Main Menu

69-0

The score in the battle of lawsuits between Obama eligibility denialists and the normals is counted in various ways, depending on which lawsuits you include. There are any number of federal prisoners suing Obama in his official capacity for all sorts of things, and these are typically not counted. There is some debate over the exact number of wins, whether it is 69 or some other number, and of course the number changes over time.

What doesn’t change over time (at least so far) and what has remained unaffected by exactly which cases are counted is the big fat goose egg for the denialist side. This brings us to what is being claimed to be the first birther win.

Blogger Sharon Ann Meroni (aka Chalice Jackson) claims a win for her column in the article: ELIGIBILITY VICTORY # 1 – Meroni V Wiggins – Birth Certificate Received!. Meroni has challenged dozens of candidates in the upcoming Illinois election because they haven’t shown birth certificates. In a hearing before the McHenry County Officers’ Electoral Board one candidate, Ms. Sally Wiggings, through her attorney moved to dismiss the challenge accompanied by an affidavit and a birth certificate. I don’t know if this bit of expedient acquiescence to a crank could be called a victory. Obama is still president, so I think the score must remain 0 for the denialists.

78 Responses to 69-0

  1. avatar
    AnotherBird July 18, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    An unrelated case with one person, Sally Wiggings, out of 32 candidates isn’t a victory. Ms. Wiggings was ranked as “most likely a US Citizen” was the only person with her lawyer who that it was a good idea to. Ms. Wiggins should get a better lawyer. However, 1-32 isn’t a great victory, and when compared to the president it is still 0-69. Neither number is something for birthers to brag about.

  2. avatar
    Jules July 18, 2010 at 7:39 pm #

    I agree that a particular candidate agreeing to provide a birth certificate is not a real victory. Ms Meroni has effectively been given information by a candidate, but not an adjudication that the candidate is obligated to provide the information. This “victory” does not provide a precedent that can be used against Obama or anyone else in future disputes.

    In the event that a birther were to move past issues of standing, political questions, and justiciability so as to require that Obama provide a birth record in some legal or administrative proceeding, the submission of the Certification of Live Birth issued to Obama by the Hawaiian government in 2007 would discharge Obama’s duty.

    If Obama does plunk down $510 so as to provide the election board of each state and D.C. with his birth certificate in 2012, then perhaps Ms Meroni can claim to have influenced Obama’s behaviour so as to provide information about birth that no Presidential candidate has ever provided with his candidate filing. However, the verification of the fact of Obama’s birth in Hawaii by 51 election boards would establish nothing in the election proceedings beyond that which has been confirmed to the public by Factcheck and the Hawaii Department of Health.

    In short, Ms Meroni is victorious if her goal is to waste time confirming that which we already know.

  3. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 18, 2010 at 8:34 pm #

    There is a huge difference between the candidates who are the subject of this law suit and a Presidential election.

    Ms. Wiggins is running for a position as a local Judge. Under Illinois law, a candidate for the judiciary must be a United States citizen, reside in Illinois, and be a licensed attorney in the state of Illinois.

    The state also sets forth a procedure for objecting to a candidate’s nomination papers, including a specific time frame (objections must be made within 5 business days after the last day for filing) — a procedure for hearing the objections (hearing before electoral board), and a specific set of procedures to follow for subsequent judicial review.

    See: http://www.elections.state.il.us/downloads/electioninformation/pdf/2010canguide.pdf

    None of these rules and procedures apply to candidates for President and Vice President .

    All that Meroni (aka Jackson) has discovered is that if she follows the rules, as written — she gets a result in accordance with the rules. Apparently she decided to file objections to all the candidates on the ballot on the ground that they had not proven their citizenship — some chose to simply respond before the electoral board (not a court) by producing their birth certificates. Others might fight the challenge in another way. But none of that applies to the Presidential ballot.

    One reason is that states can’t determine the issue of Presidential eligibility — the appearance of a President’s name on the ballot is itself a fiction, as we do not have a direct popular vote for President. In every state, voters are actually voting for a slate of electors pledged to support a specific candidate — and the only challenge that might properly be brought at the state level would be to the individual qualifications of any elector to serve.

  4. avatar
    misha July 19, 2010 at 1:37 am #

    Jules: Obama’s behaviour so as to provide information about birth that no Presidential candidate has ever provided with his candidate filing.

    No white man ever had to show his birth certificate.

  5. avatar
    Lupin July 19, 2010 at 1:55 am #

    Also, Obama has already provided a BC; if Wiggins does the same, end of story. Where is the “victory”?

  6. avatar
    Eugene July 19, 2010 at 4:06 am #

    http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=127510&catid=2

    The head *election official* in Monroe County TN has been found murdered (his burned body found in the trunk of his car) …

    Coincidence or some kind of connection with the recent RAP and birther events there?

  7. avatar
    Jules July 19, 2010 at 4:23 am #

    misha:
    No white man ever had to show his birth certificate.

    Why are you ignoring John McCain’s birth certificate and Bill Clinton’s birth certificate?!

  8. avatar
    brygenon July 19, 2010 at 4:59 am #

    Jules: If Obama does plunk down $510 so as to provide the election board of each state and D.C. with his birth certificate in 2012,

    You overlooked a bit of birther trivia, Jules. Certified copies of Hawaiian vital records cost $10 for the first copy, and $4.00 for each additional copy ordered at the same time. That’s for requests made in writing, so 51 of them should run $210, plus a stamp.

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html

  9. avatar
    misha July 19, 2010 at 5:31 am #

    Jules: Why are you ignoring John McCain’s birth certificate and Bill Clinton’s birth certificate?!

    Good point, because Sarah Palin is white, and a True Christian.™

    I stand corrected because, well, check out Sarah Palin’s birth certificate.

