13 thoughts on “Lightfoot v. Bowen: Motion Filed to Declare Obama Unqualified, Certiorari Before Judgment”

  1. Our Government is a Disgrace
    I have always supported whichever Presidential candidate won the election regardless of whether I actually voted for them. However, this will be the first time that I have felt such contempt for any individual as I feel for Obama and the Democratic Party which failed to fulfill their responsibility in assuring me and the American people that their candidate met all the requirements to enable his qualification to run as the Presidential nominee. Nancy Pelosi should be impeached for her role in the cover up as well as the other top officials in the Democratic Party. Very few of the Democratic Party voices their concerns and those that did (Joe Biden was definitely not one of them as he didn’t want to lose his V.P. position) will receive my utmost appreciation and gratitude for they have displayed the courage and integrity our country was founded on.
    When given the chance of correcting the situation they purposely continued the charade promoting Obama by excessive advertising contracts through the media to provide one-sided commentary, the propaganda approach that Stalin and Hitler used to weaken and influence the minds of their people.—The word is-communism when only one side is viewed. I wrote to the Department of Justice and the F.B.I. indicating my concerns and asking that they collect these documents but to no avail.
    I have heard about racism, but never thought it would be used so freely against us throughout this year’s campaign to gain favor with the American people or strike fear into our government so severely that they would disregard the safety and stability of our country rather than upset the black American voter. I do not care who runs as a Presidential candidate, he can be black, red, white, etc., but I do care what he is. Obama is a liar and a fraud who has destroyed the very purpose why our Constitution was formed—- to eliminate the potential of foreign powers to enter the confines of our government. When a candidate refuses to provide documentation to support his qualification, he should have been promptly removed from the ballot.
    There were sufficient complaints/petitions filed with the various states courts and then the Supreme Court to demand collection of these documents, but they chose to ridicule us instead. According to Honorable (a title he does not deserve) R. Barclay Surrick, ordinary citizens cannot take action to ensure that a Presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of that office and voters do not have standing to bring about the sort of challenge we as Plaintiffs were attempting to bring. The Judicial Branch prefers to defer this type of situation to Congress (passing the buck) knowing full well since Congress is controlled by the Democrats, and the Democratic Committee was responsible for Obama’s lack of qualification and in a large part the Democratic Party (with the exception of a few) were responsible for the financial crisis we are dealing with today, there would be little hope they would impeach Obama willingly. Honorable R. Barclay Surrick further takes exception to derailing the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primaries in living memory—a bias decision on his part. The manner of vetting that took place again McCain and Palin alone was a disgrace. He seems to forget that the disparity in the popular vote was not that much off from Obama, so we deserve and demand likewise consideration.
    It is the prime responsibility of all governmental officials to perform the total responsibilities of their jobs in a non-bias fashion basing their decisions solely on supporting documentation and not on personal, religious or political beliefs. Now since I found out he is a Democrat, I now know he is in violation of the basic rule—he cannot separate his political favoritism over that of his judicial obligation. He likewise should be impeached. A situation which could have been cleared up readily if proper documentation would have been submitted but was pushed aside not caring what civil unrest could result. What has our government become when it promotes violence by their mere disregard and is willing to use violent force to regain the peace they could have had if they merely took appropriate action. Yet they find it easier to broadcast the deployment of government forces to put down any disapproving American citizens, similar to Stalin and Hitler’s approach to differences of opinion.

