Open Letter to TN Rep. Eric Swafford

The following is a copy of a letter I sent to Tennessee Rep. Eric Swafford, who signed one of Orly’s consent forms to be part of a case to demand documentation from President Obama.


I just want you to know what you are getting into by signing on to Dr. Orly Taitz’s lawsuit.

Taitz is making crazy comments on her website including calling for a “civilian militia” to investigate Obama’s eligibility

Dr. Taitz got her law degree through a correspondence course, and besides defending herself and her husband in numerous malpractice lawsuits, has no litigation experience. See Complaints against Orly Taitz have been filed with the California Bar because of her Internet recruiting of paintiffs using false information.

Her various lawsuits are hopelessly inept, and have been summarily dismissed by every court that has looked at them. One demonstration of her incompetence as a lawyer is here:

You might feel that some investigation should be made into Obama’s eligibility, but that will never be achieved without a competent attorney. You’re already being laughed at on the Internet as a “tin foil hat” for associating with Orly. Example here:

Your reputation is your business, but I hate to see anybody dragged down Dr. Orly’s craziness.

[end of letter]

Here’s another reference to Swafford over at

And here at The Washington Independent.

We learn via the Nashville Post that Republican Rep. Eric Swafford, of the Tennessee State House, has decided to don clown shoes and join a crackpot legal action demanding Barack Obama’s 1961-issue birth certificate.

And here at Nashville Is Talking

Seriously folks. Apparently, you can say or do just about whatever idiotic thing pops into your head and retain that “bona fide” status as a Republican, so long as you don’t challenge Jason Mumpower for the Speakership of the State House.

Nashville Scene

This year’s session has only just begun and already a lawmaker is making Tennessee a laughingstock. This time, it’s Republican Rep. Eric Swafford who’s slipping on the banana peel. He’s proudly become America’s first state legislator to join the wacky legal action by the weird Russian dentist Orly Taitz demanding Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

And here at the Nashville Post

In case you were not aware, there are a group of people who think that President Barack Obama may not qualified to serve as President of United States as a natural born citizen of this nation.

They are using the courts to make Barack Obama publicly release documentation proving that he was, if fact, born in the U.S. and at no point renounced his citizenship.

Now, a member of our Tennessee legislature is among the conspiracy theorists.

Now here’s the nice part. The hyperlinks in the Nashville Post article are from their web site. Look where the “conspiracy theorists” link goes!

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Orly Taitz and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

142 Responses to Open Letter to TN Rep. Eric Swafford

  1. bogus info says:

    Dr. C.,

    May I send your letter also and sign my name?

    Also, would you please “fact check” Orly’s letter to Senator Grassley and post it so we might send that to Senator Grassley also? I know it would take some time but I’m not good at stuff like that as you are. Please?

  2. mimi says:

    “This year’s session has only just begun and already a lawmaker is making Tennessee a laughingstock. This time, it’s Republican Rep. Eric Swafford who’s slipping on the banana peel. He’s proudly become America’s first state legislator to join the wacky legal action by the weird Russian dentist Orly Taitz demanding Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

    When reporters asked House Democrats for their reaction this morning during a press conference, Rep. Larry Miller was incredulous.

    “He did what? Who’s Eric Swafford?” he asked. “He’s from Mars,” Democratic leader Gary Odom scoffed.’

    More here…

    Well… I guess they’re getting attention.

    I expect the birthers to spam the comments in 3-2-1…

  3. TED is already over at Nashville Is Talking.

  4. You can use the letter text. I’ll see what I can get around to.

  5. Harold Tinker says:

    I’m glad someone has guts enough to stand up and be counted.Obama knew before he started he had to be a natural born citizen.If he isn’t then out he goes.

  6. I was thinking about this on the way to work. And remembering that Dr. Orly said she was at a Religious Broadcasters meeting in Nashville.

    I suspect Swafford, (and the other state reps that have joined in), may have gotten their info from Orly, World Net Daily, and the like, and may be completely unaware of how much the claims have been debunked and how discredited Dr. Orly has become.

  7. richCares says:

    Obama is the President, he knows he is qualified, America knows he is qualified, you are beating a dead horse.

    American Idol drew 30.1 million viewers
    Obama’s press conference drew 37.5 million

    and you think all those failing law suits will remove Obama, you are delusional.

  8. Ian Gould says:

    Patrick – yes and given how they’ve constructed a neat little cocoon around themselves where news from the dreaded “MSM” and the liberal “haters” is never allowed in, they’ll likely continue to believe it.

  9. mimi says:

    Here is a video of Dolores Gresham (who signed up with Orly as well) trying to describe her accomplishments. 🙂

  10. mimi says:

    More about Gresham:

    “on the list of Fayette County recipients receiving state-funded agriculture grants, according to the Commercial Appeal. The State Senate candidate’s husband, James, received almost $27,000 from the program and is on track to receive an additional $9040.”

    She supported the program without disclosing she would benefit. Then, she refused to state whether she would accept funds in the future.

  11. mimi says:

    Some blogs jokes about that video, then pointed to her “achievements” page of her blog. Apparently it’s still waiting for something to put there.

  12. mimi says:

    Then, she takes credit for stuff she doesn’t do.

    “When asked about the press statement that she “sponsored and passed” the tax-cut bill, Gresham first said that to say “co-sponsored would probably be better.”

    But told that she was not listed as a co-sponsor either, she said she thought she had joined the rush of House members to the podium to sign the bill — a common practice by lawmakers who want their names attached to popular legislation.

    “My memory was that I was one who got up and signed on. But let me go back and check our documentation. Heaven forbid that I should put out something that is incorrect. Thank you for pointing it out,” she said.”

  13. Patrick, I would not be at all surprised if you’re right. World Net Daily pretends to be a legitimate news organization, but as we know, they have no filters to keep out outright lies. If someone lands on one of these web sites (and sees 100% agreeable comments, and sees 100% confirming hyperlinks), they could be easily led astray. I’m grateful that Obama Conspiracy Theories get competitive positioning on Google.

  14. mimi says:

    STACEY CAMPFIELD should spend more time taking care of his own problems. Hey Stacey, take off the TIN FOIL HAT and pick up a hammer or something:

    “Breaking news…college students live in shitty house. OK, so that isn’t anything exactly new, but when a rental house is condemned, and that property belongs to a certain controversial lawmaker, then it gets a bit of coverage:

    Tenants living in a condemned rental house belonging to state Rep. Stacey Campfield allege the Republican lawmaker has dragged his heels making repairs, threatened to sue them if they break their lease and pumped raw sewage out of the basement that went into a storm drain.

    Campfield counters that his tenants just want out of the lease, and he would have the property up to code in time to pass muster with city officials.

    The city codes office deemed the house on Silver Place in North Knoxville “unfit for human habitation” after a Jan. 8 inspection that found the basement flooded with water and feces, leaking faucets, inoperable windows, missing gutters, “bootleg wiring” and other problems – 47 violations in all, according to city records.”

  15. bogus info says:

    Well, Orly has certainly caught a “big fish.” LOL. Stinky one too. Wonder if Orly knows this?

  16. President Obama, a former professor of constitutional law, probably knows better than just about anyone in the discussion that he is a natural born citizen and that he is qualified to be president.

