Skip to comments.JUDGE ORDERS OBAMA to APPEAR to Testify
Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
This hearing is administrative fact finding hearing. It will make a determination based on the facts and present them to the SoS for ballot consideration. I believe as in NH, it is decision that can not be not appealed. But is there is an avenue of appeal it would go to the GASC that is mostly right leaning justices.
Yeah, did he EVER live in Kansas??
SAD Soetoro traveled on an expired US passport shortly after Barry arrived in Hawaii. Must have been an emergency. You know, like her kid had been taken into Federal protective custody.
I have no interest in discussing Minor or Ark with you. You’re obnoxious and your “logic” is in error. You twist yourself into knots to present an agenda.
That clearly did not happen. In Justice Gray's own words in the intro to WKA summing up the appellant court's ruling: "The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States. 1 Fed.Rep. 382." The lower court deemed Ark was a citizen, NOT NBC.
Gray cited Waite's language in Minor when he wrote for the majority that WKA had the same citizen rights but NBC has different birth status about which there is NO DOUBT.
Gray's opinion affirmed that Ark was “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” That affirms the clear distinction between general citizen right being equal, but maintains the distinction with NBCs having unique birth status (and unique POTUS eligibility preserved).
If Gray's opinion meant that WKA was NBC he WOULD HAVE SAID SO! Gray would have said “WKA is as much an NBC as the natural-born child of a citizen” but he didn't. You do realize that the dissenting opinion claiming (falsely) that the majority was making WKA an NBC and eligible to be POTUS is NOT precedent?
If Gray had an ulterior motive, I agree, but, as you say, Gray and the majority found WKA only to be a citizen.
Gray, despite the alleged ulterior motive, DID NOT say WKA was NBC, and if he had meant to say that he could have said it but didn't. Gray definitely might have intended to at least protect Chester Arthur from not even being found out to have not even been a citizen!
LOL! Infatuation with a h0m0sexual, no less!
any chance you could answer my questions?
This is the money quote right here. Because we were a collection of states with different citizenship rules, the citizenship of the president had to be a type of citizenship that was without doubt and without potential foreign entanglement, such as through parents of differing nationalities, whether the marriage was legitimate or not. Vattel's definition is a perfect, neutral definition.
The other thing I like to emphasize is that the founders absolutely did not adopt English common law because it required perpetual allegiance and did not allow expatriation. The only way they could consider themselves to be U.S. citizens was by rejecting the common law definition of citizenship. What they ended up with has similarities, but it is not the same. Gray blurred this issue to give teeth to the 14th amendment, but he strictly avoided redefining natural-born citizenship. The latter he respected from the unanimous Minor decision: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. If this argument is made to the judge in Georgia, Obama is toast, regardless of his birth certificates, jpgs and layered PDFs.
My job is done. You're arguing against yourself now, because you clearly denied these were the facts for Minor. Remember?? You challenged anyone to find a sentence from Minor saying these were the facts. It's okay to admit you were wrong, and because you were, the rest of your argument fails.
The stuff about Chester Arthur is nonsense. Arthur left office in 1881. Wong Kim Ark wasn't argued until 17 years later. The Supreme Court did not wait around that many years for the U.S. government to appeal a citizenship case so they could try to repair Arthur's legacy. He died 12 years before the case was heard. Who the hell would have cared ... Arthur's natural-born children??? And again, the Wong Kim Ark case does NOT help Arthur because upheld Minor's definition of natural-born citizen, which would have excluded Arthur.re arguing against yourself now, because you clearly denied these were the facts for Minor. Remember?? You challenged anyone to find a sentence from Minor saying these were the facts. It/i
Mel, I think on average Obama’s ‘sex appeal’ is far greater to males than to females. He is one of the least masculine men I have ever seen, and while a few uber-liberal women find that appealing, the average woman, regardless of political persuasion, does not.
Consider this: back in the days of Bill Clinton, liberal women made no secret of their desire for him. You had supposedly non-adolescent leftist gals routinely embarrassing themselves in public w trashy confessions of their BC fantasies.
When has anything similar EVER happened w Obama? The moonbats can’t scream racism [though they will] because the issue here is *liberal* women. I haven’t heard of a single one offering Obama a Lewinsky, as BC was famously offered by a supposed ‘journalist’. Not one.
