Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘standing’

Efforts to stay the Obama Inauguration continue, even as we are only hours from swearing him in as our next President.

Last week, President George W. Bush enacted an Executive Order providing for, in part, “Re-investigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust.” Stating, “It is necessary to re-investigate individuals in positions of public trust in order to ensure that they remain suitable for continued employment.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090116-1.html

Based on this Executive Order, people will no doubt continue to interpret Obama’s suitability- including a response to the Order, http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-action-filed-by-orly-taitz-esq.html  from attorney Orly Taitz who has filed on behalf of Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, on the issue of legitimacy for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Obama aka Barry Soetoro.

Like others before her, she is suing Obama yet again, to prove he meets the qualifications specified for the Office of the President of the United States as set forth in the Constitution, which includes that he must be a “natural born” citizen, having sole allegiance to the United States as required to become Commander in Chief. 

In part, “pray this Court will determine that the inauguration set for January 20, 2009 should be stayed pending the outcome of this, and similar litigation, determining that the Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, that under Article II, Section 1 and Amendment 20 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, Defendant Barack H. Obama is not a natural born citizen and has not qualified,…”  I wouldn’t expect a ruling today. Chief Justice Roberts will be busy swearing in Obama.

Attorney Philip Berg , has sent a 2nd letter to Oprah, stressing that she is one that can have Obama withdraw his name to avoid damage to racial relations in the U.S. for years to come.  http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/

Opera must be laughing her ass off like the rest of us.  Throw in Andy Martin and it is a three ring circus.  In a recent release Martin says, “The Obama’s are the most vulgar, nouveau rich family to ever occupy the White House. Our long national hangover is now beginning; we just don’t realize it yet.”  http://www.pr-inside.com/andy-martin-says-the-obamas-are-r1011343.htm  Tell me how you really feel Mr. Martin.

Even lower than low, we have this letter to Michelle Obama, ” I have enclosed a physical description of your husband’s genitals. I ask you to, publicly state that the enclosed description is not accurate. I also ask you to take questions concerning your personal knowledge of your husband’s sexual encounters with the murdered Donald Young, myself and other men over the course of your marriage….Then let’s be open and transparent.” by Lary Sinclair and posted at http://obambi.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/letter-to-michelle-obama-by-larry-sinclair/

Boys and girls.  This is gross.  It is one thing to question someones past but it is quite another to get the man’s penis involved, wherever it has gone.  I don’t care if it has gone where no man has gone before- we are getting down to plain old slander here.  Leave the man’s dick out of politics- it leaves a sour taste.

If the courts of the law haven’t seen fit to allow one, just one, freaking case to proceed to require Obama to show his legal birth records, then either the attorneys have failed in their job or justice has failed.

For whom among us has standing to question the Constitution?  When it comes to the natural born citizen clause, no one at this time has the authority, as formally entered into record by Judge Surrick in Berg v Obama, et al which is reviewed here http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/lawsuit-against-obama-dismissed-from.html .

The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies has themed the Obama inauguration, “A New Birth of Freedom.” http://inaugural.senate.gov/  The bill for this new birth may hit $150 million!  Although Obama is spending our tax dollars, he did not accept funds from corporations, lobbyists, unions or political action committees’ instead, large donations from Wall Street have poured in making the list a who’s who in hedge fund managers with people like George Soros and D.E. Shaw Group’s David Shaw. http://www.finalternatives.com/node/6656 

Lincoln couldn’t fathom the dollars nor the fact that we know more about him than our next President.  Lincoln was involved in more than 5,100 cases in Illinois alone during his 23-year legal career.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln  We’ve had plenty of time to fully vent Mr. Obama yet, how many cases has Obama has tried?  What do his college transcripts reveal? What does his birth certificate say?

In the next four years we will come to know his views and aspirations, but President Obama will be defined by his actions.  Obama is the heir apparent and for the sake of our nation, while we can watch and criticize- today he will be number 44- President Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama has asked us to “Join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years – block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.”  http://www.patrolmag.com/arts/1215/dear-jon-favreau

In his inaugural address, George H.W. Bush announced, “My first act as president is a prayer. I ask you to bow your heads.”  What will Obama have to say?  Stay tuned…

God Bless America.