  10. avatar
    Next to the Last Samurai July 19, 2010 at 6:54 am #

    Expelliarmus: There is a huge difference between the candidates who are the subject of this law suit and a Presidential election.Ms. Wiggins is running for a position as a local Judge.Under Illinois law, a candidate for the judiciary must be a United States citizen, reside in Illinois, and be a licensed attorney in the state of Illinois.
    The state also sets forth a procedure for objecting to a candidate’s nomination papers, including a specific time frame (objections must be made within 5 business days after the last day for filing) — a procedure for hearing the objections (hearing before electoral board), and a specific set of procedures to follow for subsequent judicial review.See: http://www.elections.state.il.us/downloads/electioninformation/pdf/2010canguide.pdfNone of these rules and procedures apply to candidates for President and Vice President .All that Meroni (aka Jackson) has discovered is that if she follows the rules, as written — she gets a result in accordance with the rules. Apparently she decided to file objections to all the candidates on the ballot on the ground that they had not proven their citizenship — some chose to simply respond before the electoral board (not a court) by producing their birth certificates.Others might fight the challenge in another way. But none of that applies to the Presidential ballot.One reason is that states can’t determine the issue of Presidential eligibility — the appearance of a President’s name on the ballot is itself a fiction, as we do not have a direct popular vote for President.In every state, voters are actually voting for a slate of electors pledged to support a specific candidate — and the only challenge that might properly be brought at the state level would be to the individual qualifications of any elector to serve.

    http://mlr.stereodevelopment.com/assets/pdfs/FirstImpressions/107-FI/tokaji.pdf

    State-court litigation might proceed as a lawsuit seeking to keep a presidential
    candidate off the primary or general election ballot, on the ground
    that he or she does not satisfy the requisite qualifications. There exists some
    recent precedent for this type of case. In 2004, supporters of presidential
    candidate John Kerry brought a number of state-court actions seeking to
    deny Ralph Nader access to state ballots. In In re Nomination Papers of
    Nader
    , for example, registered voters in Pennsylvania filed suit in state
    court, seeking to have the names of independent candidate Nader and his
    running mate Peter Camejo excluded from the ballot. As in several other
    states, the objectors challenged the petition signatures submitted by the
    Nader-Camejo campaign. In addition, the Pennsylvania objectors argued
    that Nader and Camejo were not qualified to appear on the general election
    ballot by virtue of the state’s “sore loser” law, which prohibited candidates
    from running in a general election after running in state primaries. Although
    the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that its statute did not in fact justify
    the exclusion of Nader and Camejo from the ballot, there was no doubt as to
    the state court’s ability to entertain a challenge to a presidential candidate’s
    qualifications in the course of determining whether to deny that candidate
    access to the state ballot.

    It is conceivable that a comparable state-court lawsuit could be filed, in
    Pennsylvania or another swing state, to challenge a presidential candidate’s
    constitutional qualifications to serve. There is no requirement that a plaintiff
    in a state-court lawsuit meet the Article III or prudential requirements for
    standing. Further, the federal political question doctrine does not bar state court
    litigation seeking to exclude a presidential candidate from the ballot
    on the ground that he or she is ineligible.

    – snip –

    Of course, it is up to states—and, in particular, to state legislatures—to
    define the rights and remedies available in cases where a presidential candidate
    is alleged to be ineligible. There is certainly no constitutional
    requirement that the state provide either a pre-election remedy (such as denial
    of ballot access) or a post-election remedy (like an order invalidating
    election results) for such disputes. But there remains no constitutional bar to
    such state-law remedies. In fact, such remedies would seem to fall squarely
    within what Article II contemplates in leaving it to state legislatures to define
    the manner by which presidential electors are appointed.

    – snip –

    In ASARCO v. Kadish, for example, the Court held
    that defendants who lost in state court could obtain U.S. Supreme Court
    review of federal issues decided against them, even though the original
    plaintiffs would not have had standing to bring the action in a federal court.

  11. avatar
    misha July 19, 2010 at 7:06 am #

    Next to the Last Samurai: thanks for curing my insomnia.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 19, 2010 at 7:45 am #

    brygenon: You overlooked a bit of birther trivia, Jules. Certified copies of Hawaiian vital records cost $10 for the first copy, and $4.00 for each additional copy ordered at the same time. That’s for requests made in writing, so 51 of them should run $210, plus a stamp.

    Another correct calculation of the fee is in my article here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/obama-announces-national-natural-born-day/

  13. avatar
    BatGuano July 19, 2010 at 10:05 am #

    Eugene: http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=127510&catid=2The head *election official* in Monroe County TN has been found murdered (his burned body found in the trunk of his car) …Coincidence or some kind of connection with the recent RAP and birther events there?

    oof. i feel for his family.

    …….. IF this was done by a birther ( and i kno i’m sounding like sven here ) then this could be the death nail for the birthers. i think that every politician would be doing their best to make it crystal clear they have nothing to do ( either directly or by omission ) with this flavor of the fringe before november. i also think the grotesque nature of the death will loose the birthers most of the support from the casual conspiracy user.

    i do not wish for this scenario. i actually hope the death has nothing to do with the birthers/militias. i cannot fathom the pain for the family that a loved one died because of something so idiotic.

  14. avatar
    Reality Check July 19, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    First, why does Meroni even care about the “Scorecard”. Secondly, she filed an objection to a candidate and then withdrew the objection. It sounds like a loss to me.

  15. avatar
    Black Lion July 19, 2010 at 11:42 am #

    Corsi Cites David Duke to Help Him Make A Point
    Topic: WorldNetDaily

    Factually challenged Obama-hater, conspiracy theorist, and birther enthusiast Jerome Corsi is back, and he’s weighing in on the New Black Panther party non-scandal.

    In a July 15 WorldNetDaily column, Corsi asserts that President Obama has an “association with the New Black Panther Party.” How so? Because the NBPP once had a user-generated page on the website for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. No, really, that’s all Corsi has for “proof.”

    Then, Corsi approvingly cites David Duke to make a “point”:

    The New Black Panther Party posting as an Obama fan on the campaign website was clearly polarizing, drawing at the time the criticism of yet another racial extremist in the person of David Duke, the Louisiana former state representative who discredited himself as an outspoken white supremacist and former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

    “Now that Obama has a real chance to be president and needs white support, he claims to condemn Rev. Wright,” Duke wrote on his website March 25, 2008. “In fact, Obama’s official website even welcomes the support of a racist, communist black organization such as the Black Panthers, an organization with a long history of violence against white Americans.”

    The point is not that David Duke is right. Clearly, Duke’s racism demands to be condemned just as does the racism of the New Black Panther Party.

