Supreme Court silent today on Obama's eligibility lawsuit

There's a good reason why the Supreme Court won't hear this case: It's stupid. They only do 80 cases each year and I doubt they're interested in wasting one of those slots on a really dumb issue. Instead they're going to deal with cases that actually matter to the people of this country.

If McCain had one I'm sure someone would've brought up a similar case about his birth on a Panama base. But that would've been equally stupid.

Haggs:

McCain's birthright case was thoroughly vetted by the hostile MSM last Feb/March and he was found BY THEM to be qualified for the job of president.

I just love it that all you doofuses have such vaulted opinions but NEVER DO THE RESEARCH. You know, opinions are like….whatever. The fact remains that Howard Dean and the DNC are either complicit in this apparent Barry Soetoro fraud, or or under a spell and not responsible for their actions - Which do you think it is? They did NOT thoroughly investigate anything about "Obama." One fact that can be determined by his Indonesian school registration is that at the very least they guy changed his name, through adoption to his step-dad Lolo Soetoro, to Barry Soertoro and never apparently changed it back, so IMHO Barack Hussien Obama, II, doesn't even exist.

So I'll continue to ask you KoolAid-drinking lefties the same question, and continue to get the same non-answer (Maybe third time is the charm):

Did you know that ALL of Obama's records are sealed. It is not just his birth certificate that he has had sequestered over the past two years. It is his adoption records, school records, including Columbia and Harvard, his application for the IL bar, his selective service records, etc. ALL HIS RECORDS have been sealed. Why? That's all I want to know, is why?

Here is a little Supreme Court magic for you to ponder:

"U.S. Supreme Court
SCHNEIDER v. RUSK, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, 1. [377 U.S. 163, 166]"

The question being presented now is: Is Barry Soetoro "naturalized" or natural-born. Can a child born of a foreign national be "natural born." Was Barry Soetoro "naturalized" EVER? Has fraud been committed?

And WHY THE BIG COVER-UP WITH ALL THE "SEALED" RECORDS? Geez.

Oh. One more question. Has anybody anything about Obama's aunt Zeituni Onyango? Anybody? Anybody? Buehler?

That's what I thought, me either. I have an automated news alert out for her name. Nada. Nothing. Where is she? Does she live?

Well, the reason it is important is because of her statement to the British press: Speaking outside her home in Flaherty Way, South Boston, on Tuesday, Ms Onyango, 56, confirmed she was the “Auntie Zeituni” in Mr Obama’s memoir. She declined to answer most other questions about her relationship with the presidential contender until after the November 4 election. “I can’t talk about it, I just pray for him, that’s all,” she said, adding: “After the 4th, I can talk to anyone.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5042571.ece

Well, it's after the 4th of November, and she ain't talkin.

She has disappeared.

The Supreme Court decides legal issues. It does not resolve factual disputes. In the suits over Obama's birth, the plaintiffs have not persuaded any judge that the president-elect was, in fact, not born in Hawaii. The Supreme Court would have no basis for reconsidering that basic fact.

The justices also review rulings made by lower courts, usually when there is a disagreement about the law. In these cases, lower courts dismissed the suits without handing down major rulings.

In Donofrio's case, he did not file a full appeal but instead an "emergency stay" motion with two justices. When persistent litigants file motions with more than one justice, the court's normal practice is to refer the matter to the full court. In Donofrio's bid for an emergency stay, the court's computer said it was "Distributed for Conference of December 5." This routine referral was treated on some blogs as though the justices had agreed to debate or deliberate on the matter.

If the justices think an "emergency stay" raises an important point, they ask the other side to respond. They did not bother to ask for a response to Donofrio's motion.

The court receives about 150 appeals per week, and all but a small fraction are rejected without discussion among the justices. Donofrio's is likely to be denied without comment on Monday morning. Berg's is likely to meet the same fate.

If you're conspiracy theories keep you warm at night, that's fine for you. I'd rather live in reality.

