Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner

Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit

Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg, NJ, today filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington DC, on behalf of plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lehigh County, PA; Lowell T. Patterson, Burlington County, NJ; Darrell J. LeNormand, Middlesex County, NJ; and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., Middlesex County, NJ.

Plaintiffs are challenging the recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA, which affirmed the dismissal by District Judge, Jerome Simandle, sitting in the Federal District Court, Camden, NJ, of plaintiffs’ lawsuit in which they charge that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, has NOT conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen of the United States” and thus constitutionally eligible to serve as the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, and that he has hidden all his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, early school records, college records, travel and passport records needed to prove he is even a born Citizen of the United States

Obama was born a British Subject/Citizen to a British Subject/Citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen and never intended to be one. Obama's father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident.

Obama's father was a foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama is still a British Subject/Citizen to this day because he has never renounced that citizenship.

Wow. A three-hour-long, unindexed audio interview with Doug Hagmann that you *say* validates your claim somewhere within.

Unfortuantely for you, I already found that interview earlier this morning, and I've listened to a good chunk of it. Now maybe I missed it somewhere, but I didn't hear anything about any affidavits. Here's what Hagmann ACTUALLY says at the 3:00 minute mark of Hour 3, when he's asked to recap his evidence:

"We have, in addition to that, statements, interview reports from several, there's seven different documents that reflect interviews by people employed" by several networks stating that they were told by their supervisors that the issue of Obama's birth certificate and eligibility were off-limits.

Not affidavits. Definitely not "6-7 affidavits." And he doesn't claim the unsworn, unsigned statements say anything about Obama lawyers or the FCC.

Now, he does talk about the FCC in Hour 2, I think, and he claims that his secret research makes him believe that threats of FCC action were bandied about, but he doesn't say that any of that came from the statements he got.

Also, I think Hagmann demonstrates how seriously his "investigation" should be taken when he starts talking about "Quarles Harris" at around the 42 minute mark of Hour 2. He explicitly claims that Harris was a federal informant who was privy to Obama's passport information and so on, in what all amounts to a REMARKABLY inaccurate relaying of the actual reported facts about Harris. He appears to have taken some shoddily-researched WorldNetDaily articles and online rumor, and spun it as "investigation," and he got it very wrong.

I also found it hilarious when Hagmann said that people shouldn't trust what they read on the internet, even on his site, unless they can validate it somehow. And yet here's Hagmann, talking up secret evidence, anonymous informants, and hidden documents that he claims back up the story he's spinning, but which he declines to let anyone see. Whether you believe this story hinges ENTIRELY on whether you trust Hagmann and his phantom evidence. And even he seems to have forgotten about these claims since August 2009.

And in the one case where he *did* offer up a claim that could be externally validated, in the case of Leiutenant Quarles Harris, it turns out that Hagmann was full of crap.

Again, you claimed, several times, that "Doug Hagmann says he’s got 6 or 7 (can’t remember the exact number) affidavits corroborating the claim that Obama’s lawyers threatened the media heads with annihilation by the FCC if they reported on the eligibility issue - once before the election and once after." Where in that interview did Hagmann claim that?

A mission gone wrong?

John O. BRENNAN is currently the assistant to President OBAMA and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Until he began working for OBAMA, BRENNAN was the CEO of a firm called the Analysis Corporation, a government subcontractor whose work involved providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies. In 2008, a contract employee of BRENNAN’s firm was caught inappropriately accessing certain passport files in the State Department’s passport office. BRENNAN’s firm was “cited” in March, 2008 for breaching sensitive files, including the passport files of Hillary Rodham CLINTON, John McCAIN and Barack Hussein OBAMA.

On 21 March 2008, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed that the contractor from BRENNAN’s company had accessed the passport files of the presidential candidates that included OBAMA. It is significant to note that the passport files include a virtual treasure trove of personal information, including an applicant’s name, social security number, date and place of birth. The files would likely contain additional information including original or authenticated copies of birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.