    The point is that instead of making race a non-issue, President Obama’s record is that he polarizes race issues, perhaps because deep down he intellectually agrees with the radical polemics he admits in his autobiography were his intellectual pillars growing up — including anti-white firebrands such as Malcolm X and Frantz Fanon.
    Is David Duke really the best example Corsi could come up with to validate his “point”? If so, that would seem to be further evidence of something we already knew about Corsi — that he’s all too comfortable around white supremacists.

    As Media Matters has detailed, Corsi had appeared in 2008 on a radio show called “The Political Cesspool,” which declares that it “represent[s] a philosophy that is pro-White.” After word got out about Corsi’s follow-up appearance on the show to promote his Obama smear book, he canceled it. We don’t recall Corsi demanding any condemnation of racism then, which makes Corsi’s call for it regarding Duke more than a little disingenuous.

    (This radio show, you may recall, is the same one on which WorldNetDaily’s latest birther hero, Tim Adams, first made his unsubstantiated claim that there is no Obama birth certificate in Hawaii; at the time, he was attending a convention of the Council of Conservative Citizens, which the Anti-Defamation League describes as having a “white supremacy, white separatism” ideology. WND has tried to portray anyone pointing this out as running a “vicious smear campaign” against Adams, but it’s never been explained why he was on a “pro-White” show or at the convention of a white-supremacist group in the first place.)

    Also, don’t forget that Corsi was also the author of numerous bigoted and hateful posts on the right-wing website Free Republic.

    If the best backup for Corsi’s “point” is David Duke, then perhaps that point isn’t worth making.

    Corsi goes on to write, “The issue of the New Black Panther Party has the potential to dog Barack Obama, much as the Rev. Wright issue did during the 2008 campaign and the professor Gates controversy did in the first months of his presidency.” Corsi most assuredly wants to make that “potential” into reality.

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/

  16. avatar
    Rickey July 19, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    Oh For Goodness Sake blog reports that Orly has been shot down again.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=11606

  17. avatar
    Reality Check July 19, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

    Rickey: Oh For Goodness Sake blog reports that Orly has been shot down again.http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=11606

    That is the denial by the California Supreme Court for Taitz v Bowen (Dunn). I think we knew of this indirectly because Taitz said she was filing an emergency appeal to Justice Kennedy this past weekend. It is hard to figure out her confused comments though. She also said she was appealing Justice Thomas’ denial of her emergency motion in the Rhodes case to Kennedy. She is filing stuff faster with SCOTUS than Danny Bickell can wield his big “denied” stamp. LOL

  18. avatar
    Rickey July 19, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    Reality Check:
    It is hard to figure out her confused comments though.

    Orly is confusing (and confused) on her best days, and I’m not going to risk going to her website to try to figure it out! However, I’m pretty sure that the emergency appeal to Kennedy is actually a refliing of the stay application which Thomas denied. This new slap-down which I linked to is from the California Supreme Court. I presume she filed it after the Superior Court in Orange County denied her application to have the certification of Dunn’s primary win halted. By the way, the primary results were certified the other day:

    Dunn 1,477,811 (74.4%)
    Taitz 508,455 (25.6%)

    Debra Bowen was unopposed and received more votes than Dunn & Taitz combined.

    http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-primary/

    If Orly has refiled on the Rhodes sanctions with Kennedy, it isn’t showing up on the SCOTUS docket yet. Kennedy previously denied her application for a stay in the Lightfoot case, so this will just be another stalling tactic. Kennedy may have it distributed for a conference, Orly will trumpet that as a great victory, and then she will be slapped down again.

  19. avatar
    Lawyerwitharealdegree July 19, 2010 at 4:59 pm #

    Meroni’s racist election board objections are not law suits. Meroni is a very uneducated and racist middle aged woman who cannot hold a job. She suffers from serious mental health problems. But she is no law suit victor, for sure. Her own law suit was a disaster. For her.

  20. avatar
    Rickey July 19, 2010 at 6:15 pm #

    Next to the Last Samurai:

    In ASARCO v. Kadish, for example, the Court held
    that defendants who lost in state court could obtain U.S. Supreme Court
    review of federal issues decided against them, even though the original
    plaintiffs would not have had standing to bring the action in a federal court.

    Which is why the ASARCO decision would be of no benefit to birthers.

    In ASARCO the original plaintiffs were individual taxpayers and a teachers association who alleged that they were damaged because the State of Arizona was violating Federal law in the granting of mineral leases. The plaintiffs would not have had Article III standing to bring suit in Federal court, but they were able to bring suit in state court. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, but the Arizona Supreme Court overturned the verdict and ruled that the state law which granted the leases leases was invalid.

    At that point, the leaseholders filed an appeal in Federal court, arguing that the Arizona Supreme Court had erred in its interpretation of Federal law. However, if the Arizona Supreme Court had ruled against the original plaintiffs, those plaintiffs would have been unable to appeal to the Federal courts because they did not have Article III standing. The leaseholders, on the other hand, because they lost the original lawsuit and were going to lose their leases, did in fact have Article III standing because they now were able to allege a specific injury for which the Federal court could provide relief.

    How, then, would ASARCO apply to birther lawsuits? Well, if a state court accepted a birther case that does not qualify for standing in Federal court and ruled that Obama is eligible to be POTUS, the plaintiffs would have no recourse to the Federal court because of the lack of Article III standing. However, if that same state court were to rule that Obama is not eligible and that his electors could not appear on the ballot, Obama would be able to appeal to the Federal court because he would be able to establish an injury in fact that would give him Article III standing.

    The ASARCO ruling does not help plaintiff’s who do not have Article III standing. As the SCOTUS ruling says, “the question whether the state-court plaintiffs had Article III standing is irrelevant when it is the defendants below who invoke the federal courts’ authority.”

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&navby=volpage&court=us&vol=490&page=623

  21. avatar
    brygenon July 19, 2010 at 7:25 pm #

    Rickey: If Orly has refiled on the Rhodes sanctions with Kennedy, it isn’t showing up on the SCOTUS docket yet. Kennedy previously denied her application for a stay in the Lightfoot case, so this will just be another stalling tactic. Kennedy may have it distributed for a conference, Orly will trumpet that as a great victory, and then she will be slapped down again.

