Update on Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuits

[bojo68]

update

Just thought maybe I should mention that Orly Taitz is writing a letter to justice Roberts(which she assumes is one of the justices voting against the suits).
What I find interesting is she's reaching out to the military, and claims they have the authority do act as necessary to prevent a usurper from becoming their commanding officer. Far as I know, this is the first there's been any real consequences planned as a result of the courts failure to answer a petition for grievances.

http://drorly.blogspot.com/

Just for grins, Libertarian reminds me of the Oregon state police bomb squad guy that KNEW that the bank bomb the other day was a fake. He proclaimed it a hoax, took it inside and when it blew it killed him, another, and seriously injured a third, all because he, like libertarian, KNEW what it really was. He's DEAD RIGHT now, to bad justice isn't always this fast.

 

[Pepsi]

Supreme Court to talk about Obama 3rd time. Berg eligibility case set for conference Jan. 9

One of the original legal challenges to President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility for office to reach the U.S. Supreme Court now has been scheduled for a conference, a meeting at which the justices discuss its merits and whether to step into the fray.

Online schedules posted by the court show the case brought by attorney Philip J. Berg is set for a conference Jan. 9.

The case is one among several that already have reached the U.S. Supreme Court and address the issue of Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be "natural born" citizens.

Berg has submitted several requests for injunctions, seeking the court's order to stay proceedings in the electoral process until his case is heard, but the request have been rejected.

His original claim, however, remains on track to be heard.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83980

 

[libertarian4321]

Bad attention span libertarian? you'll grow out of it eventually. you supported obama because he is trendy..pity. It is a lie that I supported mccain ...I supported SARAH PALIN and i still do..no apology from me for that one. Tones

Give me a break- you and EndtheFed were brazenly shilling for McCain- it got so bad that I threatened to donate money to Obama every time you or he put up another post shilling for McCain. Thats what finally got the two of you to stop.

I can find plenty of threads/posts where you and End were shilling for McCain and his little buddy Sarah. You can't find one where I was shilling for Obama (calling him the "lesser evil" isn't the same as your blatant shilling).

BTW, do you still support Palin knowing that she associates with criminals? I can't wait to hear the details of the Wasilla arrest. I'm betting its a meth thing.

 

[Pepsi]

A new law suit was filed against Obama challenging election results in Florida

http://drorly.blogspot.com/2008/12/21-first-lawsuit-against-obama.html

 

[Pepsi]

Kenyan government imposes gag order on Obama family.

The Kenyan government has barred unapproved contacts between the media and President-elect Barack Obama's extended family.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84172


An update on the one in Washington. .

http://decalogosintl.org/?p=106#more-106

An update on the lawsuite in Mississippi, this one is seeking to require Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann to verify proof of citizenship from all of the presidential candidates. the case is still being considered

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1974

 

[cheapseats]

Ind. lawsuit challenges Obama's eligibility
Updated: Dec 25, 2008 04:28 PM


Indianapolis - Two Indiana men have filed a lawsuit claiming that Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as president.

The suit, like some others that have stalled in federal courts, questions whether Obama meets the constitutional requirement that the president must be a "natural born citizen."

The suit was filed in Marion Superior Court in Indianapolis by Steve Ankeny, New Castle, and Bill Kruse, Roselawn, The Indianapolis Star reported Thursday.

It names Gov. Mitch Daniels and the Republican and Democratic national committees as defendants, saying they failed to uphold the Constitution when they certified results of the November election.

It asks Judge David Dreyer to throw out the election results.

The suit is one of five similar challenges. The others were filed in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois and Michigan, Ankeny said.

The Indiana suit contends neither Obama nor Republican Sen. John McCain proved he was a natural born citizen and that neither was eligible to be elected president because both were sitting U.S. senators at the time of the election.

"Our argument is that there has to be evidence that a candidate - any candidate - actually meets the qualifications," Ankeny said.

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. citizens while his father was stationed there while serving in the military.

Obama's birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii, but his father was not a U.S. citizen and some have claimed the document is a fake. Hawaii officials have said they checked health department records and have determined there's no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii. The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document.

The U.S. Supreme Court this month refused without comment to hear a challenge to Obama's citizenship.

The governor's office had no comment other than to confirm that it had received a copy of the suit. Officials at the Indiana state Republican and Democratic parties refused to accept the summons and it was not clear whether national party officials had been served.

Henry Karlson, professor emeritus at the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis, said the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the election and the lawsuit targeted the wrong defendants.

