Replies

Thanks Brytani! You asked the same question I have! I also wonder why Obama is paying so many attorneys to keep his records sealed when just showing his actual long form birth certificate would end all the court cases.

Even Sarah was asked about the BC issue as to weather she thought the questions were fair game. She replied that since media people had asked for proof that Trig was her baby by showing his birth certificate, that certainly Americans should be able to ask Obama to show his!

Thought that was a great point! So WHY won’t Obama just end all the cases and answer the very simple question concerning his place of birth? What is he hiding???

It is an internet rumor that Obama is paying “millions” to attorneys. Since inauguration day, the US Justice Department provides Obama with Justice Department attorneys and before he was inaugurated, he only presented a defense in two cases, the original Berg v Obama in which his attorneys submitted a brief asking for a dismissal by the US District Court in Pennsylvania. The dismissal motion was granted and the US Supreme Court subsequently refused to hear the case. The other case was Keyes v Bowen in California that Orly Taitz is still contesting.
The American taxpayer provides Obama with his attorneys.
A majority of the 88 lawsuits that have been filed challenging Obama’s eligibility don’t even name Obama as a defendant.
For example, the recent case in Indiana which attempted to force Obama (and McCain) to prove that he (they) is (are) a native born citizen(s) was Ankeney v Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana. That suit forced the Republican Governor of Indiana (Mitch Daniels) to defend Obama because the suit challenged the state of Indiana’s method of verifying eligibilty before the votes of Indiana’s Electoral College appointees. The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed that suit.

It is my understanding that cases where Obama is specifically listed in the complaint, he has used private law firms paid from his PAC and/or campaign funds; once he was sworn into office the Justice Department took over his defense. Justice also took on the defense of Cheney, Pelosi and others who currently or previously held elected/government positions and have been named in various complaints.

I’m of the opinion that there is a huge conflict of interest allowing Justice to defend Obama. Especially on cases filed prior to his inauguration when he was for all intents and purposes a private citizen.

After he took office our tax dollars should not be used to defend a person who in all likelihood should never have been allowed to run for President let alone be sworn in. Our own tax dollars are being used to assure a usurper is able to stay in office.

Whether Obama is paying his legal bills or our tax dollars are paying is irrelevant. The real question is why someone who holds one of the most powerful positions in the world would spend one single cent or fight against showing an authentic document that would satisfy the requirements of the US Constitution and put to rest the question of their legal right to hold office.

Department attorneys and before he was inaugurated, he only presented a defense in two cases, the original Berg v Obama in which his attorneys submitted a brief asking for a dismissal by the US District Court in Pennsylvania. The dismissal motion was granted and the US Supreme Court subsequently refused to hear the case. The other case was Keyes v Bowen in California that Orly Taitz is still contesting.

Sounds expensive to me. Why not just prove the documents and allow the case to go to the Supreme Court. QED ( in my opinion.)