Posted on 01/12/2009 10:21:48 AM PST by Jack Black
Pennsylvania attorney Phil Berg, who filed the first lawsuit on whether President-Elect Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for president, had had two requests pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, both called Berg v Obama. On January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court again denied Berg’s request for injunctive relief. Berg’s alternate request, that the Court take the case for full review, is on the January 16 conference. Odds are extremely high that it will also be denied, but that won’t be known until January 21. The Court is closed on January 19 and January 20.
Very good analysis!
“Bumper Sticker: An Obama + Our Nation = Abomination!”
Soros=Obama=Socialism!
Because merely producing a birth certificate wouldn't end it. Just read the threads on FR: some people are claiming that Obama planted a forged Birth Certificate in the Hawaii archives; some claim that he was actually born in Canada but his mother spirited him back to Hawaii in time to get a birth certicate there; some argue that even if he was born in Hawaii he lost his citizenship later; and so on. If Obama for one minute admitted that courts have some role in certifying his eligibility, he would be in litigation for the next 20 years. Instead, he has argued that courts have no role in this process, and has won in every court so far. Meanwhile, Congress certified the electoral vote without a single objection.
You said — “Will likely be denied again. Unfortunately, the evidence is on the people saying he isn’t a U.S. citizen. I don’t like it either and do question his citizenship myself. But, that’s how it works.”
Well, it does appear to me that it will go nowhere, in the end, with these cases. I say that because they don’t have the authenticated evidence that proves anything one way or another — and it appears the Supreme Court is not going to accept “evidence” that has not been decided upon by a lower court, first.
It sort of amazed me that many people thought that the Supreme Court was going to validate evidence in these cases, as if that’s what they do.
I did write a couple of things in other threads that indicate to me that those *in power* and with the ability to *know* and *do something* about this Obama Qualification issue, apparently know that there isn’t any problem or else they would have done something a long while back.
You can see the following for some of that rationale...
The following came from —
Obama’s Intelligence Adviser Involved in Security Breach (”cauterized” O’s passport info)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2163590/posts
You said — “Yes, where is the FBI and where the you know what is the Supreme Court?”
This thing happened way back when — “During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.”
It’s been investigated and we’ve got Secretary of State Rice involved (”Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice phoned Obama and personally apologized for the breach. ‘I told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody had looked into my passport file,’ Rice told reporters.”), the State Department Inspector General (OIG) issuing a 104-page report on the breach last July, and the State Department (in general, saying “The State Department chalked up the passport file snooping discovered in March 2008 to ‘imprudent curiosity’ by contract employees hired to help process passport applications”), and Acting Assistant secretary for administration William H. Moser sent a six-page reply in regards to the recommendations for correcting this type of breach.
Now, with all those people and agencies and investigations going on, it would seem *very apparent* that if there is a violation of the Constitutional requirements for the office of President of the United States (which would be clear from the passport), this item would be known by all those people, and it goes right back to George Bush.
Bush is sworn to uphold the Constitution, and obviously since he doesn’t see a problem there (and is in a position *to know* for sure, and “especially so” with Secretary of State Rice, being involved in this and being directly under President Bush) — that this is fairly clear evidence that there isn’t a problem. If there was, President Bush would be *duty-bound* to uphold the Constitution.
Of course, there are people like Berg, who think that Bush was involved in the attack of 9/11, too. And I suppose..., there will be people here who will say Bush is also “involved” in the conspiracy to hide the information about Obama not being qualified under the Constitutional requirements...
It’s amazing what conspiracy theorists will come up with, it seems...
And then the following, also...
Will Chief Justice Roberts Really Swear in a Complete Fraud?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2163073/posts
The article said — “At this moment in history, one man has the power to stop this monumental fraud and uphold the Constitution.”
Well, I disagree with the choice of the “one man” that they are talking about. I do think that there *is* — definitely — “one man” who does have the power and the ability to stop any kind of violation of the Constitutional requirements for the office of President of the United States — and who is *sworn* by his official duties to uphold that same Constitution.
That one man is President George Bush.
He has the power and the ability to not merely *know* all the facts, by mere commanding it from the Office of the President (having many agencies at his disposal, plus all sorts of covert ops at his disposal, plus secret agencies at his disposal) — he also has the *power* to put a complete stop to it, if there is a violation of the Constitutional requirements for office of the President of the United States.
But, by the fact that he is not doing so and will not do so — brings me to one of two possible positions — he refuses to do so, because he knows there’s not an issue with the Constitutional requirements (i.e., Obama is qualified), or he is “conspiring” with those who want to put Obama in office and will ignore the qualifications issue (i.e., Obama is not qualified).
Now, it’s possible that some may argue that Bush may not “know”, but that’s sort of ridiculous since it’s been to the Supreme Court and it would be saying that Bush doesn’t know what the Supreme Court is deciding on... LOL...
Maybe one might say that Bush doesn’t want to know, so he’s ignoring it. But, that’s saying that he’s intentionally ignoring his Constitutional duties. I suppose some may say that’s true. And if that’s true, then I put that in the “conspiracy area”, up above, that I just mentioned.
Of those possibilities, I would say that Bush obviously knows (and has the full power of the government, secretly and not secretly, to *know* without a doubt) that Obama is qualified under the Constitution.
I guess there are others, here — however — that will say Bush is involved in the conspiracy. Well, there is Berg, who also says that Bush is involved in the conspiracy involving the attack on 9/11, since Berg says that in his 9/11 Truther case...
I agree they are following the letter of the law. And for something like this they better. Clarence Thomas has all the information regarding this case, and has circulated it amongst the rest. Every single one of them knows all the issues. Berg supposedly has taped evidence from Obama’s mother, stating he was born in Kenya.
This is a procedural error on Berg’s part, in a rush for justice. I hope I don’t eat my words when Berg’s finally makes it back to the SCOTUS. Obama will already be in by then.
Supposedly. According to Berg's affidavits the interview with her was conducted in a language that she doesn't speak and in an ancestoral village she's never lived in. So it could be that Berg's writ was turned down because of Rule 10: "A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law."
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.