predictions

a mere twenty-four hours ago:

guess what is up for today?

first on the news will be: O-BOMB-A-CARE!

next on the news will be: holder won't be holding his job!

what a beautiful day this will be!!!:)

by seekthetruth

the whole law will get tossed because there is not enough pretzel logic on earth to find the mandate constitutional. and there is no severability clause. and there is no way in hell the court is going to wade through a 3000 page bill to try and create one.

the result will be much wailing, crying, and stamping of feet, culminating in a long-range leftist plan to undermine the supreme court (an FDR court packing scheme or something similar). it will become the bush v gore bloody shirt of the next decade.

electorally though it will actually help obama, as it will remove a huge unpopular albatross from around his neck. it will also get the catholic church to shut up about the mandate and many catholics will go back to voting democrat.

by buckeye mcfrog

SCOTUS will strike it down, POTUS will ignore the ruling.

by kosciusko51

by hotlanta mike

obama's responses usually have the flavor of vindictiveness, as in the arizona case. whatever his response, it will have to be an executive order, because most dems in congress just want this thing to go away.

of course, he will lash out verbally at both the republican party and the supreme court, but as to politically effective actions he could take, he may be boxed in. the most politically effective thing he could do would be to graciously accept the supremes' decision, but he won't do that. i hope he tries something, because it's just going to make it worse for his election chances.

by wayoverontheright

i predict there will be much sadness...

by vrwcArea51

me too, but not for us or this grand nation

by bornToBeAmerican

a constitutional crisis is about to be created, and obama, i hope, will be clapped in irons.

by candor7

and the rest, as they say, is history ...

birther on toast

u.s. army lieutenant colonel dr. terrence lakin is toast:

and he can't say i didn't warn him.

of course it's always possible that what looks, to both layfolk and seasoned practicioners, like a fatal drop kick to the groin, may be, to more astute eyes, a carefully orchestrated manuever in a larger overarching strategy:

if convicted, easy reversal and remand by SCOTUS [*].

this is a case where def[ense] adnits the alledged action but claims justicication in doing so, so pros[ecutor] must show "criminal intent." they are denying him the ability to show the lack of a "criminal state of mind," a "mens rea" in latin, a criminal intent.

[* supreme court of the united states]

umm, ok ... whatever.

or it's possible that he knows he's tilting at windmills and wants all the glitz and glory that comes with martyrdom — or at least as much as he can get from his cheerleading squad.

but whichever narrative is unfolding, everyone seems to agree that he's one step closer to his all-expense-paid vacation to fort leavenworth:

CNN — a judge on thursday denied a request for president barack obama to testify at a court martial for a U.S. army flight surgeon who refused to deploy to afghanistan until he saw proof that obama was born in the united states.

the judge, army col. denise lind, said any evidence or witnesses related to obama's citizenship is irrelevant to the charges against lt. col. terrence lakin, who has 17 years of service in the U.S. military.

after failing to deploy with his unit in april, lakin was charged with missing a movement, disobeying a lawful order and dereliction of duty.

the uniform code of military justice says the maximum punishment for both offenses -- missing his plane and disobeying lawful orders -- is a dishonorable discharge and up to two years in confinement. a guilty verdict could also result in forfeiture of lakin's pay, which totals $7,959 a month, according to a charge sheet provided by a group sponsoring his defense.

lakin's lawyers argued that all military orders stem from the commander-in-chief. without evidence that obama is eligible to be president, they say, the doctor's deployment order was illegal.

in addition to putting obama on their witness list, lakin's lawyers had asked lind to order obama's official birth records from hawaii be brought to court for trial.

"if the president is ineligible, you need to know that," lakin's civilian attorney, paul jensen, told lind. "col. lakin needs to know that, the government needs to know that, america needs to know that."

the prosecutors in the case argued that obama's eligibility is not relevant because the officers who ordered lakin to go to fort campbell and then ordered him to answer questions about why he didn't go were his proper superiors in the military chain of command, and they gave him legal orders. jensen later conceded that point.

the judge ruled that the matter of obama's eligibility is not relevant because he did not give any orders in the case. she pointed out that while the president is commander-in-chief of the military, it is congress that is constitutionally empowered to raise armies, pay them and equip them.

any contention that any orders are invalid if the president is ineligible "is erroneous," the judge said.

lind also said that military law says that a soldier's personal beliefs or convictions are not sufficient to allow that soldier to determine that an order is illegal. the soldier has to have "no rational doubt" that the order is illegal before he or she can ignore it.

finally she ruled that a military court martial is not the forum in which to determine a president's eligibility, because the constitution says only congress has the power to impeach and remove the president.

afterward, jensen said he respected the judge's ruling, but called it distressing.

"it completely deprives us of any opportunity to present a defense in this case," jensen said.

the court martial is set to begin in october, but jensen said he's not giving up on the matter of obama's eligibility.

"we will be giving the army court of criminal appeals in the next week or two the opportunity to take up the issue, and we are going to fight on for justice to be served in this case."

lakin is among 27 percent of americans who doubt or deny that obama is american-born, according to a recent CNN/opinion research corp. poll. they compose the birther movement, which demands that obama present a birth certificate signed by the doctor who delivered him in 1961.

CNN and other news organizations have thoroughly debunked the rumors about the president's birthplace. the obama campaign released a copy of a birth record issued by the state in 2007, called a "certification of live birth," and allowed reporters to examine the document in person in 2008.

last year, hawaiian state officials issued a statement that they had personally viewed the president's original hawaiian birth record, called a "certificate of live birth," and verified it to be authentic. state law bars the release of the original certificate. in addition, two hawaiian newspapers ran notices in 1961 announcing obama's birth in the state.

lakin's fate was sealed the moment he disobeyed his orders to report to duty. under military law all orders are presumed to be legal, which places the burden of contesting an order on the subordinate. there is only one perilous defense for disobedience:

an order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. this inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

but lakin wants to argue that:

1. his orders come from the president.
2. barack obama might not really be president.
3. obeying obama's orders could therefore be a crime.

unfortunately for lakin, his argument fails on all three points.

first, while obama is certainly his commander-in-chief, lakin's april orders to report came from his immediate superiors, as reflected in the specific formal charges leveled against him:

CHARGE I, VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ. ARTICLE 87

THE SPECIFICATION: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin, US army, did. at or near arlington, virginia. on or about 12 april 2010, through design, miss the movement of US airways flight number 1123. departing from baltimore/washington international airport arriving in charlotte. north carolina. in order to deploy for a temporary change of station in support of operation enduring freedom with the 32nd calvary regiment, 101st airborne division (air assault), fort campbell, kentucky. with which he was required in the course of duty to move

CHARGE II, VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ. ARTICLE 92

SPECIFICATION 1: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin. US army. having knowledge of a lawful order issued by lieutenant colonel william judd. to report to the office of his brigade commander. colonel gordon r. roberts. at 1345 hours. or words to that effect. an order which it was his duty to obey. did. at or near arlington, virginia. on or about 31 march 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully not reporting as directed.

SPECIFICATION 2: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin. US army. having knowledge of a lawful order issued by colonel gordon r. roberts. to wit: a memorandum signed by the said colonel gordon r. roberts, dated 31 march 2010, an order which it was his duty to obey. did, at or near arlington. virginia. on or about 31 march 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully not reporting as directed.

SPECIFICATION 3: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin. US army. having knowledge of a lawful order issued by colonel peter m. mchugh. to wit: temporary change of station orders 099-17. dated 9 april 2010, issued by colonel peter mchugh. requiring the said lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin to report to fort campbell, kentucky not later than 1500 hours on 12 april 2010, an order which it was his duty to obey. did at or near washington. district of columbia. on or about 12 april 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully failing to report to 32nd calvary regiment. 101st airborne division (air assault), fort campbell, kentucky.

