And serious news consumers dismiss WND and Farah because their reporting is less than trustworthy. This article is a prime example of why, because the evidence underlying it is totally bogus.
Kovacs writes in this article "A simple search of the high court's own website reveals Kagan's name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues." In one of the captions in the article, he writes "Searching the dockets at the U.S. Supreme Court's website reveals Elena Kagan's name coming up numerous times on cases challenging President Obama's constitutional eligibility for office." And of course the article's title is "Elena Kagan tied to Obama's birth certificate."
Kovacs' ONLY source for ANY of these claims is this link. So let's look at what's at that link.
First of all, there aren't nine distinct cases there. There are only six different plaintiffs, with two of the plaintiffs having more than one case listing.
Louis Lutz is a fruitcake who sued Bush for $100 billion, and then appealed his way up to the Supreme Court.
Jerome Julius Brown and Gary William Holt are prisoners, and their cases appear to be civil rights claims.
The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., Petitioner v. Federal Election Commission was an FEC case about anti-Obama ads about abortion.
And Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi and Jamal Kiyemba were Guantanamo detainees who filed suit over their detention.
In other words, out of those "nine times" that Kovacs says Kagan was involved in eligibility cases, it appears that precisely ZERO of the cases he identifies actually involved Obama eligibility issues.
Nope, nothing about Obama's eligibility in a single one of them. The article isn't even based on an exaggerated number; it's based on a completely false premise. Notice how Kovacs doesn't bother to quote anything from any of the cases that shows they're eligibility-related; he just says they are, and hopes that no one will check to see if he's telling the truth or not.
At the time I posted the statement you quote in part, I did not have a clear understanding what the Solicitor General’s duties were. When I read about the duties it makes more sense that Kagan would be connected with “any” litigation concerning the White House, President or some others in his administration.
I plead guilty to having a very unfavorable opinion of Kagan based on what I have read about her biases. And her shallow courtroom experience prior to the Solicitor General title.
I have also read that you are writing a book about the “Birthers”. I am not a “Birther”, because the birth place is not really the issue. The issue is a total vacuum for the early years of BHO. I am convinced that he is Constitutionally ineligible to hold the office he was elected to, for several reasons. And I am also convinced that there are members of all 3 branches of government who know this and have known this since before the elections, along with most of the News Media. He is an Anti-American Fraud that was put in place by a willing media, Traitorous Dem Politicians, some Traitorous Rino Republican Politicians and foreign financial/political interests.
It is obvious from your response to my short post that you hold WND in contempt, and attitude I do not share.
You seem very aware of the individuals who have brought lawsuits against Obama, not just those who have brought suits concerning his citizenship.
Obozo’s description of his past does not pass the smell test for me. He is not nor will ever be what he has said he is. The friends he has chosen define something “radically” different. His actions also define things “radically” different.
Should instinct be the indicator? Not sure. You can make up your own mind on that.
TF