It should be noted that at the time of the incident, BRENNAN was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign and was said to have virtually unfettered access to the candidate. BRENNAN, of course, denounced the actions of the employee.

The nature of the “breach,” according to intelligence sources close to this investigator, confirmed that the target of the unlawful access was the file containing documents related to Barack Hussein OBAMA (a fact that was originally reported in an article written by Ken Timmerman for NewsMax.com).
http://www.newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/brennan-passport-breach/2009/01/12/id/337482
This is significant, of course, as OBAMA has not permitted the release of his passport records or the documentation contained in that file.

It is important to note that this was not the first breach, nor the only one. At least two other incidents that resulted in the termination or other disciplinary action took place in the several months around this same time period. This breach, however, was different, and the difference between this incident and the others must not be dismissed as it is directly related to the potential disclosure of personal information of Barack Hussein OBAMA II, including his original, “long form” birth certificate. This incident involved more than a curious subcontractor worker; it involved other co-conspirators, including an unidentified contact within the U.S. State Department itself.

Research into the three separate incidents was performed, noting that two of those incidents were somewhat limited in terms of what was accessed. The breach that involved HARRIS, however, as often happens with “the use of unmanageable criminal assets,” went dangerously awry.

Following this incident, federal investigators identified a cooperative witness with direct information about the breach of the passport records – allegedly by accident. That individual, identified as Leiutenant Harris Junior, 24, was stopped for a minor traffic infraction on 25 March 2008, and was found to be in possession of stolen credit cards and documents that were traced back to the breach of the passport records. (Copy of arrest record here in PDF formathttp://www.homelandsecurityus.com/BHO/harrischarges.pdf)

HARRIS, known to DC police, began working with federal authorities to strike a deal as they expanded their investigation into the passport incident. According to a review of the arrest record, HARRIS admitted to investigating officers that he obtained the documents from (an unnamed) co-conspirator “who works for the U.S. Department of State” [emphasis added by this author].

Less than a month later, HARRIS was found with a single bullet wound to his head(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/)
on Thursday, 17 April 2008, inside of his car that was parked in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Washington, DC. HARRIS was described as “an important witness in the breach of the passport records.” While his death was attributed to an increase in violence in the city, at least one detective interviewed by this investigator is not too sure. “It’s an awfully big coincidence, and you know how I feel about coincidences,” stated this homicide detective. “I’ve considered that it was someone tying up loose ends,” he added. The murder of HARRIS remains unsolved.

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/PDF/ROIbho20100427a.pdf

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/PDF/OpartII.pdf

http://homelandsecurityus.com/

It’s been quite a while since I listened to the audio, but I believe it was when he talked about having the affidavits kept in safes in 2 different countries. If I get a chance I’ll listen to it again but you should know that my computer is being attacked by viruses that my security has not been able to eliminate yet so I have no idea what I can and can’t do safely.

Why do you suppose they have interviews from 7 different people saying their supervisors told them the eligibility issue was off-limits?

What did he say right before he said, “We have, in addition to that....”? And what did he say right after what you quoted?

Did you happen to hear about the secretary who typed up the memos? Methinks there’s a bunch you’re leaving out. As I get the chance I’ll listen again. Or if somebody else is able to listen and tell us what all is there, that would be great.

The rest of your stuff is just distraction. You have no idea what information Hagmann has regarding Harris. You’re assuming that he only has the same information that you have, but there are probably other sources both public and private.

It is commendable that Hagmann says not to trust unverified reports, and even that he includes his own material in that. The proof is in the pudding, and he either has the documents he claims to have or he doesn’t. If his story is true, he does have a good reason to not disclose them at this time so non-disclosure is not proof that he doesn’t have them.

Contrast that with Obama. If his story is true, what good reason does he have to not disclose his records? The double standard in your epistemology is stunning.

Based on what I have observed and experienced from the MSM myself, as well as what others have reported, I am inclined to believe the threats were made.

