Why don't you stop using the word "allegedly" and check the facts yourself ?You are repeatably posting allegations that have been proven false or misleading at best Your allegation is answered at 7:35 of this video <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-RWmaBX6tKA?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-RWmaBX6tKA?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
What's Obama's Birther Legal Bill? Activists charge that Obama has spent millions to silence them in court. Not exactly, say the governmentâs lawyers. â By Stephanie Mencimer Tue Jan. 26, 2010 3:00 AM PST Is President Barack Obama spending millions of dollars to hide the truth about his citizenship? During Obama's 2008 run for the White House, his campaign and a host of other credible sources repeatedly debunked the conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was thus ineligible to serve as president. But this failed to quell the "birther" movement, whose acolytes have filed more than 60 civil lawsuits challenging the president's citizenship. None of these suits have gone anywhere in court. But birthers say that's because Obama has unleashed a phalanx of powerful lawyers to silence themâspending $1.7 million in the process, according to WorldNetDaily (WND), an enthusiastic online promoter of the birthers' cause. Given the sheer number of cases, it seems plausible that the president and the government may have been forced to devote real resources to their defense. But in fact the opposite may be true: The birthers' own copious legal bungling could wind up costing them more than Obama will have to spend defending himself. The birthers have peppered dozens of state and federal courts around the country with legal challengesâagainst the president and other government officials and organizations who had some role in allowing Obama's name to be placed on the ballot, including the Federal Election Commission, various state election officials, and the US Supreme Court. Some of the suits, particularly those filed by the movement's leading lady, California lawyer/dentist Orly Taitz, have been headlined by members of the military claiming they've been wrongfully made to serve in foreign wars by an illegitimate commander in chief. Most recently, birther attorneys have represented car dealers who charge that Obama is a phony president who lacked the authority to order a restructuring of Chrysler that they say cost them their businesses. WorldNetDaily has noted that FEC filings show that Obama's presidential campaign has paid out more than $1.7 million since the election to the law firm of Perkins Coie. Until recently, that firm was home to Obama's campaign lawyer, and now White House counsel, Robert Bauerâthe very same DC lawyer, says WND, who has defended Obama in many of the birther lawsuits. Ergo, WND concluded, Obama must be devoting that entire $1.7 million to crushing birthers in court. This is a ridiculous claim: Even after an election is over a presidential campaign has plenty of need for lawyers as it winds down operations and meets campaign finance law requirements. But WND's editors believe they have a smoking gun in a letter Bauer sent on April 3 to John David Hemenway, a DC lawyer representing retired Air Force Colonel Gregory Hollister in a suit against "Barry Soetoroâ¦de facto President in posse." (Some birthers claim Obama is actually an Indonesian citizen who shares his last name with his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.) The lawsuit claims that Hollister may be unable to perform his duty to uphold the Constitution if Obama called him out of retirement and ordered him to war, because Obama isn't a natural-born citizen. A US District Court judge dismissed the "frivolous" case and reprimanded the 83-year-old lawyer for filing it. Nonetheless, Hemenway appealed, prompting Bauer to send him a letter warning that Obama would seek sanctions if he pursued the matter. WND and many of its readers apparently believe this letter proves that Obama has teams of expensive lawyers working round the clock to stomp out the suits and intimidate the underdog plaintiffs and their attorneys. The White House never responded to WND's questions about the legal fees, and Bauer didn't respond to Mother Jones. But the birthers' lawsuits don't exactly seem to be requiring Obama's lawyersâgovernment or privateâto burn the midnight oil. Roger West, an assistant US attorney in the central district of California, represented the government in a lawsuit brought by Taitz on behalf of perennial presidential candidate Alan Keyes, asking the court to require that Obama prove he is a natural-born citizen. The case has dragged on for more than a year, mostly because Taitz, a graduate of an online, unaccredited law school, failed to serve the defendants. Judge David O. Carter dismissed the suit in October for a host of reasons, but Taitz has appealed. Yet West says that far from bleeding his office, Taitz and her co-counsel Gary Kreep have assembled such a weak case that he hasn't had to spend much time on it. "I filed one motion that didn't take too long, we've had two hearings and that's it," he says. "It's not like we've devoted some sort of task force to this." Army Major Rebecca Ausprung handled two of the birther cases against the Department of the Army that disputed Obama's authority as commander in chief to order soldiers to war. Ausprung says she spent a few hours drafting motions and doing research, and she did have to make three short trips to Georgia from Arlington, Virginia. She prevailed in both cases. "The monetary cost to the government in defending these two cases was extremely minimal," she says. Or consider a case filed by one of the most prolific birther litigants, Philip J. Berg, that went all the way up to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. In November the court dismissed the appeal and ordered Berg to pay the legal costs for the defendants, which included the Federal Election Commission. Here was the government's big chance to recoup its millions. But when the FEC submitted its bill, the grand total came to $20.40. This doesn't include the cost of the time government lawyers spent writing briefs and appearing in court. Yet it's clear that as much of a nuisance as these suits are for the government, that's all they are: a nuisance. In fact, the plaintiffs may be spending far more time and money on these cases than Obama or the government is, in part because of their failure to abide by basic court procedures. In one of the Georgia cases Ausprung handled, a federal judge sanctioned Taitz in October for $20,000 for, among other things, pursuing a case long after a judge had dismissed it and her own client had discharged her. Taitz has refused to pay the fine. So far, judges have been remarkably tolerant of the birthers' shenanigansâdespite being handed abundant opportunities to throw their petitions out of court. In one case, Taitz allegedly encouraged supporters to contact the judge by phone and mail to lobby for her causeâa glaring ethics violation that he chose to ignore. Another of her cases only went forward because the federal judge basically begged the defendants to let Taitz serve themâthe first step in any lawsuit, but one that Taitz had neglected to take for about seven months. The judges' written opinions suggest that by giving the birthers' cases a full airing, they hope to put some of the most outrageous allegations to rest. But not only have the birthers shown little gratitude to the judges who have indulged them, their court losses have also fueled the conspiracy theories that the judges had hoped to extinguish. Taitz accused US District Judge Clay Land of having improperly discussed one of her cases with Attorney General Eric Holder, and submitted a sworn eyewitness account describing a clandestine meeting in a Columbus, Georgia, coffee shop between the judge and a man with a "trim upper lip mustache, not large of stature and general olive complexion"âwhom the source naturally assumed to be the attorney general. On the day in question, however, Holder was making a public appearance 2,000 miles away in Los Angeles. Expect the birthers' theories to become even more far-fetched as their legal endeavors continue to fail.
