[FreeAtlanta]

The left can't leave this one alone. It is like a moth drawn to a camp fire, or a kid who has to put his hand on a hot stove.

It is fascinating and would be entertaining if it wasn't so serious.

[Genoa]

Cling ping!!

[PATRIOT1876]

I'm extremely suspicious of anyone who doesn't know that climate change is a con. Either they are liars in on the scam or are easily duped.

Be a good group that you could pull all the grifting from the movie “Paper Moon.”

The money drop, the birthday name on the $20 bill, the scam where the little girl confuses the cashier and gets more change back than the size of the bill.

All these can easily by played on people who still believe in AGW.

[Menehune56]

You're right, the anti-birthers just can't leave the eligibility issue alone. I was surprised that such a snarky little article would appear in a magazine from used-to-be conservative Orange County.

I guess it's the same mentality of some folks you can see right here on FR spending hours ridiculing and mocking people with reasonable concerns about an important issue. Suppressing resolution of the issue using legal technicalities isn't going to make it go away. Far from it.

[Seizethecarp]

ping...

[Seizethecarp]

From the OC article:

“Obama Eligibility Case Before The Ninth Circuit Court: Barnett v. Obama NO. 09-56827” includes this quote United States Justice Foundation Executive Director Gary Kreep made to World Net Daily: “According to case law, candidates have standing to challenge the eligibility of other candidates. The Department of Justice, which is handling Obama’s defense, is not even addressing standing. They're saying it's a political question and therefore shouldn't be decided by the courts.”

While naysayers assign a near zero chance of success for Kreep’s case (that would include virtually every FReeper who claims to be an attorney IIRC), my understanding as an admitted non-lawyer is that SCOTUS sometimes “waits” for the “right” case to come along for them to make a controversial ruling.

SCOTUS knows that Kreep’s case with Keyes is working its way up the appeals process. Unlike Apuzzo’s case which was based primarily on speculation that Kerchner might at some time in the future be harmed in the future by an unlawful CIC, Keyes was actually harmed by running against and losing to Obama, arguable a non-NBC dual citizan and claimed by numerous Kenyans to have been born in Kenya.

So when the Keyes/Kreep case reaches SCOTUS, the NBC issue and the right of Keyes to request discovery of the HI vital records issue could actually come before SCOTUS for the first time.

The NBC aspect of Apuzzo’s case was never “reached” by SCOTUS because standing was never allowed by it or by any of the federal courts. Thus the definition of NBC has never been litigated on the merits. In my understanding a failure to accept standing for Apuzzo’s client was not an affirmation by SCOTUS that Obama is an NBC. SCOTUS simply affirmed the lower courts’ rulings that Kerchner lacked standing.