In her Feb. 10 WorldNetDaily column, Diana West pretends to be shocked that "I can feel the chill hiss of 'birther' at the mere mention of these events" that she writes about. But she's gone birther before, and that's likely the reason WND runs her column.
West is writing about the Georgia court hearing in which the birthers couldn't even win despite the Obama side refusing to put up a defense. She praises how "Orly Taitz – object of an eternity’s worth of “two-minute hates” within the media mob – introduced evidence that the 44th president of the United States has engaged in what appears to be identity fraud." She continues:
Such evidence, as gleaned from a partial list of exhibits introduced in the hearing and published at the American Thinker website, included affidavits from security professionals and other documentation attesting that Obama is using a Connecticut Social Security number (he never lived in Connecticut); that Obama’s purported Social Security number was never issued to him; and that – my favorite – his Social Security number “does not pass E-Verify.” Another affidavit from an Adobe Illustrator expert maintains that Obama’s birth certificate, released last spring to much hype and ballyhoo, is a computer-generated forgery.
West has to ignore a lot of reality to think this stuff is somehow important. This includes the fact that prominent birther lawyer Phil Berg has shot down the idea that Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number, that being a "Adobe Illustrator expert" is irrelevant when the PDF of Obama's birth certificate the birthers have spent so much time deconstructing was not created in Adobe Illustrator, and that people like Taitz who have made Obama's Social Security number so public are likely violating the law.
Yet, West whines that Obama should be held in "contempt of court" for not participating in the hearing. But West completely ignores the judge's ruling in the case, which found that "The Court finds testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations."
West also makes this nonsensical statement:
Frankly, I was unimpressed with the presidential defense in pre-hearing arguments. For example, Jablonski tried to deflect the Social Security issue – which, after all, raises serious questions of fraud – by pointing out that “nothing in the Constitution makes … participating in Social Security a prerequisite to serving as president.” (So what’s a little felonious fraud?) On the “citizenship issue,” Jablonski declared the issue was “soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections, as it has been by every judicial body” since. Is he saying that a lot of votes or previous court actions nullify the legal merits of any new proceeding? I’m no lawyer, but that doesn’t seem like much of a legal argument.
Um, actually, previous court actions can nullify the legal merits of any new proceeding -- like Ankeny v. Daniels, which previously addressed many of the arguments on the Obama birther issue.
Dear Ms. West: There's a reason people dismiss you as a birther -- because you are.