SPECIFICATION 4: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin. US army. who knew or should have known of his duties at or near washington. district of columbia. on or about 12 april 2010. was derelict in the perforrmance of those duties in that he willfully failed to report to fort campbell, kentucky in accordance with temporary change of station orders 099-17. dated 9 april 2010, issued by colonel peter mchugh. in support of operation enduring freedom. as it was his duty to do.

note that the name "barack h. obama" does not appear anywhere in these charges, and even if it could be demonstrated that every military order traces back to the president, no court is going to agree that every latrine assignment since noon january 20, 2009 has been illegal.

second, lakin takes careful pains to avoid claiming that obama isn't the lawful president (possibly to avoid added charges of contempt). he only claims that he's unsure and just needs his mind put at ease. unfortunately for soldiers, there is no room for doubt in the chain of command, no matter how sincere. lakin is obligated to follow orders unless he has damning evidence in hand at the time of his refusal. asking for the judge's help to find the evidence that he's required to bring to court himself counts for real chutzpah if nothing else.

third, even if obama were proven ineligible, his orders would nonetheless remain perfectly valid, according to the de facto officer doctrine:

the de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

... the de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.

all of lakins arguments collide head-on with well-established mechanisms essential to maintaining military discipline and those mechanisms are designed to turn recalcitrants like lakin into toast, which he must full well know:

i attempted all avenues i could over a year ago. i submitted an article 138, which is the only way that i could research how to &mdash how to address this issue, asking and begging my leadership for guidance in how to — how to address this issue. and the answers that i got were not ...

... answers that he wanted to hear, apparently — confirmed by former JAG defense attorney charles gittins:

i told LTCOL lakin that he was being badly advised when he called me to join his legal team. i gave him my (very) candid advice. i told him to seek opinions from other military justice experts if he was not willing to accept my advice. he is where he is for a reason. i am very sad for him. he has been deluded by a very incompetent attorney, who has done a disservice [to] our profession and military justice.

now that lakin's legs have been predictably cut from under him, his attorney and his cheerleaders claim that he's not being allowed a defense. but the judge, rightly, wants lakin to defend against the charges he's facing. all that lakin's being denied is the opportunity to rant incoherently. during his trial for the murder of dr. george tiller, scott roeder was not allowed to rant incoherently about perfectly legal abortion procedures. instead, facing a charge of first degree murder, roeder was allowed only to explain if he believed someone's life was in imminent danger or if he were legally insane when he pulled the trigger, because those are the only justifications allowed.

as noted in the cnn report above, lakin's attorney has already been forced to concede in court that lakin's orders were legal. if that leaves lakin without a defense, the person at fault is not the judge.

the toast is ready. it is only waiting to be served.

gun control

the booman @ the booman tribune:

my position on gun control is that it is best regulated at the local level, even though it is impossible to establish meaningful gun control if neighboring communities are completely permissive. part of it is that i care about other issues much more and do not want to lose political power over the issue. but, having lived in dangerous urban neighborhoods, i do not support laws that would deny me the right to provide myself protection that the police are clearly incapable of providing. i think the second amendment is an anachronism, but the proper way to deal with an anachronism is to amend the constitution, not ignore it. but, the second amendment is a federal right. it says that congress can't restrict your right to bear arms. it doesn't say squat about the state or local governments. that distinction is about to change. conservatives on the supreme court are going to strike down nearly every local or state gun control law in the country. this is the price of letting bush get reelected. i dropped everything in my life and worked my heart out (for ACORN) to prevent bush from being reelected. this is why.

leaving some states at the mercy of more permissive neighbors is exactly what puts me in the opposite camp, in support of consistent regulations from the federal level.

because of the second amendment, and because i think the problem is massive oversupply, i think the focus of gun control regulations should be on manufacturing, distribution and destruction instead of focusing on ownership.

you can't reduce an excess supply by reducing the number of legitimate buyers; you actually acerbate the problem. and while you have a constitutional right to own a gun, you have no such right to sell one.

congratulations, sonia

... from the red-blooded all-american patriots at right-wing watering hole (emphasis on "hole") free republic, opining on the ascension of sonia sotomayor as the first hispanic¹ and third female on the 220-year-old supreme court:

anybody that supported this racist appointment needs to be removed from office at the next opportunity. i'm sick of the war on white males. it's gotten so that a white heterosexual man has to work twice as hard for twice as long to get half as far as anybody in a "favored" group.

oh maestro — cue the ...

---

1 ny times: a few people have argued that justice benjamin cardozo, who served in the 1930s, should be considered technically the first hispanic on the supreme court. he was a sephardic jew whose family believed its ancestors came from portugal. but the term "hispanic" was uncommon during that era, and it usually means people from the americas with a spanish-language heritage. on thursday, the hispanic national bar association hailed [sotomayor] as the first hispanic justice.

there goes the female vote

first, of course, it was the hispanics. but you knew the ladies were not long behind, didn't you?

from unreconstituted watergate ghoul and all-around professional creep g. gordon liddy:

let's hope that the key conferences aren't when [sotomayor's] menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. that would really be bad. lord knows what we would get then.

looks like they've whittled themselves down to the cranky old bald white guy vote now. and they've already lost jesse.

stay classy, gop.

update: gallup and quinnipiac break down the numbers ...

attitudes towards sotomayor nomination
Gallup	D men	D women	R men	R women
excellent/good	65%	70%	19%	33%
only fair/poor	20%	16%	63%	43%
NET	46%	54%	-44%	-11%
Quinnipiac	D men	D women	R men	R women
approve	79%	80%	18%	31%
disapprove	5%	4%	57%	40%
NET	74%	76%	-39%	-9%

looks like the daughters of the revolution aren't quite in the mood for the 24/7 republican hate fest. must be that time of the month.

quote of the day

from eric kleefield @ talkingpointsmemo:

rush limbaugh says that nominating sonia sotomayor to the supreme court is like appointing david duke. so why isn't he supporting her?

[rimshot]

there goes the hispanic vote

as lord limbaugh hands down his marching orders:

i doubt that sotomayor can be stopped. she should be. she is a horrible pick. she is the antithesis of a judge, by her own admission and in her own words. she has been overturned 80% by the supreme court. she may as well be on the ninth circus court of appeals, given all the time she’s overturned. she has been reprimanded by a truly strong hispanic judge, jose cabranes. she has been rebuked in writing by cabranes for opinions that she wrote that had no bearing on the constitutional issues before her in the case that was being decided. details on that coming up. but here is why, even though she may not be able to be stopped, here is why sonia sotomayor needs to be opposed by the republicans as far as they can take it, because the american people need to know who barack obama really is, and his choice of sonia sotomayor tells everybody, if we will tell the story of her, who he is.

bait taken, i'd say

quote of the day from think progress:

i really think one afternoon, [obama senior advisor] david axelrod leaned back in his office chair and said, "i know, let's see if we can get all the republicans to denounce the concept of empathy."

president barack obama, on supreme court justice souter's prospective replacement:

i view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes. i will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.

utah senator orrin hatch:

well, it's a matter of great concern. if he's saying that he wants to pick people who will take sides, he has also said a judge has to be a person of empathy? what does that mean? usually that's a code word for an activist judge. but he also said that he's going to select judges on the basis of their personal politics, their personal feelings, their personal preferences. now, you know, those are all code words for an activist judge who is going to, you know, be partisan on the bench.

