On Friday, February 3, 2012, Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi entered a verdict for Obama in what seemed to be a promising case to have Obama declared ineligible to be president. This makes the tally 99 cases filed against Obama’s eligibility. Of the 99, 8 are still pending. The remaining 91 have been dismissed or decided in favor of Obama’s eligibility.
But the Georgia case was different. Under Georgia law, a voter could ask the Secretary of State to verify the eligibility of a person appearing on a ballot. The State looked at the evidence and declared Obama to be eligible. But under the same law, the voter could appeal the decision of the Secretary of State and ask for a hearing in front of an administrative judge. The plaintiffs did just that and the case was assigned to Judge Malihi.
For the hearing, Obama’s attorney Michael Jablonski was issued a subpoena for Obama himself to appear in court. Jablonski attempted to have the subpoena quashed but Judge Malihi ruled against him saying in part:
In support of his motion, Defendant argues that “if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States” to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant’s motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is “unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony… [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.” Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).
There actually is a great deal of precedence for quashing a subpoena for the appearance of a sitting American president. The law has often recognized that sitting presidents have more important things to do than to respond in person to every lawsuit filed against them. (Even Thomas Jefferson refused to answer a subpoena.) While Jablonski was technically right, in what appears to be a case of bad lawyering, he forgot to cite any relevant law or precedent.
When Malihi made this ruling, he was hailed by many who support the birther movement to be one who “upheld the law.” He was praised as a hero for holding Obama to the same standard as other citizens.
A showdown was set for January 26th in Malihi’s courtroom to enter more evidence into the case whether Obama is eligible.
The day before the hearing Jablonski fired off a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp saying the hearing should not take place. Jablonski lists several issues including the fact that a previous Georgia Court had ruled on the eligibility issue and the history of the plaintiff’s attorneys abuse of the legal system – an abuse that has brought them sanctions from various courts.
The gist of the letter was basically “we are tired of this and won’t be playing in this game anymore.”
Kemp responded by saying he believed the law required him to allow the proceedings to go forward. He closed with the sentiment:
Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.
Again the birthers rejoiced at Kemp’s standing up to Obama’s attorney. They gave no thought to whether Jablonski was right, only that Kemp was, in their mind, following the letter of the law.
When the hearing convened on January 26th, neither Obama nor his counsel Jablonski was in the courtroom. Malihi took the plaintiff’s counsel to his chambers and discussed where to go from that point.
According to the lawyers present, Malihi said that without Obama or his lawyer making a defense, he would rule for the plaintiffs. Such a default judgement is common in a court case when one side does not show up.
The plaintiffs should have accepted the judge’s offer.
Instead, they got greedy.
The plaintiffs decided they did not want a default judgment and instead wanted to present their evidence and have the court rule upon it as a matter of law. They wanted the judge to set a precedent upon which to build other cases. They wanted to be able to point to this case and say “see? Obama is not eligible to be President and the State of Georgia says so.”
Before we discuss the hearing, there are a couple of things that need to be noted. First, it is important to remember that this was not a hearing on the Obama eligibility; it was an appeal of a decision previously made on Obama’s eligibility. That simple fact is important because while Obama and his lawyer did not present any evidence into the record, previous evidence from the original decision could be used in the decision.
The other thing to remember is the term “probative value” of evidence. The definition is “Having the effect of proof, tending to prove, or actually proving.” This becomes important when one looks at the evidence and testimony of the plaintiffs’ witnesses.
And now on to the events in Judge Malihi’s court that fateful January 26th…..
At the hearing, the plaintiffs presented eight witnesses and introduced seven pieces of evidence into the record. One of the people who testified was Orly Taitz who the judge interrupted and asked that she submit her testimony in writing. When a plaintiff’s lawyer bores the judge with her testimony, that is never a good sign. It shows two things: First it shows you aren’t making any legal headway with the judge. Secondly, it shows you are not in tune with the judge. You aren’t reading him correctly.
Lead counsel Van Irion read a portion of the letter from Kemp to Jablonski, pertaining to the denial of Obama’s attendance, into the court record. He then called David Weldon, a registered voter of Georgia who testified as to the validity of a birth certificate for Barack Obama Sr. he received through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). He read from section 11 of the document that stated Barack Obama Sr. was born in Kenya, East Africa. He also quoted 2 passages from Obama’s book “Dreams From My Father” that stated Obama Sr. was not allowed to leave Kenya in the 1966-’67 time frame due to passport issues.
The relevance of this only comes into play if one can prove that “natural born citizen” as stated in the Constitution, Article 2 Section I means “having two parents that are citizens of the United States.”
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
As we shall see, Malihi cites legal precedence to come to the conclusion that such “two citizen parent” is not a requirement. When he does, the testimony and statement of Van Irion on Obama’s father’s citizenship did not matter.
Counsel presented the Constitutional issue of eligibility from Article II Section 2, Paragraph 5 and went through the Minor vs. Happersett Supreme Court decision outlining the wording in question in this matter.
We’ve discussed Minor v. Happersett before here on Raised on Hoecakes. The case surrounds whether Virginia Minor was a citizen of the United States and was therefore eligible to vote. At its core, this was a women’s suffrage case, but the citizenship of Minor was an issue.
The Supreme Court wrote in the Minor decision:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Birthers love to cite this passage as they believe the issue of being a natural born citizen is, upon the words of the Supreme Court at that moment, decided.
However, the Supreme Court goes on to say:
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Being that Obama is the child of a citizen mother and a non-citizen father, he is a product of the very class the Supreme Court leaves open. It was not necessary for them to decide the issue of whether a child born on US soil is a “natural born citizen” (as in the case with Obama) because Virginia Minor was the daughter of two citizen parents.
When the plaintiffs in Georgia walked in and discussed Miner v. Happersett, they simply wished the judge to take note of the “two citizens” child being a citizen, and not looking any further.
Malihi, as we shell see, did not do that and in fact, looked at the passage in context.
Plaintiff Carl Swensson was then called and identified a copy of President Obama’s schedule received from the White House that showed no official business scheduled for the time of this hearing that would prevent him from attending. He then testified as to documents relating to his challenge filing and documents received from Secretary of State Kemp acknowledging receipt and acceptance of said documents.
As the judge had already ruled on the issue of the subpoena, there was no need for this witness as it had nothing to do with the eligibility issue. Swensson offered nothing of probative value to the judge.
Plaintiff Kevin Powell then testified as to the validity of documents he received as part of his challenge. He introduced the divorce papers of Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann. He also introduced certified copies of the certificate of nomination from the Democrat and Republican National Committees showing discrepancies in the working. The Republican form stated their candidate met all “Constitutional qualifications” while the Democrat form stated Obama was “duly nominated” as their presidential candidate.
Whether the parents of Obama were divorced at a later time and the wording of the certificate of nomination have nothing to do with the issue of whether Obama is eligible as a “natural born citizen.” Once again a witness offered nothing of probative value.
Devin Allen was then called and testified that according to FOIA documents Barack Obama Sr. was never a citizen of the United States of America.
Allen’s testimony was similar to that of Van Irion. Whether or not Obama’s father was an American citizen is not in dispute. The dispute is in how, if at all, that fact affects Obama’s eligibility. If Mahili accepts the legal reasoning of the plaintiffs’ and agrees both parents must be US citizens, Obama’s father’s citizenship is germane. If the court rejects the plaintiffs’ argument, the citizenship of the father does not matter in the final decision.
Attorney Orly Taitz questioned private investigator Susan Daniels who testified as to her findings in the investigation of Barack Obama’s Social Security Number. Ms. Daniels stated that Obama’s SSN is fraudulent, having been issued to other people who had died prior to the issuance to Obama.
This is the same information that Federal Judge Royce Lamberth threw out because it was obtained fraudulently. In August 31, 2011, Lamberth wrote in dismissing another Orly Taitz “birther” case:
Plaintiff submits the Selective Service registration acknowledgment form associated with security number xxx-xx-4425, Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 1 , which apparently is “readily available on the world wide web.” Pl.’s Am. Compl. 3 . She argues that this form establishes that the President is fraudulently using social security number xxx-xx-4425, Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. 13 , and that the Selective Service and the SSA are “engaged in a cover up” of his fraud. Pl.’s Am. Compl. 3 . The Selective Service does not release registration acknowledgment forms to the public; only a registrant himself can request proof of his registration. See Registration Information, http://www.sss.gov/ack.htm. The Court can only conclude that plaintiff has submitted a form that some individual obtained through a false request and subsequently posted online. Plaintiff also submits a “verification results” page from the Social Security Number Verification System (“SSNVS”) indicating that social security number xxx-xx-4425 is “not in file (never issued).” Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 2 . She argues that this page is further evidence that the SSA is covering up the President’s use of social security number xxx-xx-4425. The SSA uses the SSNVS to provide employers with a means of verifying the names and social security numbers of employees. See SSNVS Handbook, http://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnvshandbk/ssnvsHandbook.pdf. “Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain information from SSA under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be punished by a fine, imprisonment or both.”