    We didn’t ask them to lie, all we asked for was assurance Obama is the individual he professes to be. What harm could have been done if Obama was telling the truth. Since he has refused to submit the documents listed in our attached petition we can only assume he was not telling the truth. He has circumvented our constitution and could even be a Muslim traitor infiltrating the confines of our government at the highest level possible. This disregard in lieu of the terrorist attack on our World Trade Center by Islamin/Muslims alone should have demanded Obama produce valid evidence to support his statement that he was not a Muslim. Yet we take him at his word.
    Why should we waste our tax dollars setting up the Department of Home Security when they don’t care about the safety of our country by showing total disregard to any valid concerns from ordinary citizens, which they claim have no rights! We have as much right as everyone else and more so since very few others care about their country. Our rights to be heard were taken away by the government whom we thought was formed for the people and by the people but now no longer works for us but against us. It is all about power and greed. Was the Department of Home Security therefore a vision set up with no forethought since it was not brought into the picture, therefore its purpose a farce when it is sitting aimlessly awaiting the next attack to be put into force!
    Our government instructed people to become more aware of suspicious activity, but when we call an issue of extreme concern to their attention they just laugh us off. They have become so complacent in their attitude thinking the obvious can never happen and instead take safe guards against the citizens whose very concerns are to keep our country safe rather than take it against those who can do the most harm and already have by causing chaos within the financial arena of our government.
    This goes beyond race, but the Democratic Party has made it about race to cover up their failure to properly qualify an individual! To make matters worse our government has participated in the fraud. The top officials in our Judicial System should likewise be impeached for the part they played in this charade. No political figure should be allowed to remain in a position when they have performed in such a deplorable manner.
    As part of the financial disaster caused by Obama and the Democratic Party, we will now be rewarded with an extremely generous stimulus package, which won’t be fully implemented until after Obama takes office but not before so he can receive the full glory for its inception and receive the citizens gratitude for placing us more in debt then we already are to foreign countries. As of Oct. 2008 China holds $653 billion in U.S. Treasury Securities and Japan holds $586 billion, Caribbean Banking Centers $220 billion, Oil Exporters $188 billion not to mention 23 other foreign countries with another category of “all others” holding $160 billion. Who makes up the Caribbean Banking Centers, Oil Exporters or the “all other” category is scary. How much is held by the Islamic/Muslim world or other less desirables is unknown. I would like to know what would happen when any of the top foreign countries decide they want to cash in on these securities.
    In addition to the U.S. Treasury securities which our government has willing sold to foreign countries, comes the interest we have to pay them on these securities. Since our government is already operating in the red, where do you think the money for the buyouts and stimulus package are coming from, the sale of additional U.S. Treasury securities requiring repayment plus interest on top of those already mentioned above at our expense and those of our children, grandchildren and great great grandchildren.
    Obama when he is sworn is will be known as the GREATEST IMPOSTER IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY with the help of the Democratic Party who knowingly selected and promoted him regardless of his disqualification in their eagerness to gain control of the White House. Our government should be held in contempt for the charade they have allowed to take place due to their lack of courage and integrity by refusing to take action, especially since the celebration ceremony involved so many high level individuals for whom they did not want to cause distress, or is this also a case of corruption at the highest level of our government.
    I am extremely annoyed with Nancy Pelosi engaging in foreign policy and opening dialogs with foreign powers. She has overstepped her authority. Since she was not elected at large by us as the Speaker, she should not be speaking on behalf of the people of the United States. Regardless of what President Bush did or did not due, she owes allegiance to our country and to the President until such time as he leaves office and her deliberately denouncing the President in public shows lack of character that our country does not need. Especially appalling is the expense of any trips she has made at our expense. I feel Condoleezza Rice has done an excellent job so why is she interfering. It has been indicated that she has the right since she would be the next person to assume the Presidency if Obama leaves office. Is this something she is anticipating will happen suddenly? That is rather scary! I hope not, for her actions even with purposely pushing through legislation exceeding Bush’s budget limits when Bush already instructed he would veto any such action, she has wasted valuable time and money in defiance to Bush’s mandate. Is this the other reason why Congress stalled the Fannie Mae/Freddie Max needed legislation which Bush and McCain advised needed additional controls and drastic immediate action? Pelosi and the Democratic Party refused to budge therefore creating a large part of the financial disaster we are dealing with today, blame of which they have placed solely with the Republican Party. The degree of animosity she has shown in purposely disrupting the functions of the Congress to get back at the President for not giving in to her demands is below the standards of someone in her position and certainly would not be someone I would even consider representing our country. It’s bad enough with the back stabbing that went on during the Presidential campaign between both parties that were running for office, but it is unacceptable when it is done outside that particular arena just to gain points since Bush has been found unfavorable. She is not running for office according to our records.

  2. Well the Constitution said all men were created equal, but yet we had segergation in this country. Now, going by your theory, Howard, that millions voted for Obama, and she does not speak for us and has no right to stand for ‘we the people’ I’d like to point out the millions of people stood by and allowed such acts to fellow Americans to take place back in our time that were wrong.

    So, was it wrong on King and others, who may not have been speaking for the millions to stand up and challenge something becuase it was against what was in the Constitution?

    I mean should the minority conform to the majority? If that be the case then this is not a Republic is it? That would be more like a socialist society.

    Because you see, dear Obama suppoter, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot pick and choose out of the Constitution when it suits you. It is the law of the land and any of us, have as much right to question and challenge our government on behalf of the ‘people’ by Constutition regardless of what the millions may think.

    My individual rights are just as worthy and valuable as a hundred million Americans combined.

  3. First question: How does Dr. Taitz speak for “we the people?” He certainly doesn’t speak for me or the millions of other persons, all citizens, who voted for Obama.

    Second: Dr. Taitz seems to be able to find language in the Constitution that isn’t there. My copy of the Constitution says:

    “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

    I don’t see anywhere in there that requires (a) “Government certified copies of original full (“long form”) birth certificates attested to by two reliable witnesses, and all revisions thereof, or (b) certified copies of all passports held to confirm time within versus without the U.S. or (c) that the President (not the Commander in Chief) should have all biological and adoptive parents holding allegiance to the US. This certainly seems like someone who is “interpreting” the Constitution and seeking the exercise of, dare I say it, “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.”

    Also, what are all these citations to how many people have died in other countries around the world. This is an American court and we don’t use fuzzy social science and international standards or other things to interpret or apply our laws. That sounds so “French.”

