Main Menu

Welden v. Obama: Isn’t this a little late?

Georgia Supreme Court SealIf memory serves me right, Super Tuesday was March 6, and that was the day of the Georgia Presidential Preference Primary. Nevertheless, David P. Welden, represented by his Tennessee attorney Van R. Irion, filed an appeal with the Georgia Supreme Court appealing Welden’s loss challenging Obama’s place on that ballot, and filed it on March 7.

Welden’s case was dismissed by Fulton County Superior Court judge Cynthia D. Wright, provoking some strong accusations of judicial misconduct by Irion. (See my article: “Tennessee attorney attacks Georgia courts.”) Those accusations are absent in this appeal, which claims “reversible error” in the Superior Court decision.

Two of the errors alleged by Irion involve whether under Georgia law anyone can challenge a presidential candidate’s eligibility, one is a question of proper service and one is of wider interest:

The Secretary of State erred in finding that the term “natural born citizen,” as used in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, includes all person’s born on U.S. soil without regard to the citizenship of the parents of the person born on U.S.soil.

Irion homes in on the fact that the Administrative Judge concluded that he could hear the complaint, while the Superior Court said otherwise. Irion urges the Georgia Supreme Court to affirm the Administrative Judge’s view, and that in any case a precedent would be a good thing to have (and so the GA Supreme Court should take the case). Irion appeals to the common law sense definition of “natural born” citizen.

Irion then invokes Marbury v. Madison (anytime I see the case of Marbury v. Madison cited, I get worried that some serious legal crackpottery is coming)  to support a principle of Constitutional construction that argues that the 14th Amendment could not have affected the natural born citizen clause in Article II of the Constitution (failing to recognize that those born in the United States – except slaves and Indians – were always our natural born citizens, without regard to the citizenship of their parents and not relying on the 14th Amendment). Irion then goes on to claim that the Superior Court relied on dicta from US v. Wong, and that Minor v. Happersett actually defines natural born citizen as a necessary part of its decision – neither of which is accurate.

What is not clear is what Mr. Irion expects the GA Supreme Court to do, or what effect reversing the Superior Court would have now that the election is over.

Here is the text of the appeal:

Welden v Obama (SCOGA) – 2012-03-07 – Welden Application for Review (filed Mar. 7, 2012)

, , , , ,

49 Responses to Welden v. Obama: Isn’t this a little late?

  1. avatar
    J. Potter March 11, 2012 at 10:59 pm #

    Seems to ask for review, but doesn’t spell out relief sought … so I guess they are pursuing their original goal? … which implies they expect GA to throw out the results of the GA Dem. Primary? …. or strike Obama’s name … and possibly all of his votes …. disenfranchising all those who cast votes for him?

    Still beating the drum of … if not eligible for the office sought, candidate cannot appear in corresponding ballot in GA.

    Except Obama is eligible, and plaintiff conveniently cites a slew of authorities and precedent that makes that case.

    DOA.

  2. avatar
    G March 11, 2012 at 11:24 pm #

    I’ve read on some other sites that Van Irion and that whole Birther bunch still view this as their “window” of opportunity remaining open to have the ballots reversed; as the results of the Primary election have not yet been certified.

    I agree, a lost cause as are all these frivolous Birther cases. Just wanted to point out the the reasoning I’ve seen expressed elsewhere.

  3. avatar
    misha March 11, 2012 at 11:50 pm #

    It is never too late to give up our prejudices. – Henry David Thoreau

  4. avatar
    John Woodman March 12, 2012 at 1:40 am #

    I had no idea there were so many lawyers out there incapable of reading the English language.

    [The 14th Amendment says “citizen,” not “natural born citizen.”]

    The Court in US v Wong Kim Ark dealt with this. They found that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was not to change the rules of natural born citizenship — which had historically and legally always included the children born on the soil even of alien parents, for the past 3 centuries. They found that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend such citizenship to (including natural born citizenship) to black people, to whom it had previously been denied.

    The United States Supreme Court defined the term “natural born citizen” in Minor v. Happersett.

    This is one of the birther Big Lies.