  17. Expelliarmus says:

    For some background on the reference to ” so long as you don’t challenge Jason Mumpower for the Speakership of the State House” see:

    Apparently the Tennessee State House of Representatives is strange place ….

  18. bogus info says:


    This goes to show that if you start “looking” for something on individuals, you will generally find something on everyone. What has truly amazed me about President Obama is that as hard as they have “looked”, they have actually come up with very little. Don’t you agree?

  19. Retired Peace Officer says:

    I applaud Mr. Swafford for having the courage to challenge Obama on his credentials because Obama has NOT proven that he meets the qualifications for the office of POTUS. When I first heard about this issue I thought it was just a political smear tactic, however the more I followed it, the more I believe that there is something seriously wrong. A large portion of this is due to Obama having all his records sealed and having spent more than $500K to prevent those records from being made public. This is incredibly suspicious, as well as unbelievably arrogant for anyone running for the Office of President of the United States. Why spend all that money when the issue can be laid to rest by publishing a $12 certified copy of the vault birth certificate? The only explanation is that there is something to hide.

    I am a retired peace officer and I swore an oath upon being hired to uphold the United States Constitution, just as all attorneys do. This is the same oath that Obama swore when he graduated from Law School, again when he took office as Senator, and again when he was sworn in as President. This was his first official act of office and this act was committed fraudulently. I took my oath very seriously at the time I was sworn in and I continue to do so to this day. When I graduated from college I spent several hundred dollars getting dozens of certified copies of my birth certificate, college transcripts, and high school transcripts because along with every application I submitted for an entry level position with police/sheriff/probation departments that I applied to I was required to submit these documents along with copies of my diplomas. I also had to submit a list of all the addresses where I had lived since becoming an adult, and any trips I had made out of country. This information was used to conduct background investigations since I was applying for jobs that required a security clearance. Obama now holds the highest office in the land and is refusing to produce these documents, even though he admits in his book, Dreams from My Father, that he had a copy of his birth certificate. What he posted on his website is not a birth certificate, but a certification of live birth (COLB). Under the laws of Hawaii, a COLB may be issued for a child born outside of the US, and it is not proof of ‘natural born’ citizenship status. While you cannot have the original ‘vault’ birth certificate, you may obtain a certified copy of the original vault birth certificate, and that document indicates the county, the hospital, and the name of the doctor or individual that delivered the baby.

    I looked over my own birth certificate recently and went over the information on it. It clearly states on the document the address and Parish (I was born in Louisiana so the term “Parish” would be the equivalent of “County”) where I was born, as well as who delivered me. I also went over my college transcripts and there are fields on it that indicate what your citizenship is as well as what grants, scholarships, and financial aid you received during your education there. I am sure that grad schools would have similar information on their transcripts as well.

    This is a link to an excellent article describing what the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ means as defined by an author of the 14th Amendment (towards the bottom of the article).
    “Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being BORN WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
    According to the statement by Rep. Bingham, it seems clear that Obama does not qualify as a ‘natural born citizen’ because his father, as admitted by the Obama campaign, was not a US citizen. The entire purpose of the natural born citizen requirement was to ensure that whoever holds the office of POTUS has undivided loyalty to the sovereignty of the United States. This is a matter paramount to our security as a nation since whoever holds this office has the authority to launch nuclear weapons.

    The comment from Obama’s campaign website reads:
    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.”

    I do not accept Obama as POTUS because he does not meet the eligibility requirements of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause for that office. I also think that his citizenship status itself is questionable because of the trip to Pakistan he took as an adult on a foreign passport since he would have had to declare himself an Indonesian citizen to get that passport and Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship at that time.

    All nine Justices of the SCOTUS have sworn an oath to uphold, protect and defend the US Constitution, just as I have. As an attorney having specialized in Constitutional Law, I have no doubt that Obama himself is very much aware of the fact that he does not meet the eligibility qualifications for the office of POTUS, and has thus committed fraud. Further fraud occurred when he signed the sworn statement that he was eligible for this office prior to his presidential campaign.

    This is not a personal issue, it is a matter of Constitutional Law. If you disagree with it, there is a procedure in place to make Constitutional Amendments. However, you cannot choose to simply ignore the US Constitution when it inconveniences you, and this is exactly what Obama has done. We are a nation based on the rule of law, the basis of which was provided to us by our founding fathers in the form of the US Constitution. Without it, there would be nothing but mob rule.

  20. Notheydidn't says:

    Dr C.,
    Thank you for sending your letter. I have posted at Yes, to Democracy a few times and have been just reading here for a few weeks now. I appreciate your informative and educational website. Onward march!

  21. Expelliarmus says:

    This is not a personal issue, it is a matter of Constitutional Law. If you disagree with it, there is a procedure in place to make Constitutional Amendments.

    “Constitutional law” is determined by the Supreme Court of the US, not by bloggers expressing their personal opinions. Thus far, all cases from the US Supreme Court have followed the holding of Wong Kim Ark that “natural born” citizen = born in the US. Citizenship of the parents is irrelevant. If you read this blog, you will find citations to all relevant opinions.

    No Constitutional amendment is needed beyond what is already there in the 14th Amendment.

    The Constitution also sets forth a procedure for determining qualifications of Presidents and it was followed in this case, to the letter.

  22. mimi says:

    You obviously did not spend one minute of your time on this site. You would have found the answers to your questions. Instead, you just restated material that has been debunked on this site.

    As with all birthers, you only see what you want to see. Look around the site some.

  23. bogus info says:

    Retired Peace Officer,

    Your early comments are not factual:

    “A large portion of this is due to Obama having all his records sealed and having spent more than $500K to prevent those records from being made public.”

    Obama’s records haven’t been “sealed.” And, have you seen any evidence that Obama has spent 500K in legal fees?

    Take a look around Dr. C’s. blog. It might just be a eye opener for you. If you are a “peace officer”, then surely you should know how to “investigate” things for yourself rather than just taking what somebody else says as factual.

  24. Rita says:

    Can you say copy and paste? I don’t even know where to begin in this muddled mess of false legal analysis you have proffered against President Obama.

  25. Retired Peace Officer,

    Thank you for sharing your comments. It appears that you have been keeping bad company with the web sites you’ve been visiting. You notice that your comment is displayed for all to see. The anti-Obama web sites generally screen out any dissenting views, and so you may have gotten a decidedly one-sided view (or to put it bluntly, been lied to).

    There is a lot of information and more importantly documentation on this web site in the main articles. When something is said here it will either have facts behind it or it will be labeled as opinion. I’m going through your comment to let you know where you have been misled. The details are in the main articles.

    1. Obama has not “sealed” any records (as if anyone could just go around sealing their records). Sealing a record requires a court order or a law. Obama has requested no court orders to seal records. In fact the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health said in a press release which is today on their web site, that Obama’s birth records are treated exactly like everyone else’s.

    2. You will find no documentation of the $500,000 legal expense number, and indeed your number is quite low among all the made up numbers (up to $2.1 million). The number is made up (proved by the fact you will see no source for it.) The fact of the matter is, there is no lawsuit Obama has defended that could be settled by releasing any group of documents. They all have other hooks and allegations. If someone tells you that Obama releasing anything will settle anything, they don’t know beans about conspiracy theories. By the way, Hawaiian Certified Copies of birth records are $10, not $12.

