Seema Mehta of the Los Angeles Times brings word (link) that Orly Taitz has been disinvited from a tea parties event in Pleasanton on Thursday. And, that was done after politicians who were to appear at the event complained. Taitz is a piece of work, so it's perfectly understandable why Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore wouldn't want to share a stage with her (even if they say they had nothing to do with her being booted from the event).

That said, this bit from Seema Mehta's article jumps out (bolding added):

Taitz is best known for her crusade to prove Obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii, a falsehood that sprang to life during the 2008 presidential campaign and that most voters and mainstream Republicans reject. But she has also been creating waves in the state Republican Party.

In order for what Taitz claims to be a "falsehood", the claim that Obama was not born in Kenya would need to have been definitively proven. While there's an excellent chance that he was in fact born in Hawaii, all of the evidence so far provided does not add up to definitive proof: all of that evidence has various flaws.

That doesn't mean that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii, it just means that it hasn't been definitively proven. To say otherwise would be to engage in childlike thinking, pretending that just because FactCheck says something it must be true, despite the fact that they've been caught in lies about this and other issues.

And, to say otherwise would be to assist a useful fiction, that where Obama was born has been definitively proven. The establishment works night and day to smear anyone who has any questions - just as they smear those who have reasonable questions about 911 - but that doesn't make their claims true. On the other hand, just because they doth protest too much doesn't mean that they're trying to cover something up, but it's not helping.

As for Seema Mehta, I invite her to list below what she considers definitive proof. Then, I'll show you (and hopefully her readers) why she's wrong.