As with the registration acknowledgement form discussed above, the Court can only conclude that plaintiff has submitted a page that some individual obtained under false pretenses—that is, by representing himself as the President’s employer. The Court notes that both documents submitted by plaintiff are incomplete; the address on the registration acknowledgment form and the employer identification number on the SSNVS page have been blacked out, further confirming the documents’ fraudulent origins. For all of these reasons, the Court will disregard both documents as well as any arguments made in reliance on them.
Case 1:11-cv-00402-RCL Document 33 Filed 08/30/11 Page 8 of 8
Here in Georgia, the plaintiffs try to get the same, illegal and fraudulent “information” entered into the record. We can’t decide whether it is stupidity or a basic disregard for the law that they tried to get this entered. It does not matter as for the purposes of this case other than it shows the quality or lack thereof of the plaintiff’s lawyers and plan. Obama’s social security number has no bearing on whether he is a “natural born citizen.” Once again, the evidence presented to the judge as no probative value to the issue at hand.
Taitz then called forensic document experts, Including Doug Vogt, to testify as to the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. Vogt went through various discrepancies in the lettering and spacing of the birth certificate issued by Obama and went into detail about how such a document could be altered using various software applications.
Taitz makes two huge errors here. First, she has Voight testify without ever establishing he is an expert. Without establishing his expertise or lack or expertise, Malihi cannot give his testimony much weight. She can call him an “expert” all she wants, but she has to prove that expertise to the judge. She did not. Just as Jablonski did not cite any precedent for Obama not answering the subpoena was technically a violation of the rules, Taitz commits a similar violation here. The difference, as we will see, is that Mahili was praised by birthers for obeying he law with regard to Jablonski, and is castigated for obeying it in regards to Taitz’s arguments.
Secondly, the judge has to weigh the testimony of Voigt, who has not seen the actual birth certificate, to the notarized statements given under oath by Hawaiian officials who have seen the birth certificate and say it it genuine. Malihi must decide whether to believe someone who has seen the certificate or someone who has not seen the certificate.
That type of a call isn’t even close. By law, the judge must favor for the people who have seen and certified the original birth certificate over those who have not. Once again, Mahili decides this issue on the basis for the law as the plaintiffs asked.
Taitz also called John Sampson, a retired INS inspector and expert on immigration document fraud. He testified that at the time the Connecticut social security number was allegedly issued Obama was living in Hawaii with his maternal grandparents. Sampson also testified that as an INS agent he would obtain original documents from the Social Security Agency, the State Department passport division and a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii.
Once again, the social security number has nothing to do Obama being a “natural born citizen” or not. This testimony is simply a ruse to get a conspiracy onto the judicial record, but the charge of a conspiracy does not address the central issue of whether Obama is a natural born citizen or not.
With that, the hearing ended and it was time to wait for Juge Mahili to issue his decision, which he did on February 3, 2012. In that decision, the court agreed with the statement of counsel Van Irion and witness Allen that Barack Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States and his father was not. These facts were not in dispute.
Thus, with the Court agreeing to the only relevant facts, Mahili turned his attention to the plaintiffs’ witnesses and evidence. To say he was not impressed is putting it mildly:
The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.
The case will now rise or foll on the legal interpretation of Minor v. Happerstatt. It is upon this and this alone the whole case would turn.
In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this Court. Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In Arkeny, the plaintiffs sought to prevent certification of Mr. Obama as an eligible candidate for president because he is not a natural born citizen. Id. at 681. The plaintiffs argued, as the Plaintiffs argue before this Court, that “there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born Citizen,’ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Id. at 685. The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama wasineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Id. at 688.
This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny persuasive.