    The Court’s definition of natural born citizen in Minor was necessary for that Court to reach its holding, and istherefore binding precedent. In order to reach its holding, the Minor Court first had to determine whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen.

    More birther Big Lie. Anybody who can read ought to be able to tell that the statement in Minor was non-exclusive and not a definition. It was pure dicta. And even if it had been a non-dicta definition (which it wasn’t), it would’ve been overruled by Wong.

    The Secretary also reads the words “natural born” into the very explicit holding of the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision.

    Completing the birther Big Lie. The Court in Wong Kim Ark told us the same rule had applied for 3 centuries, first in England, then in the colonies, then in America after independence, then in America after the establishment of the Constitution. That rule was that all children born on the soil (save of diplomats or occupying armies, black people and Indians who were directly under their tribal government), even of alien parents, were NATURAL BORN. They FURTHER stated the rule a SECOND time, again using the words NATURAL BORN. It is thus CLEAR that they found Wong Kim Ark to be both NATURAL BORN and a CITIZEN.

    This discussion was all part of the rationale for the decision in the WKA case — the ratio decidendi. As such, it is binding precedent.

    But of course you knew that already.

  5. avatar
    The Magic M March 12, 2012 at 4:59 am #

    Quoting Irion: “all person’s born…” Another grammatical error typical for birthers. Sometimes I wonder if these people are partly illiterate or foreign agents with a different first language…

    John Woodman (quoting Irion): The Court’s definition of natural born citizen in Minor was necessary for that Court to reach its holding, and istherefore binding precedent.

    As you said, this interpretation shows both a lack of basic English knowledge and basic legal knowledge (and since Irion isn’t dumb, clear intellectual dishonesty or outright madness).
    The Minor court needed only establish that Minor was a citizen. Whether she might or might not be a *natural born* citizen is therefore pure dicta – after all, it was a suffrage case and not one about whether Minor could become President. Even a non-lawyer from another country like me can understand that.

  6. avatar
    Lupin March 12, 2012 at 5:34 am #

    The Magic M: or foreign agents with a different first language…

    They’re from Melmac.

  7. avatar
    Majority Will March 12, 2012 at 8:15 am #

    Too late? There are still those who think the Civil War isn’t over.

  8. avatar
    realist March 12, 2012 at 8:48 am #

    “The Minor court needed only establish that Minor was a citizen. Whether she might or might not be a *natural born* citizen is therefore pure dicta – after all, it was a suffrage case and not one about whether Minor could become President. Even a non-lawyer from another country like me can understand that”

    Actually, the Court did not have to even decide Virginia was a citizen. Her citizenship was never an issue, was never challenged in the lower courts, and was therefore a conceded fact.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2012 at 9:09 am #

    If I understand the concept, dicta is considered of lesser import because it is assumed that the essential parts of the case are reasoned carefully by the courts, whereas other things they might say are not so carefully considered (and hence not authoritative). The Court’s dicta in the Slaughterhouse Cases, cited in the government’s case in Wong is a good example.

    Essential or not, I think the Court gave good consideration to the citizenship question in Minor and I think the important point is not whether Minor is authoritative/binding or not, but what they actually said, which, as Woodman points out, is not a definition but a narrow discussion of the citizenship of women born in the United States of citizen parents. This is what I understand that the Arizona court recently said, that Minor is consistent with Wong.

    realist: Actually, the Court did not have to even decide Virginia was a citizen. Her citizenship was never an issue, was never challenged in the lower courts, and was therefore a conceded fact.

    What the birthers do not appreciate is that Virginia Minor and Wong Kim Ark were natural born citizens because they were born citizens, not because of how they were born citizens.

  10. avatar
    Tarrant March 12, 2012 at 9:18 am #

    The Magic M:
    Quoting Irion: “all person’s born…” Another grammatical error typical for birthers. Sometimes I wonder if these people are partly illiterate or foreign agents with a different first language…

    As you said, this interpretation shows both a lack of basic English knowledge and basic legal knowledge (and since Irion isn’t dumb, clear intellectual dishonesty or outright madness).
    The Minor court needed only establish that Minor was a citizen. Whether she might or might not be a *natural born* citizen is therefore pure dicta – after all, it was a suffrage case and not one about whether Minor could become President. Even a non-lawyer from another country like me can understand that.