    3. The COLB Obama posted on his web site and physically provided to independent observers, is a legal proof of the facts of birth from Hawaii. There are several long articles about what the document is and what the law says. Since you’re a retired law enforcement officer, you probably know exactly what prima facie evidence is, and Hawaiian law says that document is prima facie evidence of what it says, and precisely what it says is that he was born in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii. (You do know that’s what is says, right?)

    4. It turns out that those laws about registering foreign children in Hawaii had not been passed in 1961 when Obama was registered. But even if they had been, the COLB says plainly “Location of Birth: Honolulu” and unless you think Hawaii routinely lies in its official documents, I suggest you rethink this whole foreign registration myth.

    5. A college transcript is not a legal document, while the COLB is. You see how useful releasing a document was?

    6. The Federalist Blog article you cite is not “excellent”, but rather represents a fringe view that hides the main facts. Bingham’s remark is just that, a remark. It is not the constitution. It is not a law. It is not a court ruling. There have been anti-immigrant activists throughout our history, some even in Congress, but one guy’s remark is not law. A court decision listed on this site says plainly that a president may be born of alien parents. And the fact of the matter is, President Obama is our SECOND president born of a British citizen. That’s documented on this site too.

    7. The “travel ban to Pakistan” is an urban legend. On this site you will see links to newspaper articles from 1981 with travel logs of an American visitor to Pakistan, and a link to a 1981 State Department travel bulletin telling US citizens visiting Pakistan the visa requirements.

    8. The issue is a few anti-Obama activists spreading unsubstantiated rumors, misstating the law and trying to re-interpret the Constitution in their own image.

    9. The Supreme Court didn’t think any of those lawsuits were worth hearing. Two lower court federal judges have called them “frivolous”.

    If you really care to know the truth, take some time with the following reading list. Based on your comments, you haven’s seen the real deal. If you have any objections to the material you see, there is open space at the end of the articles where you many comment freely and with out censorship. I’m happy to discuss any questions you have about the material.

    Reading list where you will find documentation of what is said above:

    Please, read and come back and tell us what you think!

  26. I’m guessing Retired Peace Officer is a “drive by”, but just in case, I provided a fairly long reply. Maybe somebody will read it.

  27. richCares says:

    “Please, read and come back and tell us what you think!”
    he won’t, Birthers are allergic to reality!

    retired peace Officer, I am a retired US Marine and I voted for Obama, Gen Jim jones, former Marine Commandant is working for Obama. I also swore an oath and Iam keeping it still. Part of that oath is not to be swayed by rumors as you are. Remember the person that shouts “Traitor” the loudest is usually the traitor.

    I am from Hawaii, not a soul in Hawaii falls for the Birther stuff, that includes both parties (Gov Lingle is a Republican as well as that Helth Dept Official) They are proud of Obama, a favorite son and all Hawaiians know where he was born. If you don’t like his politics that’s your right but don’t spout the garbage!

  28. Another one of those Google ironies. I typed in:

    “eric swafford” tennessee

    and what web site came up FIRST?

    and what web site came up second?

    and third?

  29. Expelliarmus says:

    Question: do you use any Google services like gmail, or Google docs? if so, try the same search when you are logged in to the service and when you are logged out. You might be surprised (I see different results than you’ve described, and my logged in vs. logged out results are each different as well).

    I don’t have specific info, but I think Google is doing some tracking of user preferences based on browsing history and tailoring search results accordingly. So I’m just curious to see what you find with my little experiment.

  30. mimi says:

    I googled Retired Peace Officer’s sentence, including the quotes:

    “I am a retired peace officer and I swore an oath upon being hired to uphold the United States Constitution”

    I got 58 hits.

    That man has pasted that crap 58 times.

  31. A. Kibitzer says:

    Re: Swafford

    Pardon me boy, is that the Chattanooga Cuckoo?

    Yes, yes.

    He’s gonna whine,

    Unless Obama resigns.

  32. mimi says:

    You must click on the picture of the FLYING SAUCER where it says “I WANT TO BELIEVE”. “How Conspiracy Theorists Almost Seized State House”

    to get to this article:

    Three More House Republicans Demand Obama Prove Citizenship
    By Jeff Woods in Politics, Woods
    Thursday, Feb. 12 2009 @ 4:28PM

    It turns out at least four state House Republicans have promised to join a crackpot legal action demanding that Barack Obama produce his birth certificate. Among them is–you guessed it!–Rep. Stacey Campfield, and also the GOP caucus chair, Glen Casada. Why not the entire caucus? Here’s a sobering thought: These are the people who were almost running the House. Pith in the Wind just talked with one of our House conspiracy theorists, Frank Niceley, a farmer from Strawberry Plains who once told a committee in a flash of brilliance: “It’s not exactly rocket surgery.” Here’s what he said about Obama’s citizenship:
    “I think he ought to show his birth certificate. If my grandkid wants to play Little League ball, he’s got to show a birth certificate. If it’s not too much to ask of a Little League baseball player, it’s not to much to ask of the president. He ought to go ahead and show it and make everybody shut up. I don’t see what the problem is. There’s a lot of unanswered questions floating around. I don’t think that’s asking too much of the most powerful man in the free world. You don’t just ignore the Constitution the way the federal government has started doing now. I don’t know where Obama was born. Who knows what the truth is these days?”

  33. Cee Cee says:

    OmG this is hilarious….

    “B-rock “The Islamic Shock” Hussein Superallah Obama”

  34. This time OCT moved down to 5th and was first. Logging out and trying again returned the same results. Before I was getting OCT before the Hawaii Department of Health on the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program” query, but that changed over time.

  35. Smart move, mimi. So the person probably isn’t a peace officer at all, just a nObama activist. I’ve seen other things like that. Still perhaps the reply here will get read by someone. Maybe I should post a link to my reply where he posted his message.

  36. Patrick McKinnion says:

    Here, have an internet!

  37. A. Kibitzer says:

    I love the way they always say “show his birth certificate” without any indication of “to whom” he is to do this. Is he supposed to go door-to-door?

    Then, when it is posted on the internet, the image is claimed to be a “forgery” because, like all electronic images, it is an electronic image, and not the actual document which appears on a computer screen.

    The icing on the cake is when they take the statement of a document examiner which said, essentially, that you can’t conclude whether a document is genuine by looking at an electronic image, they say, “Aha, the document examiner could not confirm it was genuine.”

  38. Obot 1024 says:

    Orly uncorks this whopper on her website

    “According to Alexa web stats, this site has one and a half million readers per month”

    According to Alexa stats her site is ranked 1,593,850.

    Alexa ranks websites according to traffic and page views. Its not a perfect measure but the goal like golf is to have a lower number.

    Orly either does not understand Alexa or is lying.

  39. mimi says:

    “Casada, the House Republican caucus chairman, said that he believes that Obama does have a U.S. birth certificate, and should make it widely available.”

    Doesn’t the lawsuit allege he does not have a U.S. Birth Certificate?


