TODAY IS A BIG DAY AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT!

TODAY IS A BIG DAY AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT!!!

No. 10-446  
Title:
Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
v.
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
Docketed: October 4, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-4209)
Decision Date: July 2, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)
Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.
Nov 3 2010 Brief amicus curiae of Western Center for Journalism filed. (Distributed)
Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.
About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to TODAY IS A BIG DAY AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT!

  1. Aaron says:

    Any news or updates on this one yet? I’m interested in learning how it might turn out.

  2. Aaron,

    Sorry to keep you waiting for a response… I’ve been offline with family for several days.

    We should find out the Court’s decision around 10 a.m. tomorrow. The following is from the SCOTUS Blog this past Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010:

    On Monday at 10 a.m., the Court will release orders on cases considered at today’s private Conference.

  3. 10-446
    KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
    The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to
    file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a
    writ of certiorari is denied.

    I mourn for what was once a great Republic.

  4. Math says:

    You know what they say about people who do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result…

  5. The fourth verse of The Star-Spangled Banner

    O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
    Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
    Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
    Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
    Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
    And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
    And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
    O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

  6. (ORDER LIST: 562 U.S.)
    MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2010
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf

    10-416
    MONTEJO, JESSE J. V. LOUISIANA
    The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

    10-446
    KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
    The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

    10-560
    SCHULZ, ROBERT L. V. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, ET AL.
    The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

    OK, so Justice Kagan recused herself from MONTEJO, JESSE J. V. LOUISIANA…

    …and Justice Sotomayor recused herself from SCHULZ, ROBERT L. V. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, ET AL. …

    …but neither Justice Kagan nor Justice Sotomayor recused themselves from KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.?!?!!!

    Let that sink in…

    Kagan and Sotomayor did not recuse themselves in the case of Kerchner v. Obama

    …a case that, if heard on the merits, could lead to a decision finding Obama ineligible, therefore a usurper, and the very nominations of these two Justices would be null and void because the usurper did not have the authority to make the nominations…

    …and these two Justices did not recuse themselves when they clearly have a very vested interest in the outcome?

    Talk about a conflict of interest, and talk about a failure to recuse themselves when they clearly should have recused themselves!

  7. CNN has lied before in their coverage of the Presidential eligibility issue.

    Let’s look at how CNN reported on this story today…

    State birth certificate records show he was born August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    CNN states this as fact, yet these “State birth certificate records” have never been released from the State of Hawaii to any member of Congress for their inspection. The State of Hawaii has sent two different certificates, under seal, directly to the U.S. Congress, but they have yet to send Obama’s birth certificate records.

    And Dr. Fukino did not say “State birth certificate records show Barack Hussein Obama II was born August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii” in either of her news releases (October 31, 2008, July 27, 2009). In fact, Dr. Fukino did not say “Obama was born in Hawaii” until the U.S. House of Representatives said so first.

    If it is indeed true that …

    State birth certificate records show he was born August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    … then it should be proven by releasing said records, under seal, directly to members of Congress.

    And do it now, before Abercrombie takes office as the new Governor of Hawaii.

  8. Frin says:

    Gosh – how times haven’t changed around here. Its just like the good ol days when you sure that Berg was going to be granted cert and Obama wasn’t going to make inauguration. And Kagan and Sotomeyer weren’t on the bench then – must have been those other unpatriotic Justices that denied that one.

    That was, what, nearly 2 years ago now? 73+ cases dismissed without any success. You birthers are a stubborn lot!

  9. With the full court of 9 justices it’s the rule/vote of 4 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. With two recusals that would have left only 7 justices and it’s then the rule/vote of 3 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS were that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayer and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against Certiorari, and to require 4 votes to grant cert instead of 3financial conflict of interest and ethics be damned by those two justices.

    I remember seeing something a few months ago that hinted that the prior cases before the court had 3 justices who favored granting certiorari, but they had difficulty getting the fourth. If that is true, then it certainly appears that the reason that Kagan and Sotomayor did not recuse themselves is because if they had, the case would have been granted certiorari.

    This is a travesty.

    Follow the link and read all of the statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al.

  10. Math (from Canada) and Frin (from Australia),

    You have an unusual level of interest in this issue, being that you aren’t even in the U.S.A.

    But since this has brought you out to come mocking, please explain your views on section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

    And then tell me what physical documents the members of Congress personally inspected in order to support and defend this section of the Constitution (which they swore an oath to support and defend).

  11. Frin says:

    So, you suppose that there are 3 brave Justices who wanted to grant cert but for some reason sat idly by whilst Kagan and Sotomayer scuttled their hopes and dreams.

    Sounds unlikely to me. See p 26 of the order list that you linked to in your comment reporting the denial. Note that Alito specifically wrote a dissent from the denial of cert. Now, you would imagine if there are 3 brave Justices that wanted to grant cert, then they would have written a dissent in the order. But they didn’t! Those cowards!!

    I’ll answer your other question with a question of my own. What physical documents did members of Congress personally inspect when George Herbert or George Walker or Bill or Jimmy or Woodrow or Alexander get elected?

  12. Frin,

    Thank you for bringing p.26 of yesterday’s order list to my attention. Since the Supreme Court has said so little, it is helpful to compare what they have said in various cases. All four of the following cases were denied certiorari yesterday:

    No. 10-94
    Title: Whitney Harper, Petitioner
    v.
    Maverick Recording Company, et al.

