Monday in the District of Columbia

9:00pm

Forgive my absence. Two-and-a-half hours one way and, with traffic, almost four hours back! No Internet access at the venue, and work awaiting me upon my return home.

I am in the middle of putting together a synopsis of today’s very, um, interesting news conference, though I have a number of things here at home with regard to work and school which need to be done first. About 45 people were packed into the Edward R. Murrow Room at the National Press Club. Until I’m able to tie everything together (I have some hurried photographs, too), here are a few quotes, just to give you a taste of what happened:


“Last week, Sen. Mel Martinez gave a statement that the voters are responsible for vetting candidates. Mr. Martinez is wrong. He would have us believe that our form of govt is a democracy rather than a constitutional republic. It is not too great a burden to demand that one who seeks the office of the president simply produce documents proving his legal eligibility.”

– Robert Schulz, We The People Organization

“My case in district court was dismissed for one reason — standing. According to the court, I don’t have standing, Bob doesn’t have standing, no one in this room has standing. We’re asking for one qualification out of three. We know he’s at least 35 years old. We’ll give him the 14 years in the country. We just want to know that he is natural born. It’s not that difficult.”

– Philip Berg, attorney

“During this election, the media in the United States of America was worse than the media in communist Russia. The anchormen and anchorwomen were reading from the same script. They might have had different haircuts and they might have had different outfits, but they were reading from the same script. The only reason that the vast majority of Americans do not know the details [of these cases] is because the media was aiding and abetting Obama in defrauding 300 million Americans.”

– Orly Taitz, attorney, who was born in Kischinev (I mistakenly thought she said “Chechnya”)

“I pray, Lord, that we can overcome the wickedness which has overtaken our politicians, the media, and even in our court systems at the highest level, and that this long-legged mack-daddy would not be allowed to take the oath on the 20th of January.”

– Rev. James David Manning, an African-American pastor from Harlem, NY

Oh, but it wasn’t that cut-and-dry. These were the more calm and collected, mainstream things which were said. We had people asking 25-minute “questions” which rambled on about everything from NAFTA to Saudi oil to John Ashcroft and the World Bank, we had Taitz herself talking about Osama bin Laden and asking why the federal government would fine the broadcasters for the Super Bowl appearance of Janet Jackson’s right nipple but not the media for overlooking these lawsuits, and we had Rev. Manning opining that Obama came to the office of president-elect through a “white womb,” and that a “black womb may never produce a president.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a conspiracy theorist. From August 21, 2008, when I first broke the story about Philip Berg’s lawsuit against Barack Obama, I have been interesting in upholding our Constitution — and still am. However, many of the things I saw today did little to help the movement which so many ordinary, non-tin-foil-hat-wearing Americans have put their hopes behind.

Stay tuned. I’ll present what happened as objectively as I can, and then must weigh in with a commentary about this whole business.

1:15am

It’s currently 1:15 a.m. now, and I’m still up and fighting a losing battle with my ADD over the issue of will revocation. It’s gripping stuff, really.

In a few hours, I’ll be heading down to D.C. after handling some loose ends for work. After all, I need to make a living, and ensure that my job is done. I’ll probably be in transit when the decision from the Supreme Court on the Donofrio case is announced — but I’m sure you’ll find it somewhere.

After all, if the disposition is positive, in the unlikely event that Leo Donofrio comes out on top, the media will have no choice but to report on it. If it’s negative, and Donofrio’s chances at the Supreme Court go up in smoke, the media will leap upon the chance to tell the world that their Messiah is safe from legal challenge — at least for now.

Now, I do think that Donofrio’s case presents a question more attractive to the Court than that of Philip Berg’s case, but both have significant statistical hurdles to overcome. As I’ve written before, the odds of ANY case being heard by the Court is slim. Still, my fingers will be crossed as I plod along down I-95.