We’ve seen Obama’s people use these tactics with the Chrysler lawyers and with Gerald Walpin, and Obama even publicly intimated the threat of violence when he commented, right around the time that the union thugs bussed people to encircle the home of the AIG head, that only he stands between the AIG execs and “the pitchforks”. We’ve certainly seen violence and/or threats of violence from Obama’s supporters, including the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation. These tactics are standard operating procedures for the people Obama has surrounded himself with his entire life.

“So your source as to why Douglas Hagmann isn’t full of crap about Harris is...Douglas Hagmann? Seriously?”

Yaw know LorenC, I just posted a portion of what was really stated without your point of view.
What other source would you recommend me to link other than the source?
Soros?
LarenC?
Fact check?
Fight the smears?

“And that’s if we ignore that what Hagmann *wrote* in that piece and what Hagmann *said* on the radio don’t really sync up. He went much further on the radio in claiming that Harris was involved with Obama’s passport information, just like he went further on his ‘media cover-up’ claims.”

He “said” what he decided were factual evidenced conclusions.
I do not see where we have to ignore what Hagmann wrote.
I think you only want me to ignore what Hagmann wrote.
I think you work your fat bottom off to make sure no one knows any truth about Obama.

“Look, I detailed here everything you could possibly want to know about Harris and passports, with links to the original news sources.”

I read your “investigative” report about what was reported in the Washington Times.
Need I remind you that the Washington Times was one of the only newspaper to really report on this issue?

“They evidence no connection between Harris and the breach of the candidates’ passport information.”

How could they?… they still have an open investigation.

“The Washington Times just mentioned the latter in a story about the former, and conspiracy theorists wrongly assumed the two were related somehow.”

That is not what the Washington Times reported.
How so?

I didn’t read how the investigation into Harris had been solved, and the statement there absolutely was “no connection” is still a mystery.

Other than the breach of passports that was discovered around the same time Harris was arrested, with Harris holding passports of other than his passport and his companion that night, with other peoples credit cards.
Four of which credit cards matched the passports.

Also, that little nasty spike in everyone’s memory about Harris being shot to death on the Eve of his initial visit to cooperating with the Federal investigation.

“Heck, George W. Bush’s own Assistant Secretary of State is specifically cited in a news story as saying Harris and the Presidential candidate passport breach ARE NOT RELATED.”
-———————)

Your best work is how you decided out of eight passports there were four that actually matched credit cards in Harris’s possession that were not identified, yet you state in as an obvious fashion that the remainder of passports, or the originals, are not relevant due to being hard to pass yourself off as a presidential candidate.

Your only other point in this post is how there is a non quote, quote from the BUSH administration official that the two matters, Harris and his access to passport files, the two employees that were let go. The still un-named state employee from the firm that Brennan and Obama decided would overhaul the whole system with Brennen’s company. (the one that had the two employees firing.)
What exactly did you expect Mr. McCormack to say about a case that is still unsolved?
On practically the Eve of an election?

Give me a break, are you serious?

Well, I honestly hope you can get the virus problem fixed. What you describe, with the redirects from search engines, sounds like a virus my boss had a month or two back.

Once you get that straightened out, I look forward to learning if and where in the audio Hagmann describes the "affidavits" you detailed.

Why do you suppose they have interviews from 7 different people saying their supervisors told them the eligibility issue was off-limits?

You want me to speculate? Because that's all it'd be. So here goes.

One possibility is that Hagmann's 'documents' aren't worth the paper they're printed on. That they're made-up by Hagmann himself, or they're creations by other people who are Birther-friendly. Like the story of teenage Obama confessing a Mombasan birth. Or the story of Russians confessing about how law-school-era Obama was part of decades-long Soviet plot to put a Communist in the White House. Or the story about getting a birth certificate from Coast General Hospital. Y'know, fiction. The fact that Hagmann's supposed investigative skills didn't stop him from getting the Quarles Harris completely wrong means he's not above getting snookered.