    Docketed: July 16, 2010
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    Case Nos.: (08-51194)
    Decision Date: February 25, 2010

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    May 26 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 16, 2010)
    Aug 16 2010 Brief amici curiae of Charles Nesson,et al. filed.
    Aug 16 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Maverick Recording Company, et al. to respond filed.
    Sep 1 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 27, 2010.
    Sep 15 2010 Response Requested . (Due October 15, 2010)
    Oct 15 2010 Brief of respondents Maverick Recording Company, et al. in opposition filed.
    Oct 27 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 12, 2010.
    Nov 18 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.
    Nov 29 2010 Petition DENIED Justice Alito, dissenting from denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)

    No. 10-416
    Title: Jesse Jay Montejo, Petitioner
    v.
    Louisiana

    Docketed: September 27, 2010
    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Louisiana
    Case Nos.: (2006-KA-1807)
    Decision Date: May 11, 2010
    Rehearing Denied: June 25, 2010

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Sep 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 27, 2010)
    Oct 27 2010 Brief of respondent Louisiana in opposition filed.
    Nov 5 2010 Reply of petitioner Jesse Jay Montejo filed. (Distributed)
    Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.
    Nov 29 2010 Petition DENIED. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

    No. 10-446
    Title: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
    v.
    Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

    Docketed: October 4, 2010
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Case Nos.: (09-4209)
    Decision Date: July 2, 2010

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)
    Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.
    Nov 3 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism. (Distributed)
    Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.
    Nov 29 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism GRANTED.
    Nov 29 2010 Petition DENIED.

    No. 10-560
    Title: Robert L. Schulz, Petitioner
    v.
    Federal Reserve System, et al.

    Docketed: October 28, 2010
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    Case Nos.: (08-4810)
    Decision Date: March 23, 2010
    Rehearing Denied: July 23, 2010

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Oct 21 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 29, 2010)
    Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Reserve System, et al. to respond filed.
    Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.
    Nov 29 2010 Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

    So, what does that tell us about the Kerchner case? It tells us that Kagan and Sotomayor did not recuse themselves, and it tells us that if any justice(s) dissented from denial of certiorari, they did not feel strongly enough about it to write a dissenting opinion.

    I acknowledge those facts. And as I said earlier, I mourn for what was once a great Republic.

    As to the final part of your comment, “I’ll answer your other question with a question of my own”, I expected that you would do exactly that. Please answer the question.

  13. Frin says:

    Strange the things that make you mourn for the loss of a great Republic.

    Personally, I would have thought that the obscene amounts of money spent by corporations and unions (supporting both sides) at the midterm elections would have been more cause for concern than whether 2 Justices refused to recuse themselves from a case which wasn’t even about Obama’s eligibility (please note that the issue in front of the Supreme Court was about Kerchner’s standing – nothing more, as this was the only issue the lower courts decided).

    I’ll answer your question. I believe the members of Congress inspected the same documents as they have for the previous Presidents and Vice Presidents.

  14. Frin,

    Personally, I would have thought that the obscene amounts of money spent by corporations and unions (supporting both sides) at the midterm elections would have been more cause for concern

    This is a separate issue, worthy of its own discussion. If you want to know how I feel about McCain-Feingold regarding individual personal contributions read this. As for corporations, I would expect them to support candidates who support free enterprise over socialism. As for unions, given their connections to the Communist Party USA, I would expect them to support candidates who support socialism over free enterprise. Please provide a breakdown of how much union money went to Democrats vs. Republicans.

    But I don’t want to distract from the main issue in this post.

    2 Justices refused to recuse themselves

    When they had a very clear conflict of interest.

    from a case which wasn’t even about Obama’s eligibility (please note that the issue in front of the Supreme Court was about Kerchner’s standing – nothing more, as this was the only issue the lower courts decided).

    That’s actually encouraging. If the court truly only considered standing, and not whether or not Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” was the founder’s intent, then perhaps Pidgeon & Donofrio’s Chrysler Dealers’ appeal will be heard when it finally reaches the Supreme Court.

    I’ll answer your question. I believe the members of Congress inspected the same documents as they have for the previous Presidents and Vice Presidents.

    You have not answered my question. What physical documents, specifically, were inspected?

    I repeat what I said earlier:

    You have an unusual level of interest in this issue, being that you aren’t even in the U.S.A.

    But since this has brought you out to come mocking, please explain your views on section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

    And then tell me what physical documents the members of Congress personally inspected in order to support and defend this section of the Constitution (which they swore an oath to support and defend).

  15. Frin says:

    My points regarding campaign finance was not who supported who and for what reasons. The sheer amount of money that is spent in American elections is disgusting, and completely undemocratic. No single elected official, whether they be Democrat or Republican, is free from undue ties to corporations or unions or lobbyists. I think its the single largest blight on the American electoral system.

    The court did truly only consider standing, because it was the reason Kerchner was thrown out of the lower courts. Hence there is no conflict of interest – if the Supreme Court had found for Kerchner then it doesn’t automatically mean that Obama is ineligible. All it would mean was that Kerchner would be able to go back and resubmit his case to the lower courts for them to look at again, without the standing issue.

    And I have answered your question. Congress did what was satisfactory for every previous President. Why is it now a problem?

  16. No single elected official, whether they be Democrat or Republican, is free from undue ties to corporations or unions or lobbyists. I think its the single largest blight on the American electoral system.

    Obama promised to “CHANGE” this. Obama promised not to have any lobbyists in his administration. Obama lied.

    The court did truly only consider standing, because it was the reason Kerchner was thrown out of the lower courts.

    I’m not an attorney, and I don’t know if you are right or not. For now, I’ll assume that you are right on this.

