Kerchner v. Obama: Defendants Make Additional Request for More Time to Respond
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, made note of the Defendant’s second request for a time extension in this case:
Motion to Extend Time to Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond & Declaration of Counsel has been filed by the defendants. The defendants have already had over two months to answer, move, or otherwise respond. As of the current deadline of May 5th they will have had 75 days from the time they were served to respond. In our opinion, that is an adequate amount of time to answer or move or other wise respond. An objection will be filed to this second request by the defendants for a further extension of time.
As Mr. Apuzzo noted on April 13, the government is always given 60 days by which to respond to any complaint brought against it. On that same date, the federal government requested an additional 15 days by which to respond, making the deadline May 5, 2009 for any motions on their part. Subsequently, per paragraph 10 of the motion, the Defendants have requested an additional 20 days to respond, making the would-be deadline June 1, 2009.
Of the reasons for the time extension request, Assistant US Attorney Elizabeth Pascal mentions that Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have both requested the DOJ to represent them in this matter. Also, per paragraph 8, Attorney Pascal mentions:
“I was unaware that I could move for an extension of time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint pending the representation decision for those Defendants”
and that:
“The Department is still processing that request and determining which Congressional Defendants it will represent.”
She also notes in paragraph 11:
“The delay in filing a response in this case would in no way prejudice the Plaintiffs, but would provide a fair opportunity for the Department to respond appropriately to the allegations in the Complaint…”
A footnote to this paragraph states:
“The Second Amended Complaint is extensive, as it is comprised of 12 counts, with 347 paragraphs and 43 single-spacedendnotes of allegations, and a 30-paragraph prayer for relief.”
Kerchner et al v Obama et al – Motion to Extend Time & Declaration of Counsel – Docs 17-1 & 17-2
Update: Mr. Apuzzo, in further comments about this motion, echoed a number of points I raised above, including the following:
Whether or not the President of the United States is eligible for the Office he currently occupies is of utmost national importance. Every passing day Mr. Obama takes executive action that significantly impacts on the lives of Americans. The USA and Obama have already been granted one extension to answer to May 5, 2009. They have therefore been given 77 days to answer. This is enough time for them to answer. With an extension to June 21, 2009, USA and Obama are asking for 124 days and the Congressional defendants are asking for 117 days to answer. Court rules only allow them 60 days. Such delay is not in the national interest and not acceptable. As to the Congressional defendants, a twenty-day extension for them to answer is reasonable, making their answer due by May 18, 2009. Given the national importance of the issues, an extension for all defendants to answer by June 21, 2009 is not acceptable.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits and common law grand jury updates can be found here.
-Phil
Anonymous,
The fact of the matter is that there are at least 2 forensics experts — something you already know — who have deemed the certification of live birth inconclusive with respect to determining eligibility. According to their affidavits, that would hold true regardless of whether one is looking at the scanned image of the piece of paper or the paper, per se.
-Phil
Texas-Ben says:
May 14, 2009 at 1:04 am
“You couldn’t sign up for anything with a “digital” image of your birth documents yet you think the POTUS should be allowed to do just that.”
I didn’t say that. What I said is a passport is equivalent to a birth certificate because you use a birth certificate to prove your identity. Obama has a passport, he presented a BC with his birth place to get it. Not a digital image. Come on.
The biggest “he’s not eligible” lie is that what was posted online was invented out of thin air. It wasn’t. It was a scan of an original that was available for anyone to examine. Funny how no one from the “he’s not eligible” crowd bothered to go look at it even after one of the experts said she couldn’t tell from a pdf if a document was forged, she’d have to examine the original. Why didn’t she effort to go look at the original in Chicago?
Earl, Try this:
Go to your local passport office and fill out the paperwok to apply for a passport. When the attendant asks to see your birth certificate open up your laptop and show them a “digital” copy of your certificate of live birth. If they question its legitimacy tell them that Factcheck.org has verified it is real and true.
See if you get a passport.
Give me a break. You couldn’t sign up for anything with a “digital” image of your birth documents yet you think the POTUS should be allowed to do just that. That is just silly.