God Bless President Barack Hussein Obama

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

It seems it would be easier to find a needle in a hay stack than for Obama himself, to produce an authentic copy of his birth certificate.

Main Stream Media has all but dismissed coverage of any lingering questions regarding is eligibility to hold office under The U.S. Constitution-  Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and Article VI, Clause 2. of which should need no explanation.  Instead, suddenly Google has 729 news articles in it’s query and most dismiss the entire topic as being implausible. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/09/birth_certificate/  has a review of all the “half baked legal theories,” and points to some on the fringe while ignoring the underlying facts that President Elect Obama has still refused to authenticate himself.

David Horowitz at Town Hall wrote, “It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation.”  http://townhall.com/Columnists/DavidHorowitz/2008/12/08/obama_derangement_syndrome_conservatives_need_to_shut_up_about_the_birth_certificate

I fail to define seeking the truth for the highest office in the land, radical.  How is it radical to want to see our laws upheld?   Like most folks I live within the law.  Except for my last speeding ticket some ten years ago, I have a clean record.  I vote, work, pay taxes, have a family, and have a mundane life.  I attend church regularly where my clergy does not claim to “God Damn America.”  I am not a radical.  

When it comes to my individual right to have standing  in the court of law, I fail to see how the media does not strongly object.  Specifically Justice Surrick in Berg v Obama, et al said that Berg has no standing to challenge Obama’s citizenship- again we must ask, if he has no standing then who does?  Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. writes…  “And, particularly in this situation, judges will desperately desire to escape having to take upon themselves the responsibility for the political consequences—let alone the odium whipped up by Obama’s touts in the big media—that will flow from the courts’ declaring Obama ineligible for the Office of President. Which responsibility and vilification wily judges can craftily evade by denying that voters, electors, candidates, and various other would-be litigants have “standing” to challenge his eligibility. For then the judges can claim both that, on the one hand, they have no authority to declare Obama ineligible because no litigant has “standing” to demand such relief, and that, on the other hand, by dismissing the cases solely on “standing” grounds they have not declared him eligible, either http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm

In the National Press Room after some long winded comments which can be reviewed with a degree of fairness at http://www.americasright.com/2008/12/challenging-obamas-eligibility-just.html Berg said,  “My case in district court was dismissed for one reason – standing,” Berg said. “According to the court, I don’t have standing, Bob doesn’t have standing, no one in this room has standing. We’re asking for one qualification out of three. We know he’s at least 35 years old. We’ll give him the 14 years in the country. We just want to know that he is natural born. It’s not that difficult.”  Apparently it is.

Horowitz’ article,  Obama Derangement Syndrome: Conservatives Need to Shut Up About the Birth Certificate asks “what difference does it make if Obama was born on U.S. Soil and that advocates will argue “Constitutional Principle”.  He is correct, I and others will argue rationally for my country and my Constitution every day, with every last breath, and not shut up.  There is no civil unrest, no riots, no nothing but freedom of speech.

Donofrio, Berg, Cort, and even Andy Martin have done much to uphold the laws of this land as the original signers of the Constitution intended.    It is not about disenfranchising or challenging the 65 million votes Obama garnered in the election that are being challenged, it’s the fact that Obama should provide proof that he was legally eligible in the first place.  We respect the outcome of elections as proof in Bush v Gore and even in those ballots still being counted for of all people, Al Franken.  From The NY Times “The missing votes favored Mr. Franken, who would fall 46 more votes behind Mr. Coleman if the recount numbers are used.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/politics/09minnesota.html?_r=1&ref=politics   I fail to see how more votes would not assist Mr. Franken and that goes to show the quality of MSM election reporting.

The bailout has gone from billions to trillions in just days.  Were Obama’s eligibility falter, the outcome would be tragic.  It would be a bigger tragedy to have allowed a subversion of  America’s core document, The Constitution.

The first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, to George Washington in 1787 in a letter wrote:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

Perhaps the Supremes have read, ““Let it be remembered that civil liberty consists, not in a right to every man to do just what he pleases, but it consists in an equal right to all citizens to have, enjoy, and do, in peace, security and without molestation, whatever the equal and constitutional laws of the country admit to be consistent with the public good.”

 Time will tell if denial and disenfranchisement of Obama’s citizenship is consistent with the public good.

God Bless America

Read Full Post »