Oops, that was directed at Amy.

Yep. Just as I surmised, Haggs never answered my questions. BECAUSE S/HE CAN'T.

AC - the cases were not heard ("thrown out") at the lower court levels because of lack of a supposed "standing" of the complaintants, which is a legal cheat. Alan Keyes, an actual presidential candidate, and the electors in CA have "standing" and their case is among many elector cases with "standing" which are active. Many cases are making their way to the Supremes, these among them. They were not refused at the lower court level for lack of legal virtue or facts, just lack of "standing," with the lower court judges stating that allowing Obama's election to remain uncontested would not "harm" those bringing the cases, so they had no "standing." Right - A usurping, constitution-trashing fraud wouldn't harm each and every American.

So your above (quoted from another uncredited source, but I recognize it from interwebs reading I have done) contention is dead wrong. FYI.

Amy, why should I provide an answer for every crazy theory someone has? When someone says they saw Elvis at a 711, I just nod my head and then try to leave as fast as possible. Same thing here.

The Washington Times had a story on this today.

A spokesman for the court said the decision on whether to hear the suit brought by retired New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio is likely to be announced next week.

Perhaps the Court knows the ramifications of this are enormous and they are taking time to make sure this is done right. I doubt they are motivated by the Dec. 15 electoral college vote.

I thought this was funny - I grabbed it from a comment in the Times article above…

To all the Obama supporters who don't care about the Constitution, I have a new Pledge of Allegiance for you:

"I pledge allegiance to the President of the Blue States of America, and to Socialism, for which he stands, one Obamanation, under Democrats, indiscriminate, with poverty and abortion for all."

(Say while facing rainbow-flag and placing hand over wallet.)

You should read the comments on the Times article - many are good.

Oh, hey, look what I found:

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Haggs:

The FACT that Obama has sealed ALL his records that could reveal ANYTHING about his origins, religious affiliations, names or PAST is not a theory. It is FACT. Doesn't that make you at all nervous about the guy?

Oh, BTW - what you found is a certification of birth, NOT an actual birth certificate. Try to keep up. Also, that is Obama's website. Disingenuous.

Pastor Steve and Amy,
since you both think (and hope) that Obama is a phoney and will not be our next president, I ask you to put your money where your mouth is.
$50 from Amy and $100 from Pastor Steve to the Sioux Falls Lend a Hand program that provides snacks for SF children who currently go without, if the supreme court decides not to take on the Donofrio v. Wells lawsuit.
I'll donate $100 if taxpayers money is wasted and more important cases not heard, to contiune this debate at the highest legal level.

Steve, I think people only hate on you because you give them a really good reason to.
People hate on you and "your" church because you give others a really good reason to.
You preach the word and truth, which I have no problem with. I'm grateful for that.
But then you go home and update this little "hate site"
If you want people to actually listen to you, and be moved by you, you should try to talk about things more appealing and positive.
Can you not just make the best of things?
Do you always search for the worst in everyone, and then blog about it?
I would like seeing you run a site that's based on praising the pro-life way of being, and not a site that's just pro-choice(and everyone associated with it)bashing.

This comment is mean't to be constructive criticism, so please do not snap back at me. I mean everything I say in the best light.

God Bess.

N/A - Your comments are welcome here. I'll concede that most days there is more negative here than positive and I am regularly aware that I need to keep my tone in check. But come on? Hate site? Really? Would love smile at the darkness of dismembering babies and those who profit from deceiving the public?

Eighteen months ago, for a few reasons I decided to devote an entire blog to the greatest moral evil in America. Along the way there have been many good people as yourself who are just aghast at how unpastoral I can be in what I write. However, many others understand that the flow here is apostolic not pastoral and that, among other things, means I love what God loves and hate what he hates. This apostolic flow doesn't give me license to throw love out the window but it does explain why I mince no words exposing the purveyors of death.