rnc chairman michael steele:

good morning y’all, we’re back in the house. we’re talking a little bit of constitution and a little bit supreme court. and a whole lot of saving america’s judicial system and saving our rights as citizens and not having empathetic judges decide cases, but rather judges who are actually understanding the rule of law and what the constitution and those laws are all about. and how to apply the facts to the law and the law to the facts. and adjudicate my case. i don’t need some judge sitting up there feeling bad for my opponent because of their life circumstances or their condition. and short changing me and my opportunity to get fair treatment under the law. crazy nonsense empathetic. i’ll give you empathy. empathize right on your behind. craziness.

update: bush attorney general alberto gonzales:

i do worry a little bit, well, i worry, i worry about about justices on the court making decisions based on what they think makes them feel good. i don’t think it’s fair to expect society to anticipate the outcome of a case based upon what makes a justice feel good. in essence what you’re saying, i think, is that i’m going to, i don’t care what the law says, i’m going to come out, i’m going to pursue an outcome that i think is fair and just. i’m going to rewrite the law. and i think that’s dangerous.

certifigate: calling ken starr

it has the potential of being the trial of the century. winning it, by exposing obama as the charlatan that he is, against all the powers unlawfully at his command, would put the name of even an already accomplished attorney on the biggest pages of history. so where are the darrows and the bryans? after all, no less than the integrity of the constitution and the soul of democracy wait as helpless and as hopeful as a fairytale damsel.

so where are the mighty dragon-slayers of the legal fellowship? surely, the power of vanity alone should make the chance to litigate against the usurper himself, in front of the highest court in the land, all but impossible to resist for even the most hardened of cynics. so where are the dershowitzes and the allreds?

over in the land of the free and the conservative, at our favorite wingnut blog free republic, someone thinks he knows where ...

are you saying that if a "real, non-kook, big time and/or famous lawyer" presented any of these cases, even if the cases were exactly as they are now, they'd have a better chance?

the real, non-kook, big time, famous lawyers love to argue in front of the supreme court— it gives them great prestige, which leads to tons of lucrative work. i used to work for a very large, national firm, and they would do supreme court cases for free, or for a fraction of their usual fees, because of the advertising value of arguing before the court. the fact that none of the "usual suspects" (90% of supreme court appeals are argued by one of maybe 10 or 12 firms) has touched any of these cases is probably seen by the court (rightly or wrongly) as a sign that these are fringe issues.

... by and large, the lawyers who argue before the supreme court are an elite among the elite. i have practiced law for 30 years, and argued dozens of appeals before many federal and state courts of appeals, and i have never argued a case in the supreme court and will in all likelihood never get to do so.

... the elite nature of the supreme court bar is not just a matter of snobbery. the court hears only a tiny percentage of the cases presented to it, and each case it decides is going to set precedent for the whole country. they want to make sure that the lawyers who argue the cases to them are the best of the best, who won’t mess up.

... there are conservative supreme court advocates-- roberts was one before he got on the court, ken starr is another, and there are more. if a case presents an issue that the court may be interested in, these lawyers will call up and practically beg you to let them argue your case (heller for one, and kelo, for another-- kelo didn't come out right, but the homeowners had no trouble finding a top supreme court litigator).

... there are exceptions-- a public defender from oregon that no one had ever heard of before got a case granted by the supreme court a year or two ago, and set a major precedent. but it's rare.

OK you clarified it. if one of these obama suits gets a hearing, the lawyers will come out of the woodwork. the case gets accepted first then the slick lawyers beg second.

no, if the case presents an issue that they think the supreme court will take, the slick lawyers will call when the case gets decided in the lower court, saying "are you going to appeal to the supreme court? we want to help." that they didn't do that in any of the natural born citizen cases means that they didn't see any likelihood that any of them would be accepted by the court.

okay, so with the round table presumably taking a curtsy on slaying this particular dragon, just exactly who are stepping into their boots to take back the country from its alien overlord?

philip berg (pa): the first member of the certifigate brain trust to have been actually heard in federal court and on the merits. that case was dismissed as "frivolous and not worthy of discussion". not a good sign, but this crowd considers merely filing a application to be an achievement. berg is well known as a litigious crank who filed a racketeering suit against bush as a 9/11 co-conspirator. berg has also been found guilty of malpractice and ethics violations. currently suing obama and biden on behalf of a retired ready reserve colonel facing "the possibility of a conflict in his duties". also representing an internecine libel suit against fellow certifigater ed "bugs" hale (see stephen pidgeon, below).

leo donofrio (nj): a.k.a. "jet schizo" a.k.a. "jet wintzer". multi-talented indie rocker, professional poker player and retired lawyer, whose only certifigate winnings have been at the card table. sued presidential candidates obama, mccain and socialist roger calero as ineligible. challenged the authenticity of obama's birth records in a second case. both denied by the supreme court. as of feb. 1, mr. "the homeless are sending black helicopters after me" donofrio has decided to resume his retirement. (i heartily recommend reading his farewell post in its entirety.) i pass on having anything to do with military suing over POTUS eligibility. i don’t have the resources to guide such a litigation, nor do i see that any court would ever provide true justice after what i’ve experienced with my case and cort’s. i have absolutely NO faith in the US legal system. none. nada. zilch. zippo. ... i will now go on to display power via chess, poker, golf, film, art and music. the power i represent through my art is the boss. there is no other. god is champion of the universe. god is accurate, precise, all knowing, all powerful and prepared to prove that to you with a kiss. ... i am now going to step away from the POTUS eligibility issue and move on with my life.

andy martin (il): self-proclaimed "internet powerhouse" (!) and n.y. times-proclaimed "prodigious filer of lawsuits" who was once blocked from the illinois bar after a psychiatric finding of "moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character." once considered a congressional run to "exterminate jew power". claimed on fox news that obama was "in training for radical overthrow of the government". unsuccessfully sued gov. lingle of hawaii to produce obama's birth certificate.

orly taitz (ca): she'll clean your teeth while you await your next dismissal! this dentist-slash-counselor earned her law degree online from the unaccredited taft university. taitz seems determined to use the power of teh internets to rally flash mobs to badger functionaries up and down the judicial system into listening to her, including u.s. attorney patrick fitzgerald and the chicago fbi, especially after a network hiccup made her supreme court filings temporarily unavailable (obama's fault!). accused the high court of being in league with "a few billionaires, trilateral commission and the bielderberg group". currently demanding records of the jan. 14 ceremonial meeting between the justices and obama, and soliciting military personnel to sue the president. incredibly, taitz's antics are giving heartburn even to her fellow travelers in d'nile. donofrio on taitz: this is very bad language. NO SOLDIER NEEDS TO DISOBEY AN ORDER FOR THE ISSUE OF POTUS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PROPERLY LITIGATED. i do not believe the attorney meant to do harm, but the consent form is so incredibly dangerous that i must speak out about it. furthermore, i would counsel the attorney that they may be guilty of inciting sedition. please stop using this form and counseling people with regard thereto. currently trying to pretend that alan keyes is still picking up her phone calls.

alan keyes (ca): unlike his colleagues, keyes comes with a real resume. unfortunately, like his colleagues, keyes also comes with a real defect, of the hardcore christian fundamentalist bent. once a diplomat in reagan's state department, keyes has made a subsequent career as a perennial also-ran, having most recently been denied a seat in the illinois senate by obama, and the republican presidential nomination by mccain. as a political rival, keyes believes he has legal standing to challenge obama's qualifications. his case comes up in march. was a party to andy martin's failed suit against hawaii gov. lingle. currently running away from dr. taitz as quickly as possible.