So FEC fileings show Obama spent 1.7 million to his campaign and White House lawyers...and birthers start spreading the lie that the money was spent to hide his birth certifcate
They do. Why are the leftest media bringing up this issue more then the right wing media ? <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DoY1LzwhhtU?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DoY1LzwhhtU?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ROJB_3TUnLY?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ROJB_3TUnLY?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Whats next ? That Obama had to use a foreign passport to go to Pakistan becauseThe State dept banned US citizens from going there at the time ?
Hey, that's a good point, how did he manage to go to Pakistan at that time if it was banned, and if it was banned, how come he wasn't prosecuted for it?
http://factcheck.org/2009/06/more-birther-nonsense-obamas-1981-pakistan-trip/ More âBirtherâ Nonsense: Obamaâs 1981 Pakistan Trip We continue to receive queries about claims and theories advanced by "birthers," who wish to believe that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the USA or that he somehow gave up his citizenship and thus is not qualified to hold the office he occupies. One is a claim, first advanced last year, that his trip to Pakistan in 1981 proves he must not have been a U.S. citizen because Americans were not permitted to travel there at the time. This one is not quite as transparent as the April Foolsâ Day hoax that took in many of these deniers of Obamaâs birthplace bona fides. That one was a fabricated Associated Press story about Obamaâs student records from Occidental College. But the Pakistan theory is just as false. The truth, easily proven, is that American citizens traveled freely to Pakistan in 1981. Obama did go to Pakistan that year when he was 20 years old with a college friend, after first seeing his mother and half-sister in Indonesia. That much is true. When he mentioned the 1981 trip during a campaign appearance last year, it came as news, because he had not previously written of it in his books. Some then speculated, or claimed outright, that Obama must have gotten into Pakistan using an Indonesian passport obtained while his mother was married to Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian man whom she had divorced the previous year. Under this theory, the young Obama had somehow become an Indonesian citizen. "Birthers" claimed that the Pakistan trip constituted indirect proof of Obamaâs supposed Indonesian citizenship. Philadelphia lawyer Phil Berg even told the U.S. Supreme Court last year, before it refused to hear his case challenging Obamaâs qualification to be president, that Pakistan "was on the State Departmentâs travel ban list for U.S. Citizens." But that claim is quite false. There was no such ban. Americans traveled there without incident, as shown by a travel piece that appeared in the New York Times in 1981, dated June 14. Barbara Crossette, an assistant news editor of the Times, told her mostly American readers they could travel to Lahore, Pakistan, by air, rail or road, adding: "Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports." Her article prompted a letter to the Times from the U.S. consul general in Lahore saying he would "welcome an influx of Americans" to Lahore. He cautioned only that in addition to getting a visa for Pakistan, American visitors also should be careful to line up an Indian visa for the return trip if they planned to travel overland. The letter is dated Aug. 23, 1981. Also, a travel advisory from the State Department dated Aug. 17, 1981 notes that Americans traveling to Pakistan require a 30-day visa, and that any staying longer must check in with Pakistanâs Foreigner Registration Office. A digital copy of the advisory is archived at the Electronic Research Collection, a partnership between the State Department and the Federal Depository Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago. For those who missed it earlier, high-resolution images of Obamaâs birth certificate are displayed as supporting documents to our article "Born in the U.S.A." The document meets the U.S. State Departmentâs requirements for proving U.S. citizenship. That, along with a 1961 newspaper announcement of his birth and statements last year by state officials in Hawaii, remove for us any doubt that Obama is indeed a natural-born citizen. The "birthers" arenât buying it. They, however, so far have produced what we judge to be zero credible evidence that Obama was born elsewhere, or that he later gave up U.S. citizenship. The false claim about a 1981 travel ban is typical of whatâs been offered along those lines.
How sad is it that a State rep from Texas is actually repeating this nonsense.He couldn't take 5 minutes to find out if it was true before looking like an ass on national TV <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-RWmaBX6tKA?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-RWmaBX6tKA?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
This is by far the most candy ass argument I have ever seen in my life. DOCUMENTS are made to be SHOWN as needed, and NOT held in a file to never be seen again. JUST AS THIS NEW GOV STATES.....lets get the REAL LONG FORM and show it to the world.......FINALLY.......SHEEESH (since obama will not get it for himself to show it....since it is HIS)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek: I can see the cracks in the obama DAM........can you??? :eek: