Updates: Lightfoot v. Bowen, Kerchner v. Obama, Ankeny v. Daniels, Gitmo in the Judiciary
Submitted by Phil on Fri, Jan 23, 200930 Comments
According to SCOTUSblog.com, there will probably be no scheduled Orders issued at all today:
As of 1:30 p.m., the Court has issued no other orders on pending cases. It thus appears that the next release of orders will come next Monday.
There are still plenty of things to consider for you, dear readers, over this weekend. Let’s get started:
- The President issuing an Executive Order to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility within a year of the EO’s effective date is prompting questions from at least one federal judge concerning the more than 600 prisoners in Bagram air base outside Kabul, Afghanistan. Not only this, but now the definition of “enemy combatant” is at issue once again, as “in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling last June giving detainees a constitutional right to challenge their continued confinement, the ‘enemy combatant’ issue is a central question before each of the federal judges involved in deciding some 200 habeas cases.”
- Kerchner v. Obama has now been updated with the entire 40-page petition. Attorney Mario Apuzzo has put together quite the case in New Jersey Federal Court.
- Ankeny v. Daniels similarly has updated documentation: the petition, copy of the original story and an incredible Letter to the Editor concerning this case.
- RenewAmerica columnist Michael Bresciani has an excellent column that all opponents of eligibility should seriously consider: “Obama documentation activists -- not conspiracy theorists.”
- RedState shares how one Republican activist has “The right perspective on technology.“
- Lest we forget about Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) versus Al Franken, Hotair.com reports that “Franken loses in court, full contest to be heard.“
- Speaking of Senators, AmericanPower reports that Kirsten Gillibrand, the soon-to-be-appointed replacement for Hillary’s Senate seat is the “Left’s Blue Dog Nightmare” (note especially her 100% NRA voting record).
- On the other hand, regarding abortion, InvestigatingObama reports that “Obama to Escalate Worldwide ‘Abortion’ Holocaust, with Americans’ Confiscated Money.”
As always, check back here at The Right Side of Life for updates.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
-Phil
Yeah, ganted Reality Check, perhaps that testimony isn’t as strong, but during the radio interview with Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador, he comes right out and says just how well known BO’s birthplace in Kenya is. Combine that with with the fact that BO’s half sister cites two different places of Birth in Hawaii and things become suspect. Also, one would expect that an Ivy league institution like Columbia University would have had great celebrations for one of it’s very own to be inaugurated as President. Problem is no classmate ever remembers him. The O has had a free pass on his history, while we are supposed to be concerned that Joe the Plumber wasn’t a certified plumber(lots of accountants aren’t CPA’s either), but was concerned about sharing the wealth. Yeah, BO has a history in the press that only began at the 2004 DNC speech and his whopping # days in the Senate. Nobody knows anything about this guy, but who cares because he is the “messenger of change”. A “change” that is needed because the Press deemed we needed one even though we basically won the war on terrorism and because the economy crashed due to the Dems relaxing loan standards to those who couldn’t afford them.
The term ‘natural born citizen’ is, as far as I know, only used to describe the qualifications for the office of presidency. I don’t know any other office or position or anything that has this qualification. If they meant ‘citizen’ then they would have simply said ‘citizen’ but they didn’t. They said ‘natural born’ citizen.
In other words, the reason why the law doesn’t address ‘natural born’ status as opposed to ‘citizen by birth’ and ‘naturalized citizen’ is because it is not required to for anything else. Realistically, ‘natural born’ status has only been considered 44 times in our history, at the most (44 presidents). Subtract re-elections, assasinations, and things like that, it’s far less. And even so, it’s never been challenged, other than McArthur (Donofrio explains) and apparently he got away with it, like Obama has.
People do care about this issue. From what I’ve encountered, it seems that most people care about it, but are frustrated at the apparent lack of interest by government officials, and the overwhelming power of the media and stupid people. You can’t change the mind of people over night. The people have been dumbed down over many decades. Morals and character have slowly eroded away. You can’t bring that back over night, so naturally the frustration leads to apathy. Now the people who genuinely don’t care, don’t care about the laws of the land. The Constitution is as important to them as a piece of toilet paper. They don’t care about liberty. They don’t care about law. They don’t care about what is right. They don’t care about truth. When confronted, they’ll try to paint everybody else, past and present, to be just as void in character as Obamalama. It’s the classic childish arguement, “He’s doing it too! Waaaa!” (It’s clear that most people involved or interested want ALL held accountable)
It seems quite obvious to me that Reality Check has a dog in the fight with his desperate search to delay the truth of the actual birth certificate.
Nope.
The truth will prevail, I question a persons loyalty to protect and participate in preventing the truth to be told.
The truth has been told. I am just interjecting a dose of reality on the facts and the law. That is not disloyal.
I don’t understand the thoughts of our leaders allowing a Secretary of Treasury after not being honest in paying his taxes until his nomination.
I would rather see Obama nominate someone else other than Tim Geithner but that is his choice. I don’t agree with everything Obama has done. Geithner seems to have support from both parties, however. I question whether a double standard being employed. Women who have Nanny Gate issues are disqualified while men with the same issue are not.
When will people wake up and realize we deserve the truth with honest taransparent poeple in our leadership?
Hey, we just survived eight years of Bush and Cheney. It couldn’t get worse than that.
Seems like we have a house full of attitudes like Reality Check to protect and promote even the dishonest.
Never in my past have I recalled allowing such an open lack of integrity and with support from so many.
Repeat, you don’t need a long memory, Bush and Cheney.
It’s getting to a point of no return to keep Our Country under the rule of law instead of Socialism and popular opinion.
Things will be fine. The adults are in charge again.
RC
It seems quite obvious to me that Reality Check has a dog in the fight with his desperate search to delay the truth of the actual birth certificate.
The truth will prevail, I question a persons loyalty to protect and participate in preventing the truth to be told.
I don’t understand the thoughts of our leaders allowing a Secretary of Treasury after not being honest in paying his taxes until his nomination.
When will people wake up and realize we deserve the truth with honest taransparent poeple in our leadership?
Seems like we have a house full of attitudes like Reality Check to protect and promote even the dishonest.
Never in my past have I recalled allowing such an open lack of integrity and with support from so many.
It’s getting to a point of no return to keep Our Country under the rule of law instead of Socialism and popular opinion.
Reality Check,
I believe I have already clearly laid out what my site is about under the “About” pages from the top tabs of the site. Personally, I find the entire eligibility issue absolutely fascinating (as you obviously do, too, else you wouldn’t be spending so much time on my site — a point I made to you a while back) and so have decided to track it here on my personal blog.
It is clear that we both have differing perspectives on eligibility, and that’s fine. Further, as a linked article of this posting points out, a “conspiracy theory” is one that cannot possibly be conclusively proven. That is not the case with the President’s eligibility (as much as many opponents would like to make all of this a grand “conspiracy theory”); it is quite easy to prove or disprove natural birth via revealing the President’s original certificate of live birth.
And, yes, as I’ve already pointed out to you, that’s all that would be required to put this entire saga to rest. Most of us would then go about being the loyal opposition to most of the President’s policies, because — and you might want to cut-and-paste this somewhere for accountability purposes — if the President is a natural born citizen, then he absolutely is confirmed to be the President, and that’s that.
-Phil
First, I will address Berg’s Sarah Obama tape and affidavits. I listened to the tape and read the affidavits provided by Berg. I would like to think the SCOTUS actually listened to the tape and read the affidavits. They would have all gotten a great laugh from them. However, I am sure they didn’t. Let’s see, we had a poor phone connection with Mrs. Obama (80 years old) and a translator who doesn’t speak her dialect, all of this provided by the self appointed supreme leader of the American Anabaptist’s, “Bishop” McRae.
Here is a bit I found on “Bishop” McRae: (From a right wing web site, incidentally.)
What the affidavit and the Court filings do not mention, however, is that McRae is better known stateside as a “street minister,” and that his “bishop” title is largely self-applied. A September 10, 2005 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette describes McRae as a “self-proclaimed Anabaptist bishop” who “has felt it his calling to disrupt the lives of gays, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses and whatever other among the citizenry he considers the future entree at the Almighty’s celestial barbecue come Judgment Day.” He made news that day for denouncing the design of the Shanksville, PA memorial to those who perished on Flight 93 as a “symbol of Islam” because the finished product would resemble a red crescent in the autumn months, when the leaves on the maple trees would turn red. To his credit, I guess it would, but cannot imagine that appeasement of radical Islam was behind the design.
This, nonetheless, is the gentleman who brought the tape of Sarah Obama to the world.
Phil Berg was not aware of McRae’s history as a “street minister” or as denouncer of crash site memorial designs–yes, I indeed thought it ironic that Berg, a man who believes that the United States government was complicitous in the attacks of September 11, 2001, was relying on a man who felt that the planned memorial to those who died on that awful day was woefully inadequate–but said that he nonetheless “feels comfortable that it’s right.”
The honorable Bishop McRae probably arranges 419 bank scams from Africa when he is not scamming Phil Berg. It is always great to see a scam artist like Berg get scammed himself. The emails from Mr. Kweli Shuhubia (a fake name that means “True Witness”
in Swahili) clearly imply that he was going to need money to get what Berg was seeking. As if by magic, and through two translators and the Honorable Anabaptist “Bishop” McRae, Berg was supplied what he was seeking. Of course, all the written records are conveniently “locked up” by the Kenyan government. This sounds like very similar to the lie that Obama had all his records in Hawaii sealed.
I can’t imagine anyone even suggesting that the Sarah Obama tape might be credible. I know you are “not alleging anything” but if you look at your blog it is almost entirely devoted to Obama eligibility lawsuits. Every time one of the suits is up for any motion it is the lead story. It is obvious that you assign a large measure of undeserved credibility to them and hope something turns up to discredit President Obama. After this is over you can walk away by saying “Well, I never said any of these were true.”. Thanks for reply and for capping off a great week with a good chuckle.
The comparisons of McRae’s to the story from the Buffalo News are incorrect because Berg was seeking support for his case at any cost. The article in the Buffalo News was a human interest story timed by Paula Voell on the day of the Inauguration to provide a local Buffalo connection to the big story of the week. That is the sort of thing local reporters do all the time. It happened to contain information providing some confirmation of Obama’s Hawaiian birth by a contemporary who new Ann Durham. This wasn’t shocking or big news to anyone except the fringe Birther’s who were apparently horrified by this article and commenced to attack Voell and Nelson on sites like FreeRepublic and this one. Berg can always subpoena Mrs. Nelson for a deposition. I suspect he is not likely to do that.
If you wonder why President Obama doesn’t respond to Berg, et. al. you are making assumption that it matters. Outside of an extremely small group that read some of these blogs no one knows or cares a whit about this issue. The action that his campaign took to order and release a copy of his birth certificate was adequate due diligence and well beyond what was necessary.
Second, you said I do not hear “correct” argumentation. I have read only one correct, concise argument worth a grain of salt posted on this blog. The argument made by HA was clear and based in law. I won’t repeat it again verbatim but he said this in a nutshell: The law recognizes two classes of citizenship, naturalized and citizen by birth, Obama is a citizen by birth merely by Ann Durham’s citizenship. Again, this has been established in court where citizenship status has been adjudicated. Therefore, all the other discussion over short for and long form birth certificates, and Kenyan records are a waste of time as it applies to his natural born citizenship status. That is “self evident“.
JeffM,
In theology, a fundamental truth that is classified as “self evident” is one of which nothing else is required to substantiate that truth being true.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Reality Check,
The Natural Born Citizen clause is “self-evident” as it is not spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. I see we are going to have to educate you once again:
According to epistemology:
“A self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof”
That being said, if you have to question someone’s natural born citizen status, they’re NOT Natural Born Citizens.
Did anyone question presidential NBC status over the last 50 years? I think NOT!
I find this story about the school teacher unteneable.
We are supposed to believe that there is a school teacher alive today, who was eating dinner with the father of her friend the same week O was born, and who identified the mother by her first name.
And that she wrote this down, but did not keep the napkin.
This is hearsay evidence at best. Unsubstantiated and unverifiable.
Now it is reported that that hospital has categorically denied that Stanley was ever a patient. And furthermore that hospital does not claim to be the place of O’s birth.
The other thing that is strange is this, why would Stanley having a baby be remarkable? If she had been visibly pregnantn for 6 months?
I also find it strange that a teacher who had such a conversation is alive today and is able to remember such detail.
You know, when you refuse to show your BC, and have a granny in Kenya who says you were born there, stories about memories of school teachers who claim to have spoken with the doctor who is claimed to have delivered the baby at an alleged hospital that denies he was born there, are not claims apt to be accepted in a court of law.
Reality Check, you need one!
Comments about from around the web on Nelson claims:
–The doc retired from the practice of medicine in 1956, 5 years before Obama was born
–I live in buffalo…and saw this woman on tv (local news) and she said nothing about his birth. she was talking about how she was a teacher at his school when he was a student there. she did not claim to be his teacher.
–Barbara Nelson got it wrong: she says Obama Sr hadn’t seen his son in eight years when he appeared at Punahou to give the Kenya presentation. She is going by the “official storyline” which says Obama Sr left when Jr was 2 when we know Ann was back in WA state before Jr was a month old and didn’t return to HI until early 1963! Obama Sr left HI June 22,1962 and even then Jr wasn’t yet a year old!
–West is survived by three children, seven grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. What you want to bet none of them knows anything about their Dad delivering the Messiah?
–Her story sounds like something written at gunpoint about Kim Jong Il. Barry made birds out of paper and they came to life and flew around the room.
–At best she is speaking of hearsay second hand information. At worst she is making it up.
–1. Dr West delivered at least 5,000 Babies 2. Dr West retired in December 1956 from medical practice 3. In Aug 1961, he has knowledge of a woman named Stanley, under-aged, who had a baby and that was noteworthy, and he did not do the delivery 4. Nelson even remembers from this dinner with Dr West the baby’s name and the hospital name. Total, complete Bravo Sierra.
–Liar. Everyone knows Obama was born at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu…Or was it The Mombasa Hospital in Kenya ?
–very CONVENIENT that she gives interview A LITTLE MORE THAN 1 YEAR AFTER Dr. West died.
–It seems a bit strange that Dr. West would blab to his daughter and his daughter’s friend about one of his patients, even to the extent of disclosing the patient’s name and the name of the patient’s baby. What ever happened to medical ethics and doctor-patient confidentiality ?
–I am wondering if we are being triangulated with well placed articles.
Reality Check,
Once again, you seem to evade your namesake, to wit:
“As I have said before: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
And as I have said before, the standard that I employ to determine whether or not something’s worth considering is the same standard our famous Judiciary uses: “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I find it morbidly fascinating that you would begin escalating the standard you would use for evidence on the eligibility issue; it suggests the premise(es) of your opposition may not be as strong as you put on. Further:
“From this I may assume that no amount of evidence will ever be enough to satisfy the Birther fringe of which you are a part?”
Feel free to assume, with the understanding that “assume” makes an “ass” out of “u” and “me,” because that’s exactly what you would be doing with such a statement.
On the other hand, there are [at least] three things regarding your commentary on my site that I can clearly see about your true thoughts RE: eligibility, of which I certainly don’t need to “assume:”
1. You do not “hear” correct argumentation; I have repeatedly said that I have only ever alleged that the President is ineligible for the office of the presidency. In reality, I simply don’t know.
2. You do not “hear” correct accountability; I have said on at least one occasion that virtually all attorneys involved in various eligibility lawsuits — to include Mr. Berg — have expressly stipulated that if documentation such as an original, long copy certificate of live birth were produced stating exactly where the President was born, lawsuits would subsequently become rescinded.
3. You once again resort to ad hominem attacks to bolster your opposing viewpoint.
What — you think all of this is about race? About being sore losers? While the eligibility issue may be about these things to some, I think you would have to literally be blind to see that these things are explicitly not what the postings on my site are about.
-Phil
Fine, let Barbara Nelson sit in the witness chair and testify to a court of law.