gary kreep (ca): yep, that's the man's name and he's doing his best to live up to it. hardcore conservative activist. founder and head of the u.s. justice foundation, justice political action committee, the family values coalition, and in 2008, the republican majority campaign, which ran a shady-sounding under-the-radar phone and direct mail campaign against clinton and obama, an effort that, unlike its founder, obviously failed to live up to its name. declared his intention to "file suit to challenge each and every one of obama's actions as president". currently assisting alan keyes with his suit against obama.

stephen pidgeon (wa): conservative christian attorney who demanded washington's secretary of state "set aside the votes cast for senator barack obama, because at the time of the election, senator obama had failed to establish that he was a 'natural born citizen' of the united states, failed to establish that he was an american citizen, and that he was not running under his legal name of barry soetoro". dismissed without comment by both the washington state and u.s. supreme courts. his clients have declined to appeal. currently assisting bigfoot slayer, radio and internet self-promoter ed "bugs" hale empty the pockets of his listeners track down the usurper's elusive kenyan birth certificate.

mario apuzzo (nj): obeying the certifigate universe's law of conservation of litigants, apuzzo is the new kid on the block, stepping into the void left by donofrio. on inauguration day his clients filed a federal suit in new jersey against obama, congress, the senate, cheney and pelosi, seeking "to learn the truth about whether obama is an article ii 'natural born citizen'".

and there you have it, faithful citizens: the sole bulwark against the lawless hordes of the ineligible one. with the blessed constitution on their side, these budding legends will never tire and never quit — at least as long as the laws of conservation hold. the triumph of good over evil depends on it.

but, just in case ... ken starr, the red courtesy phone awaits you.

we're not your classic heros. we're the other guys. — mystery men (1999)

specialists wanted

to date, just two filings in the ongoing effort to uncover the truth about barry "the usurper" hussein soetoro-obama have been actually discussed on the merits. all have been summarily dismissed. when a constitution-loving natural-born™ citizen cannot be heard against an all-but-proven illegal alien, then something is very very wrong with our legal system.

well, enough is enough! thanks to registered voter and vermont patriot cris ericson (bless her freeper heart!), today the system gets fixed and the remedy is so glaringly simple:

class action lawsuit against president barack h.obama for fraudulent concealment of facts OTHER LAWSUITS HAVE FAILED, BUT THIS ONE WON'T! the worst part about the american judicial system is when judges dismiss claims based on lack of standing or lack of jurisdiction. claims that are not in the correct court or which do not have the correct cause of action, should be re-directed, not dismissed!

that's right — all we need is a system in which a breed of specialists, trained and practiced in unraveling the tangled skeins of the law and the courts, could ensure that every claim entering the system would be directed unerringly to its proper venue:

other lawsuits seeking barack hussein obama's original long form birth certificate were either filed in the wrong court or filed with the wrong cause of action; that didn't mean there was no valid claim. there are divorce courts, and family courts and probate courts and tax courts and criminal courts and civil courts and county courts and state courts and federal courts; how is a person to know which court to go to? getting the right cause of action is just as tricky as getting the right court. there needs to be a new system, file one claim in one court, then let court specialists sift it out to the right jurisdiction and for the right legal cause of action for standing. that would make a lot of new jobs, and save a lot of wasted money filing in the wrong jurisdiction for the wrong cause of action resulting in loss of standing.

what a wonderful idea! these "court specialists" could remove from plaintiffs' burdensome care the baffling responsibility of navigating our byzantine and broken court system, and could guarantee all ordinary plainspoken folks their constitutionally mandated day in court without having their grievances cruelly and contemptuously dismissed on a technicality or as an inconvenience to some self-important jurist!

imagine what it would be like if lay people could first consult one of these "court specialists" and be properly directed to the proper jurisdiction without going through the whole embarrassing rigmarole of dismissals and re-filings. these specialists would certainly relieve the entire court system, from the least of plaintiffs to the highest of judges, of a lot of wasted time and effort and money. it would be the kind of system that the founding fathers must have only dreamt of.

imagine what kind of everyday heroes these specialists would be, saving the little guy, the everyman, john and jane q. public, the nation entire, from the tedious chains holding down a system that no longer responds to the needs of the very people who empowered it! such heroes deserve a name, perhaps even a privileged place in our overtaxed system, given the invaluable service they could provide us.

why, we could name them ... "lawyers."

now if we could just find us one ... preferably for free:

ms. ericson is hoping to find an attorney licensed to practice law in federal courts to file a class action lawsuit, PRO BONO, on behalf of herself and other registered voters who want to know, and who need to know, and who allegedly have a legal right to know if the legal notice is based on material facts that would reveal that president barack hussein obama is not a natural born citizen, and may reveal that president barack hussein obama is a naturalized citizen. ms. cris ericson believes that the material facts that the legal notice represents may provide legal cause of action to allegedly prove continuing fraud in a fiduciary capacity against taxpayers and voters by president barack hussein obama, former vice president dick cheney, and each and every member of the united states congress.

certifigate: out with a whimper

january 20, 2009: the din of righteous battle in the defense of our sacred constitution against the marxist muslim obama-bot hordes has given way, for the moment, to a rare and quiet call for reflection in the normally boisterous hills of our favorite wingnut blog free republic. let's listen in:

with the inauguration of zer0bama today, it signals the end of a phase in the narrative of the certifigate scandal and the beginning of a different phase. the purpose of this thread is to look back on the old phase and try to learn what we could have done better, where we could have been more effective, what we would have done different, what we learned moving forward. ... even though it's as plain as day to some of us familiar with the evidence, zer0bama has been deemed to be qualified once he's sworn in. from that point onward, there is no longer any constitutional language about the eligibility, he is assumed to be eligible. the only way to remove a sitting president is by impeachment. ... if the SCOTUS didn't have the courage to take on zer0bama when he was president elect and the constitutional language was very clear, they will have less courage when the constitutional language is absent or murky and the guy has the authority to park tanks in the SCOTUS parking lot as a hint. ...

y'know ... this "reflecting" business is starting to sound just a little depressing! can we have a freepathon instead?

LEARNINGS media bias: this scandal showed the media bias to be more stark than they’ve ever been in the past. there was an almost perfect media blackout over this issue. it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just groupthink. how could we have overcome the groupthink? well, someone tried to buy ads in the MSM and they were refused. there’s a historical first. ... the thing to do is for wealthy constitutional conservatives to buy a few of these media outlets and start a conservative media. i don’t know anybody wealthy enough to do it. there would be an obvious aggregate wealth of conservatives getting together to buy outlets, but that is a cat herding project on a scope that is beyond what is foreseeable in the near future.

hey, freepers can dream, can't they? just imagine what they could do if they had their own media run by their own moguls ...

as another example of a form of media bias was what happened at intrade. i set up a thread to monitor this scandal and push for contracts. ... after all, what business is intrade in if not setting up contracts and taking money from gullible gadflies & such? but they never set up a single contract. does that mean they’re in on a conspiracy? no. it means they made a calculated expedient decision not to raise the ire of the likely next POTUS who will be in charge of the commission that oversees their activity. ...

yes, it's hard to believe, isn't it? the obamania's gotten so bad an absolute moran can't even throw his money away anymore ...