    Taitz says she plans to re-file the the sanctions stuff with either Scalia or Alito. What she’s sending to Kennedy is an application to stay the California election process. She was running for Secretary of State and lost in the Republican primary.

    Under the Rules of U.S. Supreme Court, an application for a stay goes to the Justice assigned to the circuit. She was sanctioned in the 11’th Circuit, which is assigned to Thomas. California is the 9’th Circuit, assigned to Kennedy. If a justice denies a stay, she can re-submit to any justice, though the rules say, “Except when the denial is without prejudice, a renewed application is not favored.”

    According to “A Reporter’s Guide to Applications”:

    If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may renew the application to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until a majority of the Court has denied the application. In practice, renewed applications usually are referred to the full Court to avoid such a prolonged procedure.

    You can find the rules, the Reporters Guide, the circuit assignments and a circuit map at:
    http://www.supremecourt.gov

  22. avatar
    Rickey July 19, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    brygenon:
    Taitz says she plans to re-file the the sanctions stuff with either Scalia or Alito. What she’s sending to Kennedy is an application to stay the California election process.

    Thanks for the clarification. Of course, the application to stay the California election process would appear to be moot, since California certified the primary results last week. She is still free to challenge the results, but there is nothing to stay at this point.

  23. avatar
    Next to the Last Samurai July 19, 2010 at 8:57 pm #

    Rickey:
    Which is why the ASARCO decision would be of no benefit to birthers.In ASARCO the original plaintiffs were individual taxpayers and a teachers association who alleged that they were damaged because the State of Arizona was violating Federal law in the granting of mineral leases. The plaintiffs would not have had Article III standing to bring suit in Federal court, but they were able to bring suit in state court. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, but the Arizona Supreme Court overturned the verdict and ruled that the state law which granted the leases leases was invalid.At that point, the leaseholders filed an appeal in Federal court, arguing that the Arizona Supreme Court had erred in its interpretation of Federal law. However, if the Arizona Supreme Court had ruled against the original plaintiffs, those plaintiffs would have been unable to appeal to the Federal courts because they did not have Article III standing. The leaseholders, on the other hand, because they lost the original lawsuit and were going to lose their leases, did in fact have Article III standing because they now were able to allege a specific injury for which the Federal court could provide relief.How, then, would ASARCO apply to birther lawsuits? Well, if a state court accepted a birther case that does not qualify for standing in Federal court and ruled that Obama is eligible to be POTUS, the plaintiffs would have no recourse to the Federal court because of the lack of Article III standing. However, if that same state court were to rule that Obama is not eligible and that his electors could not appear on the ballot, Obama would be able to appeal to the Federal court because he would be able to establish an injury in fact that would give him Article III standing.The ASARCO ruling does not help plaintiff’s who do not have Article III standing. As the SCOTUS ruling says, “the question whether the state-court plaintiffs had Article III standing is irrelevant when it is the defendants below who invoke the federal courts’ authority.”http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&navby=volpage&court=us&vol=490&page=623

    Thank you, Rickey. You’re very smart and I like you.

    Since the various states are autonomous and formulate their own election law and procedure, I think we could very well see one or more states rule Obama eligible and one or more states rule Obama to be ineligible.

    I can’t wait!

  24. avatar
    Reality Check July 19, 2010 at 10:18 pm #

    Rickey: Of course, the application to stay the California election process would appear to be moot, since California certified the primary results last week. She is still free to challenge the results, but there is nothing to stay at this point.

    However, Orly hasn’t figured that out yet.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 19, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    Rickey: Oh For Goodness Sake blog reports that Orly has been shot down again.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=11606

    Yeah, so much for the stay in California. Did you notice that Orly (excuse me) Ortiz used a FLORIDA address for Damon Dunn, sort of back door attempt to make it look like he’s not from California?

  26. avatar
    Rickey July 19, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    Next to the Last Samurai:
    Since the various states are autonomous and formulate their own election law and procedure, I think we could very well see one or more states rule Obama eligible and one or more states rule Obama to be ineligible.

    I doubt it.

    For one thing, technically the voters do not vote for the candidate, they vote for electors who have pledged to vote for a particular candidate. So I’m not sure that any state has the authority to disqualify a presidential candidate, regardless of state election law. And even if a state could disqualify a candidate, electors could still vote for that candidate in the Electoral College.

    Here is a totally implausible hypothetical. Arizona passes its eligibility law and decrees that Obama is not eligible to be president. So, instead of putting up a slate of electors pledged to vote for Obama, the Democrats put up a slate of electors pledged to vote for Biden. Biden carries Arizona, but when the Arizona electors meet they decide to cast their votes for Obama for President and Biden for Vice-President. There is nothing that Arizona could do about it, because under the Constitution the electors are free to vote as they please.

  27. avatar
    Rickey July 19, 2010 at 10:55 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Did you notice that Orly(excuse me) Ortiz used a FLORIDA address for Damon Dunn, sort of back door attempt to make it look like he’s not from California.?

    Good catch! I saw the Ortiz, but I didn’t notice the Florida address for Dunn.

  28. avatar
    brygenon July 20, 2010 at 12:30 am #

    Rickey: Of course, the application to stay the California election process would appear to be moot, since California certified the primary results last week. She is still free to challenge the results, but there is nothing to stay at this point.

    It’s a mess. Her application is labeled, “WRIT OF MANDATE & APPLICATION FOR STAY”. The stay was moot before she sent it, and the application doesn’t actually say what mandate relief she wants. Also, extraordinary writs such as mandamus go the full Court, not to the justice for the circuit.

    There’s other stuff wrong with it, but I have to stop for now because I’m getting close to the toxic dose of bat guano.

  29. avatar
    Keith July 20, 2010 at 2:12 am #

    Rickey:
    I doubt it.
    For one thing, technically the voters do not vote for the candidate, they vote for electors who have pledged to vote for a particular candidate. So I’m not sure that any state has the authority to disqualify a presidential candidate, regardless of state election law. And even if a state could disqualify a candidate, electors could still vote for that candidate in the Electoral College.Here is a totally implausible hypothetical. Arizona passes its eligibility law and decrees that Obama is not eligible to be president. So, instead of putting up a slate of electors pledged to vote for Obama, the Democrats put up a slate of electors pledged to vote for Biden. Biden carries Arizona, but when the Arizona electors meet they decide to cast their votes for Obama for President and Biden for Vice-President. There is nothing that Arizona could do about it, because under the Constitution the electors are free to vote as they please.

    I could be wrong about the situation now, but I think that when I went to school in Arizona (pre-historic) we were taught that by State law, Arizona electors are legally bound to vote for the candidate they indicate on the first electoral college vote. This prevents false flag electors as the ballot indicates the Candidate in big letters and the elector slate in little tiny impossible-to-read-and-who-cares-anyway letters.

  30. avatar
    Keith July 20, 2010 at 2:15 am #

    Rickey:
    Here is a totally implausible hypothetical. Arizona passes its eligibility law and decrees that Obama is not eligible to be president..

    Oh, yeah, I forgot to add: This scenario couldn’t happen of course. Arizona is Constitutionally bound to recognize his Hawai’ian Birth Certificate.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2010 at 6:36 am #

    Rickey: For one thing, technically the voters do not vote for the candidate, they vote for electors who have pledged to vote for a particular candidate. So I’m not sure that any state has the authority to disqualify a presidential candidate, regardless of state election law.

    In some states the electors do not appear on the ballot at all, only the candidate. So a state could de facto disqualify a candidate by not putting their name on the ballot.

  32. avatar
    Rickey July 20, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    Keith:
    I could be wrong about the situation now, but I think that when I went to school in Arizona (pre-historic) we were taught that by State law, Arizona electors are legally bound to vote for the candidate they indicate on the first electoral college vote. This prevents false flag electors as the ballot indicates the Candidate in big letters and the elector slate in little tiny impossible-to-read-and-who-cares-anyway letters.

    According to this website, Arizona is one of the 24 states in which electors are not obliged to vote for a specific candidate:

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

  33. avatar
    Rickey July 20, 2010 at 11:51 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    In some states the electors do not appear on the ballot at all, only the candidate. So a state could de facto disqualify a candidate by not putting their name on the ballot.

    In New York State the ballot says “Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States.” The individual electors are not named, of course. I have also voted in presidential elections in Arizona and Colorado, but that was years ago and I don’t recall how those ballots were worded.

    Regardless of how the ballot is worded, the votes are technically for the electors, and in 24 states the electors are free to vote as they please. Those who fail to vote for the pledged candidate are referred to as “faithless electors.” The most recent example was in 2004, when an elector from Minnesota cast his or her vote for John Edwards instead of John Kerry. In 1976 Ronald Reagan received one electoral vote (from a State of Washington elector) even though Reagan was not on the ballot;; the elector was pledged to vote for Gerald Ford but instead voted for Reagan.

  34. avatar
    Rickey July 20, 2010 at 12:52 pm #

    Mario has filed a 95-page response to the show cause order. I haven’t had time to read it all, but from a perusal it doesn’t look like there is anything new here.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34567766/KERCHNER-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-Apuzzo-Response-to-Order-to-Show-Cause-Transport-Room

  35. avatar
    Almost Famous July 20, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    Keith:
    Oh, yeah, I forgot to add: This scenario couldn’t happen of course. Arizona is Constitutionally bound to recognize his Hawai’ian Birth Certificate.

    If he presents it. So far, he will only present a certified copy of his COLB to an organization friendly to his endeavor to convince voters he is a native born person and that meets the requirement to be a natural born citizen.

    Obama cannot present a certified copy of his COLB to any election board because it will be different than the one posted on his Fight the Smears website. Questions will be raised and accusations of fraud will be made when it is revealed Obama’s COLB has the word “altered” or “amended” on it.

    Obama’s only option is to convince any state board of elections where he is challenged that he is an incumbent and cannot be required to show proof of eligibility.

  36. avatar
    Jules July 20, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    Almost Famous:
    Obama cannot present a certified copy of his COLB to any election board because it will be different than the one posted on his Fight the Smears website.

    This is baseless speculation.

    The most plausible scenario in which he would be unable to present to the Arizona election board the Certification of Live Birth posted on his campaign web site and Factcheck is one in which he has misplaced the document or otherwise no longer has it in his possession. In such a scenario, he would simply need to order a new certificate, which would come in the new format.

  37. avatar
    Dave July 20, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    Almost Famous:
    If he presents it. So far, he will only present a certified copy of his COLB to an organization friendly to his endeavor to convince voters he is a native born person and that meets the requirement to be a natural born citizen.

    What a hoot. I suppose you’re talking about factcheck.org.

    Maybe we should number the straws that the birthers clutch at for easy reference. This allegation that factcheck.org is part of some leftist conspiracy keeps coming up, in spite of the lack of any basis.

  38. avatar
    Majority Will July 20, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    Dave:
    What a hoot. I suppose you’re talking about factcheck.org.Maybe we should number the straws that the birthers clutch at for easy reference. This allegation that factcheck.org is part of some leftist conspiracy keeps coming up, in spite of the lack of any basis.

    I seriously doubt Walter and Leonore Annenberg would have been Obama Supporters.

    More facts on Factcheck.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 20, 2010 at 3:31 pm #

    Almost Famous: If he presents it. So far, he will only present a certified copy of his COLB to an organization friendly to his endeavor to convince voters he is a native born person and that meets the requirement to be a natural born citizen. Obama cannot present a certified copy of his COLB to any election board because it will be different than the one posted on his Fight the Smears website. Questions will be raised and accusations of fraud will be made when it is revealed Obama’s COLB has the word “altered” or “amended” on it.Obama’s only option is to convince any state board of elections where he is challenged that he is an incumbent and cannot be required to show proof of eligibility.

    You mean factcheck? The factcheck that Vice President Cheney referred to during a debate

  40. avatar
    Sef July 20, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    Jules:
    This is baseless speculation.The most plausible scenario in which he would be unable to present to the Arizona election board the Certification of Live Birth posted on his campaign web site and Factcheck is one in which he has misplaced the document or otherwise no longer has it in his possession. In such a scenario, he would simply need to order a new certificate, which would come in the new format.

    I would think the most plausible process if he were asked to prove his birth would be to ask HI to send a BC to AZ directly thus eliminating any chance of questions about custody & changes.

  41. avatar
    Almost Famous July 20, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    Jules:
    This is baseless speculation.The most plausible scenario in which he would be unable to present to the Arizona election board the Certification of Live Birth posted on his campaign web site and Factcheck is one in which he has misplaced the document or otherwise no longer has it in his possession. In such a scenario, he would simply need to order a new certificate, which would come in the new format.

    I thought everyone read butterdezillion …

    3. Though ridiculing “birthers” publicly, the DOH has PRIVATELY confirmed Obama’s online COLB’s as forgeries – a fact the DOH has known since the beginning. Because processing information is subject to disclosure, the DOH was forced in Sept 2009 to reveal that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended (OIP interpretation) and that Obama or his representative has paid a fee to have his certificate amended at the very time he was considering a run for the presidency. Amendments must be noted on the certificate (Ch 8b, 3.1), so the DOH has known this entire time that both the Factcheck and Fight the Smears COLB’s are forgeries, since they have no amendment noted.

    http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

  42. avatar
    Majority Will July 20, 2010 at 3:42 pm #

    Almost Famous:
    I thought everyone read butterdezillion …

    Pure birther fiction and nonsense and not even entertaining. You’d be far better off citing the Weekly World News since at least their fiction is fun to read.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 20, 2010 at 3:42 pm #

    Almost Famous: I thought everyone read butterdezillion …http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

    Ah good old crazy butter who has absolutely nothing to back up the claims made on that site.

  44. avatar
    Almost Famous July 20, 2010 at 3:53 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Ah good old crazy butter who has absolutely nothing to back up the claims made on that site.

    Fukino refers to “vital records”, as in, more than one. That translates into an original vital record with amendments.

    Unfortunately, the FTS jpg doesn’t have the word “amendment” on it and that translates into forgery.

    No way and No how will Obama present a certified copy of his COLB to the various state election boards.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    Almost Famous: I thought everyone read butterdezillion

    No, Sven. That woman is C…, C…, Cr, …. That woman is Cr, C… , C…. She’s wrong, dammit.

  46. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 20, 2010 at 4:02 pm #

    Almost Famous: Fukino refers to “vital records”, as in, more than one. That translates into an original vital record with amendments.Unfortunately, the FTS jpg doesn’t have the word “amendment” on it and that translates into forgery.No way and No how will Obama present a certified copy of his COLB to the various state election boards.

    No vital records is a broad term to mean anything from birth, marriage, death and anything in between. The office of vital records deals with a wide range of personal records. Nothing to do with amendments.

  47. avatar
    Black Lion July 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

    Almost Famous: I thought everyone read butterdezillion …http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

    BZ is a hack and divorced from reality….Sven, you seem to still be on the magical “ammended birth certificate” ride….Which is kind of like a magic carpet ride but much less fun. Meaning you still have no evidence that there was any sort of amendment…And you are not taking into consideration that an amended COLB must be documented as such. So again you are stuck with speculation and maybe….Which even on Matlock means you get nothing….

  48. avatar
    Majority Will July 20, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    Almost Famous:
    Fukino refers to “vital records”, as in, more than one. That translates into an original vital record with amendments.

    More baseless birther b.s.

    “No way and No how will Obama present a certified copy of his COLB to the various state election boards.”

    More specious reasoning.

    Anything requested (not that it would even be necessary) from the state of Hawaii must and will be legally acceptable to every other state according to the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

    Let me refresh your memory.

    Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution

    “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

  49. avatar
    sfjeff July 20, 2010 at 4:57 pm #

    As long as a state requires a reasonable proof of birth, and requires it from all candidates, i wouldn’t object to a state requirement.

    Really- all of us here have no doubts that Obama can produce a valid birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii to any responsible authority, we just feel he has no obligation to provide it or any other documents to whatever wingnut feels a personal compulsion to snoop through his records.

  50. avatar
    Sef July 20, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    sfjeff: As long as a state requires a reasonable proof of birth, and requires it from all candidates, i wouldn’t object to a state requirement.
    Really- all of us here have no doubts that Obama can produce a valid birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii to any responsible authority, we just feel he has no obligation to provide it or any other documents to whatever wingnut feels a personal compulsion to snoop through his records.

    I tend to agree with this. What states cannot do is have a requirement whose purpose would be to define what a Constitutional provision means, such as NBC requiring 2 citizen parents.

  51. avatar
    Majority Will July 20, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

    sfjeff: As long as a state requires a reasonable proof of birth, and requires it from all candidates, i wouldn’t object to a state requirement.
    Really- all of us here have no doubts that Obama can produce a valid birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii to any responsible authority, we just feel he has no obligation to provide it or any other documents to whatever wingnut feels a personal compulsion to snoop through his records.

    Along similar lines . . . the birther argument that what the state of Hawaii or any other state deems legal and certified and provides as evidence of birth in the U.S. isn’t good enough.

  52. avatar
    AnotherBird July 20, 2010 at 6:17 pm #

    sfjeff: As long as a state requires a reasonable proof of birth, and requires it from all candidates, i wouldn’t object to a state requirement.
    Really- all of us here have no doubts that Obama can produce a valid birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii to any responsible authority, we just feel he has no obligation to provide it or any other documents to whatever wingnut feels a personal compulsion to snoop through his records.

    Same old birther arguments … in the disguise of seeming reasonable. Just pretending that the responsible authority hasn’t confirmed he was born in Hawaii. Keep letting those pesky facts get in the way, Everyday, I am glad that America is a Constitutional Democracy.

  53. avatar
    Jules July 20, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    Almost Famous:
    Fukino refers to “vital records”, as in, more than one. That translates into an original vital record with amendments.

    I have just checked my birth certificate. Printed as part of the standard certificate paper, above “CERTIFICATION OF BIRTH”, it says, “VITAL RECORDS CERTIFICATE”.

    Am I to understand that my birth registration must have been amended and that New York’s birth certificate security paper would say “VITAL RECORD CERTIFICATE” for the vast majority of people?