The Indiana Court began its analysis by attempting to ascertain the definition of “natural born citizen” because the Constitution does not define the term. Id. at 685-86; See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875) (“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that”); see also United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (noting that the only mention of the term “natural born citizen” in the Constitution is in Article II, and the term is not defined in the Constitution).The Indiana Court first explained that the U.S. Supreme Court has read the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II (natural born citizen provision) in tandem and held that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Id. at 685 (citing Minor, 88 U.S. at 167); See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .”). In Minor, the Court observed that:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Plaintiffs ask this Court to read the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor as defining natural born citizens as only “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” 88 U.S. at 167. However, the Indiana Court explains that Minor did not define the term natural born citizen. In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the Minor Court merely concluded that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens would qualify as natural born, and this Court agrees. The Minor Court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen.
Next, the Indiana Court looked to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the Supreme Court analyzed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment and “natural born citizen of the United States” in Article II to determine whether a child born in the United States to parents who, at the time of the child’s birth, were subjects of China “becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . .” Id. at 686 (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653). The Indiana Court determined that the two provisions “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Id. (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 654). The Indiana Court agreed that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Id. (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655) (internal citation omitted). The Wong Kim Ark Court extensively examined the common law of England in its decision and concluded that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to alien parents, 8became a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth. 5 Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705.
Relying on the language of the Constitution and the historical reviews and analyses of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Indiana Court concluded that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States  natural-born citizens.” 916 N.E.2d at 688. The Indiana Court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth. 6
With the legal analysis of the plaintiffs found to be non-persuasive and a precedent in hand, Mahili then concludes:
President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).
It is somewhat important to note what happened in this case. It is more than just the case being dismissed. What has to be looked at is how this case was lost. First, Taitz and the rest of the plaintiffs’ lawyers screwed up by not offering evidence that the so called “experts” were experts. They expected the court to take their word for it. Under the law, the court does not have to do so. In the end, it may not have mattered because the testimony of the “experts” offered nothing in the way of addressing the issue of whether Obama is a “natural born citizen.”
As we have said, their testimony may have shown some sort of conspiracy, but the court was not asked to rule on a conspiracy.
Secondly, the plaintiffs had a decision favorable to them in their hands. The term “slam dunk” has been used to describe this case. Because Obama and his lawyer did not show up for the hearing, the judge could have entered a default judgment for the plaintiffs and that would have been that. That would have been the smart play.
No one has ever accused Orly Taitz of doing anything smart when it comes to the legal realm and this is no exception.
Through their stupidity and hubris, the plaintiffs in this case took a sure winner and turned it into a loser.
Instead of licking their wounds and issuing a “mea culpa,” the plaintiffs have turned on their one time hero Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi.
Taitz has begun to put Mahili’s personnel information on her website. She has begun to ask for people to do research on Malihi. She believe he ruled the way he did because he may be an “Iranian Muslim.” (NOTE: We were going to link to the posts where Taitz attacks Mahili and posts his personnel information, but we won’t be a part of that. We will simply take note of her heinous actions and keep going.)
Taitz’s “hero” is now the target of a childish tantrum that is beneath most people. Unable to recognize the judge ruled on the evidence and the law in front of him, Taitz and others have now started a witch hunt against the man a few weeks ago was praised for his dedication to following the law.
This would not be the first time “heroes” and “experts” have been turned upon by birthers based on the whether the birthers agree or disagree with the person.
When Taitz appeared in front of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio several months ago, she called him a “hero” for his stance in looking into the Obama eligibility issue. Taitz had asked Arpaio to come to Georgia and testify before Mahili. What Arpaio was to testify to is left unsaid by Taitz. All she says is that he would not voluntarily come to Georgia to testify as it would take away from his duties. In her blog, Taitz writes she could have subpoenaed Arpaio but did him a favor by not subpoenaing him. To reiterate, Taitz does not say what Arpaio could have testified to. There is a reason for that. He could not have testified to anything. Even if the report from his “cold case posse” was complete, as he did not do the actual investigating, anything he would testify to would be hearsay at best. Taitz would have had to subpoena the actual investigators. When Arpaio turned Taitz down on appearing, Taitz turned on him, saying:
Arpaio felt that testifying in GA was too much of a “burden”. Refused to appear.
There was a lot of talk about sheriff Arpaio. WND was promoting him and his investigation and seeking donations for him and his posse.