    Hence there is no conflict of interest

    I disagree. Kagan and Sotomayor have a vested interest in this case not being heard, for if this case is heard, and Obama is found to be an ineligible usurper, then their appointments as Supreme Court Justices must be expunged from the record.

    if the Supreme Court had found for Kerchner then it doesn’t automatically mean that Obama is ineligible.

    I agree. If original, initial vital records are produced from the State of Hawaii confirming that the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, and if the court rules that the founders intended “natural born citizen” to mean the same as “native born” (rather than Vattel’s definition of “born in the country to parents who are its citizens”), then Obama would be confirmed as eligible to hold the office of President. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that both Obama and Biden must have their qualifications checked to ensure they qualify. Per the 20th Amendment, Congress is authorized and called upon to take certain actions if the President and/or Vice-President “fail to qualify”, and a prerequisite to that is determining whether or not they qualify!

    All it would mean was that Kerchner would be able to go back and resubmit his case to the lower courts for them to look at again, without the standing issue.

    Fine. Let the case be heard on its merits. And let the Original, initial vital records be produced from the State of Hawaii, not the Obama campaign headquarters.

    And I have answered your question.

    No, you have not.

    You have evaded my question repeatedly.

    Which physical documents did Congress inspect to qualify Obama and Biden? Tell me the documents, or you have not answered my question.

  17. The court did truly only consider standing, because it was the reason Kerchner was thrown out of the lower courts.

    I don’t think you are right about that. There were 4 questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

    QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
    PETITION 10-446

    1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

    2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

    3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

    4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

  18. Kathryn says:

    Its not an issue of it solely being Obama’s fault. Bush did nothing about it either. Nor Clinton before that. Etc etc. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats have the ability to change the system because they are indebted to it.

    As for the Petition for Cert that you provided – yes, those 4 points are what Kerchner and Apuzzo provided to the Court. However, Point 1 is the only one of relevance. Remember, this case is a continuation of the Appeal that was taken to the Third Circuit Court, after the District Court found that Kerchner did not have standing. Mario tried the same thing in his Appeal, where he attempted to have the whole case heard again, rather than just addressing the appealable point, ie. standing. The Supreme Court can not review Points 2, 3 and 4 because there is nothing there to review. No court has looked at these points for Kerchner, as he has never had standing.

    By the way, there is no difference between standing and the “merits” of a case. Standing is part of these case having merit. If you have problems with the very narrow definition of standing applied these days, thank the finding in Lujan vs Defenders of Wildlife – a majority decision from the conservative members of the Supreme Court.

    I’m not evading your question. My answer is simple. Congress did the same thing they did for Bush Jr and Clinton and Bush Snr etc etc. You can’t tell me the exact documents that were examined for them, and I can’t tell you the exact documents that were used for Obama. The point that I’m making is that I’m sure the issue of determination of Presidential eligibility was never an issue before. Why is it an issue for you now with Obama?

  19. Aaron says:

    “Personally, I would have thought that the obscene amounts of money spent by corporations and unions (supporting both sides) at the midterm elections would have been more cause for concern…”

    “As for corporations, I would expect them to support candidates who support free enterprise over socialism. As for unions, given their connections to the Communist Party USA, I would expect them to support candidates who support socialism over free enterprise.”

    Everyone supports causes that serve their own interests, first. That’s natural and usually a good thing…when those casting their votes are educated enough to understand what the real impact of the political platforms they vote on are. I.e. the real impact of “Vote us in power and we’ll give you cookies” platforms. More importantly, how such platforms DON’T actually serve their interests

    One point of interest with the spending of corporations is that they actually did NOT universally break with the Reps, as so many BSNBC talking-heads claim, the reality is quite different. If one looks at the numbers, you’ll find that the overwhelming majority of small to moderately large corpporations donated to the R’s, but the exact opposite occurred re the large and super-large corp, who almost universally donated their coffers to the Dems.

    I wondered why a corp would donate to a party that was actively seeking to pass legislation and taxes that would grind them into non-existence until I realized what was really going on.

    The largest of the corps, most with federal contracts (and connections) and deep pockets, could easily afford to just hire more staff to read through, interpret and maintain corporate compliance with the new red tape. Their smaller competitors cannot.

    In pursuit of their self-interests, the biggest corps actually support for greater government regulation (like healthcare take-overs and energy regulation) and tax measures NOT because they’re sacrificing for the “greater good” of whatever (though they do naturally exploit that angle to score some PR points). They support those because they can absorb the new costs associated with it while their smaller, more aggressive competition cannot afford to absorb those new costs. Thus a major firm like GE (who employs over 100,000 people) has less competition and corners the markets that they are in and has no fear of smaller competitors becoming a serious threat to their established positions. They can then raise the prices of their products/services to offset the costs incurred by the additional government regulation/taxes.

    So the biggest firms actually DON’T support free enterprise because it potentially threatens their positions. To the biggest corporations, the free market is like a bridge spanning a deep canyon between massive goldmines and affluent success from lifelong struggle. If you destroy the bridge after you have crossed it, you eliminate the pathway for others to cross and ensure no one can take “your” stash.

    Keep an eye on three major groups when checking donation records. 1. Mega-corporations; 2. Unions; 3. Attorneys. Their interests are NOT yours and they will always stand against the Joe Working Class and John Middle Class best interests. Mega-corps for the reason above, Unions because they stand to gain direct benefits from whatever (the, “vote for us and we’ll give you cookies”) and attorneys because every new piece of legislation added to the US Code is just more grounds for litigation and that is what they get paid (very handsomely) to do.

