Berg v. Obama: Second Conference Hearing on Friday
Philip Berg, Plaintiff in Berg v. Obama, will have a second Conference this Friday, January 16, concerning his request to either (1) stay the Electoral College vote or (2) stay the certification of same (original docket; new docket; all in “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar).
In my opinion, if Mr. Berg is smart, he will appropriately deal with his Third Circuit case (his brief for the case is due by January 20) prior to this Friday. Of course, even that won’t guarantee that the Supremes will react any differently to this question than his original petition for Certiorari, as the lower court is in no way obligated to “finish up business” prior to this Friday.
We also don’t completely know all of the cards in Philip Berg’s hand. Clearly, he has a sealed Berg v. Obama case currently under consideration in the Judiciary, and he’s already promised to file a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto, should the President-Elect be inaugurated without any orders being handed down.
Even before this week is over, we also already know that next week could entail action from the courts at the State and federal levels as well; I’ll be writing a posting on that later.
In the meantime, be sure to keep yourself up to speed with the current listing of eligibility lawsuits.
Update: Excellent video, “The Embassy,” from TheDailyDigest.com.
-Phil
Howard,
Thanks for the great comments again. I suspect they are for the most part wasted on the posters and readers here but not with me. I suspected you were a lawyer after reading your previous comment. I happen to be an engineer so I appreciate logical thinking even though I am more comfortable with mathematical expressions of logic rather than verbal. I look forward to the nest few years. I suspect they will be both exciting and refreshing.
Mr. Appel,
As owner of this blog, I thank you very much for your candid analysis of the discussions going on. I think you bring up a number of exceptionally valid points.
Regarding eligibility, I am in full concurrence with you that the Constitution, in typical form, does not specifically stipulate exactly how the phrase is to be defined; that is most obviously left up to any of the three federal branches (I’m one of those that do not believe the Judiciary is the final authority in such matters; all three branches are separate yet equal in power and/or authority).
In this instance, however, I am still left to wonder how any of the three branches would react to a specific case on the President-Elect’s having had a Kenyan father who was under the auspices of UK-Kenyan colonial law in 1961, which further required all paternal children to be citizens of the UK. To me, that is my biggest sticking point in the entire debate.
Thanks again for your commentary as well as taking the time to read my blog,
-Phil
To all, I apologize for not responding earlier, but I had to work.
First, to answer someone’s question from above, I am a corporate lawyer who has been practicing for 18 years and I am licensed in California.
Second, as pretty much everyone agrees, the Constitution requires that the President be a “natural born citizen” (an “NBC”). However, despite what numerous persons have asserted, the Constitution does not define what constitutes an NBC. That is why it is up to the Congress and the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution (including the amendments thereto). To say that the language of the Constitution is so plain or straightforward that it does not require interpretation is not only to ignore reality but to ignore several centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence. For example, the First Amendment states
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The First Amendment flatly states that Congress (and by incorporation through the 14th Amendment, the States) shall not abridge the freedom of speech. There are no exceptions in the First Amendment stating that it is illegal to cry fire in a crowded theater or banning the publication of obscene or pornographic speech, but the Supreme Court has consistently upheld time and place, and in some cases, content restrictions on speech.
It is the same with the definition of an NBC: the Constitution provides a framework, but, subject to the overall provisions of that framework, the Congress and the Supreme Court flesh out what the Constitution means in any particular instance.
Third, I agree that the founders were concerned about dual loyalties. However, there is no evidence presented that President-Elect Obama has ever considered himself anything but a US citizen and has always been loyal to the US. Please note that I said “evidence”, not allegations. If someone can point to any instance after Obama reached the age of majority where he demonstrated allegiance to a foreign power, e.g., got a UK passport as an adult, I would like to see it.
Fourth, I take personal offense to your comment about those who “want to diminish those who hold to the U.S. Constitution, which should reign supreme and govern us over any person in government” and “Our patriotic citizenry -who have spelled out the very important concerns and reasons for full disclosure of the documented evidence of Obama’s citizenship status – are being ridiculed for doing so.” I hold the Constitution extremely dear and find it offensive that so many people have suddenly become concerned about upholding it, after eight years where the US Government completely ignored and trashed it. We have seen, amongst other things, numerous violations of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments, Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution — to wit, the power of Congress:
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
These powers have been usurped by the Administration without complaint on the basis of “politics” and that George Bush was commander-in-chief of the country. I hold the Constitution most precious and I consider myself a patriot in that I support this country and I strive to make it a better place. Being a patriot does not mean that you are a republican or democrat or liberal or conservative or christian, jew, muslim or atheist. You can be any of those and be a patriot. But, to me, you cannot be a patriot if you place the rule of a man above the rule of law, which is one of the fundamental founding principles of this country. No man is above the law. So when George Bush and his supporters argue that we have to torture or we have to break the law to protect us and that, accordingly, they are above the law, I say that person is not a patriot.
Barack Obama has complied with the law as set forth and established by every court so far in respect to his eligibility to be President.
Fifth, you state that “Well, this natural born United States Citizen may not have “standing” according to SCOTUS.” That is correct. And it is the Supreme Court which gets to decide. If you don’t like the result, elect someone else as president because that is who nominates the Justices. Also, just for your information,
Sixth, if you are going to quote Frank Salvato, why don’t you provide a little information about him for all of the readers. Let’s see, he is a staunch ultra-conservative who has consistently attacked Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Barack Obama, democrats, liberals, the media — I think I see a pattern. Also, how about a selection of some his columns:
The Fifth Column Is Alive And Well
EDITORIAL Frank Salvato
April 12, 2004
The Fifth Column, a shadowy element that works against the well-being and success of our country, is alive and well right here in the United States. We are all familiar with The Fifth Column whether we know it or not. In fact we feed off the “information” it offers daily, sometimes not realizing it. And at this very moment we are engaged in a struggle with The Fifth Column that could very well hold the future of our country in the balance, at least in the long run
Or:
Who Would Osama Vote For?
EDITORIAL Frank Salvato
February 3, 2004
As I was listening to the continued positioning of the Democratic presidential candidates a thought came to mind that was rather disturbing. No, I am not talking about the fact an ineffectual Governor could have hoodwinked the people who normally would vote Green. Nor am I talking about the fact there is a candidate within the Democrat’s ranks that might as well change his last name to Kennedy. I was listening to reports regarding timetables for the elections in Iraq and a question came to mind. When all is said and done, who do the terrorists want to see win in November? Better yet, whom would they not want to see win? The answer was pretty clear.
In reality we are all hated and despised by most of the terrorist organizations around the world because to them we represent the Great Satan. There isn’t a suicide bomber among them that wouldn’t take great satisfaction in seeing just one more American man, woman, child dead. To be sure, they are a heinous bunch and they wouldn’t discriminate between Republican, Democrat, Green or Independent. We are all Americans and we all deserve to be dead. That is their mindset.
Putting that pleasant thought aside for a moment and venturing off into the hypothetical (I expect the liberal readers to do much better than the conservative readers with this task), I was wondering who the average terrorist would be inclined to vote for given today’s choices.
Some of the fanatically Mecca-minded would have to give serious thought to Howard Dean. After all, he is the one candidate that has been against the Iraqi war (which by decry and default is part of the War on Terror – always has been) since the beginning. He has been outspoken in his opposition to its funding and he wouldn’t hesitate to get out of the Middle East all together, given the chance. From the terrorist vantage point Dean would be a great person to have in the White House. He would be unlikely to intervene in anything considered terrorist and would likely turn to the UN in the event another terrorist strike were to bring down every building in the US taller than the cave entrances of today’s al Qaeda strongholds.
Then there would be the more cerebral terrorists who would lean towards John Kerry. While in the past they would have opposed him vigorously, the cerebral terrorist would undoubtedly realize that ever since Kerry stood with the likes of Jane Fonda he has become a non-threat. To the cerebral terrorist having a guy like Kerry in control of the most powerful military in the world could be an asset. They could claim they wouldn’t dare do anything of a terrorist nature with Kerry “the war hero” in charge while denying their exploits just as the Taliban denied their involvement immediately after September 11th. They could proclaim the fear of having Kerry don his flight jacket to show them what “landing on a carrier” really means. They would giggle with fanatical glee as they set the stage for finishing the job at the Pentagon, right under Kerry’s nose. This would be possible because Kerry would have finally gotten his legislation passed reducing the funding for our intelligence community even further than he had wanted in the 90’s. After all, the Cold War is over, right?