    1. Mr. Appel,

      A couple of points:

      1. Dr. Orly Taitz is female who is originally from Russia (I forget the specific location); as you may be able to observe from her behavior, she has a serious distaste for any kind of statist regimes, such as communism or socialism;

      2. While it is obviously true that the Constitution doesn’t specifically define Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 RE: natural born citizen, apparently Dr. Taitz has reason to believe that (1) the President-Elect is ineligible for the presidency; (2) she has evidence to substantiate such a claim; and (3) she thinks the Court ought to order the President-Elect to unseal such documents that would confirm or verify his eligibility.

      Naturally (pun intended), she may or may not be correct in her assertions. But, then again, that’s what this process is all about. Conclusions pertaining to whether or not she’s presenting a good case are another discussion.

      Thanks for the comment,

      -Phil

      1. Phil,

        Nice post, it is both eloquent and accurate. Responding to the obamabots, in the hope of changing minds, is somewhere just beyond futile. They don’t really care if Obama is eligible or if the Constitution is up-held. Those supporters have become ‘religious’ in their zeal in support, ignoring any and all who question them, or their previous vote.

        What is fundamental is the process. Following that process will provide everyone with an acceptable answer to the current dilemma. The obamabots don’t want the process, they FEAR the process. Their impetus is the fear, and it is manifest by the frequent slanders, misquotes of Hawaiian officials, lack of providing documents, and personal attacks. They are not ignorant to the circumstances, they understand the ramifications, and know that a potentially serious problems exists.

        The obamabots are afraid and embarrassed that they may have ‘voted’ for the wrong person. I would remind them that it really takes decades to determine the historically a good from a bad POTUS. Many thought Jimmy Carter was a messiah from the plains in the 1970’s, or that Harry Truman was horrible, only to find a different historical interpretation. Obama might yet still be a great POTUS, and he might yet still be corrupt/incompetent. POTUS come, POTUS go. ‘We the People’ need to invest more vigor into the defending the Constitution, than defending any single POTUS.

        1. Pete,

          It is my hope — albeit perhaps in vain — that an opponent of the eligibility issue would finally step forward — I don’t care on which blog or forum — and present rational and logical evidence as to why this entire debate is a moot point.

          Instead, all that I ultimately see is, “you people are a bunch of [insert favorite nice-or-not-so-nice pejorative here].”

          That is a grade-school, “na-na-na-na-boo-boo,” juvenile remark and has absolutely no basis in rationality; it does, as you’ve pointed out, have a basis in fear. Further, and unfortunately, some take this kind of reaction and give up ground, as it were, thinking that they really are whatever name they’re being called, as if to raise a question makes one inherently incompetent.

          Honestly — since when does raising a question against a politician become so taboo? I simply do not understand that premise.

          In fact, I’ll go one step further (and the dear opponents need to take note of this, copy and paste it, and really go forth and cogitate):

          For those who, say, wish to impeach President George W. Bush, why not go after him on the basis of, say, McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform? Did that piece of legislation, which he signed into law, constrict 1st Amendment freedoms? Yes? Well then, could one not consider that unconstitutional? Hello!

          Thanks for the comment,

          -Phil

          1. Phil,

            You definitely get it. We should question them all. That is what Thomas Jefferson expected us to do. The exaggerated defense of an individual politician from simple scrutiny is illogical. How do you debate someone who no longer sees this truth?

          2. We are not duped by anyone as you think we are. We know that the Constituion is a Law of the land and if you break this law you will be punished. Article 2 a person has to be 35 years of age and both parents of US desent.
            Obama in his books, website and in his acceptance speach afer he was sworn in as President Said”My father was Kenyan and he came to America for education. My mother was too young to transfer her citizenshipt to me.” That makes him a British Subject and also Kenyan. Obama also said he has duel citizenship One in Kenya and One in USA. We do not recognize duel citizenship.

  4. The Supreme Court, as well as the Media, has obviously been “ducking” OUR Constitutional Law. I wonder what went on behind
    “Closed Door’s” when Obama & Biden went to visit the Supreme Court?
    Most American’s are not aware of Obama’s Ineligibility to be
    President by Law. The one’s that do know have tried in vain to
    Protect our Constitution. It now seems to me that Obama will only
    be “ousted” when he cannot fulfill all of his promises he made during his false Campaign. Let’s hope that the Brave and True prevail, and keep OUR Constitution “intact” and continue to be a Nation of Freedom and Prosperity for all of Mankind.
    I include “Phil’s” Excellent and Courageous website at the end
    of all my e-mail’s. Daniel Smith, Ridge, NY.

  5. “Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpreted expansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpreted restrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has only had undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?”

    That’s a very badly worded question.

    It is not a question of whether to interpret the NBC clause expansively or strictly, but rather it must be understood historically, since there is no precedent for it being understood in any other sense. To ask the question as has been done here is to give SCOTUS a golden opportunity to rewrite the Constitution by playing word games.

    This petition will be the disaster of us!

  6. The current SCOTUS threshold for a MUST STAY of BHO’s inauguration is not whether he is ultimately determined constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, merely whether there now is SERIOUS QUESTION on his constitutional eligibility, since any determination of inelligibility AFTER inauguration would pose unnecessary civil and military difficulties.

Leave a Reply