  20. Aaron,
    Thank you for that excellent and eye-opening comment. A century ago, “Progressives” were passing anti-trust laws to attack those “evil Capitalists” who had built large companies and employed thousands. Now, “Progressives” have infiltrated major corporations throughout the country (take a look at who serves on the board of the Chicago Council of Global Affairs with Michelle Obama, and what companies they represent), and their objective is to build mega-corporations and squash competitition. You are correct that they seek to make the barrier of entry so high that small businesses don’t stand a chance of competing with them. It’s all about power. When the “Progressives” were not in power, they attacked those who were in power. And now that the “Progressives” are in power, they will keep that power “by any means necessary”.

    ——————
    Grassroots vs. Astroturf
    January 12, 2010

    The Democrat[ic Socialist]s always like to pretend that they are the “party of the little guy”. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

    Even back in the 2004 election cycle, I noticed that a site called Fundrace.org really liked to display the “Money Index” when in late 2003 the leaders were:

    GrassRoots Index
    Who gets small contributions from all over America?
    #1 Howard Dean

    Devotion Index
    Who inspires repeat giving and financial sacrifice?
    #1 John Edwards

    FatCats Index
    Who gets large contributions from the wealthiest Americans?
    #1 George W Bush

    They didn’t like it when, once the race was just Kerry and Bush, the results were:

    GrassRoots Index
    Who gets small contributions from all over America?
    #1 George W Bush

    Devotion Index
    Who inspires repeat giving and financial sacrifice?
    #1 George W Bush

    FatCats Index
    Who gets large contributions from the wealthiest Americans?
    #1 John F Kerry

    Those results didn’t fit their agenda, so they removed the link to that page from the main page (and any other page). But, since I had bookmarked the URL, I could still get to it directly.

    Who was behind that? Well, it’s very interesting to see that if you type “www.fundrace.org” in your browser, it now takes you to “http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/”

    Isn’t that special?

    Democrats don’t really like transparency.

    Much has been said about how Obama promised on no less than 8 occasions that all of the healthcare negotiations would be broadcast on C-SPAN. He deceived people into thinking that the Republicans were the ones promoting the interests of Big Pharma and Big Insurance, and he was going to shine the light of transparency on them.

    But Obama never intended to keep his C-SPAN promises, because the truth is that Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al. are the ones who are truly promoting the interests of Big Pharma and Big Insurance, and they don’t want to shine the light of transparency on themselves. (Coakley’s recent fundraiser with lobbyists from Big Pharma and Big Insurance reveals the truth that Democrats, not Republicans, are the ones working on behalf of the Drug and Insurance companies!)

    As I blogged about that back before the 2008 elections, are Democrats “The Party of Regular People?

    No. Democrat[ic Socialist]s are the party that deceptively takes all of their wrong doings and projects them upon “the other guys”, the Republicans.

    ——————
    Which party is the fat cat party?
    By Michelle Malkin • September 1, 2010 12:38 PM
    ——————
    Which party do “fat cats” really favor?

  21. Kathryn/Frin,

    I’m not evading your question. My answer is simple. Congress did the same thing they did for Bush Jr and Clinton and Bush Snr etc etc. You can’t tell me the exact documents that were examined for them, and I can’t tell you the exact documents that were used for Obama. The point that I’m making is that I’m sure the issue of determination of Presidential eligibility was never an issue before. Why is it an issue for you now with Obama?

    I can tell you the exact documents that were used for Obama: NONE.

    Members of Congress did not inspect ANY physical, hard copy, original, initial birth certificate to validate the “birth narrative” of the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro). They outsourced their Constitutional responsibilities to an unelected, unaccountable third party that has connections (via Annenberg) to Soetoro/Obama: Annenberg Political Fact Check (and Soetoro/Obama was chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge).

    And, while members of Congress discussed and voted on a resolution to address the question of whether or not they thought John McCain’s Panamanian birth disqualified him from being considered a “natural born citizen”, members of Congress never discussed nor voted on any resolution to address the question of whether or not they thought Soetoro/Obama’s admitted birth as a British subject (passed from his supposed father to him) disqualified him from being considered a “natural born citizen”.

    So your assertion that “the issue of determination of Presidential eligibility was never an issue before” is demonstrably false. The “issue of determination of Presidential eligibility” was an issue in the very same election year that Obama was elected. Members of Congress only felt it necessary to question John McCain’s eligibility, but were too afraid of being labelled as “racists” if they questioned Soetoro/Obama’s eligibility.

    Why is it an issue for you now with Obama?

    It’s an issue with both McCain and Soetoro/Obama. Neither meets the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen” as explained by Vattel.

    And the Supreme Court was wrong to not address this issue.

  22. Aaron says:

    Wow dude, that’s awesome! Never thought I’d see a comment of mine make it onto a big name blog like that. Thanks!

  23. There are regulations concerning the seal that should be on any COLB that was actually issued by the State of Hawaii:

    The Seal of the Hawaii Department of Health has been in effect since 1988 when it was made a part of the HDOH Title 11-1 administrative rules: “§11-1-2 Seal of the department of health. a) The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape, two and one-fourth inches in diameter. At the curve on the top portion there shall be the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and at the curve on the bottom portion there shall be the words “STATE OF HAWAII .” At the curve on each side portion shall be a star. In the center of the seal shall be the Caduceus, a winged rod entwined with two serpents, which has long been recognized as a universal symbol of medicine. The Caduceus shall be encircled by an indentation, which shall separate it from the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and “STATE OF HAWAII .”

    At long last, a copy of the Hawaii Department of Health seal has been disclosed by the department directly. And this seal is consistent with the description of the seal in the Title 11-1 Administrative rules.

