Four Main Cases, One Tough Road

A sobering look at Berg v. Obama, other cases questioning Obama’s eligibility after Berg’s emergency injunction attempts denied today

While others are certainly in the works or already in circulation in various lower courts across the country, four main cases challenging Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States remain active and pending.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. Cort Wrotnowski’s action, created much in the same mold of Leo Donofrio’s unsuccessful try, is scheduled for conference on Friday. The question presented by that case, much like that presented by Donofrio’s, is to me the most palatable and tempting for the Court, in that Wrotnowski asks the Justices to define the Natural Born Citizen clause rather than merely apply it. Still, considering the fate of Donofrio’s attempt, I wonder if the sharpened approach in Wrotnowski will be enough.

Friday is December 12, 2008. Unless I’m wrong, take heart in knowing that the 2000 election coincidentially was not settled until December 12 of that year.

Keyes v. Bowen and Lightfoot v. Bowen. Southern California dentist and attorney Orly Taitz has two cases still working their way through the court. Her first one, featuring Ambassador and former Independent Party and GOP presidential candidate Alan Keyes as plaintiff, is still currently before the California Supreme Court. Her second case, featuring a number of electors and veterans as well as Ron Paul’s former running mate Gail Lightfoot, was quickly disposed of by the Supreme Court of California, a expedient move which Taitz, at Monday’s Washington, D.C. press conference, said was intended to move her along to the U.S. Supreme Court quicker.

I may be a mere law student, but it appears to me that Lightfoot was dismissed from the Supreme Court of California just like Fred Hollander’s case was dismissed from New Hampshire District Court, just like Markham Robinson’s earlier case was dismissed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and just like Philip Berg’s case was dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick at the district court level here in Philadelphia. Absent some sort of contrary evidence in the Lightfoot judge’s order and memorandum, I’m inclined to think that it is standard procedure rather that overt judicial concern which has permitted Taitz to move on to the U.S. Supreme Court. After all, Berg’s case was before a Republican judge, and Markham Robinson’s earlier case was before a judge in decidedly liberal northern California — did those judges dismiss those cases out of concern, or perhaps because they wanted to give Phil Berg and Markham Robinson an opportunity to appeal? I’d say probably not.

Regardless, Lightfoot v. Bowen will likely soon be placed on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s desk and, as it does feature a former vice presidential candidate and a few electors as plaintiffs, I will be curious to see how it moves along.

Berg v. Obama. Today was a busy day for Philip Berg’s case against Barack Obama. First, Justice David Souter at the U.S. Supreme Court denied Berg’s application for an emergency injunction pending the disposition of his petition for writ of certiorari and Judges Scirica and Ambro at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied his emergency motion for an immediate injunction pending the resolution of his appeal. Both were intended to stay the Electoral College vote scheduled for December 15, 2008 and the counting of said votes scheduled for January 8, 2009.

Also, however, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals set the Briefing and Scheduling Order for Berg’s appeal in that court. Of all days, Berg’s brief is due before the Third Circuit on January 20, 2009 — Inauguration Day. The appellees’ briefs are due by February 19, and Berg’s response is due on March 4.

“The timing is certainly interesting,” Berg said. “Regardless, it is truly a disgrace that, here it is December, we’re days away from the Electoral College vote, and we’re still talking about whether or not Obama is qualified to be president. It’s even worse that we could be talking about this in January, on Inauguration Day of all days.”

In terms of his action before the U.S. Supreme Court, it is still active and pending. As with the others, and really with any one petition for certiorari filed with the Court, the likelihood that Philip Berg will see the inside of a courtroom in Washington is slim. Still, here are some possibilities of what could theoretically, and realistically, happen next:

  • (1) Berg’s certiorari petition could be denied, without comment or dissent (a dissent by one or more Justices to a denial of a certiorari petition, while rare, is not unprecedented). This would end Berg’s case, but likely not jurisdictionally end the others;
  • (2) Berg’s certiorari petition could be granted and the matter set for oral argument following the filing of additional briefs, with the Court directing (a) that the issues be confined to arguments on Berg’s standing, or (b) that the issues of standing and, assuming standing, the merits of the case be addressed. In either event, neither of these scenarios would take place before Dec. 15, so because the Court denied Berg’s application for emergency stay of the Electoral College vote, the vote will likely go ahead as planned;
  • (3) If option 2(a) occurs, at some future date, the Court could determine that Berg had standing in USDC and could vacate that decision–and naturally the Third Circuit decision as well–and remand to the U.S. District Court here in Philadelphia with instructions to proceed with “further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” At that point, as extremely unlikely as it is, who knows what would happen?
  • (4) If option 2(b) occurs, the Court could actually reach the merits of Berg’s case and, sometime well after Dec. 15 of this year or Jan. 20 of the next, render a decision. Considering the nature of the Court, the most likely result under this scenario would likely be a 6-3 or, at best, a 5-4 decision against Berg holding that, because Berg failed to prove his case at the district court level, he loses. This would make the matter res judicata, at least with regard to Philip Berg and Barack Obama, and would for all practical purposes severely undermine if not foreclose all other pending and future challenges to Obama’s eligibility under the Natural Born Citizen clause. While I’m not certain that it would necessarily work, I would expect Obama’s team of attorneys to argue that the stampede of other suits would be foreclosed under collateral estoppel theory.
  • (5) While unlikely but certainly not unprecedented, the Court could simply wait until after Jan. 20, 2009 to do anything and then, after the inauguration, simply dismiss whatever action was then pending on the grounds of it being a “political question” and separation of powers, or on the grounds of mootness. The issue, of course, implicates neither of these excuses, but the Court could say so — and, at that point, what other court would intercede?

Unfortunately, it is and has always been a long-shot, despite what is arguably a clear and important constitutional question. Keep in mind that, under the second, third and fourth scenarios, significant public exposure would be given to the case and to Berg’s allegations. Regardless, it is a tough road down which to travel, nearly any way you look at it.

Berg, however, still remains positive.

“Am I optimistic? Absolutely,” he said. “One way or the other, we’re going to get to the bottom of this. One way or the other, the truth will come out, and he will not take office as president of the United States.”



  1. TurnRight says:

    Copying the last three lines of the post -

    ” “Berg, however, still remains positive. “Am I optimistic? Absolutely,” he said. “One way or the other, we’re going to get to the bottom of this. One way or the other, the truth will come out, and he will not take office as president of the United States.” “

    Will the following be of help?

    With slight modification here I posted this at another website I like a few days ago:

    So far, in the pursuit of justice, the Constitutional phrase ‘Natural Born Citizen’ has held focus. But what happens if we take a click off our legal sights and look at ‘citizen’ as the operative word? Then the picture becomes larger and perhaps the targets of opportunity more numerous.

    If Obama is not a U.S. citizen, then he is not eligible to be a U.S. Senator. And if not eligible for that, then any Senatorial action he participated in – and that was within one vote of passing or failing – and in which his vote, had it not been cast, would have altered the outcome, is subject to being declared void or illegal.

    Going back to January 2005, through all of Obama’s votes in the Senate as recorded by ‘’, there are three (3) that his not having voted one way or the other… either by way of his not being allowed to, or his simply not voting… would have changed the outcome.

    [1] The first is in votesmart’s designated area of ‘Budget, Spending and Taxes’. It occurred on 3/16/06 and was the ‘National Defense Funding Amendment’… S Amdt 3166. The Amendment was rejected 50:50 (yeas:neys), with Obama voting ‘No’. Had he not voted the Amendment would have passed 50:49. His ineligibility produced an illegal rejection of S Amdt 3166.

    [2] The second occurred in votesmart’s designated area of ‘Civil Liberties/Civil Rights’. It occurred on 5/25/06 and was the ‘Confidentiality Requirement Amendment’… S Amdt 4097. The Amendment was rejected 49:49, with Obama voting ‘No’. Had he not voted the Amendment would have passed 49:48. His ‘No’ vote caused an illegal rejection of the Amendment.

    [3] The third happened in the area of ‘Business And Consumer’ on 6/06/07. It was the ‘Five Year Expiration For Guest Worker Program’… S Amdt 1316. The Amendment was adopted 49:48, with Obama voting ‘Yes’. Had he not voted the Amendment would have been rejected by the Senate 48:48 and that vote would have forced Vice President Cheney to cast the tie breaker if he were to have been involved in this vote. Cheney would have been the the 49th vote, but didn’t vote on that date per ‘’ (or the other two of course), so it’s proper to view Obama’s ‘yes’ vote as decisive.

    All three here indicate a change in outcome had Obama not voted by way of being found ineligible prior to the vote of each independently. His personal illegality issue has called into question the legality of these three outcomes.