I believe that bologna as much as I believe I can tote the local Wal-mart back to China. How convenient? The only living person that supposedly witnessed his birth is coming out of the closet on January 20th. Please. Where’ve you been Barbara Nelson? You witnessed the birth of the Messiah and lived to tell about it? Man, the whole country has been looking for you.
Put her on the witness stand!!! And let’s hear it again.
“If the interpretation is to be believed” are the operative words. I will choose to believe President Obama’s fifth grade teacher who has no reason to lie vs. a quote from a charlatan lawyer (Berg) quoting a charlatan minister who may have easily misinterpreted what he heard due to language difficulties. It is when you cite this sort of evidence that it exposes you and the Birther movement to be a complete sham.
As I have said before: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We must now have to add Ms. Nelson and the author of the article to the enormous list of co-conspirators in the Obama cover up. President Obama, born of a US citizen, has provided a validated certificate of birth, attested by the Hawaiian government, that shows he was born on US soil, corroborated by contemporary newspaper accounts, and now corroborated by Ms. Nelson. This is more evidence placed in the public record than has been provided by any presidential candidate in history. Yet that is not enough? From this I may assume that no amount of evidence will ever be enough to satisfy the Birther fringe of which you are a part?
Ladies and gentlemen,
Either way from reading this God will smite those who go against Him.
But what is really disheartening is that this new fellow in The Oval Office has indirectly influenced hatred from some of the young black folks here in the town I live in. {Some of my best friends are black, hispanic, and asian.] I was in the local mall in my full priest clerics, including the cassock, had two young black males step to me with a smug, obnoxious, arrogant attitude and told me that “the new president is gonna plug your sorry white ass now.” This kind of diabolical arrogant behaviour coming from the teenagers is very stressful to deal with. [They used the presidents last name, but I know he had nothing to do with that so no need for me to use it here.]
But I do not know who the teens were cause I did not stick around to ask them their name. I forgave them for what they said and left the building.
This kind of hate against the Christians is to be expected since we are serving Christ.
Pacem,
++Stonewall
Just show the birth certificate and no one will have to guess!!! This was debunk already the doctor in question died 5 years before Obama(Soetoro) was born!!!
Reality Check,
I’m really surprised you didn’t know about this tid-bit of information. It’s been around for months and it’s over at Phil Berg’s web site under “All Court Documents” and see “Affidavit of Reverend Kweli Shuhubia.” Keep in mind that it was not signed by Sarah Obama, because (1) the transcript of a phone call occurred between the States and Kenya; and (2) Sarah Obama doesn’t know how to read and can only speak a very localized language and only some slight Swahili.
Nevertheless, if the interpretation is to be believed, she specifically states she was in the hospital when Obama was born. Not only this, but the Kenyan government has twice put a ban on any access to Obama’s family in Kenya (which I’ve documented here).
Thanks for the question,
-Phil
So you can produce a sworn affidavit signed by Sarah Obama swearing that Barack Obama was born in Kenya?
Reality Check,
Already explained. The President’s Kenyan grandmother, Sarah Obama, has already had her interpretation of being present in a Mombasan hospital in Kenya when, it is assumed, she claims that the President was born in an affidavit.
I’m sure the woman to which you refer would probably also agree to sign an affidavit to her findings as well.
Nevertheless, none of it explains why virtually all of the President’s background documentation has been sealed from public view.
And, as always, if I and folks like myself are classified via ad hominem attacks as “tin foil hatters,” then may all who question for the truth be considered as such.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
I remember,
I’m not sure what all this confirmation is leading.
The facts — as found at http://www.supremecourthistory.org/03_how/subs_how/03_a09.html — completely explains how the Justice Conference works. Anyone who says they know how any of the Justices voted in Conference must be lying, per the link just referenced.
I have recently deleted another comment whereby the commenter claimed to know exactly how the Justices voted, claimed that the Justices issued an Order today (which they quite obviously did not; a cursory inspection of the Orders page clearly shows this) and then went on to attempt to justify why they’re “in the know,” or know someone who is “in the know.”