It could be argued the terrorist vote would be a bit wary when it came to John Edwards. Their cautionary approach to the Edwards candidacy would be based in the fact that he is a lawyer. If there is one thing that can throw a wrench into a good old-fashioned jihad it’s a good old-fashioned American lawsuit. These “nuisance lawsuits” would deplete funds earmarked for the purchase of non-existent uranium from nuclear capable African nations. One can only wonder what Johnny Cochran or Alan Dershowitz would charge al Qaeda for representation.
The terrorist voting block would hardly find the candidacies of Kucinich or Sharpton plausible. Let’s face it, terrorists may be the scum of the earth but even they aren’t so stupid as to believe either have a chance.
They grew to the terrifying stature they hold today under Clark’s watch as NATO chief so he wouldn’t be an obstacle in their quest to eradicate infidels around the world. They could get back to the business of oppressing people immediately should Clark be elected. They could even invite Clark to drink wine with them while they went about their oppressing. But even this is understood to be a pipedream devoid of cot.
The only Democratic candidate they would fear would be Joe Lieberman because he understands the dangers terrorist organizations pose to the well being of the free world and specifically the United States. I am sure they breathe a collective sigh of relief in praise of Allah that Lieberman hasn’t a snowballs chance in the Iraqi desert of getting elected.
That leaves them to fear only George W. Bush. He’s the one person the terrorists don’t want to see win the election. He has already proven he will do what it takes to win the War on Terror. He has proven he will use every tool at his disposal and that he would rather err on the side of protecting the United States rather than allowing rogue leaders the opportunity to acquire the wherewithal to launch attacks on America and her interests worldwide. He has proven he would put his political well being in harms way to preserve, protect and defend the United States and her citizens while eradicating threats, both potential and mounting.
No, the terrorists would like it least if President Bush were to be re-elected. They view him as a threat to their well being and that is something we as citizens of the United States should favor. Terrorists would be in favor of “anybody but Bush” winning the election. That being said, it is curious why so many uninformed US voters are taking the same position as the terrorists. Could it be that we are living in an age where people could be so blind? We will have our answer in November. So will the terrorists.
That one was so prescient — by the way, where is Osama?
Or:
Terri Schiavo: The First Shot
in the Battle Against Judicial Activism
Government/Frank Salvato, Managing Editor
April 1, 2005 – The damage has been done. Terri Schindler Schiavo has died. No legal wrangling, lobbying, protesting or moral epiphany can change that. The time for considering action on Terri’s behalf has passed and that can’t be rectified with the reinsertion of a feeding tube. Terri is cold and lifeless. Perhaps now the realization of just how final the option of death is will start to sink in. You can never go home.
There are many who want to make Terri’s death something other than what it is.
Was it about the right-to-life versus the right-to-die? I’m sure it can be argued to a certain degree of success that it was. On the one hand, we had a young woman who was severely brain damaged and who may or may not have expressed her desire to be given the ultimate relief if ever found to be in such a position. On the other hand, she wasn’t on a ventilator and she wasn’t terminally ill. She was a living, breathing, swallowing human being whose only compromise was that she needed assistance in obtaining food and water to survive.
Are those who expressed their outrage politically motivated? I doubt it. It is clear to see that everyone experienced Terri’s death on an emotional level. Those who took political action – or didn’t as the case may be – literally put themselves in a no-win situation. Just about every poll taken proved that there was no “winning” position on this issue. Everybody lost, especially Terri. Most people understand this.
While both of these aspects of Terri’s life and death are catalyst for good discussions on the ethics of politics and euthanasia, both together and separately, there is a more disturbing issue afoot.
Terri Schindler Schiavo’s death is an American tragedy. It didn’t have to happen. It highlighted the grotesque failures of our judicial system at every level. It spotlighted the fact that those who practice judicial activism and political positioning under the guise of following procedure and precedent champion their own agendas over their sworn oaths to uphold even the most basic of rights afforded us under the US Constitution, the rights to life and liberty.
Many of the major judicial failures in Terri’s case emanated from the courtroom of Judge George Greer. A former scandal-plagued Pinellas County Commissioner, Greer monetarily coerced his way through an unopposed election for Chief Judge of Florida’s Sixth Judicial Circuit. If Terri’s death exposes only one scoundrel to the light of scrutiny it should be George Greer.
Greer’s tenure presiding over the Schiavo case offered a plethora of questionable decisions.
Why did he admit hearsay evidence as fact? Why did he assume the role of Terri’s guardian in the face of a conflict of interest and against Florida judicial canon? Why did he refuse to appoint a Guardian ad Litem for Terri in light of Michael Schiavo’s compromised moral and ethical positions? Why did he fail to enforce Florida law that would have provided Terri therapy until her demise? Why did he allow Michael Schiavo to spend money designated for Terri’s care on legal services designed to end her life? Why did he allow Terri to be admitted to a hospice under false pretenses? Why did he fail to order confirming MRI and PET scan evaluations? Why did he admit into evidence the testimony of a biased medical panel some of whom were right-to-die advocates? And why didn’t he recuse himself in the face of his flagrant bias against the Schindler family when petitioned to do so?
These glaring transgressions against Florida law, US law and Florida judicial canon should have sounded an alarm; instead they were upheld in court after court after court.
An even more disturbing fact is that the federal judiciary – whether you agree or disagree with how they came to be included in this case – refused to even address the inequities of Greer’s court. Charged with reviewing the case de novo, the federal judiciary did nothing of the sort. Instead they engaged in a deadly game of indignance with the legislative and executive branches of our federal government. They refused to hear arguments and gave no cause. They played constitutional politics while a life hung in the balance. Terri’s life clock clicked onward toward her hour of reckoning and the tyranny of judicial activism donned the dark shroud of death.
America is at a important crossroads. If we are diligent in demanding that the glaring injustice of judicial activism be addressed then we can say in all honesty that Terri Schindler Schiavo, in her death, fired the first significant shot in the battle against judicial activism. If we fail and continue to allow the tyrannical conquest of judicial activism to abridge our inalienable rights we have not only failed as a free people but our country’s survival will be in question.
As the door to Terri’s earthly world closes We the People must recognize the gift she has left behind, an opportunity to combat the crisis of judicial activism on the national stage. It is appropriate that with her passing, and very aptly in her name, the American people take on the challenge of ridding our nation of this tyranny so that justice and morality triumphs over activism and agenda.
In the end, the death of Terri Schindler Schiavo was about Terri, the woman, the daughter, the sister, the friend. We should never forget that and we should be grateful for the gift she left behind. Truly, she is a friend to all of us. We the People have failed our friend once, we her friends can’t afford to let her down again.
To the Schindler family I offer my most sincere and heartfelt condolences. To Terri I wish a speedy ascent on angel’s wings. Rest in peace.
Let’s see: Here Salvato wanted the courts to intervene — this whole judicial activism thing gets me so confused.
I am not going to answer Salvato’s argument point by point, my patience for bullshit has a limit. But I would like to make two more points, that, for lack of a better word, have really pissed me off for the last eight years.
The President is the “commander in chief” of the US armed forces, not of the United States. There is a huge difference. He is my President, but, as I am a civilian, he is not my commander in chief. As many of you like to point to the express language of the Constitution, this is what it says (Article II, Section 2):
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Being the commander in chief of the armed forces, even during an undeclared war or wars, does not give the President the right to break the law.
Lastly, some persons like to say that the US does not have to abide by the Geneva Conventions or have to treat enemy combatants, et al, humanely, even if not so required by the Geneva Conventions or other law. The first point is incorrect. The US is a treaty party to the Geneva Conventions and, as set forth in Article VI of the Constitution,
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land [emphasis added]; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
QED, treaties to which we are a party are the law of the land. Secondly, numerous sections of the United States Code, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, expressly prohibit torture and other inhumane treatment. Lastly, how we treat prisoners not only reflects on how others will treat our personnel when captured, but reflects on who we are as a nation and as a people. Americans do not torture, we are the good guys. Nazis torture, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge torture, Al Qaeda tortures, drug cartels torture — Americans do not torture. (Besides, it doesn’t work, despite what Jack Bauer does on “24”).
I am more than happy to engage in substantive discussions on any of these, or other issues with anyone, subject to the caveat that the discussion be based on the facts, not mere allegations or fantasies concerning forged documents (I have a great deal of difficulty accepting the credibility of an “expert” alleging that a document is forgery when they haven’t examined the original.