I have friends who pray in front of the Supreme Court every day who tell this story… one day one of the SC justices walked out of the building and waltzed right up to them commended them for what they are doing - noting that he's watched them everyday for years - and then he commented something about the reason abortion doesn't go away is because there is no moral outcry. I think his words were something like, "Where is the moral outcry?" He's right. If the highest judge in our land sees it do you suppose the Judge of the Nations sees it? Most pastors are making peace with the fact that babies are dying every day as if they could do nothing about it. If there really is way to raise up a moral outcry to confront one of the greatest evils and demonic strongholds in our nation and keep it all positive I guess I haven't found it.

Read the first eight verses of Ecclesiastes 3 and you'll see there are times to love and speak niceties and other times to hate and tear down. The word hate is actually there as are the words "tear down." I hate Planned Parenthood and tearing down that stronghold would mean life to millions. I'd rather offend adults than know arms and legs are being yanked off living human beings just a few miles from right here and I said nothing except the positive.

You are right that some people hate me - I contend they would celebrate me if I was championing AIDS or something - but take up the plight of the unborn and the real hate emerges. I'd contend that more hate is coming at me than from me and that the tone in which I write can be justified Biblically. It's a greater sin to smile and say nothing in my view than say it too strong once in a while and have to retract.

A commentor here yesterday shared this link with me - sing a little louder.  It's related to those who want me just to stay in the church building and ignore what's happening outside and just say niceties and sing happy songs about God. I refuse to sing louder and drown out the screams. The blog is called Voices Carry in part because I think the haunting sound of the unborn needs to reverberate through the land. Hardly positive I know.

HAHAHAHAHA

The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. I'd rather go to a church where the pastor takes a stand and has a backbone than attand a church with pastor where "anything goes". God was not an "Anything Goes" kind of God. And if I'm off base, I want my pastor to tell me so. And if there is injustice in the land, I want my pastor to lead the way or help others as they lead the way to reverse the injustice. So, Thank You Pastor Steve. Thank you for being kind and caring and loving, but thank you for being strong and courageous and willing to take a stand.

We need more Pastor Steves who are willing to stand up for what is on God's heart.

not in charge - Enjoy your moment here. I'm surprised and then again not surprised the Supremes decided not to hear this one case. But, the Washington Post reported a few moments ago that this controversy is far from over. I'll wait.

This hardly means the lawsuits are over. There are two other cases at the Supreme Court, neither of which has been scheduled for consideration. The most celebrated is filed by Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa. There are others still at lower court levels.

AC - I don't bet. But I do give. Give your hundred bucks anyway, it falls far short of the generosity that is flowing from me toward the needy. But I'm sure it'll make you feel good.

I have a question for all of you who think the birth certificate question is foolishness.

Hypothetically, let's say it was true that he was born in Kenya, in your opinion, should the natural born citizen stipulation in the Constitution be ignored or should Barry Soetoro be denied office?

I'm asking if a little detail in the Constitution like this matters to you folks. I'll wait to hear from all of you. Haggs? AC? Not in charge? N/A?

DENIED!

looks like you're eating crow over at southdacola.com

Steve,

Hmm… that's a very interesting question. I really haven't given the natural born citizen thing much thought over the years. I once thought it should be ignored so we could have a President Schwarzenegger kicking butt and taking names. But that's about it.

But, seriously, should the natural born citizen requirement be ignored? Another question: what makes someone born in this country better than a legal immigrant who has become an American citizen? We're historically a nation of immigrants, so why can't someone become a citizen, get involved in politics and rise to the highest office?

I personally don't believe your tin-foil hat theory, but what if it is true? I don't know. We elected him. If that theory was true, would that make the election void? I think that would cause too much chaos in our government. Would Biden automatically become President? Would we have to hold another election and go through all that craziness again? Would the Republican party find a candidate that would survive in an environment that still thinks they're screw ups?

