gotten some positive press coverage for Taitz's work.)

***

The military deployment case involving Dr. Connie Rhodes was not the one I was talking about.  I was talking about an Army Major in California named Robert something-or-other.  It was one of the earliest cases.  (Was the case involving Dr. Rhodes the one the judge immediately threw out on the presuppositional grounds that her complaint was surely politically motivated and was not a serious challenge of Obama's citizenship?)

[Elderberry]

The military deployment case involving Dr. Connie Rhodes was not the one I was talking about.  I was talking about an Army Major in California named Robert something-or-other.  It was one of the earliest cases.  (Was the case involving Dr. Rhodes the one the judge immediately threw out on the presuppositional grounds that her complaint was surely politically motivated and was not a serious challenge of Obama's citizenship?)

Rhodes v. MacDonald

In September 2009, Taitz was retained by Captain Connie Rhodes, a U.S. Army physician. Rhodes sought a restraining order to prevent her forthcoming deployment to Iraq. In the request for a restraining order, Taitz argued the deployment order was illegal since Obama was illegally serving as President. On September 16, federal judge Clay D. Land rejected the motion and denounced it as frivolous. In his opinion, the judge noted that Rhodes had not previously raised any objections to orders she had received from Obama since he had been sworn in. He noted that while she seemed to have "conscientious objections" to taking orders from Obama, she did not seem to object to serving under him "as long as she is permitted to remain on American soil". Land then upbraided Taitz for using military officers as pawns to further her claims that Obama was not qualified to be President. He also expressed astonishment at Taitz's apparent misunderstanding of American judicial fundamentals, saying that she was trying to make Obama "'prove his innocence' to 'charges' that are based upon conjecture and speculation".