Bruce,
Two reasons:
1. Mr. Apuzzo has shown that he is more than able to produce updates on his own site which I then reflect here (upon which I usually surround with contextual information);
2. A handful of people that correspond privately with me already have access to the docketing system.
-Phil
OK, So why aren’t you registered with PACER? This is a public access application. You just need to register and pay up to the $2.40 document fee per document.
Bruce,
Unless someone has access to the online court docketing system, PACER, we don’t know whether or not the Court has responded.
However, when something does occur, rest assured I will get it posted.
-Phil
Why hasn’t the court responded to the request for more time?
earl,
And, perhaps for you, you’re willing to take a politician at their word.
-Phil
NewEnglandPatriot says:
May 9, 2009 at 8:58 pm
“Earl, we HAVE shown plenty of evidence that Obama is not a natural-born citizen”
You have shown no evidence. Every “fact” you claim in your essay below is either invented or debunked. There’s rumor, speculation, anecdotal tales of “articles I saw but aren’t there any more”. But no real evidence, facts, proof. You can’t prove Obama wasn’t born in Honolulu like he says, like his family says, like his birth certificate shows, like the State of Hawaii has confirmed, like 47 year old birth announcements corroborate. You depend on debunked myths and made-up requirements. No experienced high-caliber constitutional attorney is challenging Obama. They understand eligiblity. Like the FEC, the DNC, the RNC, the Clinton and McCain campaigns, the FBI, the CIA, the Dept of State and the Bush Admin understand eligibility. Do you seriously think Obama would have written a book and made speeches touting his father’s Kenyan nationality if he thought it disqualified him? The man is a constitutional law expert for Gawd’s sake. He knows he’s eligible. Obama understands eligibility. It is you who does not understand eligibility.
Obama was eligible from the moment of his birth in Honolulu. The nationality of his father is irrelevant. A little Guatamalen boy born to illegals migrant farming in Michigan today is eligible, that his parents aren’t citizens is irrelevant. A little Indian boy born in 1971 to two Punjabi graduate students in Baton Rouge, LA is eligible, his parents’ status doesn’t matter. If you don’t like that, work to amend the Constitution.
Joe Biden is Commander in Chief.
He has been Acting President since January 20, 2009.
The “Pretender to the Throne” was ineligible, and remains so.
Earl, we HAVE shown plenty of evidence that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. Foreign newspapers have nonchalantly printed articles about Obama stating that he was born in Kenya, very matter-of-factly. I read these articles myself BEFORE the election, although now they have been scrubbed from the internet. I wonder why?
Luckily, there are screenshots of many of these newspaper articles and we know what we saw.
With a foreign father, he can never qualify as a natural-born citizen. The fact is that he lied when he signed the Arizona affidavit stating that he met the requirements for President. He’s lied about everything else in his life. His parents might not even be who he has said they are. I don’t really care who his parents are; the fact is that he is a liar and doesn’t qualify to be president.
Why would you want to have a man in the position of leader of the “free” world (not for much longer, if he stays there) who lies, obfuscates, and dissembles to everyone about who he is and what he stands for? Someone who threatens private industries, “fires” CEOs, takes over the banks and lets confessed terrorists go free? Why would you even think this person is capable of doing the job, not to mention that he’s not constitutionally eligible?
The fact is that the Democrat Party supported a candidate whom either they did not vet properly or, worse yet, whom they KNEW was foreign-born, and they thought they could get away with it. What does that say about the people you have been supporting?
And by the way, the Republicans are just as bad. They nominated John McCain, and he also was not eligible to run. He was born in a hospital in Panama and is therefore not natural-born. Senate Resolution 511, passed in April of last year, does nothing to change that fact. So the election was rife with corruption from the onset, and the Dems were happy to have McCain run because they knew that he also had citizenship problems. That way they knew that McCain would never say anything about Obama’s lack of qualifications, so the two parties colluded and bamboozled the American people. That’s what I’m mad about…if John McCain had won, this same thing would be happening!