Reality Check:
Wake up–! Get over it!
The man you refer to is not even named “Obama”–His legal name is BARRY SOETORO, so if you voted for Obama, you basically threw away your vote–because you “voted” for a candidate who really doesn’t exist.
He not only defrauded you, but the American public as a whole. We may simply have to put it in plainer language to you: HE IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN, AND IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES–ALL HE WILL EVER BE IS A USURPER.
If you want a REAL Reality Check, visit
http://www.newswithviews.com, and read Constitutional Authority and Scholar’s Dr. Edwin Vieira’s (Meredith’s brother)informative essays on this issue. One of them is titled “Obama Should Step Up or Step Down”; and the second informative piece is a 3-part series about the consequences that are likely to take place in the U.S. if this natural born citizen imposter should be “sworn in”.
Don’t be fooled even by the “swearing in” next Tuesday–because it will not be valid–the man can only be a usurper. He will never be a real U.S President.
Harrah
Pete – “You say that Obama is NOT OF NATIVE HAWIAAN decent, but earlier all you Obamabots say he was born in Hawaii. Using your very same logic on the 14th Amendment and jus soil, he is Native Hawiaan. “
“Native Hawaiian”, in this context, means someone descended from the pre-1778 Polynesian inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands are legally bound by trusts to provide services only to Hawaiians claiming over 50% ancestry back to pre-1778 settlers of the Hawaiian Islands, hence the requirement they have for the long-form birth certificates of not only the applicant, but the applicant’s parents as well. (This would be the same as on the mainland, proving Native American ancestry to apply for tribal membership and qualify for programmes with Bureau of Indian Affairs.)
Obama was born in Hawaii, and therefore is considered Hawaii-born according to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Hawaii-born does not equal Native Hawaiian though.
In other words:
Hawaii-born – Born in Hawaii, (could be any ancestry) (jus soli)
Native Hawaiian – 50% or more ancestry from pre-1778 Hawaiian inhabitant bloodlines. (jus sanguinis)
DHHL handles claims from Native Hawaiians. Obama, while born in Hawaii and therefore being Hawaii-born, is of Kenyan/English/Irish decent and therefore is not Native Hawaiian.
Pete,
While I appreciate your passion on this issue, those who oppose the position of the President-Elect’s ineligibility are still free to post here (as should be abundantly obvious by now) and I will continue to allow their comments, insofar as things remain reasonably civilized.
Secondly, I would very much appreciate if the question of how much the President-Elect has spent on court costs could be objectively substantiated; I have yet to find any such evidence.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Hmm…. I don’t think I communicated well. So I will try to be clear to the obamabots posting.
1. EXACTLY, don’t estimate, how much money has Obama and his campaign spent thus far on this issue, and exact amounts of legal fees. Don’t guess, or assume, give the number exactly.
2. You say that Obama is NOT OF NATIVE HAWIAAN decent, but earlier all you Obamabots say he was born in Hawaii. Using your very same logic on the 14th Amendment and jus soil, he is Native Hawiaan. ROFLOL. Besides, why don’t you get his long form vault B.C. (preferably with footprints obtained by the OB/GYN or midwife and hospital doing the delivery) as post that here to refute your claim that he is NOT NATIVE HAWIAAN.
I try to be fair. Which is why then the various claims about this issue started showing up in June and July at the various PUMA boards, I started looking at it due to simple curiousity. And what struck me was a major lack of anything like credible evidence on any of these.
Berg in particular was an interesting case. A 9/11 “truther” who was a very outspoken Hillary Clinton supporter, he penned two open letters during the primaries asking Obama to step aside for the “more electable” Clinton. Remember, his original lawsuit was filed before the Democratic National Convention along with a request for a restraining order prohibiting the DNC from nominating Obama as their candidate, and he was very open that the reason for it was he didn’t think Obama would win and that Clinton would have. He never really addressed Constitutional issues until October.
Most of his original case, particularly the dual citizenship issues, Indonesian adoption and citizenship claims, come directly from the writings of one “Judah Benjamin”, a blogger on the PUMA board “TexasDarlin”. His original case also cited not only Polarik’s work, but one “TechDude”, (particularly the claim that Maya Soetoro’s name could be found on the COLB image), and included the joke “canadian birth certificate” signed by Dudley DoRight and JFK.
None of Berg’s original lawsuit looked credible at all, and the evidence he added since then wasn’t credible either in my opinion. And with a good many of the other lawsuits based on Berg’s claims, I don’t think their chances are good either. Donofrio actually had a original claim that was would have been interesting to see argued in court, but the Supreme Court seems to have disagreed with that idea.
Reality—–If there is any moving it will be your party…I like our Constitution and believe it should be upheld if we want to have a government “for the people and by the people”. We are not a “mob” rules nation….we are a republic…that is why I suggest you may like it somewhere else where you can’t be held to that piece of paper.
By the way—-please present your evidence that Bush abused his power in office??? Even your “chosen one” made the statement the other day that there will be no investigation of the Bush Administration because they did not do anything illegal. Where do you get off making such statements about a legitimate President when your “chosen one” won’t even show the American people his legal and authentic proof of citizenship??? You are nothing more than a hypocrite!
Phil—I have a 15 year old daughter and I have never heard of your statement about Americans being taught “you should never talk about sex, religion, and politics”…..that is old school and in this day and age all three of the above must be discussed!!! My husband and I regularly have talks with our daughter on these very subjects…maybe you are not a father of a teenager in 2009????
As Catholic parents our guidance is one of abstinence, however……that being said, she knows if she ever gets pregnant out of wedlock she has our support in either raising the child or giving it up for adoption. She also knows that abortion(murder) is not an option!!
Reality Check,
Personally, while I disagree with a number of assertions you’ve just made (no surprise there), I similarly disagree with a number of assertions that have been made by a number of commenters that I believe you have appropriately categorized as those who “think the country is going to hell in a hand basket.” However, I’m not going to censor comments simply because people are venting.
I do find it amazing, and I think you’ll agree with this thought. If everyone on both ends of the political spectrum would stop beotching and complaining about things and turn that same energy into doing something constructive — be that starting a blog, getting involved in politics or other organization, etc. — I think there’d be a lot less of this venting going on.
It’s almost a self-fulfilling prophecy (and I know you’ve seen this scenario before):
“‘They’ have put the ‘fix’ into the system. Yes, ‘they,’ as in [insert your favorite scapegoat here, such as my favorite: the grand Judeo-Masonic conspiracy that is so vast that nobody knows just how secret it is!] are oppressing the People. So, I really am completely powerless to do anything about it, though I’m going to continue to fool myself into thinking that I can do something about it so that I have some sort of justification for whining and complaining about [insert favorite problem here].”
For example: There is an argument that says that if you teach a teenager (or appropriate age) about birth control (e.g.: condom use), that automatically means you’re sending the message that it’s OK to go have sex. In this instance, we have just encountered what is known as the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy, similar to, “If you go outside and it’s raining, you’re going to catch a cold.” The conclusion simply doesn’t necessarily follow the premise. This is exactly like saying, “If you purchase a gun for self-protection, then you’re going to go use it to kill someone.”
Yet — yet — the same people who believe in this logical fallacy wonder why in the world teenagers are getting pregnant out of wedlock and simply send a “tsk, tsk” in the pregnant mother’s general direction, saying, “Well, if you would have only practiced abstinence, then you wouldn’t have put yourself in that situation to begin with.” Unfortunately for those who think this way, this is not an issue of abstinence; this is an issue of raw will and hormones that all humans ultimately confront and will simply fail, from time to time.
But, then again, Americans have been taught that “you should never talk about sex, religion and politics,” and then wonder why the world seems to be falling apart around them, as if simply not communicating about these topics and encouraging blissful ignorance will somehow not have the inevitable and subsequent consequences.
OK! I’m sure I’ll take all kinds of heat for that, but hey — this is my blog where I can say what I please, and people are free to agree or disagree as they see fit.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Actually, I was thinking that since many people here think the country is going to hell in a hand basket that they might entertain a move to somewhere else. I don’t really see a lot of hope for you if think only Obama’s disqualification can save us. It is not happening so you better beat the crowds to the borders.