"They should be suing the electors, not the governor," Karlson said.

http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=9580054

 

[sidster]

Indianapolis - Two Indiana men have filed a lawsuit claiming that Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as president.
...
The suit was filed in Marion Superior Court in Indianapolis by Steve Ankeny, New Castle, and Bill Kruse, Roselawn, The Indianapolis Star reported Thursday.

It names Gov. Mitch Daniels and the Republican and Democratic national committees as defendants, saying they failed to uphold the Constitution when they certified results of the November election.

It asks Judge David Dreyer to throw out the election results.
...
The governor's office had no comment other than to confirm that it had received a copy of the suit. Officials at the Indiana state Republican and Democratic parties refused to accept the summons and it was not clear whether national party officials had been served.

Henry Karlson, professor emeritus at the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis, said the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the election and the lawsuit targeted the wrong defendants.

"They should be suing the electors, not the governor," Karlson said.

http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=9580054

Interesting. Why don't every US citizen sue the electors?
Just a mass class action lawsuits against the electors on
behalf of each and every citizen?

 

[asimplegirl]

The State of Hawaii has declared the birth certificate to be valid and even the US Supreme Court has ruled (today)that there is no reason to hear an appeal of the most recent lawsuit. For some people, that is still not enough. There is no proof which could be offered which will change their minds. Additional proof will be declared to be "faked" or part of a cover-up.

He was born of a US citizen mother in one of the several states (Hawaii- which became a US state two years before Obama's birth).

See this, included with the birth announcements in the two local papers is enough for me to just let it go.

I voted McCain- Palin as the lesser of two evils, also. .. and yes, the lesser may still be evil, but that is how our society works, and my one vote would not have been good enough to do anything anyway, I mean, 60% of my state voted them anyway. Just so people don't flame me for this, I wanted to write Ron in, but saw that as a wasted vote. Sorry. As for the other two, there were things I liked, and things I didn't. In the end, it came down to the one decision that would affect me *personally*, and that was the second amendment... I thought M/P would atleast leave things alone in that area.

I do think it is just silly to keep going on with this Obama born in Kenya stuff. Just let it go..Even if it were true, which it has proven to not be, there is too much money tied up in keeping him in that position than you could ever offer. Distribute you funds in better ways... maybe to put towards keeping certain things form getting passed, or even getting some things passed. Ads and campaigning and such all costs money.

Sometimes not knowing when to stop can give us a worse name, and lose more to our cause than not doing anything. After a certain level of proof, we begin to look like paranoid weirdos, who wants to support that?

 

[Number19]

...But as I said earlier, for some people no proof will be good enough. They cannot accept the fact that 1) Barak Obama was born in the US. 2) He is a citizen and most importantly. 3) was elected the president of the United States. I think it is this third point which irritates more people who are trying to claim the first two points are wrong. So they will waste time and resources to try to disprove all of these.

The problem I have, and I do try to stay objective, is that every time I read a rebuttal to these charges, the responses are "lies". Not big lies, just little small ones, such as the phrasing of a sentence, which often is technically correct, it just doesn't directly address the issue. Such obfuscation is a form of lie.

A good example is your point #2, where you write, "He is a citizen...". As far as I know, this is not in dispute and has never been in dispute. Obama is an American citizen. But note, the word "is" is "present tense". The question is, under American law, "was" Obama an American citizen at birth. In 1961, the law was codified under The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952.

I don't think it is disputed that the Obama's were living in Hawaii, and had satisfied the legal requirements of having done so for at least the previous year. But the way I see the dispute is whether they had traveled to Kenya to be with family during the birth. Returning to Hawaii, they then obtained the legal Certification of Live Birth and at which point the newspapers published the birth announcement.

This scenario has never been "proven" to be false, to my knowledge. All we have is rhetoric claiming it to be false.

 

[asimplegirl]

Thank you so much for being so diplomatic in your approach.

This, my friends, is debating. Not arguing, or forcing your views on anyone else...

I get exactly what you are saying. When phrased this way, maybe it should be looked into, but that will not be very hard or take a very long time. A quick look at laws, residences, and the birth records can all prove this to be true or false in a matter of seconds.

 

[Number19]

But the only, proper place for this airing would be the Supreme Court. Some would still dispute any decision, but for all but the most radical, this would put a definitive end to this divisive issue.

But the issue is dead and I understand why the Supremes refused to take the issue to a full hearing - socially and politically it had the potential of being catastrophic.