And the criminal complaint is not just a letter to Obama; it has accompanying evidence to back up the claims stated in the letter. It has been filed with the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Tennessee, who has refused to do anything with it. His lack of action is unlawful and will now be prosecuted. Anyone with a criminal complaint can file such complaint with a U.S. attorney; that’s why they’re there. Dedrick’s refusal to do so simply shows that he knows that Obama cannot defend himself against the claims. That means that we are without a true president and the military is without a commander-in-chief.
That indeed is a very serious situation. Regardless of anyone’s prior political affiliation, we all need to unite around our Constitution and Bill of Rights and rebuild our nation upon those. Without that foundation, we have no country and no society. The USA will become a wasteland of starving, unproductive people without a purpose.
Let’s get back to our founding principles as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Let’s require the highest standards in our elected officials and settle for nothing less. We should all engage more in the matters of government, not just every 2, 4 or 6 years to elect someone whom we perceive we “like” or who can bring home the pork. The country is bankrupt, so we will have to begin electing people based on something other than pork, handouts and entitlements.
That’s what this is all about: returning America to her proud standing as the leader of the free world.
I don’t pay him attention any more. Like Alan Keyes stated, obama is really “incidental” in all of this. He is simply the USURPER, not the puppetmaster. Someone of authority is calling the shots.
He is just the town clown.
Let’s face it people. Soetoro is white. Now can we please move on without going into the racial garbage and call a spade a spade?
Here are the facts:
1. The Kenyan parliament knows Soetoro is Kenyan.
2. Hawaii knows Soetoro is Kenyan.
3. Pakistan knows Soetoro is Kenyan.
4. Korea knows Soetoro is Kenyan.
5. The Middle East knows Soetoro is Kenyan.
6. Con.grass knows Soetoro is Kenyan.
7. SCROTUS knows Soetoro is Kenyan.
8. The FBI knows Soetoro is Kenyan.
9. The CIA knows Soetoro is Kenyan.
The reason why our “government” officials say nothing is because they’ve known all along and saying anything would expose the fact they willingly let a foreigner into the Senate. That’s illegal and it exposes our government to the rest of the world. Picture this. If we can’t control who gains placement in positions of public trust, what signal does this send to other nations?
Not that they don’t know. They do. What amazes other countries is America’s loss of nationality. We’ve become the “come on in and run America” country. Sad. Truly sad.
earl says:
May 5, 2009 at 4:32 pm
ch says:
May 5, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“doesn’t your boy”
You know ch, referring to the President of the United States as “boy” suggests to me what your real problem is with Pres Obama.
*********************************************************************************
The IMPOSTER deserves NO respect from any sane American Patriot….all he has done is trash our country to foreigners and put down the previous administration for what he has inherited…..if he didn’t want the job….he shouldn’t have campaigned and frankly…..I’m a little tired of seeing his face all over the network television stations….what little I watch of them!!! You don’t even want to know what I call him!!!!!! I’m afraid Phil wouldn’t print it here!
Phil wrote:
Yet this is the only president ever treated this way, even though he’s also the only one to show his birth certificate in the course of attaining the office. How surprising is it? I didn’t know the forms it would take, but one would be naive to think we could elect a black man with a Muslim name and not have conspiracy theories about how he can’t really be president.
ch says:
May 5, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“doesn’t your boy”
You know ch, referring to the President of the United States as “boy” suggests to me what your real problem is with Pres Obama.
ch says:
May 5, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“Earl, some of us want a little more proof than a forged internet document. Doesn’t your boy have anything to back up this document?”
A birth certificate or certificate of live birth is the primary piece of identification. So Obama or anyone else for that matter doesn’t need a “back up” to the primary piece of identification to establish their identity in the US. What do you have that backs up your birth certificate?