I do not know the situation with the Internet at the National Press Club, nor do I know completely my schedule for the day. Much of today will be fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants, so bear with me and check back often, because I cannot tell you exactly when or from where the updates will come.

What I will tell you is that I will be writing as things progress (at least, I hope so) and will have my camera with me should the folks allow me to get some official-looking shots. It’s been a while since I’ve shot any press conferences, but I’ve done a few weddings here and there, so it’ll basically be the same, minus the cake, band, and frilly dresses. As I’ll have the photo transfer apparatus with me as well, hopefully we’ll have some photos up by the end of the day.

Most likely, you’ll see some little time-centric updates like this one, with something a little more formal done at the end of the day as I procrastinate instead of doing more studying.

Well, for now, it’s back to work.

Share

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Jeff, it cannot be that the justices of the Supreme Court know less than you do, less than citizenwells and less than texasdarlin, less than Judah Benjamin and less than DrKate on texasdarlin blog. You have all gone into such legal detail, Constitutional articles and amendments, past cases, etc. I cannot believe the justices don’t know any of these things. I cannot believe they don’t know Obama himself said he had dual citizenship at birth.

    What I can believe is that there was something wrong with Donofrio’s case, technically speaking.

    I would find it hard to believe that the Supremes believe Obama is a natural born citizen. But they are waiting for the RIGHT case to come along that they can feel free to rule on.

    Keep on coming on. Don’t give up. Keep those lawsuits coming. Learn from Donofrio’s mistakes. We are smart people, we are not the dummies Obama counts on us being.
    Never give up the fight. Think of your children under socialist rule.
    Think of what life would be like under the rule of someone who thinks he is above the law backed by hundreds of political allies who also think our country’s laws do not apply to them.

    Fight. Keep fighting.
    Write. Keep writing.
    Every day, get out at least one letter. Every day. That’s what I’m doing.

  2. Anonymous says:

    “Court won’t review Obama’s eligibility to serve by MSNBC”. I dont trust MSNBC (Obama’s official Media), but apparently Donofrio’s case wont be heard.

    Go to this link…
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28111773

  3. A Child Of God says:

    I looked at the Orders List published on the Supreme Court website and the Donofrio application for stay has been denied. So, I suppose its over for the Donofrio case, then. The Orders are at:

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf

    The Donofrio case is on page 1, second case from the top.

  4. Afraid for America says:

    Donofrio says on his blog that the Wrotnowski case has a cleaner history than his. That case is distributed for 12/12/08 conference. We still have a shred of hope.

    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm

  5. MUJERLATINA says:

    I remain on tenter hooks about the Supreme Court decision. And I wonder about the National Press Club conference which should be underway by now. I remain prayerful that the truth will be shown to all. And Jeff, I do thank you for your outstanding work, regardless of the outcome. Blessings to you and your family.

  6. Anonymous says:

    FYI: Leo’s blog is offline at 11:47am PDT – hopefully due to high traffic?

  7. Emmie says:

    Ronald Kessler has an article on NewsMax.com today which states that the Berg suit is before the Supreme Court for conference today, December 8. Although I think Kessler doesn’t have a clue about the Obama Birth Certificate issue, he may have the information about the Supreme Court correct. Could somebody run down this info? Could the Supreme Court be planning to combine these 2 suits in some manner?

  8. Me! says:

    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

    Does this mean what I think it means?

  9. Anonymous says:

    It's over: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/08/supreme-court
    -dismisses-challenge-obamas-citienship/

    Well, pray that Obama has a change of heart during his administration & does the right things.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Odd, and bizarre that even a few would waste their time on such claptrap

  11. Anonymous says:

    OK. This is getting really strange!!!

    On the same day SCOTUS denys Leo’s case, Justice Scalia Distributes Wrotnowski’s case for Conference.

    Distributing a case to the court is a BIG deal. Scalia could have simply denied it on his own…especially after seeing the court deny Donofrio’s case. SO WHY DIDN’T HE????? There is no reason to distribute a case to the court for it to be denied. So does Scalia see an opportunity in Wrotnowski’s case that makes him believe the court would vote to hear it?

