Oh, you crazy birthers. You really are the gift that just keeps giving.

I have a new favorite, crazy, frivolous but awesome birther lawsuit. By now, we're used to the lawsuits challenging the President's eligibility to be President because a certified record from Hawaii as well as sworn statements from Hawaiian officials just isn't good enough. So a charming loon has filed a suit in Alaska, seeking to force the state to "prove" the President's citizenship before the state includes him on the November ballot. (As if there's a state anywhere that would actually follow through and keep him off...)

But this guy in Alaska isn't content to limit his complaint to the President. He's attacking Nancy Pelosi, too. (Apparently he's not troubled by the idea that a guy from Alaska probably doesn't have standing to complain about the eligibility of a representative from California.) And what is his objection to Pelosi?

"There are no provisions in the Constitution of the United States that grants Women 'Political Rights' of Suffrage to hold any Political Office of the United States Government," the lawsuit says.

 Are you done laughing yet? There are so many ways to go with this. Like why didn't this guy challenge the female Senator from his own state? (I mean other than the obvious fact that Murkowski is a Republican while Pelosi is a Democrat and the Devil.) Why didn't he include other prominent female Democrats, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz or California's Senators? And can I assume this means that he did not vote for John McCain in the 2008 election, what with McCain choosing a running mate who was ineligible to hold any political office? And has this man ever heard of the 14th and 19th Amendments?

In the end, though, all I really want to say to my crazy Alaska friend is, "Thanks for the laugh!" Hmm, I wonder if this is the guy who left that woman-hating comment on my last post?