Even Ms Lines, a forensic document examiner,cited often in the “he’s not eligible” lore, admits it is not possible to determine the authenticity of a document from a scan posted on line. What is never mentioned is that the original document is available at Obama headquarters for anyone to examine. Why don’t you ask your “he’s not eligible” leaders why they didn’t go look at it. Not Polarnik, not Lines, not Orly, not Berg, not Leo, not Ed Hale, not Steve Pidgeon. But several news agencies did, including Fox News who found it to be authentic. They also reported that from their investigation, they concluded Obama was born in Hawaii and was a natural born citizen. If you want that direct from Fox News, contact Andrew Napolitano, Fox Chief Legal Analyst.
Also, are you suggesting that traveling to Kenya as an adult disqualified Obama? Are you saying that because he has relatives that live in another country and are involved in its politics he’s ineligible? Well by golly ch those are new ones. More knee slappers from the “he’s not eligible” camp. Just making stuff up as you go along.
Is there any update on this case today? Was the additional extension granted?
Earl, some of us want a little more proof than a forged internet document. Doesn’t your boy have anything to back up this document? And if his father is a foreigner, and Obama wants to campaign in Kenya to help his relatives, he is simply not eligible and is now sitting illegally in Washington. Do you not think that the majority of us want our laws to be upheld? Even if you are not a law-abiding citizen, the majority are, blacks included. When McCain said “the people have spoken,” he must have meant Acorn. Nobody would have voted for Obama, even in the black community, if they knew he was not even a citizen and was not legally qualified and committed fraud on our ballots in every state. The voting pattern would have been a little bit different. The states are one by one bringing Acorn into court. The media should be next, for holding back information necessary to vote, and putting forth information not true, manipulating the vote.
Brygenon, the trouble I find with your reasoning is that if the first one or two cases was resolved, there would have been no case. The reason and more cases happened is due to the court using “standing” as an issue that was not an issue. So “millions” of cases would not have happened. In fact, had the DNC provided the qualifications to people who wrote them, as I did, it would have never entered the courts. There are no qualifications, so a military office filed a criminal complaint of treason. He has “standing.”
Phil says:
May 5, 2009 at 8:07 am
“No one wants to question a black man”
OMFG! He has been questioned more than any President in history! He showed you his BC. People called it a forgery, but declined the invitation to personally examine the document that was scanned and put online.
brygenon,
Let’s face reality: Nobody wants to question a black man.
-Phil
brygenon,
While that’s all good to have the dear Senator’s comments on the record, that doesn’t stop some Americans from questioning this President — nor, I have no doubt, from Americans (presumably) such as yourself from questioning those of us who question.
-Phil
rrobin wrote, in part:
Well then you have my permission to be as hash as you see fit. Heck, Phil went off all “traitor to America” on me. And if you can’t get your really scathing stuff through here, go to sci.skeptic or talk.politics — unmoderated Usenet groups where no one will censor you.
But of course I’m being a bit facetious there. We know the score. Phil sometimes annoys me by cutting my favorite lines, but I’m still here because he does allow his opposition to make a case. We O-bots never asked for leniency; the only way we’ve been “treated far too leniently” here is that we have not been categorically censored out.
Rrobin, if you don’t want to deal with opposition, there are plenty of sites to accommodate. Hiding from reality is your right, but it is a losing strategy. If you think we O-bots have it too well here, look how we’re doing in the forums that matter.
Delightful that you are amused. I too am happy with how things are. I expect to go on about my “reality” kick, but that’s just for people who are into dealing with things as they actually are.
ch argued,
Before we conclude that the courts are the ignorant ones, let’s give this matter a little more thought. The doctrine of standing is old and well-established, but suppose, for the sake of argument, we grant that, “each voter automatically has standing,” in any election challenge.
Kerchner, and Berg and Donofrio and Wrotnowski, would have thus have standing, but the courts would still have to dismiss their suits, because they failed to serve their complaints on over a hundred million indispensable parties to the cases. I know because I would be one of those parties. I too am a voter, so I too have standing, and I do not waive my rights. The court must give my voice and my arguments the same hearing it grants to the plaintiffs.
Give every voter standing and the courts will be faced with thousands of redundant complaints, then millions of answers, demurrers, motions to dismiss, responses to motions to dismiss, etc.