    The saga continues…

    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm

    No. 08A469
    Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant
    v.
    Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State

    Docketed:
    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut
    Case Nos.: (SC 18264)

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.

    Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.

    Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.

    Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.

    Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.

  12. Anonymous says:
  13. Anonymous says:

    Jeff -

    Thanks for schlepping down here to D.C. to give us an accurate review & appraisal of what's going on at SCOTUS…I missed the news conference, so hope you give us your first-hand thoughts! What do you think of the Wrotnowski case chances, now that cert was denied for Wrotnowski?

  14. Anonymous says:

    The ruling seems to be that re Article 2, you have to prove your case in order to bring it and do so without discovery.

  15. Anonymous says:

    I just heard that SCOTUS has denied Donofrio. According to Faux News, they are still pending on Berg. My stomach is in a knot. I saw the end of the Soviet Union. I never thought I’d see the end of the United States as well.

    Glenn

  16. Anonymous says:

    Looks like the Supreme Court will not move anything along. McClatchy is reporting the court is refusing to hear the suit.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Well, the bad news is in on Donofrio.
    It’s a sad day for the people of this great country when a teenager trying to get a learner’s permit to drive a car is required to produce more documentation of residency than someone trying to become president. Believe me, I know! My daughter had a snafu with a misspelling of her FIRST NAME on a birth certificate and the way we were treated , you would have thought our last name was Bin Laden!

  18. Anonymous says:

    Heroes, Are There Any Left…

    After all these months trying to interpret and understand all of the information concerning Barack H. Obama on the internet has caused me many of headaches. With that said, I firmly believe it all boils down to one major issue. That issue is this, Is Barack H. Obama Constitutionally qualified to be President of these United States of America? This is not an issue of 2 out of 3 qualifications being met, it is an all 3 or nothing proposition. The candidate must have attained the age of 35 or greater, have lived in the United States for the last 14 years, and last but not least, be a “natural born citizen,” end of story.

    This is not an issue of birth certificate, or birth certification, or anything else (however, it would be nice to be able to put the Birth Certificate issues to rest as well as all of the other issues). It, simply stated, as I perceive it, centers around the Birth of Barack H. Obama, whether in Hawaii or some other place. Based on the all of information available on the internet and other sources, Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama was 18 years of age when Barack H. Obama II was born, and accordingly, based on the law at the time, was too young to confer upon young Obama “natural born citizenship” status. This is due to the fact that the law at the time of young Barack’s birthm Stanley Ann was only 18. According to the law, she would have had to have been 14 years old, plus 5 years, meaning if she were 19 years of age she would have been able to confer the “natural born citizenship” upon her son, however, there was another catch. Barack’s father was from Kenya, a colony of British Empire. Which, by his own admission, transferred his fathers citizenship to the young Barack, meaning he was a British Colony citizen as well. Based on all of the facts available I would say, Barack H. Obama II only has one transferred citizenship and that lone citizenship is from British Colony of Kenya. This does not make him a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America nor qualified to be elected to the President of the United States of America.

    Now the question comes up, why the title Heroes, Are There Any Left…? The answer is a simple one. We the people have elected too numerous people to the Legislative branch and to the Executive Branch, and they in turn nominated others to the Judicial Branch. However, none of our leaders, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches, who have a sworn an oath to defend the Constitution has come forward to defend the Constitution as our officials and as of yet not questioned Mr. Barack H. Obama as to his “natural born” citizenship status. This has caused us as a Country to be divided, calling each other names and being hateful to one another. This is one way for the Socialist to trash our Constitution and our way of life of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as outlined by our founding Fathers who gave up more than you may ever realize as well as all who have served this Country for the last 225 plus years. Too many have sacrificed their lives and families to make this a Great Country (though not without fault). This is not about the politics or beliefs of individual politicians and there desire to fill their coffers with their own glory or monetary gains. It is about 2 out of 3 doesn’t cut it, it is an all or nothing proposition, it is about the meaning of the Constitution and what it requires for an individual to become the elected President of the United States of America and all that it has to offer.