constitution: all of us learned more about the constitution in this certifigate episode. for instance, i didn’t know before this that the 20th amendment even addresses eligibility ... ... there are freeper lawyers who know more about the constitution, the appellate court processes, etc. ... all agreed this was a legitimate constitutional issue (it probably still IS). when the discussion proceeds to the minutiae of appellate procedures and minor points of legalese, i tend to lose track and probably so do a lot of other freepers. and, notably, those who claim to be lawyers don’t all agree on the significance of things (like cases getting forwarded for conference) or on how cases are processed in SCOTUS, what the chances of cert were, that kind of thing. it was confusing. how can we improve that situation? i don’t know, i toss it out there for freepers to consider and suggest solutions.

all that constitutional law stuff ... man, that's hard work ... i mean like really hard! does it really need to be so complicated that you can't just pick it up on a blog???

what else could/should we have done with the certifigate issue? what else did we learn from this go-round? i will kindly ask those who've been operating against us to refrain from the usual "give up the tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff" and gloating and contrariness. it amounts to dancing on the grave of the constitution; this is a constitutionalist website, so show some freeping respect. if you want to gloat or dance on the grave or whatever, start a thread and do it and ask us show you respect.

just a little respect for the dearly departed, please? that's all we ask, okay? 'cause today, we're all freepers, amirite?

let it go...sheesh.

let it go birthers.

poor baby, wants an echo chamber and all you got was this t shirt...(chuckle)

oh-kay ... so it looks like some folks aren't quite ready to make nice ...

eh, as far as i'm concerned it's over. i'll be watching tomorrow and monday to see if berg or orly's cases are accepted, but if they're not, i think the issue is effectively dead.

... you need to post it on your own blog. you put it up in a public forum, you get all kinds of viewpoints...thats what these forums are FOR, remember? including from conservatives like myself, that understand this is no different than 'bush knew', and KNOW this will be cited in the mainstream media as another 'example of FR being a hate site/kook site'. that you and those fixated on this ridiculous snipe hunt don't understand the damage you cause is the only thing surprising. no 'gloating' here and no 'dancing on the grave'. and finally, this doesn't warrant a thread from me. its that ridiculous.

you trolls just don't get it, do you? this is all about truth, justice and the american way!

what i learned is that the constitution means nothing as long as the people vote for an unqualified candidate, the electoral college ignores it, the congress ignores it, and the supreme court swears him in. in other words, the constitution is just a piece of useless paper. i'll remember that. my new attitude towards everyone and everything is, "yeah? what are you going to do about it. screw you."

yeah, tear up the constitution already. it's so 18th century. not letting go of this. troll.

thanks for showing your true colors. it's plain for all to see what you and others did to dismay constitutionalism on this constitutionalist website.

curse the day that i should have lived to see constitutionalism dismayed!

to me, there is nothing as important as truth. nothing. everything else is secondary or even further down the list. has truth been served in this election? i don't think so. those who taunt, naysay and sling words like "troothers" and "birthers" and "kook" around seem to have little regard for truth. ... if such people think that people like you, me and others who want the truth are idiots and kooks, what does that say about their desire to have the truth? anyone who says stuff like "move on" etc is not caring much about truth. and i'm all for trying to get real conservatives elected - heck, isn't that the goal? - but after four years of 0bama it's not going to be easier, it'll be harder. as a sort of side point, it is clearly that the GOP leadership [sic] need to be cleaned out like the augean stables. spineless, power hungry, egocentric with who knows what kind of hidden dirty laundry - they don't represent me.

i think much prayer and deep contemplation is the next step.

certifigate: freepers place their bets

with the impending coronation of not-my-president-elect barry "the usurper" hussein obama-soetoro now only days away, excitement that's been building since the election is finally coming to an effervescent head at our favorite right-wing blog. ever confident, the natural-born™ citizens of free republic are in an upbeat mood; the waiting is almost over.

in the longest thread yet seen (now clocking in at 1,640+ comments), freepers are gaming out every possible scenario — and more than a few impossible ones — for the last-minute rescue of life-as-they-know-it. now's the time, if ever, for all patriots who still love the constitution to double down and put their freepin' money where their first amendment-protected mouth is:

if something happens this week are you will to give a large contribution to free republics?

ah, a wager? i might be up for that, if you could be a little more specific. what exactly are you expecting to happen?

physical proof that obama is not qualified, was not born in the USA. you work out the amount with jim rob.

("jim rob" = jim robinson, founder & owner of free republic.)

ok, if physical proof is uncovered or announced this week which leads to obama's being declared unqualified for the presidency because he is not a natural born citizen then i will make a contribution to FreeRepublic in an amount to be agreed upon with you and jim robinson. i'll even set the week being from today, tuesday january 13th through noon, tuesday january 20th when obama is sworn in. to be clear, the proof only has to be announced or uncovered this week. if based on it obama isn't removed until sometime in the future then you still win.

and what do you do if it doesn't happen?

THE SAME

then we have an agreement.

and jim robinson has some cash — since, as we all know, the house always wins. ka-ching! viva las vegas!

while you’re in a betting mood, how about contacting FR-little jeremiah, keeper of the BC troll list, and approaching the obots with a ‘pay to play’ offer of sorts?

("BC" = birth certificate = the macguffin)

("obots" = obama-robots = certifigate doubters = saner folk.)

how about you two? you want to play hoo-mama’s pay to play?

how much are you willing to pay FR if they find proof that BO is not qualified?...

see above arrangement with NON for details.

not a problem. the only acceptable proof that bambi wasn’t born in the US would have to be proof that he was born in another country. if that shows up we’ll all have a party.

i’m in but i have six kids with a seventh on the way, so i need a stop-loss feature at $250. i say nothing will happen because there is no statute, case law, or constitutional mechanism to compel production, AND, given that that is so, the USSC won’t make new law.

if any court in the u.s., between now and obama's inauguration, holds that obama is not a natural born citizen, or orders him to produce proof of his citizenship, i will contribute $1,000.00 to FR. will you contribute the same amount if obama is sworn in by chief justice roberts on schedule?

now we're talkin'!!!

"physical proof"

too much weasel room on that one. that’s one reason why i like intrade. they arbitrate on the actual meaning and payout of the contract, and if someone wants to weasel out, they can’t.

("physical proof" = we're getting a little queasy = this ain't what we're used to dealing with here in freeperville.)

so what’s the intrade line on obama not being a natural born u.s. citizen?

no contracts posted yet.

none yet? you'd think there'd be plenty easy money to be made betting on such a sure thing ...

intermission time folks, go refill the popcorn and grab some fresh drinks.

good advice:

it's the little disappointments

... that always seem to hurt the most.

despite the seasonably bad northeast weather, in freeperville the sun's always up in the morning. and today the natural-born™ patriots of right-wing blog free republic had an especially good reason to bask in its warmth, for today was the day that the new congress counts and certifies the electoral votes cast in november, thereby putting its official stamp on the results.

freepers today is the big day. i'm assuming it's going to be on C-SPAN. i did not find a discussion thread so i'm starting one for us.

now why would freeperville look forward to the day that legitimizes and carves in stone the theft of the election by the "bitter" enemy of all who love the constitution — "the usurper" barry hussein obama-soetoro?

the answer, of course, is that all freepers love good theater:

i bet someone challenges the count, just one person.

i hope one will. ... if for no other reason than to make a symbolic stand ... and give me hope that a spinalectomy isn’t performed on everyone who enters DC.

i was hoping an elector from alaska naturally. we will just have to wait and see i suppose. picturing a scenario of what if, how would the MSM react? my guess is they will go into shock mode with constant red alerts on faux. if there was a contested scenario it could also open up other fracture scenarios, it could turn the tide in as such as the MSM going into shark feeding frenzy.

mmm ... popcorn!

that’s the only thing i’m hoping for. at least ONE person with enough guts to at least broach the subject. i’m not under any misconception of hope that it will change today’s outcome in certifying the vote, but if at least ONE representative, or senator brings it up at least it’ll be in the record.

i hope whoever steps up will run for president in 2013.

