Thursday, November 20, 2008

Wishful Thinking?

Posted: November 20, 20081:10 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.

The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court's docket says: "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008."

If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled.
The action questions whether any of the three candidates is qualified under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."
According to America's Right blogger Jeff Schreiber, there also was a development in a second case presented to the Supreme Court on the same issue.
His report said the Federal Election Commission now has waived its right to respond to a complaint brought by attorney Philip Berg.

"There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond. First, because the court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg's petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg's lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response," the blogger speculated.

"Another thing which is not completely clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents," he added."If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I'm surprised," Berg told America's Right. "I'm surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn't seem to exist."However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion," he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General's office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.
But he noted that "questions surrounding this aspect of Obama's candidacy are seemingly beginning to see the light of day."

Just last week, WND reported on worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship. Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others filed a court petition in California asking the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. Alan Keyes: The disputes all cite "natural-born citizen" requirement set by the U.S. Constitution.WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject.The California action was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Keyes, the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, along with Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors."Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.An Obama spokesman interviewed by WND described such lawsuits as "garbage."

The popular vote Nov. 4 favored Obama over Sen. John McCain by several percentage points. But because of the distribution of the votes, Obama is projected to take the Electoral College vote, when it is held in December, by a 2-to-1 margin.The California case states, "There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process," the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications."Since [the secretary of state] has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States of America is received by her," the document said."This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.

The "certificate of live birth" posted by the Obama campaign cannot be viewed as authoritative, the case alleges."Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."The case also raises the circumstances of Obama's time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama's mother having given up his U.S. citizenship.Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be "naturalized," not "natural-born."WND has reported other challenges that have been raised in Ohio, Connecticut, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Hawaii.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

EAT ME?

Schteveo said...

If this is going before the Supreme Court, how come the MSM isn't howling about hate, racism, white men keeping minorities down?

Could it be that he betrayed them by going with all those ex-Clinton Clowns?

Jimbo said...

Yes - wishful thinking.

Take him out now on a technicallity and every city in the Porn Belt would be set on fire.

Hey!..... Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing...

Spider said...

Can you imagine finding out that he's not a natural born citizen say, by next year some time? That would mean not only impeachment, but criminal charges as well for perpetrating the fraud. Of course, he could say he didn't know he wasn't a citizen. There would be thousands of Left-wing lawyers running to defend him, claiming the constitution is unconstitutional! Of course, the MSM would act shocked as if they didn't know.

If this were to actually happen, (don't hold your breath kids) parts of this country would explode. That's when alll your guns and ammo would really be needed. But i'd bet that before anything like this could happen, Yomama would make sure there are 5 hard-core Leftists appointed to the SCOTUS. And that would be that!

Anonymous said...

QUOTABLE QUOTES

"Now, my fellow Americans, the tide has been running against freedom. Our people have followed false prophets. We must, and we shall, return to proven ways-- not because they are old, but because they are true. We must, and we shall, set the tide running again in the cause of freedom."
-- Barry Goldwater

We wish Barry, we truly wish.

Jimbo said...

Okay - cab picks me up in a few minutes for the airport. Anyone hears of a Continental taking a splash in the Specific - FedX a life raft ASAP!

Mahalo.

PS I'll check back in from Austin - after I've had some bbq brisket and a taco.

Anonymous said...

Wave as you fly over Jimbo.

Anonymous said...

Don't think you'll need more guns and ammo?

http://www.infowars.com/?p=5938

Anonymous said...

I'm buying more guns and ammo.

.223Poot

Anonymous said...

Oooooo! BBQ in Austin! How I miss it. According to Texas Monthly the best BBQ in Texas is at Snow's Barbecue in Lexington [near Giddings]. It would have to be very good to beat Kreuz Market in Lockhart of the City Market in Luling.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, guys, lets think about this...

1.) The only people who can indict, arrest, or impeach the president reside in the US Senate.

2.) The US Senate is a democratic majority.

3.) Say this is discovered to be a true, serious issue. What then?

Impeachment proceedings on the part of the Senate? The DEMOCRATIC Senate? To prosecute for fraud, usurpation of power, and what other activity that those in the Senate routinley perpetrate themselves?

Give me a break. Say they find that he isn't a US citizen, or at least not natural born. The Senate will pass a bill amending the rule, and Obama will stay the president.

He would be our first illegitimate president, but will remain president, nonetheless. That is all that will come of this, int he worst case scenario.

If you believe otherwise, you are fooling yourself. Remember, to the house and senate, the constitution is a "living" document, and can easily be changed or modified in order to eliminate the rank xenophobia of our racist, bigoted Founding Fathers.

Anonymous said...

UMMMMMM! bbq brisket! UMMMMM!Yummmmy!

Spider said...

I'm afraid i have to agree with Goob. With "them" in control of the whole govt, not only will nothing be done, but as Goob says, they simply create a way around it.

Anonymous said...

I understand your frustration and feel your pain. Your Leader is now a Black man with an Islamic name, a liberal who is going to reverse as much of the past 8 years as he can and change the whole country in ways that you will find disturbing. In fact, everything coming at you in the next couple of decades is going to be hard for you to deal with. You're under siege and I see that now.

And he defeated a war hero and a pretty gal! The press loved the black man, fawning over his style and intelligence and demeanor. Meanwhile, the old war hero couldn't get anywhere with the press because they were too fascinated with the black man with the silver tongue who almost hissed when he talked it was so seductive.

Probably the hardest thing for you is knowing that the black man won with 7 million more votes. That's over twice what bush got over his opponent the second time, the first he didn't get a majjority. That means the black man has a huge mandate to govern stgrongly from the left. Oh sure, your side tried to brand him as a socialist looking to redistribute the wealth but that just made him more popular. Seems almost half the people think that's a good idea. Imagine that! Even Joe the fake plumber couldn't rescue that turkey.

So try to relax and enjoy a leader who can put together a sentence, can inspire people to be better than what they are and who cares about others.

Jimbo said...

That's right, dipshit. There's a new man in town, he's got a teleprompter and he's not afraid to use it.

And it's "you people" who won't let go of the fact he's only half white.

And we're just fine, thank you for your concern. It seems to be "you people" who are like gluttons in an empty pantry. The MSM got your man in, now your grasping at something, ANYTHING, to use as ammo against anyone who still might oppose your silly little jesus.

Blather on, dipshit - you're quite entertaining.

Anonymous said...

It's always something besides the incompetence and mismanagement by republicans that loses them elections, isn't it?

What was the excuse in 2006? Sun Spots? Or was the {cue spooky music} MSM handing the Congress to democrats then too? Did the MSM just start their meddling or were Ronald Reagan and all the republicans who controlled Congress able to overcome the power of the {cue spooky music} MSM?

Why is it so hard to accept that a) republicans controlled the country for most of the past 3 decades, and b) we are in a financial mess thanks to them?

Do republicans ever take responsibility for their actions?