    Who, if anyone, has the ability to step up to the plate and question Barack H. Obama’s qualifications for the President of the United States of America. This is not a popular or enviable position, however, necessary to reclaim our most cherished document, the Constitution of the United States of America. This requires one simple act of stepping up and saying Mr. Obama prove your qualifications or Mr. Obama step down.

    Although I personally do not agree with any of Barack H. Obama platforms for HOPE and CHANGE, I do agree, however, if qualified based on the fulfillment of basic Constitutional qualifications, then he is the next President of the United States of America, otherwise, please vacate the Office of the President Elect and let us rebuild.

    However, there is an interesting point to make at this time, if discovered not qualified, and it is found that Barack H. Obama and any co-conspirators perpetrated fraud, he and his co-conspirators then should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the LAW.

    So, please those of you who have the power to question, question and lets start rebuilding our Great Country.

    Notes:
    I have purposefully left out references, quotations, and points of law, that is for the Lawyers and other Legal Scholars to define.
    One of many definitions of a Hero – a man/woman admired for his/her achievements and noble qualities or one that shows great courage

  19. Anonymous says:

    well news didnt look good, but there are still more so we will see what the SCOTUS does.

  20. miracle2k says:

    You people always say this is about the constitution, and in Berg’s case, maybe so, but Donofrio is basically just making stuff up, right?

    Assuming Donofrio would have gotten his case and won, Obama wouldn’t be able to become president, but he’d also be entirely blameless. How could he have known that the definition of natural born really is quite different than what *everybody* thought it is all this time?

    It’s obviously not so much about protecting the constitution, but rather bending it to whatever is necessary to stop Obama from becoming president.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did as expected. Not really a surprise considering the ramifications of unseating an African American President-Elect. Truth be told, all the talk of constitutional analysis has given way to the Justice Holmes view that power enables the establishment of government as you will it by virtue of holding the power. In the end, they will do as they please because they have the power to do so, while paying lip service to precedent and constitutional principles by contriving a rationale to reach their predetermined result. Voila, the living breathing Constitution in its purest form. A tyranny of 9 apointed for life.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Jeff:

    My 2 Cents

    Unless someone produces a copy of the actual Actual BC…..This issue isn’t going no Where.

    Ciao

  23. KRIS says:

    Obama wouldn’t be able to become president, but he’d also be entirely blameless. How could he have known that the definition of natural born really is quite different than what *everybody* thought it is all this time?

    And that’s why the “innocent One” sealed his records…all of them…early on! Why the Constitutional lawyer who taught Constitutional law and wish to amend all that stuff about “Natural Born Citizen” sealed his records…all of them…early on! Riiiiight!

  24. Carrie says:

    Did you catch the news about the Chester Arthur discovery in the past two days? Can I just say, WOW! This is very eerie…a past president concealed his family history, continued to lie about it and managed to pull off being a usurper without the public even knowing about it. A fascinating read. A supplemental brief to Cort Wrotnowski’s application is being submitted tomorrow. This is AMAZING STUFF!

    Better than a spy novel. (I just hope and pray the SCOTUS acts appropriately.)

  25. Mark O. Stallings says:

    WorldNetDaily reports that Denofrio
    is denied, but SCOTUS to decide
    whether to hear a similar case this
    Friday.

    I believe Cort is the name in this case.

    This is one I haven’t heard of.

  26. KRIS says:

    Does anyone have an understanding that most of these cases being resubmitted to justices of choice are then sent on to conference in order to avoid a continuing resubmittal to each justice down the line? Is that any real possibility? I mean…everyone is optimistic now about Cort’s case since Scalia has scheduled it for its own conference, but could it just be going through its own same repetitive pattern? Hope not.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Bah-D Bah-d Bah-d, That’s all folks!