There is just something unappealing about a Major Personality Disorder. A handful of emotionally unbalanced people find it desirable—witness the women who write infatuated mash notes to convicted sociopathic killers—but 99 percent of the population does not.
Yes, I’m saying some of the foggers fall into that slender category that gets the hots for sociopaths. How else to explain their silly, adolescent and disgusting remarks about Obama’s overwhelming ‘charismatic’ charm? But on balance this man is not appealing. His mental and emotional deficiencies act as a deterrent—in many cases a subconscious one—and women look elsewhere for male hotness.
I agree with your assesment. Also are we sure Rummychick isn’t a member of the Fogbow???
I will ask again. Have you read the lower courts decision???
Have you read the discussion of cases.
The ones that discuss NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
The ones that the lower court state are CONCLUSIVE and CONTROLLING.
I repeat CONCLUSIVE AND CONTROLLING.
Have you read the brief by The United States that says the ruling is that Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen and they appeal that ruling to SCOTUS?
Oh, and the court REJECTED the doctrine of the law of nations.
You are like Leo and INTERJECTING what you think he should have said if he meant a certain thing. YOu cannot do that.
That is as bad as the Ark Court deciding what Congress meant with the 14th Amendment instead of actually looking at evidence of what they meant.
The United States of America brought an appeal before The United States Supreme Court that said the ERROR was the RULING that Ark was a natural born citizen
SCOTUS has to address the appeal. They did. Lower court affirmed. When a lower court states that they are bound by cases that say people under such and such circumstances are natural born citizen......perhaps you can understand why THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said that the RULING was that Ark was a natural born citizen.
Justice Fuller’s dissent also shows exactly what was happening with the court as does the discussion of the natural born citizenships.
How you can read that lower court case and all the applicable info and not see exactly what is happening is beyond me. But it is confirmed by THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in their brief.
People are so blinded by what they want to see that they don’t see what really took place.
I suppose you think Justice Fuller didn’t have a clue as to what was happening in that majority opinion. That would have to be your position if you maintain his dissent didn’t know what he was talking about.
Idiocy. I have never said that Minor’s parents weren’t American citizens. I have asked you to point to the exact sentence that says they are American citizens. The court only IMPLIES it. And that is pertinent.
When a court has to address citizenship that is germane to the case they address in detail the citizenship of the parents. Minor never discusses the parents because her citizenship was not in dispute. That is because the lower case was thrown out on a demurrer.
This is a finer point. I really didn’t expect you to understand it.
Chester Arthur did not leave office in 1881 as you claim. He did appoint Horace Gray.
Chester Arthur was not eligible to be President if you use what you claim is the only definition of an NBC.
The could have had repercussions to Horace Gray.
Of course, if Leo is your hero you should read what he has to see about Gray and Arthur.
You really hack me off because either you are an idiot or are being obtuse on purpose.
Let me repeat.
I said REPEATEDLY that Minor’s citizenship was a FACT NOT IN DISPUTE.
In describing Minor, it would be perfectly appropriate to say that she was born in the US to American Citizens. It’s a fact in the case NOT IN DISPUTE. That doesn’t mean the only definition of NBC is the most restrictive.
In fact, if you had bothered to read the lower court case in Ark you will see a less restrictive definition that the court says is controlling on them unless and until SCOTUS gives a different definition that is not part of Dictum.
Oh, and yeah SCOTUS AFFIRMED the lower court without exception.
Hmmm... I did not see that. If it is true, then it certainly bolsters the theory that the micro-fiches were tampered with. One of the reasons I find it hard to believe that they were tampered with is because I understand there are multiple copies in different places. Not impossible, but added complexity makes such a thing far less likely to work.
The person might have been mojitojoe but I really can’t remember . All I can remember is that there is a person posting who has implied that someone has obtained the actual paper.
Interesting coincidence in the scheme of it all.
I have read some of the alleged connections between the Dunham family and the spooks, but looking for stuff in that direction is just not my thing. It is like the newspaper announcements being planted, if evidence comes forward to support it, then I will re-evaluate the theory, but invoking one of the Intelligence agencies is a little like Godwin's law for me.