  40. I raised this issue with one of our visitors who replied vision of a team consisting of a judge, a Hawaiian official and a forensic document examiner actually visiting the State of Hawaii’s records room to examine the document. (You can’t just have Hawaii produce the document because the officials there are all on the take from Obama.)

    Ideally, the COLB would be presented in court, the court would declare Obama native born, and that would be the end of it. But it wouldn’t be the end of anything.

  41. richCares says:

    visiting Orly’s site is very depressing, an awful lot of hate there, do those people want their children to grow up with so much hate?
    a perfect place for Orly:

  42. bogus info says:


    My son came face to face with the hate recently when one of the teachers (not his teacher) had his class write a paper on how Obama is like Hitler. We reported this to a school board member who is taking care of the matter. The teacher has lied and said he told them to compare Obama to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Great teacher, huh? All the kids know he lied and the truth will come out. Had my son been in this teachers class, we would have taken the matter up ourselves with the School Board but since our son isn’t in the teachers class, we felt it would be better to just report this to the school board member and keep our son out of it if possible.

  43. A. Kibitzer says:

    Was it a “compare and contrast” assignment?

    Like “both were inspirational speakers” and “one used language of division to inspire supporters, and the other uses language of inclusion to grow support”.

    That sort of thing can be a useful exercise in getting kids to think about what are “leadership” attributes, and how an ability to lead can be independent of where one is leading.

    Or the teacher could be a jackass, but the context matters.

  44. bogus info says:

    You would have to know this teacher. And no, it was not a “compare and contrast”. It was a Obama is a dictator like Hitler, evil man, going to ruin American, going to put people in prison camps, genocide, etc., etc.

    There is a town here in Texas that still to this day if you are a black person, you do not want to stay in that town after sunset. One of my Supervisors in 1990, who was a black woman, with her Masters Degree and I went out to eat together in a Texas town close to the coast. The steak house we went to would not serve us. I could not believe it. She looked at me and said “welcome to my world.”

  45. Hitandrun says:

    Thanks, Doc, for your full reply to “Retired Peace Officer”. On your points one by one:

    1. Mr Obama has refused to unseal his records. the effect is the same.

    2. The fact remains Mr Obama has not been compelled to release any record in any lawsuit by any court. Nor has he chosen on his own to publicly produce the Hawaiian vault document which, if properly attested, could settle the birthplace issue for most.

    3. The CnOLB, while prima facie evidence, is by that very fact rebuttable should the vault document from which it is abstracted prove improperly or insufficiently attested.

    4. There’s no need to posit government conspiracy, as family deception would easily suffice.

    5. Wouldn’t a college transcript, if found admissible by the court, become a legal document?

    6. Jefferson’s mother, both of Jackson’s parents, Buchanan’s father, as well as Arthur’s father were all born abroad, and were therefore, I believe, in British eyes inalienable British subjects.

    7. Mr Obama has yet to reveal publicly the nature and origin of the passport he used on his Pakistan trip.

    8. Mr Obama’s deafening silence has allowed such rumors to spread like a plague.

    9. None of these cases have been formally addressed as to their merits, given the current unconstitutional construal of standing.


  46. Well I’ll give you one point. Obama has today actually filed a motion in a court specifically to prevent release of a record (his housing and student records at Occidental College). See new article Keyes v. Obama, motion to quash.

    About those college records being legal documents: I’ll agree with you that they are “legal documents” if you agree that if they say Obama was born in Hawaii, then it’s proven he was born in Hawaii. If not, then you must agree that they are not proof of citizenship.

  47. Hitandrun says:

    Thank you, richCares, for your service.

    May I pose you the following hypothetical (admittedly remote) in the light of your oath to “support and defend the constituiton” of our Republic?

    Were it proven to your satisfaction that Mr Obama knowingly deceived us as to his ‘native-born’ status and that he was in fact foreign born, what would you recommend be done? I ask only that you not engage in the mindless yet anxious ridicule we see on all sides of this issue, yes, even on this site.


  48. C) All the above??

  49. obotdebunker says:

    Read the constitution.
    Research the definition of natural born citizen.
    Draw your own conclusion.
    And if you still think Obama is qualified to be president, move to DC.

  50. Ian Gould says:

    “Research the definition of natural born citizen.”

    Help us out – provide a reference to an authoritative source (like a Supreme Court ruling) which defines Natural Born Citizen.

    Not an unsourced statement on a right-wing blog, not a comment by Bingham that has no legal force.

    I’d be especially interested in any authoritative source that states someone born to a father who is a non-citizen is therefore not considered an NBC.

    Not opinion, not “common sense”, legal fact please.

  51. obotdebunker,

    I’ve spent a lot of time researching the natural born citizen issue in preparation for articles on this blog, a LOT of time. My conclusion is that the letter from my Senator, Lindsay Graham (R-SC) is correct, anyone born in one of the United States except for the children of ambassadors is a natural born citizen.

    I do not follow, however, your suggestion that I move to DC. Why should the president’s eligibility relate to where I live?

    Obotdebunker, why don’t you read the constitution, and why don’t you spend a little time on this web site. You might be surprised.

  52. bogus info says:

    Fifth State Representative joins legal action as a plaintiff
    by rxsid on Today, 04:10
    Fifth State Representative joins legal action as a plaintiff-Dr. Mike Ritze of Oklahoma (re: Obama)

    “Yesterday evening Dr. Mike Ritze, Oklahoma state representative has announced on Plains Radio to some 250,000 listeners that he will be joining as an additional plaintiff, my upcoming legal action to unseal Obama’s vital records and check if he is eligible/legitimate for presidency. Dr. Ritze is one of the most outstanding members of the Oklahoma legislature and Oklahoma community as a whole. He is a veteran, he served as an army doctor, he worked as a family doctor for 33 years, he is a family man. Dr. Ritze and his wife have four children. Please thank dr. Ritze His e-mail address is Please, send Dr. Ritze cards and banners and balloons and flowers. Please, call his office and express your appreciation. Please cal and write Oklahoma State and US Representatives and Senators and other elected officials, such as secretary of state, attorney general, Governor, Lt Governor, us attorneys for the district of Oklahoma and ask them to show solidarity with Dr. Ritze and 4 Tennessee Representatives and join my legal action. American citizens are entitled to know if a person occupying the White House is there legitimately. You can hear Dr. Ritze speak on Plains Radio archives. Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq DefendOurFreedoms.US” …

  53. bogus info says:

    I do not know this source for this information but noquitter posted it on MSM. I think it is WND. Regarding Orly’s proposed lawsuit. I don’t think the “4 cases pending” is factual because of a statement made by a poster on OC. Will post that statement also.

    “Case being assembled to demand eligibility documentation”

    “A new lawsuit is being prepared by a California attorney who already has “four cases pending” over the issue of President Obama’s eligibility to occupy to Oval Office, and this one will include a demand from state lawmakers who forward state funds to Washington for documentation of his qualifications.”

    “Orly Taitz told WND today she’s preparing the complaint but is holding onto it and will file it shortly to give state legislators a chance to join the action as plaintiffs.”