Another possibility is that a network or two really did tell their employees that Birtherism was off-limits, but that Hagmann is spinning this as unnecessarily sinister. The employee interviews, after all, don't actually identify any involvement by Obama lawyers or the FCC or whatnot; that's all Hagmann's conjecture. It could just be, like CNN did after Dobbs got Birther-friendly, that a network or two made an internal decision to tell its news talent "We've looked into these birth and eligibility allegations. They're conspiratorial crap, and it would embarrass the network to put them on air. So don't talk about it."

I can certainly envision Fox doing the latter. Fox execs are smart enough to know conspiratorial nonsense when they see it, and they don't want the network tarnished with something that silly. They don't need secret threats from Obama agents to make them not go down that road.

What did he say right before he said, “We have, in addition to that....”? And what did he say right after what you quoted?

Before that, he mentioned the statement from the anonymous 'National Talk Show Host.' After that, he repeated all his bad information about Quarles Harris.

Methinks there’s a bunch you’re leaving out.

OF COURSE there's a bunch I'm leaving out; it's THREE HOURS of audio. I was listening for talk of affidavits, which you said was in there. It wasn't. I didn't much care about whatever other stories he was spinning, especially after I caught him lying about Harris.

If his story is true, he does have a good reason to not disclose them at this time so non-disclosure is not proof that he doesn’t have them.

What good reason would he have for not only not sharing ANY of his evidence, but for not even TALKING about it for over a year now?

Contrast that with Obama. If his story is true, what good reason does he have to not disclose his records? The double standard in your epistemology is stunning.

As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That baby Barack was born at the local hospital, a few miles from his mom's home, and where he said he was born for 50 years? Not an extraordinary claim. That secret Obama agents threatened multiple television networks, including Fox News itself, into silence by warning of severe FCC retaliation? Pretty freakin' extraordinary. And yet Hagmann produces not ONE BIT of evidence to back it up.

So tell me, it's been almost two years since Hagmann claims to have gotten that first confession, and over a year since he went public with his whole 'investigation.' How long are you willing to put your faith in Hagmann's phantom evidence before you give up and concede that he's full of it? When the primary campaign starts, and Hagmann's still silent and evasive? When two full years have passed, and still nothing from Hagmann? When general election time rolls around, and Hagmann's nowhere to be seen or heard? When do you finally admit that his phantom evidence can't be trusted?

What proof do you have that Race Bannon “created” the story about Obama saying he was born in Mombasa? What proof do you have that the story of the Soviet mentioning Obama’s name was made up? I’d be willing to bet money that you’ve got less proof than you ridicule Hagmann for claiming to have.

What proof do you have that Hagmann relied on only the evidence that you claim to have in the case of Harris? How do you know what evidence he does or doesn’t have?

While these “smart” media execs would only ridicule this issue if address it at all, the American public has reached a point where 60% of the respondents in a CNN (!!) poll say they doubt the “official line” about Obama’s birth. With no loudspeaker at all and against all the loudspeakers out there, this story has gained steam. In addition, ever increasing percentages of people believe the news media are non-credible. I guess these “smart” execs played this one pretty smart. (cough)

It’s a good thing the media heads would be too embarrassed to go after non-stories, like Christine O’Donnell’s thoughts about witchcraft or masturbation. These media execs are so very careful to screen out any content that might stain their reputation simply by being mentioned. /s

Loren, you act as if you still don’t get it. What reason would he have? If his story is correct his sources could be killed if the story comes out at the wrong time. It’s like asking why nobody would report the mafia, assuming that there must not be a mafia because even though people were being killed right and left nobody would publicly step forward as an informant. The argument itself is disingenuous.

Next time the grocery clerk or cop asks to see my driver’s license I’m going to tell them that my having a driver’s license is not an extraordinary claim so there’s no reason for me to show it. The claim that I would only PRETEND to have a driver’s license is extraordinary so they have to prove that I DON’T have a driver’s license.

Can’t you see how absurd that argument is?