    But guess what? The “seal” on the “COLB” that was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago does NOT match the seal that was released directly from Hawaii, and the “Obama COLB seal” is NOT consistent with the description of the seal in the Title 11-1 Administrative rules.

    The pResident is a fraud and usurper.

    Unveiling the HDOH Seal

  24. Frin says:

    Mr Pill.

    I have no idea why you thought it was necessary to use my first name in addressing a comment to me. You are anonymous, and yet you feel it appropriate to use my name – is that the way that you try to score points? Are you trying to threaten me by indicating you have some sort of private information about me that you could use?

    Are your arguments failing that badly that this is what you’re resorting to?

    I’ve no interest in coming to your blog any more – you’re a coward.

  25. Frin,

    You used your first name.

    Kathryn Says:

    December 2, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    I didn’t know which name you wanted to go by.

    But when I called you Kathryn I did not reveal anything that you had not already revealed yourself.

    Are your arguments failing that badly that you must now falsely accuse me of “trying to threaten you”?

    “By indicating I have some sort of private information about you” that you yourself already made public?

    You feel threatened by that? REALLY?

    Is this what you’re resorting to?

    Absurd claims and smears?

    Yes, it appears that is exactly what you are resorting to:

    I’ve no interest in coming to your blog any more – you’re a coward.

    I think we have a Checkmate here, folks.
    The fraudulent seal on the fraudulent COLB.
    (Frin/Kathryn/whatever alias she wants to go by) has admitted defeat.
    She’s run away from the argument and called me a coward over her shoulder while she is running away!

    It’s quite humorous, and quite pathetic at the same time.

    Who’s the coward? The person who is running away from the argument… and running away from the truth… and smearing someone else as they do so.

    The state of Hawaii used H.Res. 593, not any record of birth at a Hawaiian hospital, to make the claim that “Obama was born in Hawaii”.

  26. Math says:

    But when I called you Kathryn I did not reveal anything that you had not already revealed yourself.

    It’s obvious she didn’t realize she had used her real name by mistake.

    Math (from Canada) and Frin (from Australia)

    I wonder when she revealed she was from Australia though.

    In the light of her mistake, it’s obvious why she chose to leave your blog and it has nothing to do with her admitting running away from your insanities. Your reaction to her mistake was quite pathetic.

  27. Math,

    It is relevant that you and Frin aren’t even posting with an IP address in the United States, yet have a high level of interest in Soetoro/Obama’s (in)eligibility.

    You have repeatedly come here to do nothing more than mock me.

    Do you have an explanation for why the seal of the fraudulent Soetoro/Obama “Certification of Live Birth” differs significantly from the official seal of the Hawaii Department of Health?

    Based on your reply above, I’d say the answer is “No”.

    Like a typical liberal, you don’t want to address the issue. You only want to call me names. If you continue that pattern, you will eventually be banned. Don’t waste my time. Address the issue of the fraudulent seal.

  28. Math says:

    What does that prove? They’re smart enough to create a fake COLB and all the narrative of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, like you call it, to go with it, only to screw up something so stupid like the seal? You are grasping at straws.

    Like I said before, forward that info to Apuzzo, Donofrio or Orly, and have them take it to a judge. The fiscal conservative that you claim to be will be glad to see them waste more tax payer money with their nonsense doomed to the same fate as all the ones before it.

    And your non-American argument is getting old. We live in a global world, the USA are a super power (for now), and your politics affect the rest of the world. Deal with it.

  29. I asked you to address the issue of the fraudulent seal.

    Real seal:

    vs.

    Soetoro/Obama’s “COLB” seal, which is significantly different and doesn’t conform to Hawaii Department of Health administrative rule §11-1-2:

    You have NO explanation.

    I do…

    I have always maintained, since June 12, 2008 when I first saw it, that the COLB is fraudulent.

    This is proof that the so-called “Self-authenticating” seal on the COLB varies significantly from the official seal of the HDOH.

    The COLB is fraudulent.

    It’s Obama and his supporters who are grasping at straws.

  30. Math says:

    Lol, yeah he’s grasping at straws, sitting comfortably in the oval office doing real work while you revel in your conspiracy theories.

    By the way here is the definition of “grasping at straws” (source: first Google result)

    1. trying to find some way to succeed when nothing you choose is likely to work.
    2. trying to find reasons to feel hopeful about a bad situation

    Explain to me again how Obama fits any of these 2 definitions when he’s been selected in the primaries, campaigned, won the election, won the Electoral College votes, was sworn in BY A REPUBLICAN SC JUSTICE, and has been serving as President for two years. Sound to me like everything has been working for him so far, so scratch definition 1, and he’s not living that bad of a situation as far as his eligibility goes, with case after case being laughed out of court, so I guess you can scratch definition 2 as well.

    You on the other hand, fit both definitions. With the abysmal results your gang has been having in court, nothing you do is likely to work. So that’s definition 1. And given the joy you expressed when posting about the Kerchner appeal being considered, and obviously rejected, you did quite a good job being hopeful about a bad situation. So that’s definition 2.

    For the seal, I have no explanation, I admit it. But neither do you. Your explanation makes no sense. If they spent so much money and time to build such an elaborate scheme (remember it started a few days after his birth when they called the newspapers to announce his birth in Hawaii), they wouldn’t have screwed up the seal (why invent a new seal from scratch if you can just fake the real one?). I have no idea why the COLB seal differs from that *supposedly* legit seal (forgive me if I don’t take a blog with a scrolling picture of a guy shotgunning a beer like cash to the bank on questions like this). That’s pretty much as much effort I’ll put into that. You can’t expect me to invest hours upon hours into this like you are. I don’t have to refute any of this personally.