There are people infatuated with the "New World Order", and the "Tri-Lateral Commission", and the "Council on Foreign Relations, and the Bildibergers, etc. I've known lots of such people, and I understand their concern, but I would prefer not to invoke the "C" word unless the evidence is very strong. Much of what is thought to be a "conspiracy" is the result of diverse people simply acting on their own volition in such a way that it reinforces what other like minded people are doing.
Take the Media for example. They invariably report everything from an extreme left wing bias. They all do it, and it is so pervasive among them that they don't even realize they are doing it. They are not marching lockstep to the orders of some central controller, they have simply filtered everyone out of their system that thinks differently from themselves. It LOOKS like a conspiracy from it's results, but it isn't. It is the same sort of effect as Adam Smith's invisible hand.
That being said, if evidence comes out which leads in that direction, I will of course re-evaluate.
I don't care who wins, I just hope some one of them wins. I'm very concerned because i've argued this stuff with too many legal minded people. Most of them operate on the assumption that "natural born citizen" simply means that you were a citizen at birth. They are quite insistent that this is accepted dogma throughout the legal profession. If it is, the Judge is likely to reject the two parent requirement, (even though it is correct) and apply the "citizen at birth" rule. If any good may come of it, it may at least force out into the open Obama's original birth documents. I'm not sure he can even pass the 14th amendment standard of citizenship.
From many of the comments over there I suspect Vladimir Ilyich Lenin would truly be proud of these fogbutts as the useful idiots that they are.
Maybe not. He called them "useful Idiots" for a reason. :) I suspect he had little respect for them.
The "Chicago Way" is crooked and not above doing such a thing if they think they can get away with it. That they tampered with the Micro-fiches is an idea I will keep in mind, and if it turns out to be true, it will require a serious re-evaluation of my current working theory. Whatever is the answer, we must go where the facts lead.
I have been scared before (back when Bill Clinton was President) and I am scared now. We just have to try and ameliorate the situation as best we can. Forcing this guy of the ballot, (if possible) will go a long ways to fixing what is scaring me (us) currently.
What *IS* Ladysforest's blog? I tried to get in touch with her about 6 or 7 months ago, but I was unsuccessful. I noticed a lead which needed to be followed up, and she was the only person in a position to do so. A commenter on one of the Blogs that she has access to said they knew the Birkebeiles, and that they didn't live in Washington State in 1961. I would like to ask a bunch of follow up questions, but I do not know how this commenter can be contacted. I was hoping to get Ladysforest to contact this commenter with some follow up questions.
If we can nail down the truth on something, we need to do so, so that we won't waste any further time or resources on it.
Regarding a paper copy, the Bishop Library in Hawaii has in its list of holdings a claim that it has paper copies of the old archived newspapers from this time period. But now theyre saying they dont have any...
Of course, we were also told the HDOH didnt have any birth records for Virginia Sunahara, but we know how that turned out.
The problem with drawing conclusions from various staff is that they don't really care about this. While we might hang on their every word for meaning, they are casually tossing off their opinion or thinking of the moment without necessarily being careful about what they say, or even correct about what they know.
This is not to say that there can't be examples where they are demonstrably misleading or lying, but my general rule is to assume stupidity and incompetence before malice. I've dealt with too many bureaucrats and they tend to be a clueless and useless lot. Contradiction means nothing to them. They often cannot see it even when it is clearly pointed out to them.
That being said, I'm not discounting crookedness and malice.
P.S. I did a lookup of Ladysforest blog and it came back to "My very own point of view." THAT is the blog I was referring to which has that friend or relative of the Birkebeiles which left the comment. Is there any way we could ask Ladysforest to look into contacting this person and nailing down this information? I assume commenters usually leave an email address with the blog they comment on.
Ladysforest, meet DiogenesLamp. DiogenesLamp, meet Ladysforest. If you Freepmail each other you can ask each other whatever you want. =)
Erratic and emotional is pretty much the rule for Democrats. That's why they are democrats. They make good actors and entertainers because they pretend to live in a fantasy world every day. What they don't make is good engineers or people who otherwise construct useful things for the benefit of mankind.
I have long remarked how conservatives tend to deal in tangibles, and Liberals tend to deal in non-tangibles. If a conservative produces Crops, or Oil, or Buildings or whatever, Liberals produce "education" or "entertainment" or "legal services" or "news." No actual tangible work product.