  28. acsnyc says:

    Have faith people, the jury is still out.

    Donofrio’s stay was denied not his Cert. Read this:

    Donofrio V. Wells Denied?

  29. Carrie says:

    I hear you, KRIS…I kind of wonder about that myself. However, the historical breakthrough discovery (just 2 days ago) concerning a past president (Chester Arthur) and this very similar modern day dilemma over dual citizenship eliminating the possibility of natural born citizenship is very compelling stuff. It appears that President Arthur knowingly covered up his father’s citizenship to prevent anyone’s notice that this Constitutional requirement actually disqualified himself of becoming president.

    This is new information that was not available at the hearing of the Donofrio case…and from what I understand the history of the Cort case is much cleaner. It’s possible that the Donofrio case was denied further hearing because of some irregularities in the lower court’s filings.

    Anyway, I’m hopeful…and I happen to believe and serve a Sovereign God. I pray that He has mercy on us as a nation and moves on the hearts of these judges to hear this case and rule accordingly.

    No matter the outcome, God is still in control and hope is always on the horizon.

  30. Sharon2 says:

    If you check the comment section of Natural Born Citizen, Donofrio states that he could file a petition for cert but will not because he doesn’t believe there is enough time for consideration. He also said that the Court had the opportunity to study the underlying issues and decided not to accept the cae. When pressed bu a commenter, he said that he felt an ethical obligation to file a brief in the Wrotnowski case. This was from much earlier today and I haven’t checked back to see if there is furtherinformation from the site.

    Thanks, Jeff.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Kris, I just read the same information by a poster on Donofrio’s blog who had carefully read the Supreme Court’s Reporters’ Guide to Applications. He noted that after denial by one justice, if the application is presented to a second justice that justice will send it on to the full court to avoid having it resubmitted continuously to all of the justices.

    Leo also mentioned that he has prepared a supplemental brief for Wrotnowski concerning an issue of the newly-discovered illegitimacy of Chester Arthur’s presidency: Chester Arthur appointed Justice Gray, which possibly influenced Justice Gray’s opinion and vote in the Wong Kim Arc case.

  32. John Galt says:

    Berg v. Obama: Injunction Presser
    December 8th, 2008

    Philip Berg, Plaintiff in Berg v. Obama, issued a press release concerning his recent filing for injunction to stay Electoral College votes on December 15, 2008 until Barack Obama proves he is eligible for the presidency.

    Thanks to CitizenWells for the heads up.

    PDF document:

    * Berg v. Obama Injunction Press Release

    -Phil

    ShareThis

    Posted in Activism, Berg v. Obama, Eligibility, POTUS, SCOTUS | No Comments yet
    Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Distributed for Conference by Justice Scalia
    December 8th, 2008

    According to the latest docket posting (see my “Supreme Court Info” section on top right of sidebar), Cort Wrotnowski, Plaintiff in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, has just had his case submitted by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia to the regular weekly Conference of the full Court slated for December 12.

    In a previous posting, Leo commented that Cort’s case is procedurally much more sound than his was.

    A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

    Leo and Cort’s recent joint commentary on Cort’s case being distributed to Conference follows…

    -Phil

    Read the rest of this entry »

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/

  33. MIDDLE CLASS GUY says:

    Jeff,

    Please correct me if I am wrong but the impression I get from the last paragraph that you wrote describing your experience today is that you were not impressed with what you witnessed.

    Thanks, Ken

  34. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Ken,

    It’s not that I wasn’t impressed. It’s just that I think this whole thing could have been made simpler and more palatable, that’s all.

    I’ll go over it soon — I’m working on stuff.