So, this comment encapsulates my viewpoint on the subject. I’d be more than happy to discuss with anyone why they feel the way they do about their opinion — opinion — about what the Justices have done or theorizing what they might do. However, I think that anything beyond the evidence in hand is always speculation.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Take the test.
FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?
ANSWER: Joe Biden
Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)
This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.
SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?
ANSWER: Hillary Clinton
One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.
THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?
ANSWER: Yet undetermined.
Correction: The article was published 1/20/2009.
So you wanted even more proof that President Obama was born in Hawaii? Read this article from The Buffalo News, 1/23/2009:
Teacher from Kenmore recalls Obama was a focused student
By Paula Voell
NEWS STAFF REPORTER
When Barack Hussein Obama places his hand on the Bible today to take the oath of office as 44th president of the United States, Barbara Nelson of Kenmore will undoubtedly think back to the day he was born. It was Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu.
“I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here’s the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: “‘So, tell me something interesting that happened this week,’” she recalls.
His response: “Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.”
The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama.
“I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it,” said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the “Stanley” connection.
She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby’s father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby’s name.
“I remember Dr. West saying ‘Barack Hussein Obama, now that’s a musical name,’” said Nelson, who grew up in Kenmore and went to Hawaii in 1959 to be in Jo-Anne’s wedding party. When Nelson was offered a job as a newspaper reporter and photographer at her friend’s wedding reception, it led to her living in Hawaii for 47 years. She returned to Kenmore in 2006.”….
More at http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html
I loved the line “Now that’s a musical name.” Yes, indeed it is, Mrs. Nelson.
I can hardly wait for the tin foil hatters to explain this one.
I recall that one group had attempted to buy advertising time with Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS but none would allow the advertisement to run informing the public that Obama is not a natural born citizen.
Could that money raised and more money raised be used to buy billboard space in places like Philadelphia, Washington, D.C.? I expect that the billboard will generate free publicity that may even be better than paying these stations who are restricting free speech.
Bluebonnet at Plains Radio, says lawdog has been 100% correct in his pre-release claims of SCOTUS judgments, and is a lawstudent and woman in GA
Can you confirm?
I remember,
“Lawdog” is a known spammer, both on my blog some months ago and on Citizen Well’s blog.
Also, emails sent to “his” address have bounced back.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Lawdog at Plains radio chat, says this about Orlys case today
Lightfoot v. Bowen, No. 08a524, Suggestion of recusal denied. Application for stay denied. Both without comment or dissent.
Can you confirm?
Some fella told another fella, “Hey, I don’t agree with you passing out gospel tracks. I don’t think the bible supports that. I don’t we should win souls in that fashion. I don’t think it’s effective. Blah blah blah.”
And the other fella responded, “Well, I don’t like the way you’re doing nothing.”
I think it’s a matter of how far you want to stand out on the limb. There’s safety in not getting too far out on the limb, because you can always jump back to the trunk when things start getting shakey. It’s called, …let’s see, how do I explain this? Chicken! Pock pock pock pock pock!! Impartiality also inevitably is a breeding ground for pride and puffing up (know it all itus).
My 2 cents: She’s doing the best she knows how. And I think she’s doing a pretty good job. She’s done more in these few months than most all Americans will do all their life for the cause of freedom. I, for one, appreciate that she’s gone out on the limb. The so called conservatives that criticize in a deragatory fashion (nothing wrong with healthy criticism) only hurt the cause. They need to figure out what side of the fence they’re on.
Thank you so much for keeping all of us concerned citizens up to date!
sus,
As much as I appreciate what Jeff has to say (especially considering he helped inspire me to get my site started), it sounds to me like he’s veering off into the Rodney King line of, “can’t we all just get along?”
Perhaps he should realize — as some opponents have stated here as well — that Berg is just as “radical” in his views of once legally supporting people who espoused that the 9/11 attacks were US government-sponsored as Dr. Taitz is in trying to figure out a way to get to the truth of the President’s background.
Ah well. That’s his prerogative. It’s his site and his commentary threads.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
See what Jeff from America’s Right has to say about Orly’s case:
http://www.americasright.com/2009/01/his-failure-is-our-failure-his-success.html?showComment=1232490900000#c9007980134050743694