    “Four already have signed up, including state Rep. Eric Swafford of Tennessee, who agreed to be a plaintiff “for a Writ of Mandamus to obtain original birth certificate, immigration records, passports and other vital records for Barry Soetero aka Barack Hussein Obama.”

    “Taitz told WND the case also probably will include members of the military as plaintiffs, since both state lawmakers and military officers are obliged to follow orders from the president, and both have a need to know the orders are legitimate.”

    “In the military, those would be unlawful orders, and [following them] would subject the officers to courts-martial,” she said. “In the legislatures, they cannot follow any of his bills or orders … they don’t know who he is.”

    “As far as we know he is a foreign national … Why should state legislators send any funds from the state to a foreign national?” she said.”

    Statement by poster on OC with sources provided to check validity of statement–that is interesting:

    Re: Orly Taitz
    Click to view imageby Mama_Tilda on 05 Feb 2009, 22:26
    “There have been no confirmed updates on the Lightfoot case. Rumor has it that the defendant (Gail Lightfoot) will soon go the way of the plaintiff Broe and back out of litigation. As of yet, this has not been confirmed. But no effort has been made to re-file Lightfoot at SCOTUS or the lower court that previously denied the action.”

    “Keyes v Bowen is currently set for hearing in the California Superior Court at Sacramento for March 30th, Rumor has it that the defendants have requested that Gary Kreep handle this hearing without Ms. Taitz. I suggest emailing Gary Kreep at to confirm. Keyes v Bowen #34-200880000096-****-WM-CDS . You can verify, here: … earch.aspx Despite rumors to the contrary, this case has not been filed at the Federal Level. This can be confirmed with a simple query at the ECF Pacer Federal Docketing Service … t_id=00idx”

    “There are no other cases associated with Orly Taitz. She is currently coordinating a gathering in Texas. But this function is not affiliated with any of the plaintiffs or on their behalf.”

    “I have been advised that any donations in support of Keyes v Bowen be directed to Gary Kreep’s United Justice Foundation at … use/?a=292″

    “Everything in this writing is true and verifiable. It is strictly for educational purposes. Please feel free to confirm all information provided.”

  54. Tom from Florida says:

    Here is an open letter to you.
    Obams/Soetoro has NEVER provided any information. He has, however, run up over $800,000 in legal fees trying to keep his records from the public. Also, he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and became an Indonesan Citizen. We have a document that shows his name as “Barry Soetoro”, Citizen of “Indonesia”, Religion “Muslim”. At the time he was adopted Indoneia did NOT allow duel citizenship.
    The evidence that Orly Taitz, and I have personally seen it, is extensive. This without being able to get his documents released. We also now know that his college records at Occidental show that he was a “Foreign” student. Do you get the picture now? Do you now see why Obama/Soetoro has spent over $800,000 in legal fees.
    Now that the State Representatives and Military Personell are on-board the ones that do not want the information are getting scared. That is why the representatives and attorney are being harrassed and threatened. It is not going to work. This case is going forward and we are gong to find out what the truth is.

  55. myson says:

    1. Obams/Soetoro has NEVER provided any information — Untrue, he provided a COLB so which other document do u want ?
    2. He has, however, run up over $800,000 in legal fees trying to keep his records from the public.—untrue, he’s only directly responsed to less than 5 cases, & only 2 dismiss them . So he couldnt have spent that much
    3.Also, he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and became an Indonesan Citizen=== untrue
    4. We have a document that shows his name as “Barry Soetoro”, Citizen of “Indonesia”, Religion “Muslim”— true but it also includes his place of birth as Hawaii USA which u reject, if a document is taken as face value, then everthing it says is given equal value
    5. At the time he was adopted Indoneia did NOT allow duel citizenship — true , that extactly why Obama COULDNT be an indonesian citizen as he was coming with his US citizenship
    6. The evidence that Orly Taitz, and I have personally seen it, is extensive– untrue its the same rehash stuff (not evidence) u have being postilating since u began to oppose him
    7. We also now know that his college records at Occidental show that he was a “Foreign” student — untrue, u havent seen this but only ‘believe’ not the same thing
    8. Now that the State Representatives and Military Personell are on-board the ones that do not want the information are getting scared. That is why the representatives and attorney are being harrassed and threatened. It is not going to work. This case is going forward and we are gong to find out what the truth is.— Untrue , none of these pple have standing based on the US constitution ie no particularised damage or injury because of the state of his citizen
    So it would seem u have nothing. Sorry !!!

  56. mimi says:

    Also, it is ORLY who is doing the harassing.

    Finally, had you taken time to look around this site, you would have found that every claim you (as well as Orly) have made are untrue.

    Please, go to the pages Dr. C. has set up regarding the “Indonesian Adoption”.

    That would be a good place to start.

    Oh, and stop to see the State Dept. Notice about Travel to Pakinstan in 1981. It shows no ban was in effect. (Orly keeps saying there was a ban.)

    And, just work your way through.

  57. Tom,
    Browse around this web site. These rumors have been shown to be false with real evidence, not unsubstantiated claims like yours.

    For example, Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, and Indonesian law explicitly prohibits someone like Obama from becoming an citizen of Indonesia for that very reason. Don’t believe Berg; don’t believe Orly; don’t believe me. Believe the evidence.

  58. Heavy says:

    Doc, to what “Evidence” do you refer? All you have here is a bunch of hopes and dreams that your messiah is not a false prophet.

    Who pays for this site and where does the money come from? I’d like to know.

  59. Heavy says:

    More conjecture, doc. Until the actual document is produced, he is guilty as charged.

  60. What a totally silly remark. Maybe in the Taliban that works that way, but in the USA it’s innocent until proven guilty.

  61. This web site only costs $5.95 per month. The money comes from lose change I find in the street. Duh.

    You might think from Orly and Berg that it takes a fortune to fund a web site. Not true. Evidence here:

    No endorsement of any company listed on that web site is being made.

  62. Heavy says:

    Doc, why the partial answer? Who pays YOU? Do you do this as a hobby?

  63. Heavy says:

    Doc, in these types of cases “Innocent until proven guilty” does NOT apply and you know it.

    HE must PROVE that he meets the requirements. He has not because he CANNOT.

    You are not being intellectually honest!

  64. Kelly says:

    Heavy – actually this is not an “innocent until proven guilty” issue. These are civil suits filed in an attempt to seek information. The Plaintiff has the burden of proof to show that President Obama is NOT a citizen, as President Obama has indeed made available his Cerification of Live Birth – issued under oath – stating his place of birth as Hawaii. No other issue exists beyond this.

  65. Expelliarmus says:

    Er, Heavy, you might not have noticed it, but Obama was sworn in as President on January 20th. No one is going to get him out of office without PROVING something against him.

    (It also happens to be that the only forum for doing this would be through impeachment proceedings in Congress; the federal courts do not have the power to remove a sitting President. It’s in the Constitution).

  66. Expelliarmus says:

    Geez, Dr. C. Didn’t anyone tell you that you could get a FREE blog over at ? You could get, like, a grande frappuccino or something with all the money you’re spending on this web site!

  67. Obams/Soetoro has NEVER provided any information. He has, however, run up over $800,000 in legal fees trying to keep his records from the public.