2013 ... ?

i predict we’ll have one congressman attempt to object and it will be ignored by the speaker as if no one said anything.

well, we all know by now how the afternoon matinee played out. obama-biden got all their pledged 365 electors. mccain-palin got all their 173. do i hear any objections? bueller ... ? bueller ... ?

i picked an awful day to quite drinking.

not one single comment about ineligibility issues.

seeing that cheney did NOT even offer an opportunity to voice objections does this go against procedure, or not?

... i’m wondering if there is a procedural rule regarding request for objections or not. if there IS, then the supreme court may indeed have something to say about it (not holding my breath on that either though).

3 USC 15 - section 15 "every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one senator and one member of the house of representatives before the same shall be received." if i’m reading this right, no one objected in writing beforehand, so cheney didn’t have to call for it.

the rep. from georgia failed to do what he said he would do. he must not have been able to get a crook from the sen. to join him! this is sad. no constitutional supporters in either house! of course if you ain’t got any you don’t need a jock strap!

they can certify all day long, it means nothing. until he releases documents to verify his past, he's a phony.

there is now no way to deny that the GOP has joined with the rats to form one big happy party. this was the design all along. now we have witnessed it. and they all just took an oath to uphold the constitution. they have no intention of ever doing so. now we will see amnesty, a trillion dollar bailout, energy DE-pendence, the complete devaluing of the dollar and of our personal worth, the emasculation of our military. make no mistake about it — we are in the pot, and the temperature of the flame is being increased incrementally. it only took ten years for this country to fall. from february 12, 1999 when the senate failed to do its job to convict a perjurious president to january 8, 2009, when not one member of congress objected to obama not being qualified under the constitution to be president. only ten years to lull the sheep to sleep, and to take away their will to fight. biden and obama will ensure another terror attack, the result of which will be to extend control over us in the guise of security. darkness awaits. we rebelled against england for less than this.

sigh ... those little disappointments.

well, we can always count on one thing — when freepers just can't find good theater anywhere, these hearty troopers aren't shy about supplying their own!

the certifigate kabuki crusade

when someone hides something, they have something to hide! i believe that obama’s original birth certificate will prove that he is NOT eligible to serve as president.

one of the entertaining sub-narratives running through the certifigate™ "controversy" tells of the epic struggle undertaken by barack "the usurper" obama and his brainwashed minions to forever keep his birth records — if they indeed exist at all — away from public scrutiny, especially scrutiny from the tireless, free, god-fearing, constitution-loving natural-born™ patriots of hardcore right-wing blog free republic.

after all, inescapable logic forces all rational citizens to conclude that ...

... there's no legitimate reason for obama not to simply release the document in question and put all this to bed. no president should begin his term with any cloud of doubt surrounding his legitimacy.

i am content to see how president obama reacts when foreigners start yanking his chain knowing how sensitive the birth certificate issue is -- else why doesn't he just release the standard form of his birth certificate.

you see, our most conscientious protectors of freedom are only concerned for the integrity of the incoming administration — for obama's sake. because this entire controversy is all of his own making!

this whole debate is unnecessary. obama should be made to show proof he was born in the US.

just show us the standard little-people form of your birth certificate and end this crazy stuff, mr. obama. TIA. (fat chance)

... he spends hundreds of thousands of dollars arguing the plaintiffs have no standing. i think he should spend the $12 and get a certified copy of the original long for birth certificate and present it at a news conference. what is he hiding? i make no claim that obama was not born in hawaii, but his strategy makes no sense to me from a legal standpoint.

once again the question arises: why would someone spend $800,000 to keep from producing a $24 document?

why aren't you asking the simplest questions, like: why doesn't he just do this, with so much riding on it? why spend upwards of a million dollars fighting the release of a $10 document?

he has spent somewhere around $1mil using 3 law firms fighting against showing his long form birth certificate. the only BC he has shown was on his dailykos web site and it was proven a forgery by no less than 3 experts. his word means nothing either.

(uh-oh ... did the great orange figurehead just get outed?)

if all the states enact requirements to produce a valid BC,will all the candidates spend in excess of 1 million dollars in each state to avoid the laws?

of course, the well-informed already know full well that there's no way in hell the usurper can ever release those records:

if it is so legit, why doesn't his legal team submit the "public" certificate of live birth to courts? would submitting a forgery be grounds for disbarment?

the constitution is nothing, if it is ignored. obama can resolve this by requesting hawaii send his certified long form birth certificate to congress. he won't. he knows he wasn't constitutionally eligible and so do a lot more politicians and judges who are just going along. it is a SAD day for the republic.

he can't make it go away.... he has no original BC to make it go away.

well, since one of his close advisers is ex CIA higher up, and had a look at his passport files illegally, i'd say a well made forgery is about to be sprung upon the courts. that is likely the reason he has stonewalled for so long, getting the best forgery money can buy and getting it into the vault in hawaii. the internet forgery could not be used to stand before a court so the new forgery must be so close to perfect that it will pass scrutiny. and many of the sheeple will exhale a sigh of relief even if they suspect the forgery. you know there are nine black robed oligarchs who will be relieved if he presents a really good forgery!

the obamanoids never address the most obvious question: if obama would produce a document for factcheck and his campaign website, why is he spending so much money resisting presenting the document to a court of law? ... i answer that by stating the obvious, he's afraid that the forgery will then be open for authentication and he cannot allow that even if he spends millions to keep it from a court's hands. he's spent close to a million sending lawyers and detectives to bury every scrap of daocumentation from his adult life. there is a very deep and abiding reason for such behavior, and it isn't aimed at being ‘open and transparent'.

this flattering fiction, of obama fighting certifigate™ with tooth and nail and tons of cold hard cash, of course ignores two cavernous plot holes. first, in common with most state policies for handling vital records, hawaii state law prohibits access to certified copies of anyone's birth and death certificates — not just obama's — to those unable to demonstrate standing to see them:

[hawaii state health director dr. chiyome] fukino, however, repeated the health department's position that state law prohibits her or any other officials from actually releasing the birth certificate, which obama's campaign says shows he was born in honolulu on aug. 4, 1961. "there have been numerous requests for sen. barack hussein obama's official birth certificate," fukino said in the statement. "state law (hawai'i revised statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. ... no state official, including gov. linda lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the state of hawai'i."

so i think we can safely conclude that "persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record" would include — you guessed it — freepers.

effort required on obama's behalf: zero.

second, none of the court filings pending or already dismissed (numbering at least ten thus far) have legally required any response whatsoever from obama or any of his representatives. he's not even named as a defendant in most suits. accordingly, there's been no reported pushback from the obama side — that isn't an unsourced talking point from freeperville. there's not a single shred of evidence that a single case has been anything but routinely ignored, thereby incurring not the expenditure of a single cent in fees, nor a single drop of ink, nor a single second of thought, much less a single molecule of sweat, on obama's behalf.

effort required: zero.

if anyone's been working up a sweat, it's the freepers. our stalwart heroes have been swatting at empty air the whole time, in a magnificent kabuki crusade, which, to be honest, is the only kind of crusade these keyboard commandoes know how to wage.

and some of the rank-and-file have started to notice:

i've tried to get this information on how much was spent on any of these cases and i can't find anyone who can document this. i've heard assertions, but they were always absent any documentation or even any rationale. i would like to see that documentation that outlines who spent what and where ...

well, the research indicates that people are guessing. that's all that is going on with those figures. once someone gets some documentation (which they haven't, and which is why it doesn't exist), then we'll be able to tell. at this point in time, we've got nothing but people speculating. another interesting thing that i saw, was that one poster was embellishing on another poster's figures. if it was one hundred thousand for a few days or a week, then it started to be two hundred thousand. then someone else would post three hundred thousand, and on it would go. finally it cleared one million dollars ... LOL... it was sort of like telling the story in another person's ear and they would pass it on. the last person had a story that in no way resembled the original story that started it all. that's what i've seen of those figures and that "one million dollars"... :-)

... but hearing such arguments mouthed by purported fellow freepers only further demonstrates the frightening reach and magnitude of the usurper's desperate, all-encompassing machinations!

