A disruptor on this issue would be someone who constantly makes the same point when their point has been countered many times. Another example is refusing to answer questions about their position, but asking new questions back at the questioner. That's why I called some one a disruptor. Actually IIRC I gave a choice between disruptor and someone who is incapable of seeing what is in front of their eyes. Difficult to know someone's motivation, as your response illustrates.
Then that would be you, my friend. You can't turn loose of your delusional notion that the government is going to pay any attention to your emotional pity party.
The court will never consider Obama's eligibility and you just can't come to grips with that little dose of reality.
None of us here like Obama and we all wish he were not President. But he is, and there is not a single thread of evidence that he is not eligible for the Office. Now, he is certainly trying to hide something, and if his eligibility was something that he was trying to hide, that evidence is long gone. This problem will have to be solved by the voters, not by the courts. Sad to say, but its true.