[BP2]

Hoosiermama,

Good analysis from you and your dad. Knowing what I know from reading dozen of academic papers and doing my own critical research on NBC, I agree with your assessment on posts 24 and 35.

I'm unsure about post 37... I still question if a sitting Executive Head of State can be arrested in such a manner, without being striped of power first. Otherwise, the “police” control the Executive, which goes against many modern concepts on the subject.

Also, Obama would have to be charged with a crime. If the Constitutional definition of NBC stands with the last definition in the 1790 Naturalization Act, we could conclude that Congress only has the right to define NBC. Since it was revoked in 1795, it might be said that NBC remains undefined. Conversely, one may argue that NBC has always remained undefined and NO Naturalization Act has the power to define it unless it is in the Constitution. There are MANY, MANY ways to argue this...

However, if Obama is guilty of a cover-up, as many expect there, is still a process for that, too. But nobody wants to repeat Nixon, per se, unless it's purely for political goals by those that have the information. If it's “meant” to happen, documents will be leaked, and in such a fashion, next week, that the agencies that “hold” the documents cannot be “punished” if Obama somehow survives the ordeal.

A worse case scenario is if President Bush and/or VP Cheney do not relinquish power, at the guidance from the SCOTUS or because of their own executive decision...

and that's when things get scary.

If Jan. 20 roles around and this happens, in addition to the instability of the monetary system, public discord (which doesn't really bother me), etc., WHO does the Military follow?

That's what I dread the most, and hope the SCOTUS intervenes before Jan. 20.

On a side note, I can barely recall a time that the Republican “loyal opposition” in Congress has been so quiet. Cheney dissolved the EC vote count very quickly on Jan. 8, and IMO, looked like the bird that ate the canary.... very odd...

[LucyT]

Thank you, BP2.

Pinging JimRob, and Everyone to #81.

[NBC = Natural Birth Controversy]

Check out hoosiermama’s comments at # 24, 35 and 37.

[thecodont]

On a side note, I can barely recall a time that the Republican “loyal opposition” in Congress has been so quiet. Cheney dissolved the EC vote count very quickly on Jan. 8, and IMO, looked like the bird that ate the canary.... very odd...

What do you think this means?

[justiceseeker93]

Obama would have to be charged with a crime.

He will be committing perjury when he takes the oath of office and swears to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," if in fact he is not a natural born citizen. In that event, he will have broken his oath the instant he swears it.

[unspun]

I invite your comments on the pertinent points in this post, about Berg, Taitz' Lightfoot and about Pidgeon's Broe:

Alert: Historic Week & Month - to Breakthrough or Disaster - the I.O. Agenda

1. Congress voted Thursday, to "certify" the E.C. vote for The Unkown, Unvetted, Usurping President.
2. Friday, 1/9, SCOTUS apparently conferred about what to do with pesky Philip Berg. Do they now deign to grant him standing, this mere Sovereign Citizen? Then, on the 1/16, he gets another meeting of the Supreme How 'Bout That BOGUS POTUS Committee. Is Tom Waite right and does SCOTUS not like it that BHO has not responded to Souter's prior... invitation?
3. By Mr. Phil's TRSoL report, Berg v. Obama was not dealt a miscellaneous order Friday. SCOTUS disposition should be announced Monday, as is customary. Phil does a great job of putting this into perspective, here.
4. Attorney, Orly Taitz appreciates that Chief Justice John Roberts has sent Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page) to committee for 1/23. Wednesday's I.O. article and interview with Taitz here. Also, Orly Taitz' subsequent press release, over there. She exhorts more letters and other petitions from concerned Americans. Her cover letter to Roberts was an interesting move; maybe it helped, at least in citing some of the known references to the meaning of the Article 2 phrase, natural born Citizen. Be apprised, now: this Lightfoot is not a petition for writ of certiorari, it is an appeal for an injunction against the California Electoral College vote, which has already happened. To I.O's ken, Dr. Taitz will need assistance from someone licensed to present before the SCOTUS, if she wishes to petition for a writ (for full review, oral argument, and quite possibly, for such a thing as a reversal of an unconstitutional election). She describes Lightfoot v. Bowen as a "step," but at least it is a step to bring a federal candidate's standing, along with two of the three arguments against Obama's candidacy to the SCOTUS and we are in uncharged jurisprudential waters.
5. Orly Taitz is in hyperdrive. Maybe we should all pray for her safety.
6. What has been transpiring in other cases?: Obama legal challenge scorecard
7. Well, Broe v. Reed was dismissed, Thursday by the WA Supremes, which notified the local media instead of that first, before any contact with Broe attorney, Stephen Pidgeon, if at all. Huh. And to the SCOTUS Pidgeon will fly. He thinks the WA court, like their Secretary of State may just be saying, "'S'not my job, man" and for some reason don't feel encumbered with the qualifying of a presidential candidiate. If so, they hide in a nationwide cloud of confusion, due to lack of legislative procedure to support the natural born Citizenshp clause and that causes a further confusion regarding "controlling legal authority" (as Al Gore appreciators might remember, i.e., how he avoided prison, per his past foreign fundraising, Hindu monks and all). In Broe v. Reed, Pidgeon refers to all of the three major contentions with BHO II: 1. U.K. citizenship at birth via BHO I, 2. no valid proof of natural born Citizenship provided and, 3. apparent Indonesian citizenship as a child, revoking any U.S. citizenship. Pidgeon's Broe case did receive oral argument by the WA SC, which may help in terms of standing (with all the various "objective" elements for SCOTUS to consider, you do know that, at least for those justices unwilling or unable to apply the finest of epistemological categorization of constitutional law with natural accuracy, a lot of this is subjective for them, don't you?).
8. Schneller v. Cortes (based upon no valid proof of n.b.C. by Obama) was taken from Pennsylvania to Justice Souter, Thursday, in the attempt to delay the congressional certification of the Electoral College vote and whaddyaknow, Souter denied.
9. I.O. still finds it more than "odd" that after Donofrio was given the run-around by the SCOTUS clerks and Wrotnowski's filing was sent away for "anthrax testing," Taitz' Lightfoot filing was "lost" before Christmas. Perhaps more on that, later.

[Polarik]

On a side note, I can barely recall a time that the Republican “loyal opposition” in Congress has been so quiet. Cheney dissolved the EC vote count very quickly on Jan. 8, and IMO, looked like the bird that ate the canary.... very odd...

It sure sounds like the fix is in. I've listened to the shock jocks say that the two-party system is dead, and the way things have been going, THAT's my greatest fear, because it means we'll be having elections like they had in Gaza.