    If Irion is arguing that declaring Minor to be an NBC is critical and essential to the ruling and that the ruling could. It have been made had they not declared her to be one than he is essentially saying that had they somehow had a naturalized citizen in front of them, that the case may have been decided differently.

    So my question, or challenge to Van Irion would be, if the Minor case had been identical in every way save that Minor was naturalized, or “native born third type of citizen” like birthers like to pretend exist…how would the case have been decided differently? An if the case wouldn’t have been decided differently were she a different category of citizen, then how can one argue the declaration of her as NBC is essential to the holding?

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2012 at 9:40 am #

    Speaking of “a little late” I just noted that something was just filed in the 2008 case of Keyes v. Bowen.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/33040607/2010-03-08-Keyes-v-Bowen-Appellee-Obama-Brief-Corrected

  12. avatar
    john March 12, 2012 at 9:46 am #

    Wonk Kim Ark was NOT ruled a “Natural Born Citizen”. Both Ankeny and Judge Mahili acknowledged this.

  13. avatar
    Scientist March 12, 2012 at 9:49 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Speaking of “a little late” I just noted that something was just filed in the 2008 case of Keyes v. Bowen.

    It says it was filed March 8, but in 2010. I believe this is 2012.

  14. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 12, 2012 at 10:14 am #

    john:
    Wonk Kim Ark was NOT ruled a “Natural Born Citizen”.Both Ankeny and Judge Mahili acknowledged this.

    Read the actual opinion…

    The opinion blatently says that citizenship in the United States is derived from English Common Law, and equates the terms Natural Born Citizen and Natural Born Subject in several of the quotes that they use to prove their point.

  15. avatar
    Arthur March 12, 2012 at 10:35 am #

    Wrong. You fail. You suck. Game over.

    john: Wonk Kim Ark was NOT ruled a “Natural Born Citizen”. Both Ankeny and Judge Mahili acknowledged this.

  16. avatar
    JoZeppy March 12, 2012 at 10:42 am #

    john: Wonk Kim Ark was NOT ruled a “Natural Born Citizen”. Both Ankeny and Judge Mahili acknowledged this.

    I realized based on their statements about Minor and WKA that birthers have reading compreshension issues, but how does a person even passingly read these Ankeny and Mahili reommendation and come to that conclusion?

  17. avatar
    ballantine March 12, 2012 at 11:01 am #

    john: Wonk Kim Ark was NOT ruled a “Natural Born Citizen”. Both Ankeny and Judge Mahili (sic) acknowledged this.

    Why do people post who have no understanding of law? The court does not need to declare Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen in order to define the term and have it not be dicta. Where does this nonsense come from? The court did not rule Wong Kim Art to be a 14th Amendment citizen either. It ruled he was a citizen. Of course, such conclusion was based upon the fact that court made clear that he would be both a natural born citizen and a 14th amendment citizen as both were based upon the same english common law rule which applied to persons such as Wong Kim Ark. At this point, people saying otherwise are simply dishonest.

  18. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 12, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    john:
    Wonk Kim Ark was NOT ruled a “Natural Born Citizen”. Both Ankeny and Judge Mahili (sic) acknowledged this.

    And besides, in the decision WKA was referred to as “natural born” and elsewhere as a “citizen.” Only a complete retard would claim that doesn’t indicate they considered him a NBC.

    The dissenting opinion even states that the majority ruling (6-2) would allow WKA to run for President.

    Wholly Moses, this is getting tedious.

  19. avatar
    misha March 12, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    john:
    Wonk Kim Ark was NOT ruled a “Natural Born Citizen”. Both Ankeny and Judge Mahili (sic) acknowledged this.

    Get help.

  20. avatar
    Lupin March 12, 2012 at 11:14 am #

    john: Wonk Kim Ark was NOT ruled a “Natural Born Citizen”. Both Ankeny and Judge Mahili (sic) acknowledged this.