... what does this little platoon of deceivers say about the obama that he needs deceivers workign the internet to deflect people from the truth about his deciets?

i am starting to think you are a TEAM of obama lovers and/or constitutional haters who roam this site looking for BC threads. ... this is our ball and we are going to finish this game. no one picked you for the team. go home.

you are useless as a FReeper and an american.

waver not, faithful freepi, for we have the usurper on the run! how the bards shall sing of our victories!

ianal*

well, i don't know about your weekend, but mine certainly lived up to all its hype. it was an absolutely perfect weekend for popcorn and freeper-watching ...

... easily the best since the election. on friday in "the supremes and the certificate" we got to see the hopes and dreams of all freeperville swell to symphonic heights as news of a dismissal of leo donofrio's supreme court application regarding president-elect obama's eligibility for office was not forthcoming, and for that day no news was indeed good news.

on sunday in "still room under the bus" we got to watch the long knives come out for campus thought-cop david horowitz, who penned a diatribe against "obama derangement syndrone" and urged his fellow conservatives to "shut up about the birth certificate". i don't think all his remains have been found and it doesn't sound like he'll be missed.

finally, on monday in "denied w/o comment" we got to see the whole sideshow come crashing down, as expected. quite honestly, for a club that worships manliness in all its most hyper-stereotyped forms, they certainly do love tearing up the aisles in their finest drama gowns.

so having just watched the summary disposal of first application for an audience before the supremes, what's left for a committed patriot to do in order to prevent a marxist communist muslim terrorist from turning the country into a caliphate forestall an impending constitutional crisis?

strategize, strategize, strategize!

this post at hardcore right-wing blog free republic pretty much speaks for itself [emphases mine]:

i met with my family attorney today for 3 hours to discuss family issues. the last 30 minutes he discussed the obama lawsuits. he is approximately 60 years old and has been practicing law full time for over 30 years.

he said that, despite popular opinions, the supreme court are not a group of predominantly liberal justices. in is opinion, the problem with the lawsuits is that if they reject the first one or two suits (donofrio and berg, for example) based on an unclear definition of what constitutes a "natural born citizen", then the precedent will established to dismiss future cases addressing the same point as the major thrust of their case.

so i have been WRACKING my brain trying to determine what would make a case with an alternate motive that might be considered worthy of a court hearing since the current ones are being denied and getting EXTREMELY critical reviews from the mass media.

i am not an attorney so my propositions set forth are just rudimentary ideas and ideally "viable" alternatives.

can someone make a case that barack obama is NOT the legal name of the representative the democratic national committee has nominated as their presidential candidate ?

by definition, nominate itself has its etymological derivation from the latin word for name ( nominatus, from nomin, nomen name )

basically, if the dnc has not fully verifying the legal name of their elected nominee, dnc could be guilty of falsely promoting a candidate with an illegal name.

can this be a form of "misrepresentation" — or "fraud" or "aiding and abetting" in promoting an illegal candidate. can they be liable for such a claim ? can they at least be indicted for this ?

most legal scholars familiar with these cases (including berg and many others) seem to agree that barry soetoro is mr. obama's "REAL, LEGAL" name !

many suspect that the reason all of the "unavailable" records of mr. obama's past are because he attended college as a foreign student ! didn't college affiliates refer to him as barry soetoro ?

ALL of hidden records might be hiding the same thing ! His REAL NAME !

1. occidental college records - not released
2. columbia college records - not released
3. columbia thesis paper - not available
4. harvard college records - not released
5. selective service registration - not released
6. medical records - not released
7. illinois state senate schedule - not available
8. your illinois state senate records - not available
9. certified copy of original birth certificate - not released
10. embossed, signed paper certification of live birth - not released
11. any articles you published as editor of the harvard law review, or as a professor at the university of chicago - not available.

can the question of his TRUE identity be used as an alternate argument for a lawsuit to get the court to order his birth certificate, hidden passports, and ideally, the additional records listed above ?

didn't mr. obama sign an application to take the bar exam affirming that he has no other name other than "barack obama" ? or is this another SEALED document ?

if no charge is made other than to VERIFY mr. obama's name, perhaps the courts would look more favorably on an application like this as opposed to one that is demanding and insisting that he is constitutionally unqualified to be our president. and if a case like this is heard, then others can argue as to citizenship later, or possibly claim that a 740 million dollar campaign was based on FRAUDULENT information.

instead of suing obama, can one elect to sue nancy pelosi ? she is the one who signed a certification that mr. obama was qualified to run for president ?

can one make the case that she is liable for proving his constitutional eligibility ?

i just cannot imagine that NOT ONE hospital or facility in hawaii can verify that mr. obama was born ANYWHERE in hawaii and ALL of the democrats (along with the mass media) are accusing the plaintiffs of these cases as 'chasing the wind' ! KILLS ME !

can one sue nancy pelosi and insist that she MUST supply the name of the hospital or facility where mr. obama was delivered, and in the event of her inability to prove such, then the real birth certificate would have to ordered by the court as evidence ?

can either the unverifiable name of the candidate or the lack of evidence of hawaii being his birthplace be used as grounds that a "misuse of campaign funds" is in question ? there are laws that govern both the acceptance and use of campaign funds and if there is evidence that these funds were misused, maybe the dnc would be liable to answer to such claims ?

reading and hearing these UNFAVORABLE reviews in the news is BEYOND DISHEARTENING ! i think we are in need of alternate ideas to reach our objective....THE TRUTH !

this is a quote from an msn.com ap article from december 8, 2008:

"at least one other appeal over obama's citizenship remains at the court. philip j. berg of lafayette hill, pa., argues that obama was born in kenya, not hawaii as obama says and the hawaii secretary of state has confirmed."

did the hawaiian s of s actually confirm this ? or is this a misquote? i would think this would be 'breaking news' if it were true.

one last comment, did ANYONE ever see the "backstage" footage from 2004 keyes-obama debate that was posted (and shortly removed) on YOUTUBE where obama allegedly answered keyes question on his citizenship with "that's ok, i am running for senator, not for president" ! this is not in any transcripts nor in the tv footage, but was recorded by a private individual off the main camera set. if anyone has seen this, they might be able to retrieve it on their computer via the "RESTORE" or "GO BACK" feature. It would be a CRUCIAL piece of evidence.

