On March 18th in the Cleveland Plain Dealer there was a small article that I am sure you missed. Again an article of importance is pushed to the middle pages, The title: 'Birther' proponent's sanctions upheld. I am going to paraphrase again. The article says that a California lawyer, Orly Taitz, must pay $20,000 in sanctions US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. In the two page decision the appeals court states that after considering Taitz arguments we find them unpersuasive and therefore affirm the district courts sanctions. Taitz's appeal stems from Capt. Connie Rhodes who argued that Obama's presidency is not legitimate and that she shouldn't be deployed.
OK, do you see the red flag? The word is unpersuasive. The court found Taitz's arguments unpersuasive. Not lacking evidence, not because of faulty information, unpersuasive. This to me is worrisome. Could it be the court was biased? Why won't a court let this go to full trial???
Play this clip for the latest attempt to bring Obama's illegitimate presidency to trial.
Carey K Masci