    Scary Black Man is soon going to be reelected, take all your guns away and force you to gay marry at the contraception emporium.

    I for one can’t wait.

  21. avatar
    NBC March 12, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    john: Wonk Kim Ark was NOT ruled a “Natural Born Citizen”. Both Ankeny and Judge Mahili (sic) acknowledged this.

    And yet both the Government appealing in US v WKA as well as the dissenting Judge knew that under the ruling, WKA was a natural born citizen. Logic my dear John, something you are still struggling with. Or is it pure denial of the obvious…

    Sigh…

  22. avatar
    Tarrant March 12, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    JoZeppy: I realized based on their statements about Minor and WKA that birthers have reading comprehension issues, but how does a person even passingly read these Ankeny and Malihi recommendation and come to that conclusion?

    Well, when the foundation of one’s entire (wrong) argument requires reading a given document to say something it does not, it’s very easy to pick apart grammar and read sentences strangely so it magically says what you need it to say, or doesn’t say what would be inconvenient for you.

    This is how birthers can completely disregard the “It is not necessary to resolve these doubts…” sentence in Minor, and the clear acknowledgement in the Government’s WKA brief that he had been declared an NBC.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    So what’s your point?

    Thomas Brown: Only a complete retard would claim that doesn’t indicate they considered him a NBC.

  24. avatar
    John Woodman March 12, 2012 at 12:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    So what’s your point?

    Thomas’ point is that

    1) The Court clearly found Wong Kim Ark to to be “natural born.” They stated they were “irresistibly” led to this “conclusion.”

    2) The Court clearly found Wong Kim Ark to be a “citizen.”

    3) Therefore, it is inescapable that the Court found Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born citizen.”

    Doc, I’m not sure I understand your apparent hostility toward Thomas.

  25. avatar
    justlw March 12, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

    I think Doc was commenting that what Thomas was essentially saying is, “Water is wet.”

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

    So what’s your point?

    justlw: “Water is wet.”

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    There was no hostility towards Thomas. I was just being cute, and I guess ambiguous.

    John Woodman: Doc, I’m not sure I understand your apparent hostility toward Thomas.

  28. avatar
    John Woodman March 12, 2012 at 12:27 pm #

    You’re in a cranky mood today, aren’t you?

  29. avatar
    John Woodman March 12, 2012 at 12:27 pm #

    Lol.

  30. avatar
    JPotter March 12, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    John is not going to get all this subtlety. So:

    John is a retard.

  31. avatar
    jayHG March 12, 2012 at 12:46 pm #

    John Woodman: Thomas’ point is that1) The Court clearly found Wong Kim Ark to to be “natural born.” They stated they were “irresistibly” led to this “conclusion.”2) The Court clearly found Wong Kim Ark to be a “citizen.”3) Therefore, it is inescapable that the Court found Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born citizen.”Doc, I’m not sure I understand your apparent hostility toward Thomas.

    I think you missed the snark in Doc’s post………he was joking.

  32. avatar
    John Woodman March 12, 2012 at 12:50 pm #

    Oh, I saw the snark. Although it appears it may have been directed towards John, and not Thomas.

    So now in addition to having a thoroughly busted irony meter, it looks like I’m going to have to send my snark direction-finder to the shop, as well.

  33. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

    That’s OK; I got it. I understand Doc’s sense of humor by now.

    Gotta go; I’m late for the last meeting of the Philatelist’s Club.

  34. avatar
    Scientist March 12, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

    Here’s a fun question for John: Supposing the Wong case had never arisen; i.e., no Chinese exclusion laws-would it require 2 citizen parents to be born a citizen? The answer is, of course, no, since never in US history did it ever require 2 citizen parents to be born a citizen. So Wong did not overturn a 2 citiizen parent rule, because such a rule never existed.

    So, even without Wong, John loses….Poor John….

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    I didn’t know you …

    Thomas Brown: Gotta go; I’m late for the last meeting of the Philatelist’s Club.

  36. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 12, 2012 at 2:09 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I didn’t know you …

    …were into extracurricular activities?

    Creepies… where’s your school spirit!

  37. avatar
    JPotter March 12, 2012 at 2:24 pm #

    Scientist: So, even without Wong, John loses….Poor John….