    There is no credible evidence that anywhere close to that money has been spent. Most of the cases have been directed to state officials as the primary defendants, and the money to defend those cases have come from state taxpayers. Obama’s lawyers have only responded in two cases.

    Also, he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and became an Indonesan Citizen. We have a document that shows his name as “Barry Soetoro”, Citizen of “Indonesia”, Religion “Muslim”. At the time he was adopted Indoneia did NOT allow duel citizenship.

    1) US Law does not allow a minor US citizen to renounce citizenship, or have it renounced for them. Under US Law, there is no way Barack Obama could have lost his US citizenship as a child.
    3) There is no credible evidence of any adoption taking place.
    3) Under Indonesian law, a adoptive father can grant Indonesian citizenship if the child is 5 or under, and it doesn’t result in dual citizenship. Barack Obama lived in Indonesia from 1967 to 1971 – between the ages of 6 and 10. And, as mentioned above, US citizenship cannot be taken away from a minor. Therefore, there is no way under Indonesian law to grant Indonesian citizenship to Barack Obama as a minor.

    The evidence that Orly Taitz, and I have personally seen it, is extensive.

    The evidence thus presented has not been credible or reliable. Much of it is copied directly from Philip J. Berg’s cases.

    This without being able to get his documents released. We also now know that his college records at Occidental show that he was a “Foreign” student. Do you get the picture now? Do you now see why Obama/Soetoro has spent over $800,000 in legal fees.

    There is no evidence that he attended Occidental as a foreign student. All given evidence was he attended directly from his High School in Hawaii, and used the name Barack Obama, giving up his childhood nickname of “Barry” early on. There is no credible evidence he used the name “Soetoro” there or anywhere else in the United States.

    Now that the State Representatives

    So far she’s gotten some far-right cranks on board.

    and Military Personell are on-board

    None active duty, all retired military. Active duty personnel donated to Obama over McCain 6:1 during the general election.

  68. Heavy says:

    He cannot be impeached. He is not President.

  69. Heavy says:

    Actually, there are several issues, the BC being the least important.

    Again, he HAS NOT proven the he meets the criteria for th office. HE must prove that he does or else he does NOT!

  70. Kelly says:

    Heavy – what part of he does not have to “prove” anything have you not understood? There was never a question as to his citizenship by the powers that be prior to the election and inaugeration. The lawsuits will not be heard any time soon, if ever, because the “documents” and “evidence” that support them are not factual. Much of the information is incorrect and is hearsay and speculation and misunderstanding, deliberate or not, of applicable laws. Therefore, President Obama IS the President of the United States of America, whether you like it or not.

  71. Obot 1024 says:

    “Again, he HAS NOT proven the he meets the criteria for th office. HE must prove that he does or else he does NOT!”

    He has proven that.

    He has proven that he is age 35 or greater.

    That he is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in Hawaii.

    And that he has resided in the United States for at least 14 years.

    Those are the Constitutional qualifications for President and Obama has met each one.

    Now you can argue political criteria or policy beliefs that you feel make him unqualified but that is a political question and those are answered by elections.

    You lost the 1st one.

    By all means spend as much time and money on the bogus NBC issue as you possibly can.

  72. Sorry, yes, I do this as a hobby. Nobody pays me for or subsidizes the site. I think all the Obama citizenship denial refutation web sites are hobby sites (except, of course, FightTheSmears) at least as far as I know.

    Putting up a web site is no big deal these days, and pretty much anybody with a point of view can have one.

  73. Would you care to explain why “Innocent until proven guilty” does NOT apply?

  74. Does Congress have a blog?

  75. I gain more flexibility by hosting the blog myself. Free blogs have limitations.

  76. Kelly says:

    And I want to thank you for hosting this site. It is amazing!

  77. Expelliarmus says:

    OK… I’ll go along with that.

    Is that just good for the next 4 years, or is impeachment-immunity good for a whole 8 years? Come to think of it, since he isn’t really President, that whole term limits thing doesn’t really apply either, right?

  78. Expelliarmus says:

    I was kidding about the free blog. But if we ever meet IRL… I’ll buy pick up the tab for your overpriced grande caffeine source of choice.

  79. See, it’s remarks like this that pay me for doing the blog 😉

  80. Heavy says:

    I echo Kelly’s thanks. It’s great fun for me to see all of the lunacy of the left all in one place.

    It’s good to see you people using your right to free speech to tear down your country.

  81. bogus info says:


    Look around this blog. Do you see anybody talking about “revolting, taking up arms, forming a illegal “National Grand Jury, encouraging active military to disobey orders?”

    Now, go look around at The Betrayal, Doc Orly’s, etc., etc blogs. What do you see?

    Now, who is tearing down this country???????

  82. Heavy says:

    YOU! by casting a vote for an illegal candidate, YOU are tearing this country apart.

    Furthermore, YOUR continued support of the illegal occupation of the Whitehouse is further evidence.

    Your messiah is a false prophet and will be removed. His followers, YOU included, will NOT be forgiven for your actions against this country!

  83. You may not appreciate how irrelevant and nonsensical what you are saying sounds to people who don’t share your basic premise of an illegal president. I frankly don’t understand where you’re coming from and why you say what you do. It strikes me as bizarre. I don’t say that to demean or insult. That’s what it sounds like to me.

    I personally think your view that Obama is “illegal” is a fantasy. I also believe that the country is not being torn apart by a few bloggers who have whipped themselves up emotionally. The great crisis you imagine does not exist.

    To choose rumor over evidence in deciding the truth is an essentially irrational approach, and it’s not a frame of reference you should expect others to understand.

  84. Kelly says:

    Excellent response to Heavy, although I do believe his post would be considered a threat. When I read posts such as his it makes me think of the taliban in which the freedom to have an opposing view of anything is not only discouraged, but is criminal.

  85. Could you give us a historical example of a President of the United States who was “legal” and why they are legal?

    [I know this is going nowhere, but I gotta try.]

  86. Heavy says:

    Doc, the few bloggers you refer to are just a small sampling of what is running rampant in this counrty.

    Irrelevant? You may think so, but there is a HUGE groundswell to support beliefs.

    Bizarre? Maybe, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. There is a thin between fantasy and reality.

    The “Great Crisis” IS reality. Those who voted for and continue to support this illegal occupation of the Whitehouse are the ones who would have our counrty be torn apart.

    Doc, you always talk about “Evidence” to the contrary, yet you provide none. Instead, you keep repeating and recycling the same old drivel.

    The “Truth” will be soon revealing. It will stop liberalism dead in it’s tracks. Those who have caused this great fraud will be held accountable.

  87. Heavy says:

    Doc, how about providing some “Evidence” that your messaih is legally occupying the Whitehouse? Talk about going nowhere!

  88. If it happens, it happens.

  89. Kelly says:

    Why is it that those who refer to President Obama as messiah and the one are from the right? I know of no one who is a Democrat that uses these terms.

  90. Heavy says:

    Boy, you catch on quick!

    Let me break it down for you. HE IS NOT PRESIDENT!

    So, only America haters(Liberals) would refer to your messiah as such.

  91. Kelly says:


  92. Heavy says:

    My point EXACTLY! Most liberals walk ariund with that “Deer in the headlights” look. You are not alone.