  31. I said:

    It’s Obama and his supporters who are grasping at straws.

    You said:

    here is the definition of “grasping at straws” (source: first Google result)

    1. trying to find some way to succeed when nothing you choose is likely to work.
    2. trying to find reasons to feel hopeful about a bad situation

    Explain to me again how Obama fits any of these 2 definitions…

    Obama’s supporters voted for “HOPE” and “CHANGE”. The “CHANGE” they got was higher unemployment, record deficits, and record debt. They are trying to find some way to succeed when nothing they choose is likely to work, due to the policies of the National Democratic Socialists in Washington, D.C.

    Obama’s supporters are trying to find reasons to feel hopeful about a bad situation.

    Some have admitted that they voted for him for racist reasons, and they now regret their vote.

    Rock star wants his vote for Obama back

    Gene Simmons basically admits that he voted for Obama for racist reasons…

    He voted for the color of the man’s skin,
    not the content of the man’s character.

    (Which is why I said, even before the election, that Obama is not the fulfillment of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, but rather Obama is the antithesis of MLKJr.’s dream.)

    Many people voted for the color of Obama’s skin, not for the content of Obama’s character. Now they realize that the color of his skin doesn’t mean a thing, and the content of his Marxist, anti-capitalist character is destroying this country.

    No member of Congress has yet fulfilled their sworn oath to support and defend Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and no court has ruled that Founders intended a definition of “natural born citizen” that differed from the natural law definition as explained by Vattel.

    A fair number of “We the People” expect our government officials to support and defend the Constitution and the Founders’ original intent. And we won’t stop that pursuit just because people like you want us to. Too many people have paid with their lives to declare our independence, to earn our freedom, and to produce, support, and defend the Constitution of the United States – which gives us “A Republic … if we can keep it.”

    We intend to keep it. We intend to keep it a Constitutional Republic, with a limited government ruled by the rule of law, not a Democracy ruled by the changing whims of a simple majority.

    Maybe you’ll understand that one day.

  32. skeeter says:

    Obama ‘s sitting in the oval office “COMORTABLY” DOING REAL WORK. YES! The Bush tax Cuts. LOL!. Grasping at straws? Yes, in hopes it will result in his re-election in 2012.

  33. BirtherLover says:

    LTC Lakin… guilty on all counts. BIRTHER FAIL

  34. “BIRTHER FAIL”?

    Do you only seek to mock a man of integrity?

    Is that the best you can do?

    LTC Lakin had no choice but to plead guilty after the Judge denied his defense a fair hearing on the eligibility issue.

    By the way, Who are the Original Birthers?

    And the eligibility issue is not just a “birthplace” issue. It’s two separate issues:
    1) Are all published details of the Obama’s “birth narrative” 100% true?
    -a) If no, then there are serious issues here involving document forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.
    -b) If yes, proceed to issue 2

    2) Can someone born a foreign subject/citizen be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States?
    Note that Obama’s campaign “Fight The Smears” web site admits that he was born a British subject at birth because his father was a British subject, not a U.S. citizen.

    “BirtherLover”, all I want is to have those two questions duly investigated and answered by either the U.S. Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court.

    And all you want to do is to mock people of integrity.

  35. ©2010 drkate

    Ironic, isn’t it, when we as Americans have standing to be punished, but not enough standing to ask about our own National Security and its jeopardy under the Obama regime. So is the case of Lt. Col Terry Lakin, whose only ‘crime’ is that he asked that his orders be verified as legal.

    In a packed military court room at the Ft. Meade complex in Maryland, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin steadfastly faced Court Martial trial proceedings with family, friends and Patriots standing with him. Undeterred by the weight of the charges, LTC Lakin and his attorney, Neal Puckett, deftly executed a strategy that left the government prosecutors red-eared and shaken by the magnitude of their own mistakes and inability to articulate a valid claim.

    Recall that Judge Denise Lind, presiding over the Court Martial, denied LTC Lakin an opportunity for discovery and told him literally to ‘get another defense’. This decision is in my view reversible error as the Judge offered no legal reason why Obama’s records could not be retrieved except that they would be ‘embarassing’. Based on what knowledge, and what law, Col. Lind?

    And to that challenge, LTC Lakin and Attorney Puckett certainly rose to the occasion.

    [continued... Standing with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin]

  36. BirtherLover says:

    Really? Did he have no choice but to cry? Did butterdezillion have no choice but to go into Free Republic and say “I want to spit on the US Military?

    BIRTHER FAAAAAAIL

    “The defense presented two witnesses: an O-6 who deployed with LTC Lakin previously, and a CW3 who had also served with the accused, both of whom testified to his professional qualities and character. Lakin then gave an unsworn statement in question-and-answer format, taking more than an hour to explain his conduct. He said he understands the Army is not the place to get answers to his questions, and admitted that he made the wrong call in thinking it was. He was in tears during parts of his unsworn, and said he would prefer jail time to dismissal from the service.

    Colonel Sullivan reports that Lakin’s attorney, Neal Puckett, asked tough questions: you asked for this court-martial, didn’t you? Are you proud of what you’ve done? LTC Lakin said he was not proud, and that if he had it all to do over again, he would not actually refuse to deploy — in fact, he would deploy tomorrow, if he could. He denied having ever said ”you had your chance” — that statement, he said, came from his former counsel, Paul Jensen.

    The court is in recess until tomorrow. The prosecution will have an opportunity to put on a rebuttal case, if it chooses, and the defense can surrebut. The military judge will discuss sentencing instructions with counsel out of the presence of the members and then both sides will give argument. Judge Lind will instruct the members and they will retire to deliberate on a sentence. Barring the unexpected, the trial will end tomorrow.”