    Thanks, Scientist, great reminder of just how dangerous birtherism, and the mindset behind it is.

    Birtherism is an exercise in revisionism. They are asserting that their desired laws—which have never existed on American books—have been removed / violated / dismantled somewhere along the way. Despite the fact that going back to the earliest cases, at least 170 years to Lynch (75% of this country’s history), courts have consistently rejected attempts to water down the principle of jus soli, rejected attemptes to establish the precedent / laws the birthers are asserting were there from the beginning.

    Over the years, the court decision painted a clearer and clearer picture, nailing that coffin shut tighter and tighter. Saying louder and clearer: “No, dammit! America is a special country. Free and open. Take your fear and xenophobia and shuffle off.”

    So along come the birthers, attempting to revise those rejections into ejections.

    And they’re willing to sacrifice anything to achieve one goal, the removal of Obama. Blocking ballot access to groups or individuals, deisenfranchising groups or individuals, denying citizenship to groups or individuals, turn the country into a police-state dictatorship, or a wide-open, helpless anarchy, whatever, just get that man outta there.

    But for some, those potential side effects are the goal. Ideologues are using birtherism as an excuse, and Obama as a straw man. Birther followers are too myopic to see clearly where they’re agitating to go. Some of the birther activists are simply deranged (Orly thinks she still lives in the USSR). But the prophets, many of them know exactly where they’re going. Corsi, Van Irion, Swensson, Weldon, Farah, etc., etc., rolling back civil rights for people they love to not like isn’t a new fight for them. And they’re carrying torches handed down from bigots long gone.

    America as a secret club is not America.

  38. avatar
    Scientist March 12, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    JPotter: Despite the fact that going back to the earliest cases, at least 170 years to Lynch (75% of this country’s history), courts have consistently rejected attempts to water down the principle of jus soli

    Absolutely true. And let’s go further and note that even jus sanguinis would not help the birthers as regards Obama, since even pure sanguinis countries only require ONE citizen parent. You would need not only sanguinis, but also a totally gender-based law that disregarded the custodial mother and honored solely the absent father. And since 53% of the electorate is female, I would urge the birthers to argue that point to the death….

  39. avatar
    JPotter March 12, 2012 at 2:44 pm #

    Scientist: a totally gender-based law that disregarded the custodial mother and honored solely the absent father. And since 53% of the electorate is female, I would urge the birthers to argue that point to the death….

    Fits right in with the back to back-alley abortions and to hell with a century of prgress in women’s health crusade currently underway!

    To be fair, however, I do not believe birthers are sexist (Keepstraightfacekeepstraightface). I absolutely believe they would demand the right to choose the parent that “counts” on a case-by-case basis. So they could actively suppress on an as-needed basis.

    Also, you’re making the assumption that birthers would adopt a sane model. I have ridiculed them all along as wanting NBCs to be defined as persons with dual-NBC parents. Setting up requisite citizenship commissions only a tiptoe away from eugenics programs. Only those with pure bloodlines back to 1789 need apply to the Presidency!

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    It’s in the rumble seat. Want a snort?

    [not sure but that was in the ole brain]

    Thomas Brown: Creepies… where’s your school spirit!

  41. avatar
    Sef March 12, 2012 at 4:30 pm #

    JPotter: Also, you’re making the assumption that birthers would adopt a sane model. I have ridiculed them all along as wanting NBCs to be defined as persons with dual-NBC parents. Setting up requisite citizenship commissions only a tiptoe away from eugenics programs. Only those with pure bloodlines back to 1789 need apply to the Presidency!

    It’s actually worse than that. Since there are only 2 types of citizen (NBC & naturalized) and there is no evidence of anyone being born on U.S. soil being naturalized, they aren’t even citizens, unless they have “pure bloodlines”.

  42. avatar
    JPotter March 12, 2012 at 4:51 pm #

    Sef: It’s actually worse than that. Since there are only 2 types of citizen (NBC & naturalized) and there is no evidence of anyone being born on U.S. soil being naturalized, they aren’t even citizens, unless they have “pure bloodlines”.