  93. Kelly says:

    There is no point in attempting to have an intelligent discourse with you. Your responses are not grounded in fact, but in fear, speculation and rumor. You continue to call President Obama “the one” and “messiah” because YOU are obsessed with him. I, on the other hand, understand that while he IS the President of the United States of America, he is also a man who will undoubtedly make mistakes but who does want to do what is best for this country. I do not live in the fantasy land of conspiracy theories and dreams of tearing down my government. Nor do I call for the uprising of the military for a “coup” – things that I have seen on far right websites.

  94. Heavy says:

    Kelly, you’re right. I AM obsessed with him. I would be obsessed with ANYONE pretending to be President.

    You are also right about the CONSPIRACY part, but wrong about the THEORY part.

    My claims have been proven, his have not. So, bury your pretty little head in the sand and hope it all just goes away. In time, it will.

  95. Kelly says:

    Heavy, your claims have not been proven. Proven would be that your claims were presented to a court of law who would find that you had proven your case by a preponderance of the evidence. Only, you have no evidence. You have speculation. You have rumor. You have a tape that has been altered. You have nothing.

  96. “My claims have been proven, his have not.”


  97. Heavy says:

    See, this is where your whole theory begins to unravel. The burden of proof is on HIM. Until he can prove otherwise, my claims are proven. How can you not understand that?

  98. Kelly says:

    Because I understand the legal system and know that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, i.e. those who say he is not a natural born citizen. The plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e. tipping the scale 1% in their favor, their case. The defendant does not even have to present a case if they so choose. The plaintiff can present theirs and the defendant choose to enter a motion to dismiss. If it is not granted they can then proceed to present their defense to the claim. So you see, President Obama does not have to prove anything.

  99. Obot 1024 says:

    “See, this is where your whole theory begins to unravel. The burden of proof is on HIM. Until he can prove otherwise, my claims are proven. How can you not understand that?”

    I agree that the burden of proof was on Obama to prove he is eligible.

    He did so by posting his COLB which states he was born in this country and is over the age of 35.

    Birthers claim the COLB was a fake or nonexistent.

    The burden now shifts to them to prove their accusations.

  100. Obot 1024 says:

    “Let me break it down for you. HE IS NOT PRESIDENT!

    So, only America haters(Liberals) would refer to your messiah as such.”

    Noted “America Haters” that refer to Barack Obama as President.

    Rush Limbaugh
    Sean Hannity
    Dick Cheney

    Next week Heavy will scream that that water is not wet.

  101. Patrick, it’s sort of like the so-called “admissions” that Obama supposedly made when he filed for dismissal in Berg v. Obama rather than answering the complaint. In “guilty until proven innocent”, proof of guilt is assumed. It’s like Obama’s “not proving he is eligible” is itself “proof of guilt”.

  102. Heavy says:

    If someone was caught sneeking across the border and claimed to be a citizen, THEY would have to prove it. Same thing applies here. Even Obot agrees the burden of proof is on THE ONE. Obot just happens to believe that the COLB posted was valid.

  103. Heavy says:

    No, it’s just not wet ENOUGH!

  104. Jez says:

    Actually Heavy, the burden of proof is on the accuser according to US law.
    You, and those that have filed the lawsuits, have claimed that President Obama has lost his citizenship somewhere along the line.
    Well, according to Title 8, Section 1481(b), the burden to prove loss of citizenship is on the accuser:

    Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

    From what I have read, several of the lawsuits try to use Title 8 to prove their claims, since it is the part of the US Code that covers loss of citizenship.

    So, please. What is your “preponderance of evidence” that proves President Obama lost his citizenship?

  105. Kelly says:

    But you see, that is where your “theory” of litigation unravels. No one caught Pres. Obama sneaking across the border. He was born here, he spent the majority of his life here. He does not have to prove the COLB was a forgery, those who say it is not have to prove that it IS a forgery. In a criminal situation the burden is on the prosecutor to prove their case, the defense does not have to put up any evidence in opposition. The problem is that YOU want Pres. Obama to have to prove something to you, but in reality YOU have to prove that he is not what he claims to be.

  106. Obot 1024 says:

    “Even Obot agrees the burden of proof is on THE ONE. Obot just happens to believe that the COLB posted was valid.”

    Given its physical review by two different fact check orgs and the statements by HI officials, I see no reason to doubt its validity.

    Those posing that it is not a valid COLB or that he never had one or any other claim must now prove their claims.

    And since the whole not valid claim rests on an anonymous internet poster with made up credentials, I would say that claim is in trouble.

  107. Only Obama was not doing anything suspicious.

  108. Heavy says:

    Nothing suspicious?

    A guy of questionable upbringing and associations, who never held a job running for President is not suspicious?

    On what planet?

  109. Well here is a case you might find more to your liking: BOHANNAN V. ARIZONA, 389 U. S. 1 (1967) where the Supreme Court said:

    A declaration that a person is permanently barred from any future public office raises constitutional issues that simple removal from office does not. Such a declaration sweeps broadly and may destroy the individual’s right to a livelihood in the field of his greatest competence. The serious nature of any such holding demands that the rules of procedural due process be complied with strictly. I believe that the issues raised are substantial, and were properly presented below. Probable jurisdiction should be noted, or, at the very least, we should take the case and hear it argued, postponing the question of jurisdiction to the merits.

    So does this mean that the Supreme Court saw no hope in the merits of recent cases of note here?

  110. Expelliarmus says:

    I don’t think so.

    I think it means that in the Bohannan case, the US Supreme Court was confronted with a state court ruling that deprived the appellant of substantial rights. Apparently it was a question of state law with federal due process implications, because of the impact of the state holding.

    Our notions of due process always require much more careful scrutiny of actions that deprive people of their rights. So if some court in some state had barred Obama (or any other candidate) from being placed on the ballot due to a restrictive interpretation of the “natural born citizen” clause, the case might have zoomed right up to the US Supreme Court, procedural formalities be damned. Though, of course, with that hypothetical there would be a clear party with standing to pursue the case – so it might not be the best example.

  111. Ian Gould says:

    Clinton was impeached and sent to trial for perjury in a civil case, given that precedent, forgery of an official document would almost definitely have the same result.

    The penalty imposed if Obama were convicted by Congress is up to Congress but at a minimum you’d expect it to include removal from office.

    Now you just have to convince the Democratic majority in the Senate to impeach him.

  112. I think in the minds of Obama opponents, the harm of Obama being on the ballot, elected, certified and sworn in was exactly the deprivation of the rights of the supposed millions of voters clamoring for relief that might justify bending the rules.

    I just say to to Hitandrun, who generally feels that merits should come before standing/jurisdiction, that such a thing is possible in some situations.

  113. Expelliarmus says:

    That would be a waste of effort; the Constitution explicitly gives the House of Representatives the SOLE power to impeach.

    The Senate conducts the trial… but it is Nancy Pelosi who would have to be convinced to impeach.

  114. Ian Gould says:

    I have done this several times now =reversing the roles of the Senate and the House in the impeachment process.

    All I can says is that for an Australian, I think my knowledge of the US Constitution is pretty good.