No, the standing doctrine is not an evil plot to disenfranchise you. It is a practical reality. Real courts adjudicate real cases. They cannot possibly give due consideration to a hundred million filings on one case, and the matter doesn’t even come up because the plaintiffs cannot afford to serve papers on all those defendants.
And let’s face reality: the reason the birthers have had such a problem with legal standing is that Obama’s serious opponents never wanted anything to do with this nonsense.
And Ch, I hope you understand that when you pass judgment on the courts, you do so for your own amusement. Adverse court decisions are excellent learning opportunities, and not, in a realistic sense, teaching opportunities.
Phil wrote,
“The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly.” — John S. McCain, 04 Nov 2008.
There’s “Help on the Way” for the blind all the time they are learnin’ to see.
Every soul (yes, even Orenthal James Simpson’s) is redeemable.
Every soul…until it’s too late.
Some fear the Truth. Others seek it. All will know it, in time.
ch, that was a very good post, and very cogently presented – but I believe you will find, as I now have, that it is a complete waste of your time and attention posting here, because the Obots that infest this site CANNOT be educated, or even intelligently debated.
They have their talking points assigned to them, and they will not, or more likely cannot, understand logic or reason whatsoever and they certainly haven’t shown the slightest ability to distinguish truth from foolishness
Frankly, you’ll find their posts are some of the stupidest expositions ever put into English, but have fun, until you also realize you are completely wasting your time here.
Phil’s reporting is good, but as a place for debateand comment, the Obots have been treated far too leniently for far too long and so there is NO honest debate here.
It’s too bad, but the idiots have been completely allowed to run the site here, and it’s really a shame, ch, but you’ll soon also find that Earl and the rest of his ilk can’t come up with an intelligent, honest brain cell among the lot of them.
But then again, look at the trash they follow…. and it IS amusing to see how nervous and scared they’re starting to get. They know we’re getting close, and even they know that AKA’s time is coming – and sooner rather than later now, the truth about AKA will inevitably be coming out.
And then they will truly have nothing left.
Enjoy.
Earl, The courts said that the plaintiffs did not have “standing” or that the issue was “moot.” They did not say the plaintiff did not have a case or that they had to prove Obama was not eligible, rather than Obama prove he was eligible.
The standing issue seems to be an illegal tool the courts developed to keep people out of court with what they saw as frivolous suits, to help them obstruct justice for the common citizen.
A voter seeking the qualifications of a candidate is the opposite of frivolous, since each voter represents every voter. The choice of candidates before one voter is the same choice before all voters.
So each voter automatically has standing in any election, regardless of what a court says due to ignorance, and a voter always has a right to ask for verification, when it is refused by the State officials and the political party, as in this case with Obama. It is a reasonable question and the court a reasonable approach to get the answer.
The courts do not seem to understand the term “standing” and misused and abused this.
The courts also responded that the issue is “moot.” The issue of an event that has happened and is over and will never be repeated, such as somebody murdered and you ask that they be revived…well, this issue is moot. The person is dead, gone and cannot be revived. It is impossible to restore what is gone.
However, a vote is never “moot.”
Again this word is being abused and misused.
When there is a vote, the actions becomes an ongoing situation, not a situation that is over, in the past and dead, as in a murder.
Because of the vote, a candidate moves into an officially elected position and is daily operating in that office. If the person is not qualified, they are daily operating in an unqualified fashion and doing daily harm to the public. Society is now at daily risk.
So a vote is never a moot issue, as the courts so happily and ignorantly claim.
The court is not saying, as you claim, Earl, that you the plaintiff have not provided enough proof. The court has claimed standing and moot.
To question a candidate’s qualifications requires no proof. If somebody applies for a job and you ask for his resume, and he says you have no right to ask for a resume…well, we know that is foolish. Of course, the potential employer has a right to ask for a resume.
The employer does not have to prove there are reasons to not employ the person or to ask for a resume. It is necessary to ensure qualificaitons.
