I would love to see the Occupier-in-Chief be declared ineligible. So, why, after all this discussion, has it not happened? You can blame the bias in the media and fear of ridicule, but those aren't enough to explain it.
The fact that none of the court cases have gotten off the ground indicates to me that something is wrong with the argument.
Whenever I try to follow the argument I get lost in a pile of esoteric legalism and questionable interpretations of the Constitution, laws, and public policy. If the so-called "Birthers" cannot provide a simple, clear argument, it is no wonder popular talk show hosts won't touch it.
Very nice - just because the court cases have not got off the ground means there are no good convincing argument!
Obviously you have not followed the cases since 2007!
Donofrio, Appuzo etc. have argued the cases brilliantly.
But they are no match to the judges who hold the power to dismiss them on account of made-up excuses because every one of them is afraid to rule on the merit and determine obama ineligible.
Case in point - in Feb., GA judge Malihi judged in favor of obozo who didn’t even show up for the hearing and did not submit evidence for his argument -
who has ever heard of a judge ruling the defendent born in USA without any documentary proofs from the defendent, and based on his baseless assumption that obozo was born in Hawaii he determines that obozo is a natural born citizen elig to be in the ballot! Whereas he ignores the plaintiff’s argument and proof that obozo was born to a foreign father, therefore has dual citizenship/loyalty, not a nbc and not qualified to be on the ballot!
It might be true that as long as obozo is in power no one will rule that he is ineligible...
We just might have to vote the usurper out, but he can steal another election!
We have to fight him from all directions!
Every attempt to get a court case to be heard prior to Georgia was rejected under the claim that no one had "standing" (an injury which could be rectified by the court) to bring a case before a court.
It is like saying "You are too tall to ride this ride." It has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and everything to do with judicial procedure denying the obvious. EVERYBODY ought to have a right to demand that their chief executive is legitimate.
Whenever I try to follow the argument I get lost in a pile of esoteric legalism and questionable interpretations of the Constitution, laws, and public policy. If the so-called "Birthers" cannot provide a simple, clear argument, it is no wonder popular talk show hosts won't touch it.
The "birthers" are divided up into several groups which have some overlap. 1.There are those that think Obama was born in Kenya (All the evidence of which I am aware is against this.)
2.There are those that think his Indonesian citizenship destroyed his claim to American Citizenship. (Not true.)
3.There are those that think his travel to Pakistan in 1981 occurred using an Indonesian passport, and that if this is true, it caused him to lose his citizenship. (No proof of either theory.)
4. There are those who believe that a correct historical interpretation of the term "natural born citizen" means a person can have no ties of allegiance to any nation but the United States. (I am in that group.)
5. There are those who believe that he has yet to submit an ORIGINAL Hawaiian birth certificate, so his actual *PLACE* of birth is as yet undetermined. (I am also in this group.)
6. There are those who believe his mother was a CIA spy, and Obama is part of some master plan for world domination by the Tri-Lateral Commission, the CFR, the Bildibergers, and the other Usual "New World Order" suspects.
7. There are some people that believe all of the above.
So to address your point, what you are hearing depends upon to whom you are talking. As I have indicated, I believe that the historically accurate position of our Nation is that a child must be born of two American Citizens within the boundaries of the nation to be a "natural born citizen" as intended by the usage of the term in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. I also believe we have yet to see the truth out of Hawaii as to what Barry's original Hawaiian birth certificate looks like.
I believe what he has put forth last year is a copy of a Replacement birth certificate which was designed to appear as though it were original, but was created by the Department of Health in Hawaii under the direction of a Court Order to produce a replacement birth certificate for an Adopted Child who has had his adoption annulled.
In 1971, Barry's mom abandoned him, leaving him in Hawaii when she went to live with her husband in Indonesia. He lived with his Grandparents ever since he was ten years old, and it is unreasonable to think they did not acquire guardianship over him. Most likely they adopted him, and a new replacement birth certificate was created for him in 1971.
I think Barry only recently got the courts to order the issue of a new birth certificate which said what he wanted it to say.
I will mention at this time that *I* am adopted, and *I* have a replacement birth certificate which was created for me 6 years after I was born, so I know very well that this sort of thing is typical in the case of an adoption.