    Well, I guess I was giving them the benefit of the doubt in their own critical thinking skills. No way they could think through to that conclusion, or have the ‘nads to own up to their dream even if they could think it through. Witness all the hysterical citizenship breakdown schemes they’ve come up with. Some are up to 5, 6, 7 classes!

    Best part is, the birthers going down this path would almost certainly be “demoting” themselves!

    Am trying so very hard to keep Godwin at bay here. 😐

  43. avatar
    GLaB March 12, 2012 at 5:54 pm #

    JPotter: John is not going to get all this subtlety. So:John is a retard.

    “Imagine Justice Gray writing “Wong Kim Ark is a Natural Born Citizen” …”

    – John Lennon

  44. avatar
    Horus March 12, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    J. Potter: Seems to ask for review, but doesn’t spell out relief sought … so I guess they are pursuing their original goal? … which implies they expect GA to throw out the results of the GA Dem. Primary? …. or strike Obama’s name … and possibly all of his votes …. disenfranchising all those who cast votes for him?

    It does not matter, Obama is already the nominee of the party, the whole Primary Ballot challenges are all moot because he is our nominee.
    And they cannot keep his name off the Presidential Election Ballot.

  45. avatar
    J. Potter March 12, 2012 at 11:58 pm #

    Horus: It does not matter, Obama is already the nominee of the party, the whole Primary Ballot challenges are all moot because he is our nominee.
    And they cannot keep his name off the Presidential Election Ballot.

    I know it doesn’t matter just trying to reason out what the heck they’re thinking.

    I know, I know, attempting to understand birfers is purdy stoopid. But it remains a worthy goal.

  46. avatar
    Thrifty March 13, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    Has he already amassed the delegates? Obviously we knew he would, since he’s running unopposed (except for maybe a few fringe candidates who will be getting none to almost no votes). I didn’t realize that enough primaries had passed so far to reach the necessary count.

    Trivia question: does anyone know when was the last time (if ever) a non-incumbent delegate won all the states on Super Tuesday?

    Also, didn’t there used to be a smaller set of primaries called Junior Tuesday, which came a week before Super Tuesday? What ever happened to that?

    Horus: It does not matter, Obama is already the nominee of the party, the whole Primary Ballot challenges are all moot because he is our nominee.
    And they cannot keep his name off the Presidential Election Ballot.

  47. avatar
    Sef March 13, 2012 at 10:49 am #

    Horus: It does not matter, Obama is already the nominee of the party, the whole Primary Ballot challenges are all moot because he is our nominee.
    And they cannot keep his name off the Presidential Election Ballot.

    While the probability of his nomination is at least 6 nines, it does require the imprimatur of the DNC at its convention in NC in September.

    Is anyone visiting these pages a delegate?

  48. avatar
    JPotter March 13, 2012 at 11:50 am #

    Thrifty: (except for maybe a few fringe candidates who will be getting none to almost no votes).

    Thrifty, I must take exception. Here in the Great State of Okieland, also known as BizarroAmerica, DystOklahomia, and FundyLand, Obama nearly lost the Democratic Primary.

    Randall Terry earned a delegate here. Randall freakin’ Terry is a Dem?!? Yeah freakin’ right.

    I wish Jim Rogers would win. He just looks awesome.

    I shot you nit.

    Creative hijinks …. various municipalities decided to have open primaries. Curiously, the Red Overloards of the Red Dirt State were always adamantly opposed to that before. What changed? 😉

    Rogers and Guthrie are grave-spinning, likely to achieve escape velocity soon.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Democratic_primary,_2012

  49. avatar
    Whatever4 March 13, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

    JPotter: Thrifty, I must take exception.Here in the Great State of Okieland, also known as BizarroAmerica, DystOklahomia, and FundyLand, Obama nearly lost the Democratic Primary.

    I wish Jim Rogers would win. He just looks awesome.

    I shot you nit.

    LOL — Wikipedia says: “Jim Rogers (Oklahoma politician): Not to be confused with Jim Rogers (politician) or Jim Rodgers (politician).” I’m certainly glad they cleared that up.