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/15/united-states-v-lakin-liveblogging-day-two-wrap/#

  37. I repeat, LTC Lakin had no choice but to plead guilty after the Judge denied his defense a fair hearing on the eligibility issue. The Judge denied discovery, and offered no legal reason why Obama’s records could not be retrieved except that they would be ‘embarassing’.

    Please name for me even a single member of Congress who has inspected the physical document proving that Obama’s “birth narrative” is true.

    And of the multiple members of Congress who debated whether or not John McCain is a “natural born citizen”, name even a single one who ever addressed the same question with respect to Obama, who admits to having been born a subject of another country.

    All you do is mock, and you’re either using a fake IP address, or you are posting from a small island off the coast of Kenya. Too cute by half.

  38. BirtherLover says:

    I repeat, did he have to cry? Did he have to state on multiple occasions that he knew the orders he had been given were lawful? Did he have to beg and plead for them to send him to jail but not to kick him out of the service? Did he have to fire his incompetent birther lawyer? Did he have to (and this is the part I love) sass his commanding officer, who was, at the time, THE ONLY LIVING RECIPIENT OF THE MEDAL OF HONOR???

    And, because you chose not to address this, did butterdezillion, whose site you have posted on many, many times, have to go on Free Republic and state:

    “This makes me want to spit on the United States military. I have never been so ashamed of this country at any point in my life. To have to sit down and grovel before Lind, to try to convince her that she’s holding up 3 fingers when he knows she’s holding up 1, is reminiscent of George Orwell’s “1984”.

    I can’t stand this.”

    http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/2642492/posts?page=40#40

    And boy howdy, just scroll through the comments to see how much the Freepers appreciated THAT.

    All I CAN do is mock, Reddy me lad. Because this is my natural reaction to incompetent failures.

  39. ShowUsTheBc says:

    What a travesty of justice… How can they just throw out his ENTIRE line of defense like that?

  40. Aaron says:

    It is quite simple.

    Within the military, the line of thinking from the Judge in this case was:

    “Who are YOU to question the authority behind your deployment orders?”

    I can state with subject matter expert’s authority that the military chain of command operates with this precept as a part of its foundations. There are (few) appropriate times and places to question orders handed to you, and they are clear, well defined, and drilled from the second week of Basic Training. There exists no right for military personnel to question their leaders’ authority. You can’t ask to see the Colonel’s promotion papers before doing something he told you to do; this is true from the youngest, just promoted sergeants; all the way to the SEC-DEF and even the President. Military personnel simply have NO right to ask a ranking officer, “Well, who left YOU in charge?”

    LTC Lakin’s defence was rightly thrown out because, while serving in the US Armed Forces, he had no right to that defense. Whether Obama is a legitimate president or not actually has no bearing in his case; LTC Lakin was wrong for disobeying orders solely on that ground.

    Note to everyone: Military personnel voluntarily serve a harsh dictatorship so that others may enjoy a free republic. Also, the leaders of the dictatorship do a good job at maintaining the trust of their ‘proles’, who are very disciplined and motivated in their service.

    Unless you’re in Canada…then it’s people voluntarily serving a clown-circus token force whose job is actually done by their neighbor to the south. (zing!)

    Second Note: USAF, 2W1, 2001 – 2008 So yes, I am a SME on military service.

  41. Aaron,

    Thank you for sharing your perspective.

  42. Note to everyone: Military personnel voluntarily serve a harsh dictatorship so that others may enjoy a free republic. Also, the leaders of the dictatorship do a good job at maintaining the trust of their ‘proles’, who are very disciplined and motivated in their service.

    One thing that sticks with me is Obama’s role in all of this. He is by no means “maintaining the trust of his ‘proles’”. Long before LTC Lakin disobeyed orders and missed movement, he asked for Obama to publicly release his long form birth certificate.

    Obama chose not to do so.

    Obama would rather see one of those under his command go to jail than to release his own long form birth certificate. I find that absolutely dispicable.

  43. BirtherLover says:

    hahaha… classic Red Pill.

    “Ah, yes, I completely understand why it would be detrimental to the function of the military for soldiers to demand paperwork from their superiors before following orders. NOW WHY DIDN’T OBAMA PROVIDE HIS PAPERWORK WHEN IT WAS DEMANDED OF HIM???”

    My favorite part of today is I think the birthers have started to read the military blogs, and specifically the comments. They’re slowly coming around to the idea that they’re not going to get their violent military uprising. Not that I was particularly concerned anyway, the average birther age seems to be around 58 and they tend to be… let’s say “portly.”

  44. “BirtherLover”,

    All military personnel swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is what LTC Lakin was doing. I was not at the Court Martial, reports from those who were say that the prosecution told the jury not to let the Constitution cloud the issue and that the military is there to fight wars.

    No, the military is there to support and defend the Constitution.

    My favorite part of today is I think the birthers have started to read the military blogs, and specifically the comments. They’re slowly coming around to the idea that they’re not going to get their violent military uprising.

    I have never called for a “violent military uprising”. Your comment is inappropriate and neither it nor you are welcome here.

  45. skeeter says:

    Birthers win. Several states gearing up to require all presidential hopefuls prove eligibility before the Secretary of State can certify a candidate. We only need one state to pass such a law/rule in order to force Obama’s ID or lack thereof.
    Only an officer can issue a direct order. Lakin may prove his case yet through the States without any input from the Army. The question then is will Lakin still be guilty in the eyes of the Army if and when Obama refuses to prove his elligibility to run for president next time around. Lakin’s deployment orders were signed and issued by Obama himself.

