Exactly!
Oh, and your not the only two on this tread who get it...anymore.
The issue we face, if we take Obama at his word, is how to challenge him. Since the military was not willing to challenge Obama’s credentials, a long shot given their active prosecution of their own combat soldiers, we must use civil law. More need to learn about and follow the active legal cases challenging Obama’s right to authority. The Kerchner/Apuzzo case is comprehensive. It is wending through courts of appeal. But that was to be expected.
The new Donofrio/Pidgeon/Chrysler Dealers case has been filed. The Quo Warranto case long proclaimed the only path to presidential removal by Donofrio is to be filed soon.
The Taitz cases are progressing.
We need to bring attention to these cases. Apuzzo has published his case and written about the legal foundation on his web site. As public sentiment shifts, some court will take Apuzzo, because it is well-formed. He may not get all the counts in front of the court, but any one would be devastating to Obama. Sadly, the courts are political, and judges political appointments. But as voters lose their standard of living some judge will respond.
The Chrysler takeover seems so contrary to our philosophy of individual freedoms, we can hope the case is well structured. I believe that the more attention paid to these cases the better. It may be like a cricket game, taking weeks or months, but with an evolving strategy which we could come to understand, because freedom is at stake.
Donofrio is as well prepared as anyone, better than most, to discuss citizenship law. He hasn't yet filed the Quo Warranto case, but claims he will. Now he has clients. If Obama is illegitimate his takeover of the auto industry is has no legal validity. Donofrio knows the attorney general will not prosecute his case, but has discussed how to use the law to overcome the obvious conflict of interest - Holder is already defending Obama and could not legitimately prosecute him.
Taitz has been Alinsky’d, and is the least experienced attorney. She began, over a year ago, focusing on Obama’s failure of natural born citizen eligibility. Perhaps she shouldn't have pursued multiple social security numbers and a driver's license from Connecticut, where he never lived, but she is a warrior. The sensationalism, getting in front of the public is a tactic. She certainly exposed some malpractice. When the Obama team failed to respond to a petition, she won certain discovery, but was dissuaded by a judge, who promised to hear the case on the merits if she would forgive the deadline oversight and give the Obama team another chance to respond. Did it matter that the judge was assigned a clerk from the law firm defending Obama, the firm whose chief council is now Obama’s White House Council, weeks before his decision was due? It appears he lied to her - but I wasn't there. If we can't trust our legal system we will have anarchy, and guns will rule.
Watching the legal process takes patience, but that is our best chance at peaceful resolution.