*shudder*

ugh — i would hate to be stuck inside this person's poor skull, with all that cramped, clammy, restless squirming gray matter flopping about all over itself like a slimy knot of vipers. and like the infernal itching coming out of that cesspit of stupid, having to face the too-quickly-approaching-reality of a president and commander-in-chief barack-you're-driving-me-HOOSSAYN-obama in-the-white-house-and-my-paper-and-on-my-tv for the next oh-please-god-don't-let-it-be-eight-whole-friggin-years ... it is an itch in a place that cannot be scratched.

still, as evidenced by the — let's say "restrained" — level of enthusiasm for continuing to fight the good fight, monday's rejection of the donofrio application seems to have broken the fever over legitimacy challenges that gripped freeperville over the past weekend:

won’t catch anything with the bate your using.....

maybe we should stop trying to sue our way to elected office? just a thought.

well, it adds up to the notion that marxist obama is certainly hiding SOMETHING!

i tend to think that given all the terrorists and criminals that obama chose (and currently chooses) to hang around with, that someone might feel (rightly or wrongly) in some sort of jeopardy, and flip.

i freely admit that this might be wishful thinking on my part.

sheesh. go judge shopping, find an activist court, sue till you get your way. no thanks.

if i don’t get my pie I’m going to sue him for that.

i'll let ernest thayer take it from here:

"oh, somewhere in this favored land
the sun is shining bright;
the band is playing somewhere
and somewhere hearts are light,
and somewhere men are laughing
and somewhere children shout;
but there is no joy in mudville
mighty casey has struck out."

* ianal: netspeak for "i am not a lawyer."

denied w/o comment

oh well ... despite much hand-wringing from the right, who were looking for the strongest validation available, and as well from the left, who no longer trusted the supreme court after bush v. gore, few folks can say that this result wasn't wholly predictable.

as we heard this morning, the diehard obama derangement syndrome sufferers just lost their latest attempt to get the land's highest court to grant real weight to their legal challenge to obama's november victory. this was an important loss because without the court's attention, the case has little if any opportunity to merit attention from the media. even "respected" "mainstream" conservatives such as limbaugh, hannity and o'reilly have kept their distance on this one. had the court accepted the case, the media rollercoaster would have jumped its rails.

it was an entertaining if not entirely suspenseful weekend, watching the semper fidels of free republic twist themselves into knots waiting for this decision. as an unabashed freeper-voyeur, i posted friday's entry "the supremes and the certificate" and sunday's entry "still room under the bus" to invite you to grab some popcorn with me ...

... and join me on the couch for what had to be the first really great sporting weekend since the election. after eight years of tolerating unfettered right-wing contempt and vitriol, few things provide such cathartic entertainment as watching freepers in turmoil.

so how is freeperville taking the news? silly question, i know.

first a statement from the applicant himself, leo donofrio:

the main stream media should stop saying scotus refused to hear the case. it was distributed for conference on nov. 19. they had the issue before them for for sixteen days. yes, they didn't take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. but they certainly heard the case and read the issues. the media is failing to acknowledge that. the case and issues were considered. getting the case to the full court for such consideration was my goal. i trust the supreme court had good reason to deny the application. despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. please remember that. it's important for history to record that.

of course, by dismissing the application, i'd say that the court just put it out of their minds.

surprisingly, at least one freeper agreed with me:

LOL ..., who is this "baghdad bob"???

sure, "i won because 'it's in their minds ...' "... that's a pretty good one ...

but in the land of the free(per), a true patriot never lays down his arms:

nay sayers, hold on now. as the MSM slowly starts picking this up, it's going to titillate the uneducated masses. there still is time ... but buy your guns and ammo anyway. no reason to take any chances.

well, if the masses find this soap opera as genuinely titillating as i do, then obama has nothing to worry about, if he ever did.

but as they say, never say die. after all, there are other cases in the pipeline waiting to be rejected considered:

[the wrotnowski case] makes number two, another was filed this morning makes three and then there is berg's, makes 5. sometimes in order to break the ice on the lake one must keep piling little rocks on top until it breaks.

hmm ... sounds like four to me, but who's counting?

it can be inferred now that you have two justices interested in moving this case. you need four justices.

all that is necessary is for one lowly judge to issue a preliminary injunction on either the electoral college casting its votes, or them being certified by the congress, or the issuance of an oath of office to 0bama. once that happens, all hell will break loose!

i guess it's not over until the "fat judge" sings.

clearly, what these long marginalized voices badly need and what conservatives have long been denied is a platform to get their message out:

what this screams to me is DUHHH! there is a HUGE opportunity for a conservative to buy up a few of these dying media outlets and start a conservative network. there's a lot of pent up demand. there's freepin' money on the table.

i know it's a long shot, but perhaps this is an idea we could get someone like ... i dunno, say, rupert murdoch interested in?

still, throughout greater freeperville, there was much gnashing and wailing and rending of garments:

the chicago tribune is reporting this? do we have a more reliable source of information this morning?

four justices had to vote to hear the case????? so you are saying that roberts, thomas, alito and scalia was not enough or worse are not really conservatives?????

this means that it is no longer the democrats fault for what is to come. blame is and will be placed squarely at the feet of the supreme court of the united states.

i would say "god help us".... but it looks like his response is "i have seen how you (usa) would thank me". bring your judgement god ... we deserve it!

i think we should swarm obama with copies of our birth certificates (i know ... stupid idea) ... but, i'd LIKE to swarm him with copies of our birth certificates. ... something is fishy for him to fight this so much ... anyone know the statue of limitations on what the hawaiian governor did (sequestering his bc)???

we will be hard pressed to deny anyone the presidency in the future. this ruling means that swartzenegger can run for president. maybe even valiente fox or cesar chavez.

oh, the horror! that even someone born in arizona (even a dead one at that), could possibly become president!

well it's OFFICIAL: the united states constitution is NULL and VOID! it's been fun while it lasted!

great. now nutroots on the right are as apoplectic about the SCOTUS decision IRT OHB as the nutroots on the left were about bush v. gore. time to by stock in the companies that produce paxil, zolof, etc, etc.

the nation that the founding fathers turned over to us is dead.

i just hope that they won't now say that the "donofrio case" sets a precedent and deny all subsequent claims ... if they make it to the SCOTUS in the first place.

if it ever comes to pass that his not eligible, I don't want to hear squat from the press or congress, or the DNC ... cowards all.

why can't the SC ask BO to show THEM his BC?

i'm afraid the political climate has changed beyond the point where those in power care about the rule of law or what the public thinks. representative democracy is nearly dead. peasants don't count for much in an elitist's eyes, until they pick up pitchforks and storm the palace. things will have to become very much worse and intolerable before that will happen here.

i'm at a loss. is president bush in the tank for obama? does he not realize that he, the commander in chief, swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states? why is he not spearheading the move to get to the bottom of obama's birth certificate issue if he is not part of a conspiracy to destroy our society and make us all a part of his daddies "new world order?"

please. help me out here. is president bush really so vane and worried about his own legacy that he won't do what is right or will he go down as the last great liberal to let the supreme court decide america's fate.

what good is electing a leader that purportedly defends us and our constitution abroad if he is letting our enemies destroy both the constitution and us from within?

"george w. bush: the last great liberal" — who knew? sounds like a bestseller ...

no longer is it: "we the people" but rather..."you people!" (kooks, nuts, radicals, on-the-fringe fruitcakes")

we might as well kiss the us constitution and the freedoms it grants americans goodbye. this proves the supreme court justices are part of the conspiracy to force an illegible alien, marxist, muslim on the american people.

if scotus lets this pass ignoring the constitution, then i guess that gives everyone carte blanche to ignore all laws.

there are times i have a secret desire the next wot attack is in LA, SFO, or D.C.

umm ... not so secret anymore, creep. thanks for sharing.

still, there is one consolation prize they can take home — at least the case is finally getting the prime-time attention it deserves:

funny how the MSM is picking up the story that it was denied — front page at HuffPost, MSNBC, DU, et al. maybe they were worried after all?