The interesting part is that prior to Factcheck.org posting the disclaimer, no one had mentioned Kenyan birth, only the HI COLB forgeries.
Polarik's blog pretty much gives the rundown on the COLB in detail, and explains why the one image posted online is bogus. (they are all from the same scanner/source, apparently).
What the Kenyan disclaimer boils down to is the equivalent of mom calling the 5 year old in for cookies and milk, only to be told that 'he didn't break the glass in the bathroom', even though mom didn't know about that yet. It was an attempt at preemptive absolution posted with no issue to defend, and thus flagged that issue. Is it a planted red herring? I do not know, but it gives another avenue to investigate.
--But it may also be the mistake which indicated another dimension to the issue.
All that is really (most) relevant here is that he must be a natural born US citizen to Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS, the documentation should be provided (by court order, if need be) to prove that status or lack thereof.
If he lacks being a Natural Born Citizen, he is Constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS--all quibbling aside about exactly what that takes to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Donofrio's case, also questioning McCain's status, does two things by so doing.
First, it makes both candidates subject to the same level of Constitutional scrutiny as to eligibility, and second, removes the question of sheer partisan politics or racism, making the whole substantiative issue one of Constitutional eligibility.
Other cases will address the issue as well, if the SCOTUS will hear them.
If he is qualified, he will be sworn in, POTUS, and we go from there.
If not, that will raise another interesting and no doubt controversial set of issues as to who becomes POTUS, whether the election is valid, etc.
There may be violent acts perpetrated by persons unhappy with the outcome, either way. There may be economic problems associated with this as well.
My take on this is that:
1) It would have been much cheaper to release the information than to fight the release, ergo, there must be something disqualifying in the information. Merely embarassing would be just that, merely embarasssing. Obama has the popular vote and committed electors should he qualify, and, embarassment aside, would be POTUS. He should be able to handle that.
The entire presumptive push to call him "President-elect" well before the Electoral College has met, as well as the myriad trinkets and "commemorative' items being produced, not to mention the entirely fanciful "Office of the President-Elect" (which has no basis in law, Constitutional or otherwise), are all designed to increase the popular outcry from those ignorant of the Constitution and electoral process should Obama be disqualified. As such, that might foment unrest.
1) It would have been much cheaper to release the information than to fight the release, ergo, there must be something disqualifying in the information. Merely embarassing would be just that, merely embarasssing. Obama has the popular vote and committed electors should he qualify, and, embarassment aside, would be POTUS. He should be able to handle that.
I've made the exact same observation in other threads. An Obama lawyer fighting one of the bc cases in NC remarked that, "if Obama is compelled to release his birth certificate, it would create an embarrassment for him". Well, what could be so embarrassing that you have to spend a million dollars to hide it? Or, could it be that there's something much more damaging on there?
I think that most people who've become aware of this glaring outpoint understand what's going on. Obama isn't fooling anyone who's apprised of the facts.
To your point #2:
I hadn't considered that Obama et al would use the whole President-Elect thing to stake a pre-emptive claim on the WH. That theory makes sense, as there's no precedent for such a circus, and in fact, it's cheesy and artificial.
Your post reads more like an article, and it deserves further comment. From your post:
[[[ "All that is really (most) relevant here is that he must be a natural born US citizen to Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS, the documentation should be provided (by court order, if need be) to prove that status or lack thereof.
If he lacks being a Natural Born Citizen, he is Constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS--all quibbling aside about exactly what that takes to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Donofrio's case, also questioning McCain's status, does two things by so doing.
First, it makes both candidates subject to the same level of Constitutional scrutiny as to eligibility, and second, removes the question of sheer partisan politics or racism, making the whole substantiative issue one of Constitutional eligibility." ]]]
Donofrio's case is by far the safest path for the SC to uncover the truth, because it removes the pall (however undeserved) of political partisanship or favoritism. The Natural Born Citizen bona fides of at least three candidates on the 2008 ballot are in question in Donofrio's suit.
We all remember how the SC was roundly criticized by the left for "selecting" George Bush in the 2000 election, though they did no such thing. Donofrio shrewdly, and rightly, questioned the constitutional qualifications of the Democrat, the Republican, and the foreign Commie. The air cover that provides should at least alleviate any reluctance on the SC's part to re-visit another election debacle.
There is still a lingering question in some people's minds about whether the Justices will want to touch this hot potato, even with political air cover. I'm not a legal scholar of any sort, but from what I've read about the legal construction of this case, and the clear existence of a constitutional question of great importance, I think they'll take it.
December 5th can't get here fast enough for me.