I have been speaking out against Bush’s abuse of the Constitution for almost his entire time in power. Didn’t he say it was only a piece of paper? His were real abuses of power like signing statements, warrantless wiretapping, and suspension of habeus corpus rights, unlike the phony issue of Obama’s citizenship.
By the way, I am having second thoughts about my observation of civility. I may have been premature.
Geoff Hamilton -
I really appreciate your comment. Those who would think that dual-citizenship and that the natural born citizen clause in our U.S. Constitution shouldn’t (or doesn’t) matter, are dismissing such concerns for political reasons. They want to diminish those who hold to the U.S. Constitution, which should reign supreme and govern us over any person in government. Our patriotic citizenry -who have spelled out the very important concerns and reasons for full disclosure of the documented evidence of Obama’s citizenship status – are being ridiculed for doing so.
Well, this natural born United States Citizen may not have “standing” according to SCOTUS, but the Constitution itself tells us why we must be diligent in this matter.
The reason why our Constitution unequivocably states that anyone seeking the office of the presidency must be a natural born citizen is precisely because there was a fear of disloyalty to our nation, and/or divided loyalty with other nations – many of which now hate us and would do anything to destroy us. The Founders surmised that one day, a possible usurper could get in and attempt to destroy this nation from within our government. This subject should not be taken lightly by ANY American!
The following article written by Frank Salvato, Managing Editor of The New Media Journal has to be THE BEST article I have ever read concerning Why the POTUS Needs to Be a Natural-Born Citizen
I wanted to copy and paste the entire article here!! Below are some of the most important points.
Excerpt Quote:
There are many reasons why someone running for the office of President of the United States should be a natural-born citizen but four come to mind as the most immediate: Allegiance, Sovereignty, Foreign Intervention and the Safeguarding of The Charters of Freedom.
Allegiance
It is important that anyone aspiring to the office of President of the United States have a steadfast allegiance to The Charters of Freedom and the country, without reserving any allegiance to any foreign power, entity or potentate.
Because the President of the United States serves as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces it is essential that the person holding this position, and the authority to unleash the power of the US military, not be compromised of allegiance. And because the President is the Chief Executive — the administrator to all Executive Branch authorities and departments — it is paramount that this position be limited to those who would dedicate themselves to “country first.”
A person holding dual allegiance – or dual citizenship – would be put in the position of having to choose between those allegiances and would, therefore, compromise his oath of preserving, protecting and defending the United States Constitution.
Sovereignty
In an age when there exists a substantial number of federally elected officials who believe the United States should take its seat as an equal in a one-world, globalist order, it becomes critical that the person elected to serve as President of the United States have an unwavering dedication to our nation’s sovereignty.
With the advent of organizations such as the “World Court” and an ever-advancing encroachment of United Nations authority upon our sovereignty, it is important that our national sovereignty be protected at all cost. Allowing someone who does not satisfy Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution to ascend to the office of President facilitates an opportunity for globalist ideologues to position themselves to do harm to the Charters of Freedom at the hand of world opinion and at the expense of the Rights as enumerated in The Charters of Freedom.
When one takes into account many of the extreme laws governing free speech, property rights, taxation and personal and religious freedom that exist throughout the world it becomes clear that to bow to the will of the world community, to trade our sovereignty for universal national equality, serves to diminish the freedom and liberty mandated by The Charters of Freedom, liberties and freedoms paid for with the blood and treasure of patriots.
Foreign Intervention
In the youthful existence of the United States of America our nation has come up against many individuals, nations and organizations who would revel in our demise. To permit a non-natural-born citizen to rise to the office of President would be to invite nefarious forces to manufacture a Little Nikita in the hope of bringing about the actualization of Nikita Khrushchev’s declaration that the United States will fall with nary a shot being fired.
To believe that organizations like al Qaeda, ideologues like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or nation states like Russia or China wouldn’t embrace the chance to – through the legitimate means of our electoral process – install an operative in the Oval Office is to be naïve. Each of these entities devote resources to affect the demise of the United States of America including military, economic and ideological (read: propaganda) resources.
Because the President of the United States is entrusted with the execution of authority of all Executive Branch departments and the command of the US military, it is vital that anyone aspiring to the office have a complete appreciation and devotion for the American way of life. Failing to vet those who do not possess natural-born appreciation or our uniquely American philosophy is to invite an ideological siege upon our nation and to compromise the ability to bequeath Americanism to future generations.
Safeguarding of the Charters of Freedom
Chief among every American President’s duties is to safeguard the Charters of Freedom. The Oath of Office of the President of the United States reads:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Some add, “So help me God” to punctuate their commitment.
Without a solid, unwavering dedication to preserving The Charters of Freedom the President of the United States is ill-prepared to advance the freedoms and liberties mandated therein to future generations. Those who would usurp the genius of our Founders and Framers by diminishing the importance of natural born citizenship as a requirement for President do so at the expense of generational safeguards. Those who engage in this national apostasy should be thoroughly scrutinized for any ulterior motive.
Today, as we await the decision of the United States Supreme Court on the issue of President-Elect Obama’s requirement to satisfy Article II, Section 1, our nation stands at a crossroads that runs adjacent to the abyss. Today, there is no provision in the US Constitution for a mechanism to enforce Article II, Section 1 but for US Supreme Court action. On Friday, should the US Supreme Court abdicate its responsibility to the US Constitution, the full Charters of Freedom and the American People, we will stand smaller in the eyes of our Founders and Framers and in the eyes of all who died in pursuit of the preservation of our freedoms and liberty.
While it is true that many who have come to be naturalized American citizens exhibit a deeper love of our country than many who take citizenship for granted, one of the few ways to assure that Americanism and The Charters of Freedom survive for future generations is to stipulate that those aspiring to become President of the United States be American. When we “rationalize” that requirement to the ash heap of history we can all rest assured that our freedom and liberty will soon follow. /quote
I am a Redneck ( really am ) I want one.
Just kidding about the shirt but think it is cool idea.
Tex-
Nor does John McCain as he was not born on US soil.
Mr. Patrick McKinnion you seem to me to be a fair minded person.
The Law matters as we are a nation of laws.
I understand the SCOTUS may not act. I also know that no one truly knows if SCOTUS will not act.
The odds are in favor of them not acting on this matter. Common sense tells me they should act. No matter what they rule at least then it will be clear and we will still be a nation of laws. Mr. Obama will be the president should the SCOTUS rule his way and of course will not be if they rule the way I think it reads.
Tex-
My daughter and I are working on a t-shirt together.Two images side-by-side
James Madison + Obama.Above them text reads CONSTITUTION.Beneath each image
Madison “father” beneath Obama…”usurper”
The back will quote the pertinent phrase of Article II section I.
Patrick McKinnion,
My understanding RE: Obama’s direct lawsuit involvement is also only with Berg v. Obama and no other cases. Various other cases have named him as a Defendant but, to my knowledge, he has neither responded nor has been required to do so at this point.
Also, I simply cannot find any substantiation to the claim that the President-Elect has spent upwards of $1 million on legal challenges. While it’s possible that he’s been served paperwork from any given case that specifically names him as a Defendant, unless the Court dictates or he were to choose, he may not be obligated to respond in any way.
Isn’t it also true that attorneys who bring these cases to Court can be held liable for misconduct based on making a frivolous case? Frankly, I’m not sure how that would work.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
And you’re right. If one believes in the theory that “Natural Born Citizen” means “both parents need to be US citizens”, then Bobby Jindal, though born in the United States, would not qualify. Both parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.
Two comments:
1) Obama’s lawyers have, so far, been directly involved in one case, Berg’s “Berg v Obama”. The requests for dismissals his lawyers filed were very much standard legal templates. So not a lot money spent there.
In the other cases, they were filed against Secretaries of States and other state officials as the primary plaintiffs. The primary plaintiffs handled the requests for dismissals, and as such were paid by the taxpayers of those states.
So, despite the belief that Obama has spent hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in legal fees, there’s not any evidence that’s what’s been the case.
2) Department of Hawaiian Home Lands requires the long-form copy to determine percentage of Native Hawaiian blood in order to qualify for programmes that mandate 50% or more Native Hawaiian heritage. This would be simular to proving percentage of Native American ancestry to qualify for tribal membership and programmes provided by the Department of Indian Affairs. DHHL’s requirements have absolutely nothing to do with Obama’s birth or background, since he’s not of Native Hawaiian decent.