That's not to say this is always the case, but I have noted that people such as Lawyers, Entertainers, News Broadcasters, etc. tend to be Liberal, while Doctors, Engineers, Manufacturers, etc. tend to be conservative. I have always thought people who are geared toward the abstract and emotional pursue such careers as are dominated by Liberals. It has been mentioned more than once that Theoretical Physicists tend to be Liberal, and Experimental Physicists tend to be Conservative.
“Gray blurred this issue to give teeth to the 14th amendment, “
This is the problem with Wong Kim Ark. People running around pretending to know how to read the law espousing this and that and making crap up and pretending it is true. Your quote is ridiculous.
Gray slaughtered the 14th Amendment.
This is why I rarely get involved in the discussion of Wong Kim Ark.
The position that you really want is the one that was set forth by the architects of the 14th Amendment NOT THE ARK DECISION. The architects had a more restrictive intent.
It is important to note that they were trying to keep citizenship away from Indians and this effected the language.
You might want to educate yourself about how Gray slaughtered the 14th Amendment. here is a discussion about the Senators involved with developing the language of the 14th amendment
Btw, there was a treaty that was ratified by Senators who also adopted the 14th Amendment.
Justice Gray ignored that treaty.
The interesting concept - that I havent really looked into - is that of Lynch V Clarke. Wong Kim Ark mentions that case in the lower court and by SCOTUS. Was it really overturned by the 14th Amendment as some claim. I don’t know.
Same thing with pure mathematicians vs. applied mathematicians, I suppose.
Not that I have ever heard. His FAMILY was originally from Kansas, but He wasn't.
I would think they would have posted it online for everyone to see by now. The fact that they have not, (to my knowledge) argues against it.
"To Ladysforest | 06/30/2011 7:54:08 PM PDT sent"
I never got a response, so I thought perhaps she hadn't been paying attention to FreeRepublic for awhile or didn't want to do it. Perhaps it just got overlooked.
Could be. I don't have that much contact with people who are explicitly mathematicians, but it would seem likely.
mojitojoe makes a comment on this thread about paper copy being saved but this is not the post I am thinking of ..so don’t know if it is him or someone else
I can understand why something might not be posted.
Sometimes, you keep evidence to yourself and wait to pounce.
Someone did that with the BC that he faked. Obama used it.
“You need to listen more carefully. I didnt say I have proof that Obama wasnt born in Hawaii. I said I have proof that the newspaper announcement microfilms having Obamas birth announcement have been changed out at least once in several different libraries.”
this post isnt what I am referencing either but it is interesting
I never received a response from you regarding my comment about seeing through other people’s eyes. (including the riddle of the five hats.)
Did you just not think it worth the bother of reading or did I not explain the idea clearly enough?
I won’t be offended if you tell me it wasn’t worth the bother, because I realize it would require a bit of reading and mulling. Sometimes a shorter message is better, but often you can’t get the point into a shorter message. I’m sure we all know how that is.
My point exactly. In order for the Article to have any meaning, it must accomplish the task of minimizing foreign influence in the Executive. Any interpretation which does not accomplish this purpose must be a WRONG interpretation.
The main point being something of significant substance happened in 1971. And that should be investigated as much, if not more, intensely than what happened in 1961.
I think Sven is right about an adoption or custody hearing causing a replacement birth document in 1971. It fits too well to be wrong. About the Connecticut social security number, it is less supportable, but still the best guess i've heard so far.
I didn’t answer it because it isn’t relevant for me.
This is a court of law.
Aren’t you a Vattel supporter??????
Did it ever occur to you that the lower case in Wong Kim Ark
REJECTED Vattel and so did SCOTUS.
Yes, SCOTUS rejected the Law of Nations as they were slaughtering the 14th Amendment. Can’t figure out how? Read the lower court case.
While everyone goes around crowing about Wong Kim Ark because they don’t understand the case..what they should have been doing is annihilating it because it is one of the worst decisions ever by the Supreme Court AND it made the 14th Amendment LESS restrictive than was the intent by Congress.
The Justices in the dissent understood what was happening and discussed it throughly.
Wong Kim Ark is NOT in your favor. It is not a case that people on this site should be crowing about while they try to prove Obama can’t be President.
I alway Chuckle to myself when I see someone espousing about Vattel who then laud Wong Kim Ark. I suppose most of these people have never read the lower case of Wong Kim Ark.