    – Jeff

  35. Anonymous says:

    Jeff, the question to ask is, is it true or not. Is BHO a natural born citizen or not? If he is not, then it is your and my duty to make sure the public gets the whole truth and to act. Your articles to me straddle the fence, either you are on one side or the other, you cannot straddle the fence. These people at the press conference are way ahead of the curve.

  36. Jose Alvarez says:

    If the President Elect would enthusiastically at once signal Hawaii and produce in a Presidential tone a legitimate,transparent public disclosure of the documents in question to be viewed, touched, handled and examined by all of those interested, I would not be writing this right now, neither would there be any lawsuits, and the right and the left would not be squabbling at each other.
    I have been a Christian for thirty years. The God whom I serve, Jesus Christ, is The One who never deals with the symptom of a situation, He always goes right straight to the root. The birth certificate deal, natural born or not, born in Kenya or born in the USA, are simply symptoms. The root is that which is cloaked in the mysterious darkness of something hidden. What triggers our President elect to have 20 lawsuits at the cost of one million dollars served upon himself in order to evade and conceal, instead of producing a 10.00 dollar document that would squelch all lawsuits once and forever more, silence the blogosphere, and stop the bickering amongst right wing nuts and liberal kooks. Is he knowingly running for, and assuming an office, in the which he is not eligible? This is the definition of an usurper. If he is totally innocent and pure he should enthusiastically summon for his documentation at once and put all dissenting voices such as mine to rest. I would certainly welcome it.
    No one can convince me that in an era of extreme documentation, several web site images of a Hawaii document and a group of individuals posting jpeg photos of a certification of live birth is sufficient proof for the eligibility to the presidency of this great nation! If I was to need a driver’s license and needed my birth certificate, I could not guide the officials to a web site to look at the image of my birth certificate, as valid proof? Could you, or would you?
    Mute silence has been the case now since August 21. A leader, rather, has the duty to boldly, wholeheartedly, openly, transparently, and forthrightly display the needed documentation to the public whom he will serve, in order to gain its trust in the integrity of his leadership. This type of ongoing chronic silence begins to have the smell of fraud.
    This is not a right wing nut issue, neither is it left wing conspiracy kooks. Whom ever you are…tell me in all seriousness…in your heart of hearts… and in your gut of guts. Doesn’t something about all of this really bother you? If not for you, then for the sake of your children. Does the specter of someone who knowingly is ineligible to run for this office becomes president, or an usurper takes rein of our government disturb you? I am not calling the President Elect these things, but every day that passes with an ever intensifying crescendo of an American outcry for proof of eligibility, met feebly with cowardly evasion and a deafening silence from the President elect, while others lamely defend, speak out, and cover for him, exacerbates my suspicions. Does it not do it for you? Or don’t we care anymore? Are we like a herd of blind cattle flinging ourselves down the precipice, ipods, itouchs, iphones, itunes, and I don’t care in our hands, stubbornly covering our ears to the truth.
    Though I disagree in many ways with the President elects views and convictions, I will be the first one to uphold his office if he leads me wholeheartedly, openly, transparently, and forthrightly.
    As Ronald Regan bravely told President Gorbachev of the Soviet Union concerning the Berlin wall, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
    I say on behalf of all Americans “Mr. Obama produce your 10.00 dollar long vault birth certificate!”

  37. Gort says:

    To be honest this is one blog I don’t frequent,as you tend to be a Pollyanna,in that you are a patriot that truly believes all that is needed is the right case to solve this problem.That conspiracies are non-existant.Well,look up RICO.Crack open your Bible and after Gen.3 go to Psalm 2.Then,without going into global history just look at the USA and how wars followed battles over resistance of central banks and isolationalism and encroaching centralized power in DC,not to mention natural resources.Read Smedley Butler’s:”War is a Racket”.Look at the Fed Reserve.The League of Nations,and finally the abominable United Nations.Read up on the little known APA Act of 1946,and you’ll see why there’s a problem with accountability and the loss of checks and balances in our erstwhile great nation.Check the CFR and Tri-Lat and Club of Rome rosters and look at the mainstream media.Ask yourself why Globalism is pushed in every facet ogf our culture,as Americans head for the souplines.How DC was flooded with opposition to the bailout,yet almost all of the traitors are headed back to DC in Jan.2009.Then look at the Hanuman idol worshipping Marxist Obama that thumbs his nose at America,all with the blessings of the msm and 99.9% of those in government.Still like the “tin foil hat” analogy of the conference?Shame on you.