REALITY CHECK IT IS OVER THE USURPER IS FOUND OUT FRIDAY 01 16 2009 THRU 01 20 2009 per his mother’s own breath……ever wonder when ..BARRY SOETORO became BARACK HUESSIN OBAMA……age 20 pakistan / visited with INDONESIAN passsport in hand…..CHANGE IS A COMIN’. since when does AMERICA pay,,,. PAYEEE. a FIRST LADY to do charity work…. THINK ABOUT THAT/
Patrick McKinnion,
Thank you for the correction.
-Phil
Phil -
Slight correction:
“2. I currently have on my “Featured” post carousel a posting regarding Keyes v. Lingle which, while having been dismissed on the grounds of the petitioners using the wrong statute(s), does contain an affidavit signed by Sandra Ramsey Lines (a forensic expert), who has determined that the online certification of live birth is flawed in determining Obama’s eligibility.”
Sandra Lines said that it’s impossible to confirm if an on-line copy is authentic based on that on-line copy. And this is something that’s been said from day one – even Dr. Neal Krawetz said something very simular that you would require the original document to determine if something was a forgery or not.
But it would be incorrect to assume that Obama used that on-line copy to establish identity. I don’t believe he renewed his passport or anything like that by showing the State Department a copy on a webpage. Nor do I believe that he used an on-line image for any other official reason.
And just for the record as a moderate and AS an Obama supporter – I said after the primaries when claims about both Obama and McCain came up, that the FEC should be required to verify a candidate’s eligibility and issue a “certificate of eligibility” or the like stating that the candidate met the requirements and provided the required documentation to hold the office they were seeking. Alternately, the SoS at the State levels should require it. At the time, the idea got dismissed by people on the Right as “what, you want MORE Government interference in the process??” And now I see movements to require exactly that. *shakes head and chuckles*
I still think it’s a good idea
Reality….If you don’t like the laws that the Constitution says we must abide by then why don’t you move to a more Marxist/Socialist/Communist type country!! You Democrats only want to abide by the Constitution when it is to your benefit. The rest of the time you are trying to change it without amendments. If you think this is going away anytime soon you are the delusional one!! Too many of my fellow Americans gave their lives….including family members to uphold the Constitution and if Obama is not natural born then he and all the others who helped with the HOAX need to be put in jail. This indeed is a crisis and needs to be dealt with ASAP!!!
WHAT IS REALLY SCARY TO ME IS THE PRECEDENCE THIS WILL SET UP.by the same rules BOBBY Jindal is not qualified either even though I like him.BOTH PARTIES NEED TO COME CLEAN ON THIS ISSUE OR SOMETHING DANGEROUS COULD HAPPEN TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
Reality Check seems to be a fan of SR511.You know how these virtuous politicians truly put together key legislation in a spirit of bipartinsanship.How nice…..You can just tell how they are thinking about what is best for America…
I dont know if this will clear things up. Cons.is the law of the land. To change the Cons. requires admendment. Article 2 section 1 pres. must be natural born. This born of two citizens born in this country. This is not a law, this is natural law. you are because your parents both were.Founders knew a pres. with dual citizenship at birth created issue with divided loyalty. If born of two citizens no question of allegence or loyalty at least fom a legal standpoint.This whole issue has been smokescreened by obama to circumvent the Cons. requirment in art2 sec 1.obama is hiding behind the equal protection clause of the 14th. 14th has nothing to do with pres. eleigilbility. Olny art. 2 sec.1 that is the Cons. law of the land.Dont’ like it ,tuff. Change it by Cons. admendment. The man who will be the next pres.is with malice and aforethought, disobaying the very Cons. he must swear to uphold. This is NOT abuot citizenship, obama is born a citizen by the 14th. He is not natural born. Thats it , that is what this nations future rests on this man is an unsurpr.. look that up.Gods Grace
1. Obama has not spent “close to a million dollars in order to not show any judge or the public, his vault-length COLB.”
LOL, How much EXACTLY has he spent then. How much sealing up the records, how much righting briefs, how much on retainers, EXACTLY. Educate us all on your information.
2.(A) He has provided a copy of his birth certificate to the press;
LOL, he showed it to ‘PRESS’ and groups that support his campaign, and have Funded him. That is not the ‘press’.
(B) the State of Hawaii has officially certified that they have a true and original copy of his birth certificate and that it states that he was born in Hawaii, as he claims;
This is a complete LIE! No official of Hawaii has said anything other than the OFFICIAL statement and THEY HAVE REFUSED TO AFFIRM HIS ONLINE DOCUMENT AS ORIGINAL.
C) no matter what evidence he presented, those persons who don’t want to believe it will never believe it.
LOL, You are clearly one of those people.
5. “If the Congress and/or the Supreme Court has determined that having one parent be a citizen of the United States at the time of a person’s birth makes that person a natural born citizen, even if the other parent is a foreign national and regardless of the location of the birth, that is the law of the land.”
ROFLOL. Another LIE, NO AMENDMENT including the 14th, has CHANGED OR TRIED TO CHANGE THE “SPECIFIC” requirements of POTUS. In plain simple language, the 14th Amendment CANNOT change the specific requiements for POTUS, and the Author of the 14th said so on the Senate floor before the vote.
6. Now,as to issues raised by other people, the first being the Certificate of Live Birth is really not the same as a birth certificate. I am sorry, but the State of Hawaii says it is.
NOPE, Even in Hawaii you need copy of the original long form vault copy to get special housing.
8. For those who say the COLB that has been publicly provided has been altered, I refer again to the fact that the State of Hawaii has vouched for the fact that he was born in Hawaii as represented on the COLB.
State of Hawaii says they can’t vouch for any online document. You have LIED again, they haven’t Vouched for anything Barrack Obama has placed online.
In conclusion, there is no conspiracy, he is a natural born citizen and he won the election. You can spend all the time you want fantasizing about “kerning” on birth certificates and whether or not the Supreme Court allowed the filing of an amicis brief, but you lost. There was an election — the people voted — and you lost.
You and I haven’t LOST anything until the Constitution is in-validated. POTUS come, POTUS go.
I must say this site is certainly more civil and tolerant of a range of ideas than many I have seen of the same persuasion. I tip my hat to you for that.
Yes, I follow with some fascination, amazement, and disbelief the discussions over Obama’s eligibility. I think it is part wonder that some people can make such a mountain out of a molehill and part the urge to look as one drives past a terrible automobile accident. (not directed at you or the site but at sites dedicated exclusively to the subject and to some of the comments here.)
I think by the end of next week it will be time to move on to other things. President Obama will be at work on the really important issues and the remaining court cases will be winding there way towards oblivion IMHO.
Regards
Reality Check is a Constitution-Hater.
Reality Check,
Wouldn’t you want to use the same lawyer who fought for OJ Simpson? Of course you would. Berg’s real problem is that he probably would have never won his previous case regarding the government’s alleged involvement behind the September 11th attacks.
I shall again stipulate for the record that I have only ever alleged the President-Elect’s ineligibility for the presidency; I’m certainly not focusing everything on my blog regarding this issue. While it is true that various other sites exist for the sole purpose of the eligibility question, I also have interests in general politics, finance and theology that I intend to pursue, going forward, and I greatly enjoy opposing viewpoints of same
Further, I will also go on the record to say that I cannot possibly “hate” the President-Elect as I’ve never had direct contact with the man. Therefore, I don’t see the eligibility issue as a way to “get him,” as it were, but rather as an issue of constitutional interpretation.
Come on, admit it — you’re just as fascinated by all of the hub-bub as anyone else is, otherwise you wouldn’t spend the kind of time you already have on such excellent sites as mine, now, would you? Be honest! [grin]
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
1. It is also foolish to completely discount a persons past when judging the wisdom and sincerity of their current actions. There is certainly adequate evidence that Berg’s lawsuit is without merit aside from his checkered past. I hope you do not use the same logic in choosing a physician.
2. Factcheck explained the difference between the short form and long form birth certificates. The document that was released by the Obama campaign was a short form version that is the one supplied when it was requested by the Obama campaign in 2007. The validity of the birth certificate has been attested by two people who work for the State of Hawaii including the state health director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino . I suppose that just isn’t good enough is it?
3. After browsing a few sites like this one and Doug Schell’s Democratic-Disaster I am convinced that this movement will become a permanent occupation for a small but radical group of Obama haters. No evidence will ever be good enough.
