Replies

No courtroom has declared Obama’s alleged COLB to be authentic nor that he fits the Supreme Court definition of natural born citizen. Dismissing cases over standings or technicalities isn’t exactly a victory for Obama faithers to take pride in. “Yay, Obama doesn’t have to prove he was born in the United States or that he’s constitutionally eligible for being the White House resident.”

The above demonstrates a lack of understanding of the American system of justice. No person in America has to prove that they are innocent of a charge. The responsibility is on prosecutors and plaintiffs to convince a judge or jury of guilt. America operates under the “presumption of innocence.”

Barack Obama wrote a book thirteen years before he ran for president detailing that his Kenyan father was foreign born and that his father never became an American citizen. That book went on to become a number one bestseller a year before Obama ran for the presidency.

Obama posted a photoshopped image of his Hawaii Certification of Live Birth on the internet four months before the 2008 general election. The state of Hawaii has confirmed that Barack Obama was born in that state, including confirmation by the Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle.

No one has initiated even an investigation of Obama for forgery or fraud in connection with the internet posted COLB image. Both forgery and fraud are felonies, impeachable offenses. Has even one of Obama’s political opponents in either house of Congress mentioned the word “impeachment” with regard to Obama’s eligibility to be president? No.

With last week’s Obama eligibility lawsuit dismissals in “Jones v Obama” in the US District Court for the Central District of California and “Kerchner et. al. v Obama, et. al.” in the 3rd US Court of Appeals, Obama’s eligibility to be president has prevailed in 71 lawsuits. It is not Obama’s fault that the persons and entities who WOULD have standing to sue him on eligibility grounds: John McCain, the McCain-Palin Campaign and the Republican National Commitee have chosen not to sue. If eligibility attorneys in lawsuits can’t present plaintiffs with standing it is certainly not the fault of the defense!

Barack Obama has been president since being sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts on January 20, 2009. Plaintiffs challenging Obama’s eligibility have lost every lawsuit.

The person posting above is also incorrect in insinuating that Judges, Justices and Courts haven’t taken definitive stands on Obama’s eligibility in their dismissal decisions. The word used most often for lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility is “FRIVOLOUS.” One Obama eligibility attorney, Orly Taitz has even been sanctioned $20,000 for wasting the Court’s time with frivolous nonsense. US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, just this week refused to stop the imposition of that $20,000 fine on Ms. Taitz.

As one US District Court Judge in Georgia who ruled on an Obama eligibility lawsuit put it:
“The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”). “—US District Court Judge Clay D. Land in dismissing Captain Connie Rhodes v Colonel Thomas MacDonald et. al., September 16, 2009

There are some really fine, experienced and effective conservative constitutional law firms in this nation. Among them are The Center for Individual Rights, The Washington Legal Foundation, The American Center for Law and Justice, The Landmark Legal Foundation, Judicial Watch, The Federalist Society, The Institute for Justice, The Pacific Legal Foundation and the Alliance Defense Fund, just to name a few.

Each of the above firms and organization has experience overcoming legal standing hurdles and finding plaintiffs who will be granted standing to sue. Each of the above firms and organizations have actually argued conservative issues before the US Supreme Court and WON!!!

Not ONE of those organizations has gone anywhere near an Obama eligibility lawsuit because “there’s no THERE, there.”