He is asking for the justification to hire the person, and has a perfect right to know his background. The employer does not have to provide anything regarding the applicant to get this resume. The applicant has to provide his qualifications for the job.
That is all that is happening now in approaching the courts. There is no burden on a voter asking for qualifications to provide reason to doubt.
The candidate, in this case, Obama, signed papers he is eligible. So prove it, Obama. Your political party cannot prove it, so you have to.
Signing a paper you are eligible does not mean you are eligible. You are cetainly claiming that, but only documentation proves it.
So you are wrong, Earl. The burden is not on the plaintiff in a vote.
“Standing” and “moot” have been used by the courts, both misused and abused. But they have never said the plaintiff had to provide more justification.
Since Obama has concealed his entire past, there is certainly justification for questioning his eligibility, since his behavior is that of a common criminal.
But it has never even gotten to this point, since the court knows that a candidate has to qualify themselves, not the plaintiff. So Obama’s lawyers have worked with standing and moot, trying to hold together the leaking fortress of their lies and schemes.
The courts seem very tunnel visioned and confused and perhaps bribed to misuse their own legal terms, or perhaps they sincerely do not see the difference between an election and a house burning down or a murder.
An election leads to an ongoing event. The injury is daily laws being passed causing harm to the community by an illegible candidate.
The reparation, of course, is immediate proof of qualifications, and, if none, immediate removal, for the safety of the community. Grab the person driving the train with no license, and tackle him to the ground. He is a public danger. Obama is a public danger.
Then an interim presider is installed until a new election or whatever course is legally laid down to put in a qualified candidate, and all laws passed by the illegal person (Obama) stopped, held, and reversed, until proper officials are placed.
Earl, you see, you are quite wrong. The Court of Common Sense has found Obama not eligible because he is not a Natural Born Citizen, with 2 citizen parents and born in the United States. Perhaps this is hard for you to understand, what a Natural Born Citizen is. Obama is not.
Obama can either step down, which he does not seem to have the intelligence to do, step into a court, which he is obviously terrified to do and not man enough to fight for himself, or Obama will be removed by gentleness of force.
The Law and Truth always win, often slowly, but in time, Truth always Trumps Falsehood. God bless America.
rrobin says:
May 3, 2009 at 10:40 pm
“Well, Earl, as of now, CRIMINAL charges have now been filed against Obama for treason, by someone with standing to do so.”
You linked to a letter written to Obama by a citizen and cc’d to the US Attorney in Tenn. US Naval Academy stationary, the notarized signature, written by a retired Navy Officer. He’s a citizen writing a complaint letter to Obama.
Now where do you see criminal charges have been filed? Prosecutors file charges, in a jurisdiction. The headline on the blog is misleading, if not an outright lie.
Here is something that might help you understand the difference between a citizen’s complaint and a criminal charge:
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/criminal_law.html
rrobin says:
May 3, 2009 at 7:35 pm
“prove YOUR statement.”
Shout as much as you like. Call for Phil to ban me. But the truth remains the same: it is up to you who accuse Obama to prove he’s not eligible. US Law 101.
From WorldNet Daily:
Still, Obama maintains he was raised by his Christian mother and repeatedly has labeled as “smears” several reports attempting to paint him as a Muslim.
“Let’s make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance [to the American flag] and lead the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes in the United States Senate when I’m presiding,” he told the Times of London earlier this year.
—————————————-
What a farce! The words were incorrect at the first swearing-in and THERE WAS NO BIBLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE at the second.
The ‘Music Man’ is at it again…but the song is about to end.
rrobin wrote,
Aside from your imagination, where did Jindal say that?
Well, Earl, as of now, CRIMINAL charges have now been filed against Obama for treason, by someone with standing to do so.
http://www.riseupforamerica.com/
http://ucmjdefense.blogspot.com/2009/03/court-martial-attorney-federal-criminal.html
NOW try to prove your statement that this is all “nonsense”, Obot!
rrobin,
Concerning earl, repeat the following prior to engaging in long, drawn-out, meandering commentary with them:
“There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
-Phil
Earl, I dared you to prove YOUR statement.