Reality Check,
Be the first to present a forensic expert who will sign an affidavit who says that there is something that the President-Elect has released for public scrutiny, to date, that specifically establishes his eligibility beyond a reasonable doubt and, upon reasonable examination, I’ll post it here.
You have me on record.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Howard,
You win the “Reality Check” award of the day. I noticed we had many of the same points in our replies. Phil mentioned the “so called” forensic expert who offered her opinion without having seen the original document. I would take that opinion with a grain of salt. Such analysis is in the realm of psychic phenomena vs. science.
Reality Check,
I continue to appreciate your opposing points, with the following two exceptions:
1. It’s very Saul Olinsky-ish to suggest that since someone has represented questionable interests in the past, that somehow disqualifies them from representing anything legitimate in the future or, worse, disqualifies the interest they’re now representing. Yes, I’m speaking of Mr. Berg.
While I will fight to the death for your right to disagree with me, I find it intellectually and ethically foolish to even consider the concept that a person’s checkered past disqualifies them from holding a legitimate opinion. I suppose this point is an after-effect of political correctness .
2. The FactCheck.org picture is a certification of live birth, not a certificate of live birth. The difference is that you receive the former when you’re needing proof of birth for something like a passport or what not.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Howard Appel,
I’m not exactly sure who you are, but you bring up some interesting points regarding the entire eligibility issue.
However, I have to take exception with a few points (there may be more, but I’ll let the other fair readers of this site do their own opining):
1. With respect to Kenyan law in 1961, nobody is saying that such foreign law is “reigning supreme” over US law. Rather, the point of contention is whether or not such law can predetermine the President-Elect to be a naturalized, versus natural born, citizen.
2. I currently have on my “Featured” post carousel a posting regarding Keyes v. Lingle which, while having been dismissed on the grounds of the petitioners using the wrong statute(s), does contain an affidavit signed by Sandra Ramsey Lines (a forensic expert), who has determined that the online certification of live birth is flawed in determining Obama’s eligibility.
3. The only thing to which the Hawaiian authorities have attested is that there is, in fact, a “vault” copy of Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth certificate; nothing more, nothing less.
There is only one of two ways this entire issue is going to come to a conclusion:
1. Eligibility is legally determined;
2. Electoral reform at the State level commences (which it has).
Just like there is a minority of American citizens that wish for George W. Bush to be impeached for alleged war crimes RE: Iraq, et al., there is now (currently) a minority of American citizens that want to know who Obama is.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Reality Check
“….I have every reason to expect that he will do a better job of doing just that than did his predecessor…”
LOL
OBAMABOT, you need a reality check! POTUS come, POTUS go, the Constitution is the glue. NO POTUS, no matter how great you think he might become, is worth tossing the Constitution. BTW, many people thought Jimmy Carter was going to be a great POTUS. LOL…Obama swears to uphold Constitution….while he breaks it simultaneously!!!
George Washington and John Jay (1st SCOTUS Chief Justice) probably didn’t understand the whole Natural Born thing, LOL. Naw….they just threw it in the mix for the heck of it after nearly hanging to defend against the British. I’m certain that they wouldn’t have any problem with a British Citizen at birth, like Barrack Obama, assuming Commander in Chief..ROFLOL.
Remembering my family members that have served to defend the Constitution in steaming jungles and deserts, or seeing the thousands of crosses as Arlington, makes me wonder when people like you are going to get a reality check.
“I’m just your average, natural born United States of America citizen and registered voter who wants a question or two answered.”
Sure, I would be happy answer those questions. I am glad you are natural born. So am I but that doesn’t make us any better than any naturalized citizen.
“First and foremost, I would like to know why Barack Hussein Obama is spending close to a million dollars in order to not show any judge or the public, his vault-length COLB (which would have cost about $15.00 to obtain), show the judge(s) in the Berg vs. Obama lawsuit case, and thus demonstrate to every American voter that he is eligible for the office of the POTUS – as per the three requirements listed in Section II of the Constitution.”
I keep hearing that Obama has spent all this money to hide his birth certificate and fight these lawsuits but I have yet to see any proof that he has. I suspect this is a story invented on sites like Free Republic and World Net Daily. He has not filed any briefs in the Berg and other cases at the SCOTUS even though he could have. If he were spending all this money and were so worried why would he not file a brief? Well the reason is because any sane person knows these lawsuits are frivolous. Berg is a nut case who before latching on to the “Obama natural born” gravy train was pushing the story that 911 was an inside job. He is a professional gadfly and makes a living at it. Another big lie I have seen is that “Obama had his birth record sealed!” Well, he did nothing of the sort. Birth records in Hawaii are private by law and Obama produced a copy of his birth certificate. He didn’t even have to do that but I guess he mistakenly believed it would satisfy the doubters. If he would have asked me I could have told him not to waste his time.
Obama supplied a copy of his legal birth certificate and it has been authenticated by independent organizations like Factcheck.org and Politifact.com. I know this will never satisfy you doubters and that some charlatan forensic expert claimed it was a forgery without examining the actual document but even the state of Hawaii has said that it is authentic and that Obama was born in Hawaii. Factcheck even found a copy of his birth announcement in a newspaper published at the time. Pardon my language but what the hell else do you want and what the hell gives you the right to demand anything else? If you thought Obama was not eligible you were perfectly within your right not to vote for him. Remember,(paraphrasing George Bush loosely) either you are supporting our new president next week you are supporting terrorists.
“I would also like to know why SCOTUS has taken to full conference with the 9 justices several of the lawsuits (like Berg vs. Obama re: Obama’s natural born citizen proof); yet, each time has had the writ of Certiorari denied. It has been assumed that the denial is because Mr. Philip Berg, as an ordinary U.S. citizen (like me!) and registered voter (like me!) has been deemed to be “without standing” to bring such a case forward to SCOTUS.
Can someone tell me why this is so? “
This is SOP for the Court. When a claimant files an emergency request for a stay or an injunction with one of the justices and it is denied then the claimant can take it to another justice and eventually go through all nine. The standard procedure is for the second justice to refer it to “conference of the whole” to streamline the process. I have seen right wing blogs make a big deal out of Berg’s and Donfrio’s cases being reviewed by the entire court but this is nothing more than standard procedure for dispensing with cases in an expedited fashion. We do not really know why the SCOTUS denied any of the cases because they do not have to tell us and almost never do. The lower court ruled that Berg did not have standing among other things.
I hope that answered your questions. It certainly answered them to my satisfaction.
I will be delighted to respond to your questions, in the order presented. I will also address a number of allegations/issues commonly raised by others.
1. Obama has not spent “close to a million dollars in order to not show any judge or the public, his vault-length COLB.” Obama has not answered any of the actions which have been presented to the Supreme Court or, to the best of my knowledge, any of the numerous actions which have been filed by disgruntled individuals. In fact, and this relates to point number 3 below also, when the Supreme Court is provided with a request for extra-ordinary relief, e.g., a request for a writ of certiorari or an injuction, the Supreme Court, if it feels that is any merit to the request may ask the party against whom the relief is sought if such party cares to file papers in opposition to such relief. To date, the Supreme Court has not asked Obama, the Democratic National Committee or any other organization to file any papers or briefs addressing any of the issues raised in the requests for relief filed with the Supreme Court.
2. You ask why Obama has not show the judge(s) a copy of his birth certificate and thus demonstrated to every American voter that he is eligible for the office of the POTUS. (A) He has provided a copy of his birth certificate to the press; (B) the State of Hawaii has officially certified that they have a true and original copy of his birth certificate and that it states that he was born in Hawaii, as he claims; and (C) no matter what evidence he presented, those persons who don’t want to believe it will never believe it.
3. You ask why the requests for extra-ordinary relief filed with the Supreme Court have been taken to a full conference of the justices. That is very simple. The Supreme Court practice for petitions for relief is as follows: If the justice to whom the petition if initially directed denies the petition , the petitioner is free to refile the petition with any other justice. Generally, the other justice will then submit the matter for consideration by the entire court. The submission by the second justice should not be viewed as any sort of consideration by such justice of the merits of the petition. If you would like, I would be happy to forward you a citation to this practice of the Supreme Court so that you do not have to take my word for it.