Obama’s social security number is from Connecticut even though he’s never lived there and he has dozens of other SS#’s as well.

His selective service registration is forged.

Sources close to the passport breach investigation have said the breaches were to sanitize Obama’s passport records.

Obama has presented a COLB that the HDOH has in 2 different ways confirmed is a forgery. Rather than present anything genuine, his lawyers asked Judge Carter to take judicial notice of that forged COLB and of similarly-forged birth announcements.

And now the passport office appears to have forged a “cable” that they submitted in an affidavit to support their claim that Obama’s mother’s passport records from 1965 and earlier may have been destroyed. In 10 minutes’ time they could produce the microfilmed records of all the passports she received including any from 1965 and earlier, but at least one person has been waiting a year to see those public documents that are easily retrievable and permanent.

I won’t even go into the records the HDOH is required to maintain permanently that they say they don’t have.

EVERY SINGLE piece of documentation the guy has is associated with some kind of foul play and/or obfuscation where at least one government agency is implicated in wrong-doing or cover-up. That’s just what we know from the records that are required to be made publicly available.

At this point the original birth certificate that Fukino referenced in her July 2008 statement is REQUIRED to be available to the public, according to Hawaii’s UIPA law. Fukino’s refusal to disclose that is a violation of the law. Apparently whatever is on there is more dangerous to her than openly breaking the law. Why does she break the law instead of disclose what the law requires? How long will you continue to believe her story without her showing any evidence even though she is REQUIRED BY LAW to do so?

I may never know what the truth is regarding Hagmann’s claims. Just like I may never know the truth about a lot of things. Until I have proof one way or another all I can do is have an informed opinion about it. But the behavior of the media heads and the track record of Obama’s thugs - as well as all the blatant law-breaking on the part of government agencies on Obama’s behalf, that I referenced above - lead me to believe that Hagmann’s story is credible.

Look at how Obama’s “friends” in Congress are treating the Chamber of Commerce. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2605225/posts (Oops. Meant to link to the WSJ article the thread is based on.)

One of the threats that was made to the media heads, according to notes taken by the administrative assistant at the meeting, was that the FCC would investigate the ownership of the media companies and possibly break up the ownership because of “diversity” requirements. I suppose any company that doesn’t have at least 50% ownership by card-carrying democrats would have to be broken up. Or 50% ownership by communist party members.

Or have to have enough Blacks (whose approval rate for Obama is at 91% - lotta folks not wandering off the government teat plantation, compared to the much more even numbers among all other groups except Muslims, who also have a ridiculously high approval rate for Obama compared to the general public).

All the while unions are international and have no such “diversity” (and the leftist Congress is pushing to make a law that would let unions campaign all they want while restricting business campaigning). And all the while the FEC overlooks the fact that Obama’s campaign specifically disabled the credit card function that would have disallowed foreign contributions. How many millions was it in contributions that the Obama campaign said it could not track (because they disabled that function)?

IOW, we’re seeing out in the open the same kind of manipulative tactics that Hagmann’s alleged witnesses say were threatened to keep the media companies from reporting on Obama’s eligibility problem.

What you say is an extraordinary claim (threats) seems to actually be standard operating procedure for Obama, his administration, and his colleagues including Congress. And now it’s even done out in the open, so they’re getting bolder with their tactics. What was formerly uttered in secret is now proclaimed from the rooftops.

I think it is odd that Barack H. Obama was apparently a recipient (of a grant?) from the January 1998 Illinois C H A & RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION SUPPORT MANAGEMENT ACT.

I looked to see how the buzzword phrase "Religious Instruction Support" has been used and found two cases, both of which involved funding the radical indoctrination of Muslims or building mosques:

this from http://aoe3.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=st&fn=2&tn=37793&st=170
Let's turn back the clock oh, about 40 years. Turkish and north African immigrants to Germany and France, respectively, looked to the German and French governments for support money for establishing Muslim community efforts and centres but were refused. The government of West Germany at the time (arguably rightly) decided it had no business giving funds or any other meddling in the affairs of a religious institution, and a foreign one at that.