  38. Gort says:

    Jeff,please read Dr.Edwin Vieira’s article he wrote yeahttp://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htmterday. Take Care,get some rest.

  39. Gort says:

    Orly is right and I stated as much on her blog recently.The US msm is far worse that Pravda ever was.And as the Commie FDR said “if it happens[in politics]you can bet we planned it that way”.If Obama is allowed to be taken down we see race riots….his fault.If he is allowed to be a usurper,the government collapses.Either way,the NWO elites are ready to take down America and merge us into the NWO.I’m eager to see these patriots vent at that conference.I hope a video or audio is posted today.It’s a shame there aren’t a thousand lawyers at their side.And where’s freedom fighter Ron Paul in all this?AAAhh…a one-trick pony fighting against the Fed to no avail as he swaps masonic handshakes with his cronies.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Contrarian Commentary.com

    Atty. Andy Martin says:

    First, people have a constitutional right to dislike Obama. In our free society no one can tell us who to believe, and who to follow. Every American leader in recent history has also had his rabid opponents. There is nothing new about the militant anti-Obama partisans. Indeed, in a healthy democracy, skeptics keep politicians in line by exposing their lies and shining light on suspicious activity. In principle, I strongly support the anti-Obama movement, because I am one of those skeptics.

    Second, Obama has been his own worst enemy in creating doubt and fanning speculation about himself. He is an unknown man. He has secreted his college records from occidental College. He has secreted his records from Columbia University, and he has secreted his records from Harvard Law School. What has oozed to the surface has linked Obama to the most unsavory and anti-American elements in our society. Bill Ayers, anyone? Khalid Al-Mansour, an anti-Semitic, anti-white Black nationalist, has been exposed as someone who raised money to finance Obama’s legal education. What?

    Obama refuses to discuss an of these matters.

    Obama posted a laser-printed abstract of his birth record on the Internet at FactCheck.org, and falsely portrayed this document as a “copy” of his “original birth certificate.” It was nothing of the sort. But Obama fooled a lot of people with his big lie. Why did he lie, and why did he falsely represent what he was posting? Good question. But by constantly and repeatedly lying, Obama has been the biggest source of suspicion concerning his birth and family history.

    Third, the decline of mainstream media (MSM’s) has helped fuel crooks and paranoids on the Internet. Last month in Honolulu I began a nationwide series of “Conversations” about the future of Obama’s opponents. I was surprised by how little was known about Obama, even by his legitimate and sincere opponents. The MSM’s never did their job.

    Last month I also exposed a Philadelphia con artist, Philip Berg, who has been issuing increasingly fraudulent claims and making increasingly irrational arguments against Obama. Berg claims to be a “Hillary Clinton supporter, when he is nothing of the sort.

    Last week an advertisement ran in the Chicago Tribune challenging Obama’s qualifications for office. There were legitimate questions contained in that ad, as well as gross exaggerations and undocumented accusations. In my opinion, the ad would have been more powerful if it had stuck to the facts, and Obama’s lies, instead of creating a new round of deception and misrepresentation by his opponents.

    Who is to separate the wheat from the chaff? Monday, three people who have filed lawsuits against Obama are holding a Washington, DC news conference. Readers and citizens should have a “contrarian” commentary on the three lawyers who are attacking Obama.

