I think we have lived through a successful anti-constitutional coup.
I don't believe this. Most people don't believe this. Most conservatives don't believe this. If you want to know why we aren't taking to the street in a counter-revolution it's because we don't believe this.
Maybe we're all wrong, but if you want us to adopt radical stances like "there is no Constitution and we're living in anarchy," you're going to have to come up with some convincing arguments.
A friend of mine told me that the birth documents released by Obama were forgeries. He explained that it had "something to do with layers." I looked into this, and discovered that someone had interpreted a standard behavior of scan-to-PDF software (breaking the document into image layers) as some kind of evidence of forgery.
Now, my friend is technical enough to understand this, so I went back and told him what I'd found. He agreed that this was not evidence of forgery and then said, "There's something about the fonts that's wrong." I haven't bothered to investigate further because I'm only willing to waste so much of my time.
Whether or not I like its chief executive (which hasn't been the case since 1988), I have a patriotic duty to remain loyal to my country. I'm not going to reject the legitimacy of the entire US government over "something about fonts" or because a marketing blurb mistakenly identified Obama as being born in Kenya of any of the other myriad half-baked "evidence" that circles around this issue.
Frankly, it should tell you something that the only lawyer in the whole country who thinks this is an issue worth pursuing is a part-time attorney who got her degree through the mail.
I do not think that we shall fall into anarchy and revolution very soon. There are enough social "cushions," and really dumb people about to prevent an immediate explosion. Being of advanced age, I can at least see that it will (WILL) occur at some future time after my demise. I'll leave you, if you're under 40, and my offspring and their cousins to handle it.
As far as the Birth Certificate controversy goes, why deal with bytes, bits, pixels and layers? It's much simpler than all that infinitely tedious cyber-gab. The birth certificate in question, as presented by the White House to a fawining media and a stupid public, does not match the materials obtained by Team Obama's lawyers from the authorities in Hawaii. Note that these authorities there have told us only, "...that the data matches data on file in the HIDOH."
Ask a real estate title officer, a bank lending executive, or any lawyer on Main Street: Tthere's a huge legal difference between an "abstract," of data on file, and a "certified copy." The Hawaiians flat out refuse to say that the Team Obama-released certificate is a "certified copy." That KIA, is because it isn't. Of course the WH, could prove me wrong in an instant. All they need do is show the world what they got from the authorities in Hawaii!
It's too simple. It's as if the WH tried to create a car title from "Carfax," rather than get a legitimate title from the DMV. It's a fake. But so what? There's nowhere to take the evidence. But that doesn't make it not a fake!
in re the only lawyer in the whole country who thinks this is an issue worth pursuing is a part-time attorney who got her degree through the mail.
Although lumping them together and ridiculing them all at once is a strategy that has worked for Team Obama, there are actually three (3) fairly distinct issues:
<1> Place of birth. We cannot prove where BHO was born and neither can he, to everyone's satisfaction.
<2> Circumstances of birth, i.e., the non-citizenship of the alleged father. Whatever one's "feelings" on this matter of paternity, it will require a specific SCOTUS ruling and intrerpretation of the Constitution to truly resolve the issue of "Natural Born Citizenship".
<3> The suspicious provenance of the Selective Service records and the Social Security card.
Now the statuesque Orly has the best figure and probably the worst legal brain of all the attorneys on the field, true enough. However, bring yourself up to speed on the actual case against Obama's legitimacy by reviewing Donofrio's masterful amicus curiae brief to the courts in Georgia.
Quite frankly, your logic is excellent in regard to the strategy adopted by Team Obama. In agreement with you, they seem to know that no court in the land, much less the SCOTUS on appeal, is willing to look at the various issues upon their actual merits. Basically, you (and a majority of citizens) feel that since Obama was indeed elected, certified as President, and sworn in, that he is the de facto President of the United States.
The minority, to which I belong, accepts your view because the courts having failed to even consider the case, makes your party in the matter at least appear to be temporarily correct. He is the de facto POTUS, but not as yet the de lege POTUS.
As far as the "right and wrong" of the matters goes, until the courts deal with this, it is a profound disagreement. Eventually the matter will be settled by, if not the courts, by impartial historians. Even as Chester Arthur has been found to have committed fraud in his election and was not a qualified candidate, so IMNSVHO will be found one Barack Hussein Obama.
You claim that this is not a counter-constitutional coup. What would you call an executive that usurps the powers of the representative branch? When age or death takes down the 3 remaining independent supreme court justices ... or even one of the 2 semi-independents ...during this 2d administration, the coup will be complete.