They then turned to the Turkish religious charities and the Turkish government to provide or send standardized religious instruction support, and they too refused on the grounds that it would not be worth alienating a trading partner in West Germany. ... The militant secularism and modernism in Turkish government at that time also hampered efforts for Turkish faithful to receive a standardized Muslim education abroad (ironically, the standardized Muslim education available to Turks living in Turkey is one of the most progressive in history).

,,,and THIS from:

very few people know that during the 1980s and 1990s the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) indoctrinated several hundred thousand Muslim children in Islamic fundamentalism, violence, and hatred of infidels. [6] When those children grew up, some of them became Taliban soldiers, and some of them joined al Qaeda.

... The Afghan war ended in 1989, but AID officials continued to provide the textbooks until 1994.

". . . the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies.

The agency spent $51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994. . . . AID dropped funding of Afghan

programs in 1994. But the textbooks continued to circulate in various versions, even after the Taliban seized power in 1996."

The textbooks we are sending to Afghanistan and Pakistan today contain the same militant Islamic message, although American law prohibits AID officials from using our tax money to promote religious belief.

"AID officials say in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts. . . .

The AID spokeswoman stated: 'It's not AID's policy to support religious instruction,' . . . . But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children

...so then... The organization US AID funded "religious instruction support" which had included 'radical'izing Muslims in Afghanistan, and then I remembered... didn't Obama's mom work for US AID? Yes she did...

this from Ann Dunham's Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ann-Dunham/142108129139908#

Stanley Ann Dunham (November 29, 1942 – November 7, 1995), the mother of Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, was an American anthropologist who specialized in economic anthropology and rural development. Dunham was nicknamed Anna, later known as Dr. Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, and finally Ann Dunham Sutoro. Born in Kansas, Dunham spent her childhood in California, Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas and her teenage years in Mercer Island, Washington, and much of her adult life in Hawaii and Indonesia.

Dunham studied at the University of Hawaii and the East-West Center and attained a bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D. in anthropology. Interested in craftsmanship, weaving and the role of women in cottage industries, Dunham's research focused on women's work on the island of Java and blacksmithing in Indonesia. To address the problem of poverty in rural villages, she created microcredit programs while working as a consultant for the United States Agency for International Development. Dunham was also employed by the Ford Foundation in Jakarta and she consulted with the Asian Development Bank in Pakistan. Towards the latter part of her life, she worked with Bank Rakyat Indonesia, where she helped apply her research to the largest microfinance program in the world.

this from US AID's Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/United-States-Agency-for-International-Development/105725169461456

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is the United States federal government agency primarily responsible for administering civilian foreign aid. President John F. Kennedy created USAID in 1961 by executive order to implement development assistance programs in the areas authorized by the Congress in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. An independent federal agency, USAID receives overall foreign policy guidance from the United States Secretary of State and seeks to "extend a helping hand to those people overseas struggling to make a better life, recover from a disaster or striving to live in a free and democratic country."

USAID's stated goals include providing "economic, development and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States".

The 1998 grant was abbreviated: "C H A & RELIGIOUS INST SUPPORT MGMT ACT"

Grantor(s)  	Name: ILLINOIS SECRETARY OF STATE
Grantee(s) 	Name: C H A & RELIGIOUS INST SUPPORT MGMT ACT 
Grantee(s)      Name: OBAMA BARACK H

I believe "C H A" meant Catholic Hospital Association, or Catholic Health Association", and "RELIGIOUS INST SUPPORT MGMT" meant "Religious Instruction Support Management"

Remember Obama's NUN that was in the news recently, supporting ObamaCare? (Sister Carol Keehan)

"Sister Carol is the Washington voice of the Catholic Health Association, once called the Catholic Hospital Association"

And "Religious Instruction Support" has been a codeword for militant muslim indoctrination, and mosque building.