    First, Philip Berg. As near as I can tell, Berg is a scam artist and nothing more. He filed a crackpot lawsuit to collect money and, one presumes, to put the money in his pocket. I spoke with Mr. Berg before he filed his lawsuit, and advised him his claims were injurious to Obamas legitimate opponents. Berg didn’t care. He just wanted to scream—and ask for money.

    Berg filed a paranoid lawsuit in federal court and, as I told him it would be, the case was promptly tossed out. He then filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals and, for good measure, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to cancel the 2008 election. I have lost track of Berg’s wild charges. A few days ago I heard from a woman in Florida who made the paranoid claim that Berg has provided “secret evidence” to the Supreme Court. Yah, sure. People will believe anything. What was her source for the claim about Berg? Directly or indirectly, no doubt Berg himself.

    The irony in Berg’s lawsuit and the two which I discuss below is that they are pinning their hopes on Justices Thomas and Scalia. These two judges have done more than anyone else to close down and lock out citizen participation in the judicial system. So are we to assume that judges who have been locking the courthouse doors by issuing restrictive interpretations of “standing to sue” are now suddenly going to reverse themselves and reject the pronouncements of their entire judicial careers? Could happen, of course. But highly unlikely.

    Second, there is a lawyer from New Jersey named Leo Donofrio. No one had ever heard of Mr. Donofrio before he popped up and also demanded to stop the 2008 election. Unlike Berg, Donofrio followed the correct legal highway, by petitioning state officials, and then working his way up through the state courts, before filing with the U. S. Supreme Court. There is no question that procedurally, Donofrio has followed the correct path.

    But do Donofrio’s claims make sense? Donofrio claims Senator John McCain is not “natural born” because his father was serving in the military when the senator was born. That claim is complete nonsense. Donofrio makes a similar accusation against Obama. If Donofrio had some track record of being either a legal scholar or an recognized advocate, I would look more deeply at his claims. But Donofrio has no track record as an attorney at all. Would you listen to a “surgeon” who was making radical new surgical claims if he had no record of any medical accomplishments? Not many people would.

  41. C says:

    So Andy Martin’s solution to the problem is to slander everyone else who’s bringing lawsuits against Obama?

    That’s just wonderful.

    His own lawsuit was knocked down in Hawaii by the ever-familiar, ‘one lawsuit fits all’ Lack Of Standing.

    [American Judicial Cheer of 2008:
    Heeeeeeeeeeeeey, Judges,
    When in doubt, Shout it out,
    LACK.....OF.....STANDING!
    Riot free, Guaranteed,
    LACK.....OF.....STANDING!
    No guts, No glories,
    Just let him make up stories,
    LACK.....OF.....STANDING!
    No faith, No gun,
    Obama is The One,
    LACK.....OF.....STANDING!
    With open border,
    Join the New World Order,
    LACK.....OF.....STANDING!
    Hail, Marxist Red,
    Our Constitution's dead,
    LACK.....OF.....STANDING!
    Change one, Change all,
    You'll see our country fall,
    LACK.....OF.....STANDING! Louder now,
    LACK.....OF.....STANDING! One more time,
    LACK.....OF.....STANDING!!!]

    Is Andy Martin planning to join the line-up at the Supreme Court? At least there, they won’t tell him he ‘lacks standing’…they’ll just post his case as dismissed, without uttering a single word.

    Maybe then ‘Internet Powerhouse’ Martin won’t rival Obama as “Ego of the Year.”

  42. Emmie says:

    Maybe I am missing something and then again, maybe all of YOU ARE! As far as I know, SCOTUS only denied stay of the election in the Donofrio case, in the 11-page list of orders that came from them yesterday, DENIAL OF CERTIORARI WAS NOT LISTED FOR THE DONOFRIO CASE. Could somebody who has a clue and does some THOROUGH research please post something on this blog about this rather than spreading a shallow disinformation packed explanation of the situation? PLEASE! Jeff, you should know the differences in these issues to address them.

Speak Your Mind

*