 

[asimplegirl]

exactly

 

[cheapseats]

But the only, proper place for this airing would be the Supreme Court. Some would still dispute any decision, but for all but the most radical, this would put a definitive end to this divisive issue.

But the issue is dead and I understand why the Supremes refused to take the issue to a full hearing - socially and politically it had the potential of being catastrophic.

REFUSING to hold a full hearing on whether our President Elect is eligible to assume the throne could ALSO be catastrophic. Between a rock and a hard place, they are.

Is there not also a valid question as to one-name-like-a-star Hillary's eligibility to become Secretary of State?

I, for one, will not recognize the authority of this Administration if it's going to be one more long drawn-out episode of Magical Mystery Tour meets Cloak & Dagger. These Judges are supposed to have the keenest judicial insight in the entire nation -- politely declining to hear the tough cases isn't a fucking option.

That's a hop, skip and a judgment away from Henry Waxman politely requesting Karl Rove's emails and Karl Rove politely declining to provide them. Ditto the oh-so-aptly named Dick Cheney.

No hiding behind Black Robes -- they are chickenshit, if they do.

This is not fucking complicated. Barack Obama positively cannot beam himself into my life often enough, apparently, for his ego. Do the same with the birth certificate, which can be examined ad nauseum by a parade of nudge-nudge-wink-wink Experts who, incredibly, never seem to have the same opinion on anything.

Then, IF it's legit, we can move on to Barack Obama's role in big-time Chicago Political Corruption -- if he's not eligible, we don't have to "go there."

 

[Zippyjuan]

In the case of Hillary becoming Secretary of State, the Congress voted to reduce the pay of the office so that the pay is not higher and thus allowing her to assume the position.
http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081212/LOCAL08/812120350/0/LOCAL11

Cabinet post's pay reduced so Clinton can serveLaurie KellmanAssociated PressAdvertisement
WASHINGTON – Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would make about $4,700 less as secretary of state than her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.

Congress late Wednesday cut the salary for the nation’s top diplomat to keep Clinton’s nomination from running afoul of the Constitution.

An obscure section on compensation for public officials says that no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if that job’s pay was increased during the lawmaker’s current term.

In other words, Clinton, D-N.Y., might have been ineligible to serve in the post because she was serving in Congress when Rice’s salary was raised to its current level of $191,300.

So late Wednesday, the House and Senate quietly rolled the secretary of state’s salary back to $186,600, its level in January 2007 when Clinton began her second Senate term.

Even at the lower rate, Clinton would still get a raise over her Senate salary. Senators now make $169,300 and are expected to receive a raise to $174,000 next year.

 

[BlackTerrel]

But the only, proper place for this airing would be the Supreme Court. Some would still dispute any decision, but for all but the most radical, this would put a definitive end to this divisive issue.

But the issue is dead and I understand why the Supremes refused to take the issue to a full hearing - socially and politically it had the potential of being catastrophic.

Obama was born in the US - sorry.

 

[Number19]

Obama was born in the US - sorry.

Why do you say so? Why not have all the allegations presented to the Supreme Court and publicly aired?

 

[asimplegirl]

Because if he was born in the United States, and you prove nothing, wouldn't that be harassment, something our government is supposed to protect us from and that we, as libertarian, usually stand in defiance against?

 

[Number19]

Because if he was born in the United States, and you prove nothing, wouldn't that be harassment, something our government is supposed to protect us from and that we, as libertarian, usually stand in defiance against?

No, it is not harassment. There are Constitutional issues involved and citizens have a right to expect the law will be upheld. The U.S. presidency is the highest elective office in the land and there should be transparency on all records pertaining to the qualification to hold this office.

 

[asimplegirl]

no, you asked.. i answered with a question...
IF he ends up being a citizen as he, the state of Hawaii and the Courts say, would that not mean that we all harassed an innocent man for months on end?

 

[Number19]

no, you asked.. i answered with a question...
IF he ends up being a citizen as he, the state of Hawaii and the Courts say, would that not mean that we all harassed an innocent man for months on end?

No. Transparency should be mandatory - just as it is for financial records. "Insisting" on this transparency is not "harassment".

There is always a shadow of "guilt" and "wrong doing" when someone in politics is not straight forward about their past. The President of the United States should not be under such a cloud. The question will always be asked, "What does he have to hide?".

Quite frankly, I'm puzzled by Obama's unwillingness to put this whole mess to rest by simply authorizing the release of all documents. What DOES he have to hide?