There’s a very simple explanation for why Vice President Cheney didn’t ask the question. Objections to the certification of Obama’s electoral college votes had to be submitted IN WRITING by at least one member of the House and one member of the Senate. The Vice President had received no written objections, therefore the question was moot.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hmmm .. the National Archives for the U.S. Electoral College says something quite different.

"*snip*

The Congress is scheduled to meet in joint session in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2009 to conduct the official tally of electoral votes.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, is the presiding officer. Two tellers are appointed to open, present and record the votes of the States in alphabetical order.

The President of the Senate announces the results of the vote and declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States. The results are entered into the official journals of the House and Senate.

The President of the Senate then calls for objections to be made.

(...also referenced by Cornell University Law School, and likely all authorities and credible educational institutions who reference historical fact.)

If any objections are registered, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and Senate. The House and Senate would withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of any objections according the procedure set out under 3 U.S.C. section 15."

___________________________

Most unfortunately, the above did not happen, the call was not made, as documented in the video of the actual event.

There ya go ... missed that one. Thank you very much. The video muffles the sounds, which omits all that transpired, according to this transcript

~~~~~~~~~~~

REP. CHAKA FATTAH, (D) Pennsylvania: This is the one we have all been waiting for. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of Florida seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the state of Texas received 25 votes for President, and Dick Cheney of the state of Wyoming received 25 votes for Vice President.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: Is there an objection?

KWAME HOLMAN: There was, from Florida Congressman Alcyee Hastings.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: Is the gentleman’s objection in writing, and signed by a member of the House of Representatives and by a Senator?

REP. ALCEE HASTINGS, (D) Florida: Mr. President— and I take great pride in calling you that— I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: (pounding gavel) The chair must remind members that under section 18, title iii, United States code, no debate is allowed in the joint session.

REP. ALCEE HASTINGS: Thank you, Mr. President. To answer your question, Mr. President, the objection is in writing, signed by a number of members of the House of Representatives, but not by a member of the Senate. Thank you, Mr. President.

KWAME HOLMAN: But that didn’t stop 13 other Democrats, primarily members of the Congressional Black Caucus, from stating similar objections.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: Is the point of order in writing, and signed by a member of the House of Representatives and a Senator?

REP. CORRINE BROWN, (D) Florida: Mr. President, it is in writing and signed by several House colleagues on behalf of— and myself— the 27,000 voters of Duval County, of which 16,000 of them are African Americans that were disenfranchised in this last election.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: The gentlewoman will suspend.

KWAME HOLMAN: The parade of objections lasted 20 minutes.

REP. MAXINE WATERS, (D) California: Mr. Vice President, I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electoral votes.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: Is the objection in writing, and signed by a member of the House and a Senator?

REP. MAXINE WATERS: The objection is in writing, and I do not care that it is not signed by a member of the Senate. (Applause)

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: The chair will advise that the rules do care, and the signature of a Senator … (Laughter and applause)

KWAME HOLMAN: Through it all, the Vice President tried to remain businesslike, but he couldn’t ignore the irony of the situation in which he found himself.

REP. JESSE JACKSON, JR., (D) Illinois: And it is a sad day in America, Mr. President, when we cannot find a Senator to sign these objections. New Democratic Senators will not sign the objection, Mr. President. I object.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: The gentleman will suspend. The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois, but — hey — on the basis previously stated, the objection is not in order.

KWAME HOLMAN: Finally, Congressman Hastings stood one last time to inform the Vice President his supporters had done all they could.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: (Laughs) The chair thanks the gentleman from Florida. (Laughter)

KWAME HOLMAN: With that, members of the Congressional Black Caucus quietly left the chamber. The vote tallying continued, and George W. Bush was certified as the President-elect without further interruption.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june01/certified_01-08.html

And illustrates my point EXACTLY!!! Gore asked if there were objections, keeping with the Constitutional rules! Tragically, and I’ll never understand why, VP Cheney did not ask. I still respect him so much, but .. golllly.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.