Ahrcanum

Obama’s eligibility appears to be a go go from The Supreme Court.  Oh no, no, no some will say.  Numerous court cases have challenged President Obama’s natural born citizenship under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution that says that the president be a “natural born citizen.”  All have been met with the same outcome as today- Denied. 

Phil Berg originally filed his suit against Obama and others way back in August.  It has taken five months to get the official word from the Supremes that his petition for certiorari is denied before judgment.  It should come as no surprise that  The Court offered no explanation but note the court said, denied before judgment.  http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_R-l1iejogZw/SWtjunekRMI/AAAAAAAAB7I/QNmswBBRZcQ/s1600-h/Berg+Cert+Denial.bmp  Humph, denied should be denied, but ya never know. 

It did allow, “The Motion for Bill Anderson for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted.”   (http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/amicus.htm ) I wonder what relevant matter not already brought to the Court’s attention he could offer?  The Anderson brief in its entirety can be found here  http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf  and also at  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2145354/posts  The meat and bones of the amicus is—

“The amicus is a citizen of the State of Arizona and an elector of that state for elector for President of the United States. He voted in the general election held by the State of Arizona on November 4, 2008. This Court has in fact recognized that the amicus has an interest in this type of case. See United States v. Newman, 238 U.S. 537, 547, 35 S.Ct. 881, 883, 59 L.Ed. 1446, 1450 (1915); and the same holds true for the petitioner. Ibid. Your amicus submits that it will not be possible for this Court to dispose of this case properly without considering the following points which either have not been brought to the attention of this Court by the parties or which have not been adequately discussed: 1.) This Court is not facing a question of the constitutional aspects of standing, but a question pertaining to the prudential considerations only; and, 2.) The lack of an adequate remedy following the inauguration of Barack Obama, 2 and the potential civil and military crises which could arise therefrom, crises that could not be readily addressed by the ordinary processes of the law, must be considered in addressing the prudential aspects of standing; and, 3.) With respect to the prudential considerations of standing, certain aspects of this case are analogous to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.”

Jeff Schreiber of America’s Right http://www.americasright.com/ has shared his insights into the Berg case with objectiveness and professionalism.  He was  in the Clerk of Court’s office in the Federal Courthouse in Philadelphia doing part of his job as a legal writer and reading the civil cases that had been filed that day including Berg’s.  I encourage any reader here to follow his blog and note Berg’s recent reaction to the denial.  I look forward to his thoughts on Anderson.

Truth In our Time and numerous bloggers are convinced that,  “Courts throughout the USA aided and abetted the usurpation of the Presidency by refusing to hear cases challenging the citizenship of Barack Obama, now, major media is doing the same thing.”  Citing network news refusal to broadcast a commercial questioning his citizenship- the video can be viewed at the site  http://www.truthinourtime.com/2009/01/obama-citizenship-commerical.html.

Does Obama have divided loyalties?  I doubt it.  Really, the minute Obama would act to place Kenya or Indonesia above the best interests of the USA, the wrath of the domestic and foreign media, Congress, the Senate and even Nancy Pelosi would jump to attention and outrage.  Wouldn’t they? 

Is Obama factually eligible?  I don’t know.  http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/natural-born-citizenship-for-dummies/ offers a pretty good glance at the issues but still no solution.  Perhaps the entire language of what makes one an American is extinct and moot.  A large reference to citizenship cases and notations can be found at http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html.

Whatever the evidence may bear in the future, on January 20, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama is most likely going to place his hand on former President Lincoln’s Bible and swear to the duty of allegiance to the United States of America.   This bond will be administered by Chief Justice  Roberts who will carry out his ceremonial duty of swearing in the next President of the United States.  If Roberts was to consider the possibility that he is swearing in a man who doesn’t  meet fundamental eligibility requirements, I imagine he would be removed unceremoniously and rapidly from the bench.  Or perhaps made a hero to those who seek the legal means to force Obama’s citizenship discloure.  Maybe the failure to deny Anderson will be enough for pause.  Berg, Donofrio and others have certainly made their cases before the justices and while not hearing the cases formally, must be aware of Obama’s current question of ineligibility for the office he is about to be sworn into.

The Supremes have once again spoken in saying nothing,  and by leaving the Anderson Amicus hanging have further blurred the waters.   

Obama, by delivering his official birth records to support his compliance with the Constitution and his professed transparency in government would alleviate future burdens on The Court and her people.  I don’t think we can hold our breath that long.  Instead, we’ll watch a new chapter of American history unfold with a democrat, black man leading our destiny either for the next four or eight years, unless a court forces him to prove his citizenship and it turns out he is ineligible.  I pray for a sufficient bond of union between Obama and America to allow him to make worthwhile choices in keeping America the land of the free and home of the brave. 

God Bless America.