  54. avatar
    obsolete July 20, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

    What a surprise. Birthers don’t understand why records are referred to in plural so they invent a fantasy from whole cloth. She “looked into his records” simply means that she examined what is on file, (a file of records) which may (or may not) contain more than a single record, such as birth, death, marriage, etc. I know English is tough, but keep up.
    Some other things birthers may need explained slowly and carefully to them:
    1. The Nazi (National Socialist) Party weren’t actually socialist.
    2. The Salvation Army does not have tanks and artillery.
    Though they both had snazzy uniforms.

  55. avatar
    Keith July 21, 2010 at 1:31 am #

    Rickey:
    According to this website, Arizona is one of the 24 states in which electors are not obliged to vote for a specific candidate:http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

    OK, I stand corrected.

  56. avatar
    Don Draper July 21, 2010 at 10:19 am #

    Congratulations to Nathan Deal on forcing a run-off for the Republican nomination for Governor of Georgia. Congressman Deal asked for Obama’s Birth Certificate when constituents raised concerns about Obama’s eligibility.

    Rep. Deal should demand Obama’s college transcripts to win the nomination.

  57. avatar
    Black Lion July 21, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    Don Draper: Congratulations to Nathan Deal on forcing a run-off for the Republican nomination for Governor of Georgia. Congressman Deal asked for Obama’s Birth Certificate when constituents raised concerns about Obama’s eligibility.Rep. Deal should demand Obama’s college transcripts to win the nomination.

    Did he actually ever get around to sending that infamous “letter”? Or did he con the simple minded birthers by saying that he would “request this information” from the President? And if he becomes governor, how exactly will that help him in his quest to “demand Obama’s college transcripts”? And if he was to run for senator, would requesting Obama’s kindergarten records help?

  58. avatar
    Dave July 21, 2010 at 10:40 am #

    Black Lion:
    Did he actually ever get around to sending that infamous “letter”?Or did he con the simple minded birthers by saying that he would “request this information” from the President?

    No, he conned the simple minded birthers by sending the letter, or at least some letter, to the President, which he refused to show to anyone else. And he was quite vague about what the letter exactly said.

    It takes so little to make the birthers happy. Just notice their existence, and they fall down and worship.

  59. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 21, 2010 at 11:25 am #

    Almost Famous:
    Fukino refers to “vital records”, as in, more than one. That translates into an original vital record with amendments.Unfortunately, the FTS jpg doesn’t have the word “amendment” on it and that translates into forgery.No way and No how will Obama present a certified copy of his COLB to the various state election boards.

    Just wondering…

    So, there’s a sign at my country club that says, “Children of members may use the pool.”

    Now, there’s a debate. According to this sign, can my own children use the pool when they’re visiting me for the summer, since I’m a member? Or, since the members is pluralized, does that mean that they must have 2 members as parents in order to use the pool? Does this mean that I must get my ex-wife to join the country club, even though she lives across the country, in order for my children to use the pool at the country club?

    After all, members is pluralized. Therefore, it must mean more than one member!

  60. avatar
    AnotherBird July 21, 2010 at 11:34 am #

    Don Draper: Don Draper 21. Jul, 2010 at 10:19 am Don Draper(Quote) #

    Congratulations to Nathan Deal on forcing a run-off for the Republican nomination for Governor of Georgia. Congressman Deal asked for Obama’s Birth Certificate when constituents raised concerns about Obama’s eligibility.

    Rep. Deal should demand Obama’s college transcripts to win the nomination.

    Deal should just concede defeat as he has no chance of winning in the run-off. The birther nonsense is poison for politicians. Question was Deal one of those who voted for the Hawaii Birthday resolution that include text stating that Hawaii was the birth place of Barack Obama, did he abstain, or was he absent?

  61. avatar
    Rickey July 21, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    Keith:
    OK, I stand corrected.

    No big deal. I wouldn’t have known if I hadn’t looked it up.

  62. avatar
    Reality Check July 21, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    The score was just updated to 0-70. Martin v Bennett in Hawaii was dismissed.

  63. avatar
    Rickey July 21, 2010 at 1:19 pm #

    obsolete
    The Nazi (National Socialist) Party weren’t actually socialist.

    Years ago I got into a debate with some guy on Compuserve about this, He insisted that the Nazis were left-wingers because they were socialists. I own several biographies of Hitler, so I quoted him a number of things which Hitler said and wrote which made it clear that he loathed socialism. In addition, the means of production in Nazi Germany were mostly left in private hands (Krupp, Porsche, Mercedes, etc.), which of course is the antithesis of socialism.

    One might as well argue that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was a democracy.

    By the way, arguing with that guy was like arguing with a birther.

  64. avatar
    nbC July 21, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    Yes, Andy failed to show up at a hearing. They called him 3 times, no response. The judge dismissed noting that he dismissed not only based on failure to appear but also on the merits of the response brief.

    Where in the World is Andy San Diego…

  65. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 21, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Just wondering…So, there’s a sign at my country club that says, “Children of members may use the pool.”Now, there’s a debate. According to this sign, can my own children use the pool when they’re visiting me for the summer, since I’m a member? Or, since the members is pluralized, does that mean that they must have 2 members as parents in order to use the pool? Does this mean that I must get my ex-wife to join the country club, even though she lives across the country, in order for my children to use the pool at the country club?After all, members is pluralized. Therefore, it must mean more than one member!

    They could have been talking about Phallic objects as well

  66. avatar
    Don Draper July 21, 2010 at 5:25 pm #

    AnotherBird:
    Deal should just concede defeat as he has no chance of winning in the run-off. The birther nonsense is poison for politicians. Question was Deal one of those who voted for the Hawaii Birthday resolution that include text stating that Hawaii was the birth place of Barack Obama, did he abstain, or was he absent?

    Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney threw his support behind Georgia Republican Karen Handel on Wednesday, the day after she finished first in the governor’s primary.

    Deal wins!

  67. avatar
    Majority Will July 21, 2010 at 6:05 pm #

    Deal is done.