You’ve danced and obfuscated long enough.
Either prove YOUR statement, or get out of here permanently.
Phil, please help with this.
rrobin says:
May 2, 2009 at 3:12 pm
“semantic word games” “prove”
Jacqlyn Smith says:
“discovery”
- Sorry, the burden of proof is on those who accuse Obama. No court in the US will ever see it differently.
- No Obama eligibility case will get to discovery. Discovery is not the process by which the plaintiff gathers the evidence to prove their case. They have to show they have reasonable evidence before the case can even proceed. Discovery is primarily for the defendant to get an opportunity to see how strong the plaintiff’s case is. It is a “he’s not eligible” crowd fantasy that if you could just find a judge to let discovery proceed, then you’ll “get the goods” on Obama. Real life lawsuits don’t work that way. Nobody ever gets a case into court by telling the judge,” Judge, we could prove our case, if you would just let us discover the evidence we need.” Sound familiar?
Phil says:
May 2, 2009 at 10:24 pm
“Challenge by other candidates.”
Challenge BEFORE the election Phil. Alan Keyes’ suit is not timely, nor does it seek a remedy that the courts can deliver. He should have challenged Obama before Nov 4th.
And folks, I’ll happily state here that Bobby Jindal is also NOT a Natural Born Citizen and he is also therefore not eligible to be APresident of the United States.
The huge difference is that he knows it, and has already admitted it, and has no intention of running for the presidency – unlike the current usurper fraudulently occupying the office.
But as David, a true patriot, has so eloquently posted in the Plains Radio Network forum:
“Funny also how you seem so concerned about what you yourself seem to think is a non-issue. If it’s a non-issue, then why waste your time telling us not to waste our time? Liberals never seemed to care much for conservatives and their values when you derided Bush for 8 years, or mocked Palin – a good woman by any standard whether you agree with her politics or not – or Gingrich or anyone else.
If you really thought it was a non-issue, you’d leave it alone. So either leave it alone and let us do our thing or continue to prove that it IS an issue – by telling us (your opposition) that it isn’t.
Obama. A million dollar lawyer. Surrounded and advised by million dollar lawyers. With nothing to hide, according to you – or so your posts appear to suggest. Yet he keeps paying those million-dollar lawyers very expensive fees to file extensions to keep from showing his birth certificate and related documents and guys like you endlessly harp how it’s a non-issue.
As the old commercial saying goes, “Sorry, Charlie.” No dice. Obama is hiding something and it’s only weeks before the whole world knows it. Everyone loves a mystery, so no chance of talking anyone out of following this one. One way or the other, it’s pretty clear your anointed one is screwed.
So I’ll say it again everyone, yell it out loud until the mainstream media silence on the issue is deafening and CNN falls over itself in a clumsy attempt to discredit the issue like they did the tea parties. After all, liberals have embraced such tactics as yelling and protesting for 40 years, so we should hear no intellectually honest objections from them if we do the same.”
earl,
Then you wholeheartedly approve of the effort by Amb. Dr. Alan Keyes? Excellent! Glad to have you on board!
I’ll be sure to keep your approval toned down a bit of your support from a so-called “birther” won’t get you into too much trouble on the other opposition web sites
-Phil
When the imposter refuses to show up for court and the Congress refuses to show up for court this proves their ineptitude and lack of will to confront the problem. They should have asked ‘bama for his credentials long before the primaries began. Congress is just as guilty as ‘bama in this regard. I believe the reason McCain didn’t pursue this issue is because all of these politicians have reached a point where thwy have just thrown their hands up in the air. They don’t want to be looked at as being racist or give the mainstream media any more fuel for the fire. It will all come out in the wash. I believe that nevertheless this imposter will lose as he is already losing favor within his own party and his own party is going to hold him responsible for a budget that can not be attained and his theft of the taxpayers by accepting a check for his “service” and usufruct of air force 1. This is not a game, this is not american idle. The man is associated with known felons (rezko, blagojevich et al) and is scampering for the hills with all of this avoiding court appearances. It is always incumbent on anybody who is served papers to show up for a hearing to do so. Refusal to show up is contempt of court another charge that can be issued in addition to his embezzlement, witness tampering, receiving bribes, voter fraud and just too much to list right now. You’ll have a good day amd as always I will return…
earl says:
May 1, 2009 at 2:23 pm
rrobin says:
May 1, 2009 at 12:22 pm
“Sorry for the length, Phil, but maybe even Earl can figure out how to read this ”
It’s quite easy to figure out. It’s utter nonsense like every other long, rambling “he’s not eligible” essay.