4. You next ask “If Mr. Berg (or any of the other SCOTUS plaintiffs) are deemed not to have standing on an issue as crucial as the eligibility question(s) regarding a president-elect, then where does our God-given status as “We the People” live? Aren’t our elected (and/or soon to be elected government individuals)and appointed justices supposed to SERVE US?” Yes, and that is exactly the point. We elect senators, representatives, governors, etc. who “represent” us. An individual citizen has delegated that power to their elected representative and has no more standing to assert this claim than to sue to prevent the Federal government from spending lawful appropriated monies for the Iraq war. Individuals have standing to sue for a violation of their “individual” rights. This is not such a right, even if it were true.
5. You next assert that “If Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America, as SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED by our Constitution for the position of POTUS, then Obama will be sworn in as a usurper – fraudulently “swearing his allegiance to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States” which he has already violated by lying about his true citizenship status and heaping the biggest fraud upon the American people in the history of our nation – via his illegal and illegitimate candidacy.”
This argument and all of the arguments related to his allegedly not being a “natural born citizen” turn on the definition of what constitutes a “natural born citizen.” Unfortunately for you and your fellow complainants, you are not the decider of that definition. The Congress of the United States, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States, determines what constitutes a natural born citizen.
If the Congress and/or the Supreme Court has determined that having one parent be a citizen of the United States at the time of a person’s birth makes that person a natural born citizen, even if the other parent is a foreign national and regardless of the location of the birth, that is the law of the land. It does not matter what Indonesian, Kenyan or UK law is with respect to this matter (as a side note, I found it ironic that those persons who generally object to US courts looking at foreign or international law are happy in this instance to have them reign supreme over US law — ah, hypocrisy be thy name), the laws of those jurisdictions are irrelevant. The predicate elements for conferring citizenship upon an individual by a sovereign nation are determined by that sovereign nation and no other person or entity.
Now, no one has yet been able to present an argument that persuades the Supreme Court that Obama is not a natural born citizen and, according to the criteria set forth above, which seem to be the applicable law, he is. QED (quod erat demonstrandum).
6. Now,as to issues raised by other people, the first being the Certificate of Live Birth is really not the same as a birth certificate. I am sorry, but the State of Hawaii says it is.
7. Next, Obama has only produced a new copy of the COLB. I just ordered a copy of my birth certificate from the State of Illinois and they sent me a “certified copy.” That is the general practice. Government agencies don’t give you the only original and keep a copy for themselves. In fact, nowadays, they probably have digitized the original and couldn’t find it if they had to. They print you a copy from the digitized version.
8. For those who say the COLB that has been publicly provided has been altered, I refer again to the fact that the State of Hawaii has vouched for the fact that he was born in Hawaii as represented on the COLB.
9. Lastly, in order to buy into the conspiracy theories about Obama being born overseas, we would need to believe all of the following, because any one of the following not being true would destroy the conspiracy.
A. Obama was not born in the United States.
B. Despite his not being born in Hawaii, someone had the foresight and planning to have a birth notice included in the Honolulu papers for Obama several days after his purported birth in Hawaii.
C. The Hawaii State Government is part of the conspiracy.
D. John McCain and Sarah Palin were part of the conspiracy, as they never challenged his right to run.
E. All of the state and the national republican committees were part of the conspiracy, as none of them ever challenged his right to run.
F. Every Secretary of State of every State where this issue was brought up is part of the conspiracy.
G. Every judge who has heard this issue is part of the conspiracy, including all of the justices on the Supreme Court.
H. Every republican member of the Unites States House of Representatives and Senate are part of the conspiracy, as none of them objected to his certification as President-elect on this basis.
I. George W. Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney, currently the President and Vice-President of the United States, are part of this conspiracy, in that they have not acted to stop this.
In conclusion, there is no conspiracy, he is a natural born citizen and he won the election. You can spend all the time you want fantasizing about “kerning” on birth certificates and whether or not the Supreme Court allowed the filing of an amicis brief, but you lost. There was an election — the people voted — and you lost.
Reality Check,
I’m just your average, natural born United States of America citizen and registered voter who wants a question or two answered.
First and foremost, I would like to know why Barack Hussein Obama is spending close to a million dollars in order to not show any judge or the public, his vault-length COLB (which would have cost about $15.00 to obtain), show the judge(s) in the Berg vs. Obama lawsuit case, and thus demonstrate to every American voter that he is eligible for the office of the POTUS – as per the three requirements listed in Section II of the Constitution.
I would also like to know why SCOTUS has taken to full conference with the 9 justices several of the lawsuits (like Berg vs. Obama re: Obama’s natural born citizen proof); yet, each time has had the writ of Certiorari denied. It has been assumed that the denial is because Mr. Philip Berg, as an ordinary U.S. citizen (like me!) and registered voter (like me!) has been deemed to be “without standing” to bring such a case forward to SCOTUS.
Can someone tell me why this is so?
If Mr. Berg (or any of the other SCOTUS plaintiffs) are deemed not to have standing on an issue as crucial as the eligibility question(s) regarding a president-elect, then where does our God-given status as “We the People” live? Aren’t our elected (and/or soon to be elected government individuals)and appointed justices supposed to SERVE US? Isn’t our Constitutional, Democratic-Republic supposed to serve “We the People” – NOT JUST serve at the whims of THE ELITES IN OUR GOVERNMENT OR IT’S OFFICIALS? What ever happened to the Constitutional guarantees that grant us a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE?
You wrote:
“On next Tuesday Barrack Obama will stand on front of the Capitol and swear his allegiance to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
If Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America, as SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED by our Constitution for the position of POTUS, then Obama will be sworn in as a usurper – fraudulently “swearing his allegiance to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States” which he has already violated by lying about his true citizenship status and heaping the biggest fraud upon the American people in the history of our nation – via his illegal and illegitimate candidacy.
What a sad day for America.
My point was that it is reasonable to assume that Chief Justice John Roberts would not be likely to invite PE Obama to the Court for a courtesy visit and then two days later participate in a move to plunge the country into crisis by issuing a stay on the inauguration. Yet, that is what some on the conservative blogs seem to be proposing should and will happen.
The reason I chose the screen name “Reality Check” was to emphasize that those who believe that the courts or legislative bodies have any interest in using Obama to make a test case on the Article II qualifications for president are not dealing in reality. About 90% of what I read from those suggesting Obama is not qualified is based assumptions of unproven allegations and unsupported interpretations of the language of the Constitution.
The Congress has never taken the Article II qualifications seriously enough to enact any clarifying statutes or mandate a test for a candidates qualifications. They have left that judgment to the states holding the elections and have considered the process of qualification of the electoral vote by the joint session each four years to be adequate. Those processes have run their course in the current election cycle. In reality, the natural born citizen clause is an anachronism and the meaning of “natural born citizen” remains in the mind of the reader. I think it is absurd to assume that because PE Obama “might” have been born in Kenya to an American mother (even in that case he would still qualify!) or held dual citizenship as a child has any bearing on his ability to do the job and his allegiance to America. It is sour grapes to the nth degree to push this meme now that he has been rightfully elected.
On next Tuesday Barrack Obama will stand on front of the Capitol and swear his allegiance to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I have every reason to expect that he will do a better job of doing just that than did his predecessor.
Reality Check,
It seems to me you’re just as prone to theoretical fantasies as the rest of the so-called “birthers” (incidentally and for the record, I have only ever alleged that the President-Elect could be ineligible; I merely believe there’s reasonable doubt enough to question is eligibility).
Before you go off on some fantastical theory on this meeting, remember that it, too, is private, and for all anyone knows, it’s purely a meet-and-greet, nothing more.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
PE Obama and VPE Joe Biden will visit the Supreme Court tomorrow. I think that those who are hoping that the Court will accept one of the Birther Boob cases should take note. One interesting fact is that George W. Bush who had more reason than any president in recent history to visit the Court and thank them for his being “elected” chose not to pay a courtesy call in either 2001 or 2005.
nik,
Apparently you have to subscribe to some website to see it. Check out the video’s link.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
If Ambassador Keys has an understanding of Law (and clearly he does) he recognizes Posse Comitatus. At the time this Letter had merit, and made common sense, certainly in accordance with Common Law. Like Glenn Beck eloquently stated on his Show, the Court cannot do more than a Citizen can do, because the power of the Several States is derived from her people. I still have not received a response to the certified letter, delivered on November 17, 2008, in the eleventh hour, ante meridian:
W. Spencer Connerat, III
13584 Feather Sound Cir., W.
Apt. 2009
Clearwater, FL 33762-5559
Telephone: (727) 556-0170
Petitioner, pro se
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
W. Spencer Connerat, III
Petitioner,
vs.
