There’s really nothing new under the birther sun. I can’t think of any new ideas or new evidence come to light since the original set of fake evidence and misrepresentations that made up Berg v. Obama back in 2008. The birther lawsuits are simply attempting to re-try Berg v. Obama on the conspiracy, and Donofrio v. Wells on the legal theory, just with different cover pages.
“you can’t save the Constitution by destroying it.”
I’ve also been a reading some American history lately and it’s interesting to see that some of the arguments we have today are pretty much reflected in the disputes surrounding our country’s foundation. I see a mentality in some like Orly Taitz, that is not unlike the excesses of the French Revolution, only she has no physical mob to back her up. Pamphleteers like Thomas Payne believed that no generation had the right to dictate to future generations. The Obama citizenship denialists, on the 0ther hand, literally worship the thoughts of the founders and their bible, the Constitution, while at the same time embracing the notion of the unfettered citizen mob rule (citizen grand juries, and Orly’s citizen courts and militias) to enforce it in an unholy fusion of Nationalist theory and anarchist practice. The birther movement is opportunistic, taking bits and pieces of legal jargon, political theory, libertarianism and revolutionary thought and assembling them into a Frankenstein-like theory of government. As Leo Donofrio said: “you can’t save the Constitution by destroying it.”