I pointed out to "SometimesLurker" that All the people who created the 14th amendment were familiar with the term "natural born citizen" because it was cited in the debates on the Amendment. That they did not include the words "natural born" right before the word "citizen" was not an oversight or a mistake. It was explicitly left out because citizens created by the 14th amendment were NOT "natural born citizens".
Likewise, Justice Gray and the rest of SCOTUS were quite familiar with the term, and they did not leave it out of their ruling by accident or oversight. They declared Wong a citizen because he was a "citizen" under the 14th amendment. Had they decided that 14th amendment citizenship is the same thing as "natural born citizenship" they would have explicitly said so. The fact that they did not means they did not so intend that the one be considered the equal of the other. It would have cost them nothing to add two words to the decision. They did not do it.
Now you argue that because the term was used in the lower case, that it bound the decision in the upper case. I disagree. It is within the powers of the court to partially agree, or partially accept some aspect of a lower case while not granting acceptance of the whole.
They accepted the "citizen" part, but they tacitly did not accept the "natural born" part. Again, had they done so, the decision would have two additional words.
The fact that subsequent lawyers and authorities have interpreted it that way is just the result of a fault in their understanding.
Interesting point. It fits the theory.
Lynch v Clarke was a case in the State court of New York. It held that a person born in New York of foreign parents was a citizen of New York. The reasoning was that since New York had no statute on the question, the English Common law standard should be used by default.
The State Legislature of New York overturned the Lynch v. Clarke decision by passing a statute denying citizenship to the children of Transient Aliens.
I have argued with "sometimeslurker" who asserted that the attorneys for the government argued that it would make Wong Kim Ark eligible for the Presidency, to which I replied that perhaps their argument is exactly why the court used the term "citizen" instead of "natural born citizen"? The Government attorneys made them aware of the danger and they therefore avoided it by choosing the wording they used.
Yes, I believe Wong Kim Ark was decided wrongly, but even in it's wrongness it did not go so far as to make Presidents of Anchor babies.
The court AFFIRMED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
It really just gets too tiresome to explain to people like you about Wong Kim Ark which is why I rarely get involved.
Do you even understand that the 14th Amendment DID NOT INTEND FOR IT TO INCLUDE PEIOPLE LIKE ARK. Read what the writers had to say about their intent of 14th Amendment. There is plenty of historical references to show you the intent.. SCOTUS REFUSED the evidence because they knew it would blow their decision out of the water.
If you are honest about the law , if you really understand it, the cases that were CONTROLLING on the lower court talked about Natural Born Citizen. Ark was a natural born Citizen according to the CONTROLLING CASES.
The lower court indicated that they thought Law of Nations might be better suited BUT the controlling legal authority would not let them use it. The had to go with CONTROLLING legal authority. That should be an even bigger slap in your face about this decision. SCOTUS affirmed the decision that is NOT BASED ON THE LAW OF NATIONS.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said that the ruling was that Ark was a natural born citizen but they felt it was an error.
SCOTUS did not agree and AFFIRMED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
Why you would want to laud Ark is beyond me...especially when you know that they REJECTED VATTEL as did the lower court.
it is mind boggling that so many VATTEL supporters support ARK when it REJECTS your whole idea.
Wrongly decided or not it is the controlling law.
There is info out there that indicates even Scalia would not be prone to overturn it.
I will just have to disagree with you. The decision was AFFIRMED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
The dissent knew exactly what the majority was holding and you can see it in his dissent...and that is...Ark was eligible to run for President.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it was known that the ruling was that Ark was a natural born citizen as outlined in the brief-which would have been argued before the court - and the decision is flat out in response to that question before the court.
It had to be.
Here is the question. What is the answer.
Lower court AFFIRMED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
Did you see any exception written??? NO.
They answered The United States of America. Ark is a natural born citizen.
It’s too bad that there isn’t a readily available record of the oral argument.
There is a possibility that is quite within reason given the mess of this decision. They intentionally had to twist and turn even their own decision in Elk to get to the outcome.
Perhaps this was one of the times they wanted to keep the whole matter confusing - or perhaps they didn’t think it was necessary since the question was already stated before them and everyone knew what it was about - or perhaps the reeason is they were inept...or any myriad of other reasons.
