" Posted on 09/14/2010 11:22:33 PM PDT by rxsid
"'Birther in chief' invited to dinner by Harry Reid
'I have no fear of anything. I'll ask him about eligibility on camera'
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, responsible for putting a charge in races where a seat in the U.S. Senate is at stake for the party, has invited Orly Taitz, the California lawyer responsible for a long list of legal and other challenges to Barack Obama's eligibility, to one of its events that will feature the president.
The invitation prompted Taitz to post a copy on her website under the headline "You want what Mr. Reid????????????"
"I have no fear of anything. I will ask him [about eligibility] on camera," Taitz told WND today.
The e-mailed invitation read: "Please join members of the New York House and Senate congressional delegation along with Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, Chris Van Hollen, Chair, DCCC; Robert Menendez, Chair, DSCC with President Barack Obama.
...
"
Continued: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=203485
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
" 'Birther in chief' invited to dinner by Harry Reid "
Maybe he wants some free dental work.
Interesting. Will she RSVP? Sounds like a really fun event (/sarc).
If true, the WH is setting up a deception just in time for November.
That was my first thought, and they could hide it until after the election. And really, I don't know that anyone could ever have the chance to inspect it.
Seems like too great a risk, though, particularly since he has withheld releasing it so long.
They probably have something else in mind as Orly has been pretty much discredited as crazy by both the Left and Right.
No one is really talking about her anymore though I personally salute her determination.
The Democrats were correct. McCain was not eligible. It isn't clear whether voters paid any attention, but some of the legal analysis was excellent. Dems were very interested in amending Article II just before the 2000 elections. Barney Frank sponsored an honest attempt http://www.scribd.com/doc/8873272/Fred-Hollander-v-Senator-John-McCain-et-al
to Amend Article II in House Joint Res 88 in July of 88, to allow naturalized citizens resident in the U.S. for 20 years, to be reputed natural born citizens (not like Claire McCaskill’s SB 2678, which was political, to provide cover for McCain so no Republican would challenge Obama’s eligibility). This would have covered McCain as well as Schwarzenegger, since McCain is a naturalized citizen through a complicated, but much examined, chain of legal reasoning.
Here is one of several “Birther” cases challenging McCain before the 2000 election:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8873272/Fred-Hollander-v-Senator-John-McCain-et-al
In McCain's case his issues were widely publicized by the WaPo, the NYT, LA Times - all the progressive voices.
Orly Taitz’ difference is that the state-run media has applied Alinsky rules 5 - “Ridicule is man's most potent weapon” - and thirteen -”Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Taitz legal arguments make a more understandable case, and one better aligned with what “feels right” than with the seemingly unfair accident of McCain's ineligibility - that the Canal Zone was covered by no sovereignty treaty until the year after he was born. Obama’s having been born with allegiance through his non-citizen father to England was a topic of such obvious concern to framers steeped in natural and international law that no one questioned John Jay's suggestion of making it a requirement for presidential eligibility.
Here is an excellent legal summary of McCain's problems. Always remember that presumable objective scholars have biases. Gabriel Chin, like Barney Frank in his amendment proposal above, examines just the soli, born on the soil, requirements for president, but never mentions the jus sanguinis requirement included in the common law definition repeated by John Marshall, Vattel, Morrison Waite, Joseph Story, James Kent, James Wilson, Charles Ev ans Hughes, Dr David Ramsay... Like most attorneys, professors or not, he picked his citations to make his case. But he does a thorough job of it, and reviews lots of case law to do it.
http://www.law.arizona.edu/faculty/FacultyPubs/Documents/Chin/als08-14.pdf
The Democrats were correct. McCain was not eligible. It isn't clear whether voters paid any attention, but some of the legal analysis was excellent. Dems were very interested in amending Article II just before the 2000 elections. Barney Frank sponsored an honest attempt http://www.scribd.com/doc/8873272/Fred-Hollander-v-Senator-John-McCain-et-al
to Amend Article II in House Joint Res 88 in July of 88, to allow naturalized citizens resident in the U.S. for 20 years, to be reputed natural born citizens (not like Claire McCaskill’s SB 2678, which was political, to provide cover for McCain so no Republican would challenge Obama’s eligibility). This would have covered McCain as well as Schwarzenegger, since McCain is a naturalized citizen through a complicated, but much examined, chain of legal reasoning.
Here is one of several “Birther” cases challenging McCain before the 2000 election:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8873272/Fred-Hollander-v-Senator-John-McCain-et-al
In McCain's case his issues were widely publicized by the WaPo, the NYT, LA Times - all the progressive voices.
Orly Taitz’ difference is that the state-run media has applied Alinsky rules 5 - “Ridicule is man's most potent weapon” - and thirteen -”Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Taitz legal arguments make a more understandable case, and one better aligned with what “feels right” than with the seemingly unfair accident of McCain's ineligibility - that the Canal Zone was covered by no sovereignty treaty until the year after he was born. Obama’s having been born with allegiance through his non-citizen father to England was a topic of such obvious concern to framers steeped in natural and international law that no one questioned John Jay's suggestion of making it a requirement for presidential eligibility.
Here is an excellent legal summary of McCain's problems. Always remember that presumable objective scholars have biases. Gabriel Chin, like Barney Frank in his amendment proposal above, examines just the soli, born on the soil, requirements for president, but never mentions the jus sanguinis requirement included in the common law definition repeated by John Marshall, Vattel, Morrison Waite, Joseph Story, James Kent, James Wilson, Charles Ev ans Hughes, Dr David Ramsay... Like most attorneys, professors or not, he picked his citations to make his case. But he does a thorough job of it, and reviews lots of case law to do it.
http://www.law.arizona.edu/faculty/FacultyPubs/Documents/Chin/als08-14.pdf
I agree. We are making so much progress all over the country and the Left wants to cast us as a bunch of right wing nuts to try to mollify the damage. The media will be all over it.
--------------------------------
I agree, they'll try just about anything.
The smoking gun is the feeble effort to 'bamboozle' America with the phony birth document (Certification of Live Birth) he put up on his web site. That should have brought an FBI visit for forging a birth certificate.
Now the White House insults our intelligence by showing his new passport. It's not his original passport but his new presidential passport with all of the information on it that confirms Barry's narrative of being born in Hawaii.
Where's the old 1980's passport?
He and his administration think Americans are idiots. They know that you are waiting for the piss-stream media to tell the truth but it ain't ever going to happen.
Good ol’ WND. Where ‘Orly Taitz receives bulk e-mail’ is given a Birther spin, is deemed “Breaking News” and is made their top story of the day. Plus, reaction from...commenters on Orly’s own blog. Stellar research effort, that.
Still, it handily accomplishes one thing: publish yet another article that includes a bunch of links for readers to support the Birther cause by giving money to WND.
Hahaha, birther in chief!!!!
Still, I really do hope she goes, as her antics make for great entertainment.
Ever consider the possibility that the FBI didn't investigate because it wasn't forged, but authentic?
Of course not, because like a good conspiracy theorist, you take evidence against your theory and interpret it as evidence that yet another agency, in this case the FBI, is in on the conspiracy.
Still, I really do hope she goes, as her antics make for great entertainment.
She’ll be raising plane fare now. Only a couple thousand will surfice.
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.