  115. Expelliarmus says:

    OK… sorry if I came across as condescending. I will keep in mind for the future that you are an Aussie.. I just get so frustrated with the stupidity of some others. This is the sort of stuff covered in any American high school civics class.. but of course the nuances aren’t studies in depth in other parts of the globe.

    So you get a pass.

    But these lawyers filing suits, like the latecomer Apuzzo, should know better.

    You are absolutely correct that the only way under American law to disqualify a sitting President is through Congressional action, and that’s what counts.

  116. thisoldhippie says:

    Thought you would find this interesting. It is a copy of the email exchange I had with Rep. Stacey Campfield of Tennessee regarding the fact that she has signed on to this lawsuit as well. I am waiting to hear from her regarding the my last email.

    I firmly believe that the birth certificate provided – which is the same type of birth cert my daughter had to have here in Georgia to prove she was a resident and to show her age when she entered college – is all that is needed to prove he was born in the US and is an American citizen. Anything more is a double standard from any other President that we have had previously. Truthfully, I believe the bias comes from the fact that President Obama’s father was of a different nationality and what people don’t understand frightens them.

    Lastly, aligning oneself with some of these attorneys filing these lawsuits is questionable. One believes that President Bush and VP Cheney, (believe me – I’m no fan), were co-conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. Even I take umbrage with that. Another received her law degree from an online law school and right now the only state in this country who will allow a graduate of an online law school to sit for the bar is California. Some could say that they are progressive – others would say that the other states realize that this is probably not the best JD degree available. I am currently a student in an online ABA approved Legal Studies BA program, but I even have to attend four of my classes on campus. These attorneys have cited a Hawaiian law in their complaints that was not enacted until 1982 as proof that President Obama might have been born in Kenya and his birth recorded in Hawaii. Since his birth was recorded 4 days after it occurred in 1961, there is no way that law would have applied.

    What we need to do is move beyond conspiracies that just make conservatives appear deranged – the same type of conspiracies that the 2000 election caused liberals to go ga ga over – accept our President, stand behind him and try to get our economy back on track. Do I agree with everything he does or says? No, but while I didn’t agree with most of President Bush he was my President.

    — On Sun, 3/1/09, Stacey Campfield wrote:
    From: Stacey Campfield
    Subject: RE: Patriotic Duty
    To: [Personal information removed]
    Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 7:51 PM
    I want to end the controversy and prove he is a citizen. It will end the rumors and innuendo that he is not legitimate. We need to move past this and get on to the issues of our growing deficit.



    From: [Personal information removed]
    Sent: Sun 3/1/2009 1:37 PM
    To: Stacey Campfield
    Subject: RE: Patriotic Duty

    I am sorry if you misunderstood my email, but I am completely for defending our President from false accusations of being a non-citizen. Your name, as well as the other Tennessee representatives, are being touted on some subversive, right wing radical websites as being opposed to President Obama and as being Plaintiffs’ in a lawsuit being filed by Attorney Orly Taitz.

    — On Sun, 3/1/09, Stacey Campfield

    From: Stacey Campfield
    Subject: RE: Patriotic Duty
    To: [Personal information removed]
    Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 6:39 PM

    I am sorry you do not want anyone to defend our president. I hope it is not because of his race.



    From: [Personal information removed]
    Sent: Wed 2/11/2009 9:50 PM
    To: Eric Swafford;; Stacey Campfield;;
    Subject: Patriotic Duty

    You have got to be kidding me that you have signed on to this “attorney’s” case against our President. I would call this completely UnAmerican.

  117. “This suit [Keyes v, Bowen] , like all of the others that have been filed challenging Obama’s qualifications for the Presidency, is frivolous,” [Obama’s lawyer Woocher] said in an email to POLITICO, adding that he is, in fact, working pro bono. “There is absolutely no truth to the stories about the untold millions supposedly being paid to us,” he said.

  118. “This suit [Keyes v, Bowen] , like all of the others that have been filed challenging Obama’s qualifications for the Presidency, is frivolous,” [Obama’s lawyer Woocher] said in an email to POLITICO, adding that he is, in fact, working pro bono. “There is absolutely no truth to the stories about the untold millions supposedly being paid to us,” he said.

  119. She doesn’t get it [or pretends not to get it]. Unless I missed it

  120. Expelliarmus says:

    thisoldhippie — can you email Stacey Campfield attaching a copy of the COLB and ask why that’s not good enough for her? I’d be curious as to how she would reply. I’d suggest using photos from the factcheck site like this one:

  121. Heavy says:

    That would be like showing a police ofiicer a Xerox copy of your driver’s license when he stops you for speeding.

  122. thisoldhippie says:

    Actually, the digital PHOTOS that I sent were nothing like a Xerox copy. Further, from my understanding the birth certificate was available for viewing at the Obama Election HQ in Chicago.

  123. Notheydidn't says:

    Stacey Campfield is a “he”. He was on PlainsRadio with most of the others except Eric Swafford about two weeks ago.

  124. thisoldhippie says:

    You are correct. I made a an assumption based on the name before I realized my error.

  125. thisoldhippie says:

    Here is Mr. Campfield’s blog:

    Please read the article about “Men are from Mars…” I love how they are spinning this story to make liberals and Democrats appear racist – just like the email that I received. Just so everyone will know – since I sent the long response last night and the photos this morning, I haven’t heard a peep from Mr. Campfield.

  126. Bob says:

    Apart from analogy not being relevant (no governmental actor ever has asked Obama for any proof), it isn’t very meaningful. A police officer would look at a copy of your driver’s license and radio in the information to dispatch, just like they would do with an original.

  127. Bob says:

    This will help people find the entry:

    The good legislator think he has “special” standing.

  128. Heavy says:

    Really? You would have 24 hrs. to produce the original or suffer the consequences.

    THE ONE has not suffered any consequences…YET! But this country has and will continue to do so until this shill is extracted.

  129. Bob says:

    Where I’m from, driving without your license in your possession (versus having never been licensed) is a fix-it ticket (which is rarely issued.

    And thanks for ignoring the main point: As no governmental actor has requested anything of Obama, your analogy is totally meaningless.

  130. thisoldhippie says:

    If you google his name you will find a lot of Tenn. articles – accusations of being a slumlord, a libel suit against him for his blog, etc.

  131. A certificate is different than a license. The license itself grants you something. A certificate proves that something happened. For example a diploma is a certificate, but a hunting permit is a license.

  132. Did you hear them? Do they know what they are doing?

  133. It has yet to be filed. The standing will be decided by the court. The thought is that because I am a state legislator I have standing more so then [sic] a regular person.

  134. Now I’m confused. I thought Eric Swafford was the one with the sewage in the basement ❓

  135. Heavy says:

    OK…So why won’t he release the “Certificate”?

  136. Probably to marginalize the issue. That’s my guess anyway. But these guys think circles around my ability to speculate.

  137. thisoldhippie says:

    All I can find are articles about Stacey Campfield and the raw sewage.

  138. bogus info says:

    “A guy of questionable upbringing”

    What do you find questionable about President Obama’s upbringing?

  139. Bob says:

    Failure-of-imagination argument. (Just because you can’t imagine something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exists.)

    I can speculate on several reasons why; many are discussed elsewhere on this site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.