We don’t know. All we know is:
There is no doubt that the question before them was whether Ark was a natural born citizen as per the lower court decision.
The lower court discussed the CONTROLLING law that make Ark A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and SCOTUS affirmed.
Here is something that might be easier to get my point across.
Is the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment but a declaratory of the common-law doctrine?
Controlling authority over the lower court said YES in those words.
Now go back and look at the extensive discussion of the common law doctrine as it pertains to NATURAL BORN CITIZEN by Justice Gray.
So basically the various courts reject Vattel and say that the 14th Amendment as it pertains to citizenship is just common law doctrine. The lower court might have entertained Vattel but said they could not because CONTROLLING authority said they could not. They left it open for SCOTUS to come in and change everything.
They had the opportunity to embrace Vattel BUT REJECTED IT.
So , what does the common law doctrine discussed by the various sources in the lower court case and by SCOTUS SAY????
Ark is a natural born citizen.
If a lower court deems Ark a Natural Born Citizen and SCOTUS affirms the decision without exception - what does that mean?
That clearly did not happen. In Justice Gray’s own words in the intro to WKA summing up the appellant court’s ruling: “The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States. 1 Fed.Rep. 382.” The lower court deemed Ark was a citizen, NOT NBC, according to the SCOTUS majority.
“he displayed his LFBC on the floor of the Senate.”
Odd how this never actually happened but almost four years later people keep saying that it did.
The amount of misinformation on this issue that keeps getting repeated is staggering.
If anything I pity her.
Just like I feel pity for all the Birthers who are psyching themselves up and seem to think that this is going to work out like they want it to. But in all likelihood it will result in the 478th Birther face plant to be explained away as yet another sell-out judge betraying the Constitution because Eric Holder threatened to kill his entire family and this is proved by the fact that his 4th cousin who lives in Detroit got mugged last Tuesday while Holder was in Flagstaff.
Due to unusual busyness, I have only a brief Befoggedbow report. I offer it for entertainment purposes only.
The few posts I had time to read fairly reeked of nail-biting, high-tension anxiety.
Why are the foggers so nervous?
They are getting a “vibe” that Malihi is a ‘birfer’. [You have to spell it that way to be a fogger. It’s more cool, hip and ‘snarky’ than the other spelling.]
What is their evidence?
I’m not sure they need any. GA is a red Southern state in which some of the citizens [quelle horreur!] own guns. Therefore the befogged expect the worst—culminating in a courthouse shootout. [Reality not being their strong suit.]
Apart from anti-Southern bigotry, they are amusing as always. Malihi, by doing nothing more than scheduling a hearing, kicked a hole in their insular little anthill. Now they’re running around in a hand-wringing cold-sweat, hoping he doesn’t kick them again. Lol. I may or may not find time to read more, but I hope I can; they’re always good for a giggle.
articulate why a man ostensibly so devoted to the Constitution won't address the question of "Obama"'s eligibility vis a vis the NBC definition found in Minor vs Happersett.
My best guesses would be:
1. He can't handle the controversy. Already has to deal with the IMF and the Fed. He has to much on his plate.
2. No Senator in the 111th Congress would have backed an objection to the election certification, so it is moot institutionally.
3. He doesn't want to alienate independents who voted for Obama in 2008. You can't tell potential voters your 2008 vote was not just mistaken but actually treasonous. Too off-putting.
4. He suspects Frank Marshall Davis is the real father and thus the issue is moot.
El Sordo: “Just like I feel pity for all the Birthers who are psyching themselves up and seem to think that this is going to work out like they want it to.”
But even you, Sordo, must admit that this is the first instance where Obama has been supoenaed for proof of elgibity. And I believe this is also the most media attention that any court-based NBC issue has garnered. Though the birthers are still maligned as kooks and conspiracy theorist in the media, this sort of activity begins to legitimize their case. Even if Obama “wins” this battle, the way in which he wins could have a huge effect on how it’s perceived by the public.
You must agree that progress has been made and the trend is not in Obama’s favor.
If you want to feel pity drop in on thefogbow [where your old buddy BladeBryan is a member in good standing]. The anxiety, hand-wringing, name-calling, anger, angst and overall craziness surely warrants a modicum of pity. No need to spend all of it in one place, after all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.