Replies

“If these freepers who are so critical - nastily and snidely critical “

That’s probably me and maybe I am too nastily sarcastic. I apologize. Its just that Orly is a friggin joke. The case is nuts. I could maybe say it nicer and for that I will probably suffer some Karmic justice, but the truth is what the truth is. There just ain’t no durn evidence. If there was, Hillary would have already trotted it out.

If you read the judge’s opinion, he is right. Courts don’t go messing around in the military’s bailiwick. Good thing. This is a frivolous suit. It has no merit. Orly’s claims read like some kid wrote it. No legal facts. No legal basis. Would you want someone suing you who had no legal facts to back them up, and no evidence?

Whatever your opinion of Obama, the system is working here the way it is supposed to.

parsy, who will try to keep his acid tongue under better control but right now he is on a crusade against Wall Street and is all wound up

As I understand it, the good judge order Dr. Orly to pay the legal fees of Obama's lawyers.

If Obama's lawyers dare to submit a bill for legal fees to Dr. Orly, we may finally find out how much it is costing Obama, or the Democratic party, or the taxpayers to defend Obama in court.

1. That is, if we multiply Obama lawyers' fees in this case by the number of legal cases throughout the country, we should be able to get a rough estimate as to how much it is costing Obama to defend himself in court.

2.As we know, some people say it is costing Obama or the Democratic Party or us taxpayers at least 1 million dollars so far to defend Obama.

3.However, some other people say it is costing Obama nothing. Let's see who is right.

4. What is sad and disgusting is this: We all know if Obama called Hawaii officials today to allow Hawaii officials to release Obama's long form birth certificate to the public, it would probably cost Obama nothing.

Birth certificate on Internet: I found the judge's statement that Obama's birth certificate is found on the internet an amazing statement coming from a federal judge in a court of law.

As we know, the Obama birth certificate on the internet was displayed on an Obama controlled site and was not displayed directly on the website of a Hawaii agency.

Note: Obama proudly shows his short form birth certificate on his Obama controlled site, but if anyone asks Obama to give Hawaii permission to publicly release the same short form birth certificate so that the public can examine the same short form birth certificate in one's hands, Obama won't do it.

And if one argues to the Hawaii government that it should release Obama's short form birth certificate to the public because Obama has already released it on his website, the Hawaii government won't do it.

1. So, I found it amazing that the judge would refer to and vouch for a document that one can only see on a site controlled by the Obama camp. Also, it is a document that we can only see and examine on our computer monitor as opposed to seeing and touching the original document while holding it in one's hands.

2. That is, I would think that a federal judge would want to see a birth certificate sent to him directly by the Hawaii government that he can examine in his own hands as opposed to a birth certificate that he can only examine at an Obama controlled website.

3. To my surprise, the following doesn't seem to occur to the judge: If the only place one can see Obama's short form birth certificate is at Obama's own site, then there might be a strong possibility that some person in the Obama camp touched up Obama's short form birth certificate before it was displayed on Obama's site.

4. In other words, the good judge seems to be naive in that he absolutely accepts the idea that the Obama camp is one truly pure and honest camp, where no one would even think about cheating by making illegal changes to Obama's short form birth certificate, when, it is reported---on the same internet---that some Hawaii officials deny that Hawaii sent anyone an Obama short form birth certificate with the stamp date of June 2007 on the back in June 2007.

5. And doesn't the good judge wonder why a Senator Obama would order a birth certificate from Hawaii in June 2007? Did the judge wonder if Senator Obama lost his original birth certificate and that is why Obama ordered a new one?

6. Maybe it is me, but I find it bizarre that a federal judge would stoop so low as to download Obama's short form birth certificate from Obama's own site and be legally satisfied with what he downloaded.

Note: I wonder if the good judge would accept Obama's birth certificate as quickly if it was published in the National Enquirer instead of being displayed on the internet?

That is, would the good judge say something like this: "Well, Obama's short form birth certificate was published in the National Enquirer for everybody to see and examine. That is good enough for me."

7. For instance, wouldn't it be legally better and more objective if the good federal judge ordered his own copy from Hawaii of Obama's short and long form birth certificates so that he could be sure that no one outside of the Hawaii government, especially no one in the Obama camp, touched the short and and long form birth certificates before the judge could examine them personally while he held them in his own hands?

8. One good thing I see coming out of all these Obama eligibility court cases that are being dismissed one after another: The community organizer and state senator won't get a free pass during the upcoming 2012 presidential primaries, because Obama will be challenged in every state before he is allowed to put his name on the primary ballots.

9. That is, when Obama signs a state form where he declares that he is a natural born citizen, he better show up with his long form birth certificate, because anti-Obama voters---voters inspired by the failed eligibility court cases--will demand that Obama provide proof that he is a natural born citizen as he stated on his application form.