  46. Washington Examiner Columnist Diana West:
    Army surgeon’s challenge to Obama remains despite guilty plea

    …Lakin put his life, in the sense of his distinguished 17-year career as an Army surgeon, his income, his pension, and his personal freedom, on the line because of his sworn duty to the U.S. Constitution.

    All members of the US military take the following oath:

    “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. …”

    To Lakin, the words “true faith and allegiance” were a call to action. And so, because the current president of the United States has never released the paperwork necessary to establish his legitimacy as a “natural-born citizen,” Lakin took action…

    This week’s guilty verdict settles nothing.

    On the contrary, it leaves the question in boldface: What could possibly prevent the president from showing the American people his original, 1961 birth certificate?

    What remains to be seen is whether there exists any authority, any leader in this whole country with the courage of a Terry Lakin to ask.

    The Electoral College vote of 2008 was not properly certified. (See: Dick Cheney Broke the Law) What would happen if even 1 Representative and 1 Senator brought up the objection that if Obama’s birth narrative is 100% true then he was born a British subject and a therefore not a “natural born citizen” by natural law, and therefore not eligible to hold the office of President, and if Obama’s birth narrative is not 100% true then he is guilty of perjury, forgery, obstruction of justice, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Either way, Obama is not qualified to hold the office of President, and since the Electoral College vote of 2008 was not properly certified, it is not too late to raise objections.

    The Congress has a duty under Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to ensure that the President and Vice-President qualify. So far, they have failed in this duty. But what would happen if even 1 Representative and 1 Senator upheld this Constitutional duty?

  47. skeeter says:

    Lakin pled guilty to disobeying orders from a superior officer who was following orders issued from an even higher source. Lakin never had the opportunity to plead one way or the other in regards to his challenge to the integrity of the chain of command that went to USCIC.

    “The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.”

    Lakin questions whether or not the president himself is in violation of the Constution. Is Obama elligibile to issue a “LAWFUL” order to the US Armed Forces, or any other government agency or organization for that matter? Lakin is defending the US Constitution and the UCMJ.

    “Typically, military enlistment entails a six-year service obligation, usually divided between active and reserve duty. Enlistees agree to abide by the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, (UCMJ) obey lawful orders, serve in combat as required, and accept any changes in status or benefits brought about by war or statutory amendments. In return, the military branch agrees to provide the enlistee with compensation and to honor promises concerning assignment, education, compensation, and support of dependents.In the past, some legal analysts contended that those in the military receive a level of constitutional protection that is inferior to that afforded to civilians. However, in United States v. Stuckey, 10 M.J. 347 (1981), the Court of Military Appeals (now called the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services) held that “the Bill of Rights applies with full force to men and women in the military service.
    Congress, under its authority to regulate the armed forces, generally determines the due process and Equal Protection rights of service personnel, and most courts defer to congressional authority in this area. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that Congress must heed the Constitution when it enacts legislation that concerns the military.”
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Military+Law

    After his trial and conviction due to the My Lai incident Lt Calley was asked: “Isn’t Obeying an unlawful order in itself an UNLAWFUL act?” To which Calley responded : “I believe that is true. If you are asking why I did not stand up to them when I was given the orders, I will have to say that I was a second lieutenant getting orders from my commander and I followed them foolishly, I guess.” Lt Calley was charged with four specifications alleging premeditated murder in violation of Article 118 of the UCMJ, even though he testified he was following direct orders.

    “Knowledge on the part of any accused, like any other fact in issue, may be proved by circumstantial evidence, that is by evidence of facts from which it may justifiably be inferred that LT. Calley had knowledge of the unlawfulness of the order which he has testified he followed. In determining whether or not LT. Calley had knowledge of the unlawfulness of any order found by you to have been given, you may consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including LT. Calley’s rank; educational background; OCS schooling; other training while in the Army., including Basic Training, and his training in Hawaii and Vietnam. his experience on prior operations involving contact with hostile and friendly Vietnamese; his age, and any other evidence tending to prove or disprove that on 16 March 1968, LT. Calley knew the order was unlawful. If you find beyond reasonable doubt, on the basis of all the evidence, that LT. Calley actually knew the order under which he asserts he operated was unlawful, the fact that the order was given operates as no defense.” Judge Kennedy, Court-Martial of William L. Calley, Jr. Fort Benning, Georgia, March, 1971.
    Lt Calley was found guilty because he obeyed a direct “verbal order”.

    The general defense for those charged with war crimes at the Nuremberg trials was ” I was following orders”. That was not an acceptable defense, they were all found guilty. I agree.

    Diana West is right. Lakin’s court martial settles nothing–EXCEPT– he is loyal to the oath he took “…and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. So help me God. Which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for Obama.

  48. Interesting…

    No. 10-678

    Dec 29 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 14, 2011.

    Party name: Barry Soetoro, et al.

    I wasn’t aware of this case until today. More here and here.

  49. Anonymous said…

    Since the court didn’t call for a response by the Solicitor General, that means they’ve already decided to dump it.

    Same thing happened to Kerchner and Taitz. This case is toast.

    December 30, 2010 2:04 AM

    ———————————-

    ObamaRelease YourRecords said…

    Correct, except for it would not be the Solicitor General in this case. It would be Perkins Coie. This case is against Barry Soetoro(aka Obama) and defended by his private/campaign law firm, Perkins Coie.

    http://www.youtube.com/birtherreportdotcom#p/u/5/Eu6OiTiua08

    December 30, 2010 2:13 AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s