****************************************************************************************
Earl—–You can come off your perch now…..everyone here knows you don’t want this to come to discovery because that would mean the Constitution would have to be upheld!!! Why do you continue to waste your time here if you think it is such nonsense…..Don’t you have better things to do like wipe away as much evidence as possible so the truth is never discovered about your IMPOSTER that you and your cronies put into our White House???
Phil says:
May 2, 2009 at 2:40 pm
“how would you enforce?”
By way of a challenge by the other candidates for President. But the way it’s been enforced for 220 years works for me.
I will be interested to see how many people challenge Piyush Jindal when he decides to run for Pres or VP, a man born in Louisiana to 2 foreign students who’d been in this country for less than a year. I think that’s when the “he’s not eligible” crowd will stop insisting parents’ citizenship has anything to with being natural born.
Sorry, Earl, you don’t get to have it both ways.
YOU are the one who stated that this is all “nonsense”.
Same as OBAMA is the one who has stated under oath, in his candidacy filings in all 50 states, that he is eligible for the presidency.
So prove YOUR statement, Earl.
Quit hiding behind your little semantic word games.
Prove the statement YOU made, [unneeded verbiage]
Again, I dare you, Earl.
Only time will tell earl only time will tell. It is early in the game, you are getting more and more despondent, ‘bamy is not a relaxed customer at this time. The imposter is losing faith in his own party.
Dear Phil –
Do some good people not understand our Constitution, as amended?
OBAMA FAILED TO QUALIFY BECAUSE OBAMA NEVER PROVED HIS STATUS AS ‘NATURAL BORN’ ONCE CHALLENGED. HE STILL HAS NOT PROVEN IT!
See excerpt below, capital letters added for emphasis:
AMENDMENT XX
Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.
Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.
Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have FAILED TO QUALIFY, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
The other Joe (Biden) is Acting President, as he has been since January 20, 2009! He is a natural born liberal…but eligible, and if Lawfully elected (Pennsylvania doubtful) he deserves our respect as the rightful Commander in Chief.
Best,
Joe
earl,
Then how would you propose to enforce Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution?
As I’ve said from the beginning, if the feds aren’t going to do it, and the States aren’t going to do it, then it’s up to the People.
-Phil
rrobin says:
May 2, 2009 at 9:19 am
“Well, Earl??!
We’re all still waiting for your proofs on Obama’s eligibility”
US Law – Burden of Proof is on the Plaintiff/ Accuser. You’re accusing. You prove he’s not eligible. No “he’s not eligible” plaintiff will ever get a court to see it any other way.
Phil says:
May 2, 2009 at 11:06 am
“Show me evidence”
I don’t have to. More importantly, Obama doesn’t have to. The burden is on the “he’s not eligible” group to prove he’s not eligible. Burden of Proof is always on the plaintiff/ accuser. Always.
In other words, Earl, you got nothing and you have NO ability, none whatsoever, to prove your statement that all this is “nonsense”.
And by the way, Earl, Obama IS the one who has put himself out there as an eligible president and that includes stating under oath in every state’s candidate filing that he fulfills all legal requirements for the presidency. including that he is a “natural born citizen”, that IS unarguably a requirement of the U.S. Constitution.
So Earl, prove it, Obot!
And also demand that your messiah produce the documents that back up his statements under oath.
Demand he quit trying to hide everything!
Prove your statement that YOU made, Earl!
Or shut up and leave, damned worthless Obot.