Arpaio’s unwillingness to testify tells me that:
a. he does not have any new evidence aside from what I provided him
b. I question how serious he is about removing Obama from office. If he really was serious about it, he would have appeared and testified and he would have taken a full advantage of this rare opportunity to be in front of a judge immediately and present his story.
We have discussed Arpaio’s involvement in the Obama eligibility case before. As the “investigation” is being done by a group of volunteers outside of the sheriff’s office, we were then and remain now somewhat leery of an investigation that has no legal investigative powers or authority. Either way, the first rule of an investigation is to go where the evidence takes you. Notice how Taitz is upset that Arpaio may not be committed to “removing Obama from office.” If Arpaio were to be committed to that goal, he would have made the investigation a farce. Instead of having the evidence take the investigation to its natural and supported conclusion, Taitz wanted Arpaio’s investigation to simply support the conclusion she has already made. In essence, Taitz wants Arpaio to be dishonest.
Such are the morals and legal ethics of the matron of the self proclaimed “World’s Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site.”
But Taitz is not the only one within the birther movement who views people based on whether they agree with them or not.
In June of 2011, WorldNewsDaily ran a story that quoted Jean Claude Tremblay denying he told FoxNews the copy of the Obama birth certificate the White House released was legitimate. The first paragraph of the post says:
NEW YORK – The computer graphics expert Fox News relied upon to claim the birth certificate the White House released April 27 was legitimate insists that the network must retract the story, claiming it deliberately misquoted him and continues to ignore his repeated requests. (emphasis ours)
Prior to that, WorldNewsDaily had attacked Trembley upon the mistaken belief Trembley had said the copy of the birth certificate proved the authenticity of the original birth certificate:
(Vogt) provides a rebuttal to Jean-Claude Tremblay, a Canadian graphic artist who argued on the Fox News Channel on April 29 that the layers were a natural result of the Hawaii DOH scanning the original document while leaving OCR (Optical Character Recognition) software operative within the scanner.
Tremblay told Fox News that scanner OCR software tries to translate characters or words in a photograph into text, producing multiple layers in the resulting PDF file.
Tremblay further maintained that in the scanning process, layers were created when the OCR software was unable to separate text fully from background, resulting in the creation of a separate layer within the document.
Vogt charges that Tremblay “knows nothing about OCR engines and how they work and their file structure.”
Trembley went from “knowing nothing” to an “expert” based upon his conclusions, not his knowledge.
Even we here at Raised on Hoecakes were attacked because we found massive flaws in the so called “graphic proof” from WorldNewsDaily “expert” Paul Irey. For simply disagreeing with him he wrote of us:
Obama is toast … and the “Birthers” were right all along. It is you who is wrong. Got more? Bring it on. I prefer presidents who don’t lie and spend our tax dollars trying to hide their birth certificate that he couldn’t show us until it was forged recently. I like presidents who show us the birth certificate from both the dept. of health and the hospital damn fast or get the hell out of the White House. Apparently all that is OK with you as long as you agree with his politics. A Republican would never have gotten your so called technical support when Bush was lied about with a letter typed on a recent typewriter instead of one from the era. Rather was busted … and your gang is now busted also.
There are almost 600 posts on Raised on Hoecakes and of those posts, only one agrees with the policies of Obama. In a post entitled “Even a Blind Squirrel Finds a Nut Sometimes,” we agreed with the Obama administration’s decision to not implement the “Real ID” system for Americans. That has been the extent of our support and agreement with Obama. Yet Irey believed we were a supporter because we dared to disagree with him. We dared to disagree with his conclusions. In response to his bravado of “bring it on,” we not only brought it, we exposed the flaws in his analysis and exposed his credentials in the area of “graphics” to be less than that of an “expert.”
Irey did not return.
Once Irey left we have been called names by others who will not debate the issue, only to continue to call us names.
Such is the quality of people within the hardcore “birther” movement.
The birther movement at one time might have been a noble search for the truth through legal, moral and ethical means.
Now it is simply comprised of those who are so ideologically wedded to an idea they will not brook any resistance or dissent. They will seek to destroy and defame those who stand in their way.
They no longer care about the truth. They no longer care about the law.
Their actions are no different than the actions of those on the left they condemn.
They have literally become that which they say they hate.