With all the problems America currently faces, I really don't think we need an ineligible president on top of that. I would worry about what would happen to this country while we try to figure that out. So, in this situation, I would be in favor of amending the Consitution to allow for non-natural born citizens to run for the presidency. If your tin-foil hat theory was true and it had come out a year ago, then a new ammendment wouldn't be necessary… but it wouldn't be a bad thing to have a national discussion about that.

Feel free to rip apart that opinion.

Even Michelle Malkin says let this issue die.

Wow, when the killjoy of Dunken Donuts says "give it up" maybe you should.
Hell she got DD to pull an ad because of Rachel Ray's scarf.

And since you're still in love with the Phillip Berg case maybe you and your followers should read this:

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/philip-berg-seeking-the-truth-of-911

AC - old news. We talked about that a few posts back. But thanks for digging up the dirt.

Haggs - thanks for answering the question. I'll wait a bit longer for the others.

Cory - the national review article today was an even greater ouch than Malkin. But Malkin did say… "There may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here"

I GUESS IF THE FAT LADY IS GOING TO SING SHE WON'T BE SINGING UNTIL FRIDAY AS THIS SHOW CONTINUES… the Supreme Court has scheduled the next case for Friday - Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut secretary of state. Supposedly this case is the same as the Donofrio case but lacks all the procedural hang ups that todays case had.

You can read up on that here… http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83113

South DaCola's creepy cartoon today was premature - save it until Friday fellas. Either way, I'm not eating crow. I'm following a story that I think has merit and you are all interested enough to banter back and forth with me and research it yourself. If you really are in no way suspicious of a man sealing all his records and hiring three law firms and spending a half a million to make sure this story goes no where then I suspect your eyes are closed and you are in full swoon in Soetoro's arms.

Interesting to me the MSM didn't say boo about this until today and then they all had something to say. That tells me they were nervous and didn't want to give this any fuel but they were watching it close and oh so happy to run the story that made news today. Cowards.

I will share this - the most convincing piece of evidence I've seen on Obama actually being born in Hawaii is the birth announcement in the paper. Everything else is caked with REASONABLE DOUBT - the "original" certificate the factcheck people say they have seen with their own eyes is recent and looks nothing like the originals of other born there at that time.

How about what uber-conservative David Horowitz has to say about it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/08/opinion/main4654696.shtml

The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, a demagogue who lost a Senate election to the then-unknown Obama by 42 points, should be a warning in itself….

_____
and it goes on, calling it "sore loserism"

and I also find it interesting how some "conservatives" want a few judges to overturn the majority vote of 64 million people. aren't they always complaining when it's the other side doing those sorts of things?

Fred said….I also find it interesting how some "conservatives" want a few judges to overturn the majority vote of 64 million people. aren't they always complaining when it's the other side doing those sorts of things.

In a republic - such as our nation is…it matters not what 64 million people voted for if their vote would violate the constitution….and a panel of judges is established to determine as such.

If we were a democracy, however, it wouldn't matter what any judge would say - if a majority agree.

Whether or not the case remains serendipitous or not sits to me as a paradoxical and nonsensical mechanism of banter. The pith of the matter being (in my consideration) irrelevant to the supposition of the totality in the condition of the state.

I 100% agree with Haggs. First of all, I think that there is absolutely no merit to these cases. I don't think you can reasonably expect Obama to have made it this far without conclusively proving his eligibility to the DNC, McCain's camp, etc…

Whether I'm wrong or not, however, I believe the Constitution to be amended such that any American citizen is eligible to pursue the Presidency. There's no reason a "natural born" citizen is inherently more qualified for the position than someone who's been naturalized.

Elizabeth - thanks for your comments. You are among many who do not see the original purpose this stipulation was explicitly put in the U.S. Constitution. But it's there. And there is a process to change it. However, until that process is successfully completed, everyone in the mean time is bound by what is presently there, like it or not.

If this lingers much longer in the news people will start to debate the reasons to keep it or change it and you'll start hearing why that stipulation was important and reasons why it is still important. Others will say it's time to change it and perhaps their reasoning will win out.