Florida Secretary of State Kurt S. Browning
Respondent. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No.:
PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND STAY OF 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO BE CONDUCTED IN FLORIDA SENATE CHAMBERS AT 2:00P.M. ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2008
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Judge:
Filed:
Trial:
W. Spencer Connerat, III, resident of the State of Florida, registered voter of the State of Florida since March 17, 2003, and sworn upholder and defender of the Constitution of the State of Florida and of the Constitution of the United States of America,
PETITIONER, alleges in good faith, and under penalty of Law, a serious breech of Trust:
I
INTRODUCTION
Parties
1. W. SPENCER CONNERAT, III, Petitioner herein, is a registered voter in the State of Florida and a natural born citizen of the United States of America.
2. KURT S. BROWNING, Respondent herein, is the Secretary of State of the State of Florida;
Legal Basis
3. The Supreme Court of Florida has original jurisdiction in mandamus pursuant to Article Five (V), Section Three (III) of the Florida Constitution, and in Common Law, and shall exercise that jurisdiction in appropriate cases where the issue at hand is “certified by the Supreme Court of the United States or a United States Court of Appeals which is determinative of the cause and for which there is no controlling precedent of the supreme court of Florida.” Furthermore, the honourable Court “may issue writs of prohibition to courts and all writs necessary to complete exercise of its jurisdiction.” It is truly rare, and possibly without precedent in Florida, that the qualifications of a presidential candidate have been considered and properly vetted in jurisprudence. According to article two (II), section one (I) of the United States Constitution, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President” and, following the logic of our Founders, such burden of proof is incumbent on the candidate. To date, Barack Hussein Obama has not proven, to this Florida resident and registered voter, unaffiliated with any Party, that he is eligible to be elected (by the Florida Electors, who derive their power from the State Legislature) to the office of President of the United States. The issue of eligibility for the Presidency is an issue of great public importance to Florida, and moreover, to the Nation. Secretary of State Browning is about to certify Mr. Obama as the winner of the Florida 2008 presidential election, eligible based on the Constitution of
the United States, even though there is no proof of Mr. Obama’s eligibility, and there was no response given to a bona fide letter of inquiry, which was signed, sealed, and delivered via the United States Postal Service, numbered 7008 1830 0002 5644 7186, delivered at 11:16a.m., signed under the hand of Ernie Turner, and is incorporated into this petition as follows, not as evidence, but in order to guarantee standing as a citizen, who deserved a response to a simple request from one who purportedly seeks the highest office in the Land, to wit:
November 11, 2008
U.S.P.S. CERTIFIED MAIL
Senator Barack Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Senator Obama:
Congratulations on your garnering of over fifty percent of the popular vote in the recent election for President. I watched your speech (it was midnight, here in the East) and I applaud you for the hope, inspiration, and kindness you have given to many folks. Nonetheless, as a U.S. citizen, who did vote in the election, albeit for the Republican nominee, I am concerned about your qualifications to be elected President of the United States of America. Therefore, please return to me, forthwith, proof of your “natural born” status as required under our Constitution.
I respectfully ask for a written response to be in my hand before December 1, 2008. Otherwise, I may seek to enjoin the Electoral College vote. My feeling is that you truly believe in concepts like fairness, and “fair play.” Humour this Citizen and remove any doubt.
The State of Hawaii is also being summoned. If a “tangible interest” is not this case, of a citizen ensuring that the Constitution is upheld, then there is no such concept under Law. It is in our collective best interests that you produce the sought document, without burdening the Court.
Looking forward to your prompt response, I remain,
In patriotism,
________________________________
William Spencer Connerat 111 – citizen
13584 Feather Sound Circle, W.
Apt. 2009
Clearwater, FL 33762-5559
cc) Mr. Thomas J. Donnelly, Esq.
Senator John Sidney McCain III
4. There are several cases pending throughout the United States of America related to this enforcement of qualifications. Petitioner has evidence to introduce, at trial, showing valuable consideration tendered to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to a prompt resolution of this matter without burdening the Court. However, this petition is not the forum for such details. In the essence of brevity, the crux of the legal matter is as follows: “It is meet and right for the State of Florida to certify Electoral Votes for a candidate about whom there is serious and material doubt as to eligibility?”
5. Mr. Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a natural born citizen in any of the myriad
cases filed and still pending outside of the State of Florida. According to the stipulated facts of various websites, including one such site directly linked to the website of Mr. Obama, at the time of his birth, Mr. Obama’s father was a foreign subject, a citizen of British Protective Territory of East Africa (currently Kenya) and therefore, having been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama cannot be considered natural born. Furthermore, no citizen whose status is subject to an Act of Congress (in this case, the Immigration statutes pertaining to dual citizenship) is syllogistically able to be commensurately natural born. The aforementioned challenges, including at least one currently docketed at the Supreme Count of the United States serve to demonstrate, prima facie, that reasonable doubt exists as to the eligibility of the Democratic Party’s nominee for President.
6. Secretary of State Browning is responsible for ensuring the validity of the State election process by, among other things, organizing and co-ordinating the Meeting of Florida Electors, which is to take place in the Florida Senate Chambers, on December 15, 2008, at 2:00p.m.
7. The office of Secretary of State is intended to function without bias and to provide the critical sense of fairness and impartiality necessary for the people to have confidence in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic process for our elections.
8. There is a reasonable and common expectation by Florida 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. Heretofore, to Petitioner’s knowledge, after much due diligence, there has been no verification of Mr. Obama’s qualifications, other than attestations. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting a Florida driver’s license or even a glass of beer at Tropicana Field. Since the Florida 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 the defendant from certifying the Florida Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States of America is received by Petitioner and duly conveyed to the
Secretary forthwith. This proof could include items such as Mr. Obama’s 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 various and sundry governments in whose country 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 natural born qualification for President.
18. In the case of individuals seeking the Office of the President of the United States, the United States Constitution provides for a system of Electors, wherein citizens of the respective states have a state-controlled election in which Electors representing the interests of the respective candidates for President on the ballots of the Several States, are elected to represent the interests of the respective states in the Electoral College. Thus, there is no federal ballot controlled by the federal government. There is a ballot for each Florida county, including Pinellas, whereby voters choose a “slate of Electors” who, in turn, represent the named candidate for said office on the ballot. In such method, the Secretary of State has the onerous task of not only certifying the count of the ballots cast, but also the propriety of the contents of the ballots cast. If Mr. Obama cannot present proper documentation verifying his natural born status, he cannot be elected President, and Secretary of State Browning has a duty to bar the casting of votes by Florida Electors in support of an unqualified candidate.
19. To avert a national constitutional crisis which may accrue after the election through laborious legal challenges, this writ seeks to resolve such complaints. It is incumbent upon Mr. Obama to answer the aforementioned respectfully submitted letter of inquiry signed by this Petitioner, accepted by the United States Postal Service, as Certified Mail, duly delivered, with signed receipt, and ignored.
20. Should Mr. 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, Petitioner, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an 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 State of Florida will be tantamount to a Republic, or a State from which there is no Union to secede.
21. United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 8 provides, “The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.” This federal statute confers upon each Elector an affirmative and forthright duty to ensure that any candidate for President or Vice-President is qualified, thus natural born. Otherwise, the Elector may be casting a vote in a manner which is contrary to the direction of the Constitution, and contrary to the common understanding of a Florida voter.
22. Given PETITIONER’s sworn duty as a registered Florida voter, and given his cause via posse comitatus as a natural born citizen of the United States, he has ample standing to bring this Writ before this honourable Court.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays:
23. That the Court issue an extraordinary writ of Mandamus under Article five (V), Section Three (III) of the Florida Constitution in conjunction with a writ of Prohibition (a stay) of the Meeting of Florida Electors until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, and therefore eligible to be Elected to the office of President of the United States by the Electors of the Great State of Florida, whose motto is one and the same as the Union: IN GOD WE TRUST.
24. For fees related to this case incurred by Petitioner, including reasonable pro se costs, as well as additional costs should Counsel be retained.
25. For liquidated damages, and for such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true, to the best of my knowledge. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are wilfully false, or if not made in good faith, I am subject to punishment.
Respectfully submitted (via FedEx) on December 11, 2008.
_______________________________________
W. Spencer Connerat, III
where’s part 2 of the interview?