Obama: " All too often the United States starts by dictating…
... I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries
…The largest one, Indonesia. ... America is a country of Muslims, Jews,
Christians, non-believers."
Posted on 01/28/2009 6:17:15 AM PST by dascallie
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL What did president tell Supreme Court?
Lawyer in eligibility case seeks records of secret discussions
Posted: January 27, 2009 9:47 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily
A lawyer whose case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office was denied a hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court says she will demand records of a meeting between the justices and the president.
California lawyer Orly Taitz, who has several cases pending over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural born" citizen, told WND she will take action soon.
Her case was the most recent on which the Supreme Court held a "conference," an off-the-record discussion at which justices discuss whether to take a case. Taitz told WND the justices decided Jan. 23 to deny her case a hearing on its merits.
The result was the same for previous cases brought by Philip Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, as well as Cort Wrotnowski.
Like Berg's cases, Taitz said hers now reverts to the lower court, where it was pending when her emergency appeals were submitted to the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I’m no lawyer, but in order for the ex parte argument to hold water in this case, the court case would have to have been discussed. A traditional meeting of justices and presidents elect (both reagan and clinton did this, gw deferred)is what went on here.
The notion that Scalia and Thomas would be parties to an ex parte decision defies common sense. JMO.
Wow,, so top flight attorneys did it all for him pro-bono?
You think his agressive defense of these cases to keep his birth certificate secret was all done for free?
Work done in Hawaii,,California,, DC,, and where else,, Ohio i think? Numerous hearings,, and he hasn’t spent *anything*? Please.
I know it will never go anywhere,, but its not honest to say Obama hasn’t stonewalled and spent a million on this in top-flight legal fees. All when he could just release it?
Sadly, I think this is the correct interpretation of a series of previously unbelievable events.
The fact that anyone could stand for the office (or any government office) without having presented a valid birth certificate; should be unthinkable.
That a citizen of the United States would have no standing with the Supreme Court, on an issue that goes to the core of governance; should be unthinkable.
The fact that SCOTUS would fail to respond in a timely manner, and allow a questioned inauguration to go forward; should be unthinkable even though the court had reason to believe that the claims were unwarranted.
Above all, the fact that a presidential candidate would go to extreme lengths to suppress publication of a critical public record and thereby invite speculation in the first place; should be unthinkable.
Despite any reservations regarding the basic premise, the question "how did we get here?" remains.
Years ago I was treated to a government auditor's cheery declaration that, when contracting with the government, "the appearance of fraud is proof of fraud".
Having lived with that admonition for quite awhile, I find it difficult to totally write this one off.
Nonetheless, I agree that:
a) Nothing will come of any of these appeals (unless and until it is too late).
And, (b) the motive was to avoid riot by virtually half the US population when their messiah was jerked up short. Remember - we got violence and anti-Christian bigotry merely because California voted against gay marriage.
(Sorry, another long one)
Nonsense. He won an election.
Other evidence of Obama's reverence for the electoral process.
The notion that Scalia and Thomas met ex parte is supported by the photographic evidence.
Did Reagan and Clinton have cases pending before the SCOTUS at the time of the meetings you cite?
How does any of that stuff disprove that he won the election?
No. The point is that there hasn't been "an agressive defense". He wasn't even a party to most of these cases. Attorney's for him or the DNC have filed one or two motions to dismiss.
I think you nailed it. When not a majority, but still a *large* number of people doubt he is citizen, and think he is probably a fraud, why not reassure the concern if it’s at all easily possible? The question itself is also reasonable. His father is foreign, so is his step father, and he once held a foreign passport. Why is the question so crazy to ask?
Both Obama, and the Supremes could have easily ended this. The secrecy isn’t reasonable. I think we all pretty much understand why the press isn’t ever invited into Area 51 to look for flying saucers and alien bodies. REAL damage could happen to our REAL national defense. Not worth the damage to slay the fantasy. But what could it possibly hurt for Obama to defintively prove where he was born? I just don’t get it.
I started out expecting that he was going to let it build,,then any day he was going to show it and make an ass out of everyone. Now i wonder why he would spend a penny to defend his right to conceal it. Its very odd.
Probably the reason he put a copy of his birth certifcate online.
Not a party? hahahahahaaa Ohhhh i get it now! Obamy didn’t even know that it was going on! And,, why,,it wasnt aggressive,, those inexpensive DC attorneys just filed a few motions! And i bet they probably only spent 30 minutes looking at the issues, huh??
And i get it now,, *Obama* didnt spend the money on defense, the DNC did it!
You must be an lawyer,,the way you parse words. When you said Obama has not spent money on keeping his citizenship secret, you meant specifically,,as in from the checking account of “B. Hussein Obama”. The DNC doing it or his campaign lawyers doing it is an ENTIRELY different thing!
Wow,,, very artful.
Well anyway,, to the point,, i feel 100% sure it will never see the light of day at all, but where are you coming from? Where do you think he was born, and why do you feel certain of it?
Most of all, why won’t he simply release it?? He afraid someone will use it to scam a credit card in his name?
Please explain.
Today on NBCs Chris Matthews show, Bob Woodward was one of the guests on the panel, and during the standard Q&A between Chris and the panelists, a couple of curious things came out of Woodwards mouth.
The first thing that caught my attention was when Chris played a segment of the inauguration where Obama said we must begin again the work of remaking America. Woodward began his comments by reminding us of the if you will unclench the fist, we will extend the hand. He says its obvious the big difference between Obama and Bush & Cheney is that Obama is for diplomacy, but if you get right down to it, Bush and Cheney didnt really like diplomacy.
Next, Chris asked the panel about the troubles the Obama Administration might encounter, and Woodward again caught my attention. He said he didnt think the nanny and household tax problems were over for this administration. Chris remarked that we already know about Tim Geithner and Caroline Kennedy, to which Woodward responded by reiterating: I say its not over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1CU0S8P_fw&feature=related
Could Woodward be referring to COLB issues or Larry Sinclair's upcoming book about to be released? Or something else?
Discredited here.
He never did. That has been debunked. Sorry, nice try, but a scanned copy on a website he funded, proves nothing. It shows every sign of alteration and fraud. Starting with the fact that the number is obscured.
And if his intent was to “release it” why is it he won’t authorize any news organization or person, to view the original in Hawaii? It’s locked away. the info should be a perfect match to the one he put online,,huh?
everyone’s birth certificate is sealed, except to themselves and certain relatives, try getting G.W. Bush’s birth certificate from Mass. and see how far you get
There's no parsing involved. The claim is he spent various large amounts of money fighting these suits.
The facts are that he wasn't a party to most of them and did nothing to fight them, and where he was a party there was only a motion to dismiss filed. There is no evidence that he's spent anything.
Ridicule isn't evidence. You can make fun of it all you want, but those are still the facts.
No, it wasn't discredited. That video is nonsense.
It was not debunked. Some guy on the internet posted an amateurish "analysis".
"And if his intent was to “release it” why is it he won’t authorize any news organization or person, to view the original in Hawaii? It’s locked away. the info should be a perfect match to the one he put online,,huh?"
What is your evidence that any news organization has asked and been refused?
"It shows every sign of alteration and fraud. Starting with the fact that the number is obscured."
There are no signs of fraud. The number was obscured on the scanned image because the person that did it though it might be sensitive. But it's not hidden here:
So, in your view, the ex parte applies even absent a single shred of evidence that the court case was discussed?
Again, I’m not a lawyer, just a regular guy, but doesn’t the case need to come up for the ex parte to apply?
That would be President Obama. Every member of the military serves at his pleasure.
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.