Fred - yes, there is some irony here that what is usually of benefit to liberals (the judiciary) can also come back to bite them. Do note the differences though - some judges write stuff into the Constitution (rights that ARE NOT explicitly there) and what we have here is a requirement that IS explicitly there that many are hoping the judges will overlook. I'm for sticking to what is explicitly there, not adding to it or taking anything away from it. Hope that helps you process the irony you note.

I am in awe - I seriously can not understand how so many people can continue to say "Drop it" and think that this is some conspiracy theory when in the truth is, tihs could all be put to rest if an original birth certificate were provided and records were not sealed. Can anyone else tell me of another presidential candidate or president elect that has been able to take office without providing ANY of their records? With everything sealed we know NOTHING about him and you're all ok with that? You're willing to just go off his word? Why? Because you know him personally and can attest to his honest and true nature?

I can guarantee you that if the tables were turned and the Republicans had a candidate that sealed their records and wouldn't allow anyone to see a copy of their original birth certificate many of you would be throwing a fit. In fact people had a fit because the VP Candidate for the Rep side didn't show her medical records in a timely fashion. She eventually did and to my knowledge Barry still hasn't.

Don't you get it, the only reason someone would seal their records is if they have something to hide. Can ANYONE on this blog convince me otherwise? Why would he seal his records if he had nothing to hide? Why is that ok with you?

Nikole, you put our thoughts into well written words. Thanks

State of IL "One Hell of a competitor" in battle for most corrupt state in the US, according to Robert Grant (Chief of FBI in Chicago) - and that's where our next President is coming from. Yey!

Making reference to Illinois as to bash Obama is like saying all South Dakotans are as nutty as you and Pastor Doo Hickey.

I simply quoted a statement made by the chief of the Chicago FBI of how corrupt the state is. To connect one to the other is a reasonable connection because they are both in politics in the same corrupt state. Notice that Obama said today he's never spoken to the Gov. and yet a month (or so) ago Axelrod (from Obama's campaign) said that Obama was working with the Gov to review a replacement for his Senate seat. Another example of Barry's never ending honesty.

I noticed you still didn't answer my questions. Why is that?

if Obama did anything illegal, then yes, he should be locked up.

however, there's no evidence of that, and there's lots of evidence the other way that makes it seem like obama would NOT play along with this guy:

- rahm emmanual turned in the guy to the FBI

- the guy was taped expressing hostility toward obama, and saying "they're not willing to give me anything but appreciation. %$%$ them"

-he was snubbed at the convention, being one of the few dems in office that didn't get to speak at some point during the convention

-he didn't stump for obama at all during the campaign. let me repeat, the gov. of obama's state wasn't asked to go stump at all, anywhere.

-one of Obama's aids was being considered for the senate seat, and she withdrew shortly after she had started being considered - we now know why

-fitzgerald says there's no evidence of obama being involved.

_____

Really people, in the face of all that, you go with omg! they are both from the same gigantic city and in politics! therefore, obama has done illegal stuff!!!

Barnes - I never said that Obamaa did anything wrong. I never said he was part of the scandal so don't make my statement into something it's not. I quoted the Chief of the Chicago FBI who made a bold statement that their state is one of the most corrupt states in the nation. This is their 3rd gov in the state of IL that has been brought up on criminal charges. I think it's ironic that our pres-elect comes from a state that is considered to be so corrupt.

I did not say Obama was directly involved or that he was even remotely involved. I do find it interesting that he said he has never spoken the governor and yet Obama's staff said a month ago that he was working with him to find a replacement. Why would he lie about this. Again, I'm not saying he had anything to do with this - but why lie?

AC is right - not everyone from IL can be covered with that one blanket statement. That was not my intention with what I said. I was simply making note that what Robert Grant said was a pretty bold statement about those who are in politics in IL which happens to be where our Pres Elect has gotten all of his political training.

I have to say - I still find it interesting that NO ONE answered my other questions, but instead jumped all over one little quote I made. Always trying to shift the focus.