  68. avatar
    Keith July 21, 2010 at 8:06 pm #

    dunstvangeet:
    Just wondering…So, there’s a sign at my country club that says, “Children of members may use the pool.”Now, there’s a debate.According to this sign, can my own children use the pool when they’re visiting me for the summer, since I’m a member?Or, since the members is pluralized, does that mean that they must have 2 members as parents in order to use the pool?Does this mean that I must get my ex-wife to join the country club, even though she lives across the country, in order for my children to use the pool at the country club?After all, members is pluralized.Therefore, it must mean more than one member!

    Depends on whether you are the token black member or not.

  69. avatar
    Majority Will July 21, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    Keith:
    Depends on whether you are the token black member or not.

    What does smoking marijuana have to do with it? 😉

  70. avatar
    Keith July 22, 2010 at 9:28 am #

    Majority Will:
    What does smoking marijuana have to do with it?

    We don’t want our daughters exposed to that reefer madness stuff now do we? It just might tempt them to try the old push-me-pull-you and then where would we be?

  71. avatar
    Majority Will July 22, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    Keith:
    We don’t want our daughters exposed to that reefer madness stuff now do we? It just might tempt them to try the old push-me-pull-you and then where would we be?

    In a Hugh Lofting book series surrounded by clever, talking animals?

  72. avatar
    Rickey July 22, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    The score is now 0-71. Jones v. Obama dismissed, to the surprise of no one (except perhaps Ruth Jones). .

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34726615/JONES-v-OBAMA-20-MINUTES-OF-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-cacd-031010565071-20

  73. avatar
    G July 22, 2010 at 4:38 pm #

    Rickey: The score is now 0-71. Jones v. Obama dismissed, to the surprise of no one (except perhaps Ruth Jones). .http://www.scribd.com/doc/34726615/JONES-v-OBAMA-20-MINUTES-OF-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-cacd-031010565071-20

    LOL! Yes, and although the courts went to great trouble on their 7 pages to try to explain to her why she lacks standing or injury, I highly doubt that she’ll learn from it at all. If anything, her fevered mind will probably focus on their references to INTERPOL as somehow being “proof” of her one world conspiracy nonsense.

  74. avatar
    Majority Will July 22, 2010 at 4:38 pm #

    Rickey: The score is now 0-71. Jones v. Obama dismissed, to the surprise of no one (except perhaps Ruth Jones). .http://www.scribd.com/doc/34726615/JONES-v-OBAMA-20-MINUTES-OF-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-cacd-031010565071-20

    “Finally, to support an injury based on Amended Executive Order No. 12425 and
    the intervention of INTERPOL, Plaintiff claims she is “afraid to [g]o to bed at night.
    There has been an increase in the amount of plane activity over the Los Angeles skies from about 2-5 am.The Plaintiff is fearful her country will be taken over as a result of [the] immunities and privileges given to the INTERPOL.” (Compl. 85.) Again, other than the vague reference to supposed increase in plane activity during the night—which is not even described as threatening in nature—Plaintiff does not indicate any personal harm that stems from INTERPOL’s presence in the United States.
    To the extent the Amended Executive Order “violated and circumvented the rights the
    Plaintiff has to be under the control and protection of the U.S. Constitution…not
    INTERPOL” (Id. 41c; see also id. 41k-m.), or generally “took away [Plaintiff’s]
    right to face her perpetrators in criminal court” (Opp. at 2, 7.), it would apply equally to
    all citizens, and thus injure only the “generalized interest of all citizens” described in
    Schlesinger. 418 U.S. at 217.”

    Whoa.

  75. avatar
    AnotherBird July 22, 2010 at 8:59 pm #

    Don Draper:
    Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney threw his support behind Georgia Republican Karen Handel on Wednesday, the day after she finished first in the governor’s primary.Deal wins!

    The question wasn’t even answered. It wasn’t a difficult question and required some research on your behalf. It is possible that Deal could get an upset victory limiting his opponent to a 15% increase, and getting a 30% increase. However, birtherism is political poison and serves as only to “appeal to the … extremists of his party and get elected.” Even if he does win his party nomination, which he won’t, he will still have the birther albatross to deal with.

    Now the question again.

    Was Deal one of those who voted for the Hawaii Birthday resolution that include text stating that Hawaii was the birth place of Barack Obama, did he abstain, or was he absent? Just remember the vote was unanimous.

  76. avatar
    AnotherBird July 22, 2010 at 9:13 pm #

    Rickey: The score is now 0-71. Jones v. Obama dismissed, to the surprise of no one (except perhaps Ruth Jones).

    I don’t know what score would have suggested no legal merit but it is much less that 70. However, someone needs to talk Ruth Jones down as she needs to get more sleep between 2 am and 5 am.

  77. avatar
    aarrgghh July 22, 2010 at 9:41 pm #

    AnotherBird: Was Deal one of those who voted for the Hawaii Birthday resolution that include text stating that Hawaii was the birth place of Barack Obama, did he abstain, or was he absent? Just remember the vote was unanimous.

    deal was one of 55 members who did not vote.

  78. avatar
    G July 23, 2010 at 12:19 am #

    aarrgghh:
    deal was one of 55 members who did not vote.

    Thanks much for that link, aarrgghh. Very interesting to reflect back on that list today, knowing the picture of those that “flirted” with Birtherism (or worse).

    Of course, a number of those non-votes were simply because certain members were not present at the time of the vote (I believe there were several sub-committees in conference at that time), but I’d suspect that some were just some good old-fashioned political cowardice as well.

    So, here are some interesting findings:

    1) Those who’ve “flirted” with Birtherism (or worse), who DID NOT VOTE (NV) on the Resolution:

    Deal, Campbell, Carter, Marchant

    2) Congress-critters who’ve been caught “flirting” with Birthersim, who voted “YEA” for the Resolution:

    Boustany, Fortenberry, Harper, McCotter, McMorris Rodgers, McHenry

    And most entertaining:

    3) ACTUAL BIRTHER Congress-critters (those who’s actions & words to date have gone beyond mere “flirting”, with no apparent “backtracking” that I can find) who ALSO voted “YEA” for the Resolution:

    Blackburn, Blunt, Bono Mack, Burton (IN), Culberson, Franks (AZ), Gohmert, Goodlatte, Neugebauer, Poe (TX), Posey, Reichert, Schmidt, Sullivan

    Note that #3 is the largest of the 3 categories. How ironic!