    Does this give basis for suit? And can the outcome of any suit based in this information be used to keep Obama from ‘taking’ the White House? We have photographic evidence of his being an Indonesian citizen during his elementary school years. Using the elementary school evidence in conjunction with his voting record above, could Obama be quickly forced to prove affirmation to citizenship?

  2. Anonymous says:

    It appears Wrotnowski’s case allows the Court to get involved but also gives it an out. The Court defines the term but punts to Congress before it certifies the electoral vote in Jan. of 2009 because Congress has the power by statute and the 20th amendment to resolve the matter. The Court walks away with clean hands and Congress takes the heat either way.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Berg remains optimistic… I guess you’d have to if your credibility was so far gone that all you have is conspiracy theory and the donations of your website.

    I guess anyone can get a law degree and be admitted to the bar. Doesn’t mean they’ve got a grain of sanity in their skull.

    I wonder if he still thinks the US is responsible for 9/11?

    Hang it up, Berg. You’re an afterthought.

  4. John Galt says:

    These cases are going nowhere but in the deep 6 files.

    Even the Blogo case is now off of the front page.

    America MSM and the left wing socialist intellectuals have taken the nation so far to the left that it doesn’t matter what the Messiah does, he will be revered and if you can excuse the expression, all of his sins whitewashed.

    After he is dead from cancer due to smoking aggravated by the stress of his power then books will be written about him revealing the truth, but they will only be found in the store rooms of some conservative publishers stashed away to be uncovered in about 500 years.

  5. Anonymous says:

    So, if I get caught speeding, am I, as a tax paying citizen, able to fight the ticket for a SCOTUS dismissal? With this example of application of law, how can any entity have standing to enforce the law?

    This may be an over-simplified example, but it begs the question.

  6. BIGAL says:

    These dates will preclude any court action before Congress validates Obama’s election by the Electoral College. If a Senator and a Representaive object to his election by challenging his qualification to be President, and the Congress as a whole validates his qualification, Case closed. Any court action related to Obama would be moot.

    But what if the issue is raised again in the context of the 2012 election? We get an individual with the same birth circumstances as Obama to declare as a candidate for the Presidency, say for the AIP (Alan Keyes party). I would assume a person could do so now? A lawsuit is filed by another announced candidate born in the USA to two US citizens, like Alan Keyes, challenging whether his opponent is qualified to be President.

    I can’t imagine one candidate for office not having standing to challenge another candidate’s qualification in court. We could then get a ruling on exactly what is a Natural Born Citizen, although it might take a year or two to get an answer.

    Suppose the ruling, while not applying directly to Obama, states that someone with birth circulstances the same as Obama’s is not qualified to be President.

    Could a sitting President then be declared to be not qualified to run for re-election?

  7. Anonymous says:

    When does the Peasant Revolt begin?

  8. Ladyhawke says:

    Jeff and others,

    I may have asked this before, but do not recall an answer.

    As the Electoral College has not yet met, although unlikely, they technically could still vote for a Constitutionally eligible candidate. If so, would there be a SCOTUS issue?

    It just logically seems to me that the only issue the Court may take up at this point is pre-verifying POTUS candidates and who should do that.

    Is it possible (and I am not an attorney) that may be the reason they denied Donofrio’s request for a stay – but did not deny cert? As it to send the message that the Court will wait and see how this plays out?

  9. Anonymous says:

    The Supreme Court obviously feels that if I were killed by a drunk driver and my family filed a wrongful death suit that made its way to the Supreme Court, the only person with ‘standing’ is me….the dead one! This matter of standing that the SC hides behind is being worn out! They need to do their job or step down.

  10. Anonymous says:

    As a joke, someone placed Obama’s vacant Senate seat on E-Bay. A brilliant idea for our U. S. Constitution..we are certainly not using it any more! It worked wonderfully well for over 200 years…could be valuable for a country whose people want the freedoms that we have been forced to give up. It may go for enough to pay for all of these stupid bailouts!

    Let me know who buys it…I will move to that country in a heartbeat and leave America to the corrupt politicians and non-working Supreme Court justices.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I can’t believe there are so many down-in-the-mouth people here. What the heck? Have trust that our creator has a say in something, please. Have trust, gain trust that something wonderful is about to happen.

  12. Devon Young says:

    Not a lawyer, but I fail to see what taking the oath of office date has to do with this issue, assuming this all gets shoved under the rug and the “natural born” clause is not addresses. If at any time it can be proved that he is ineligible, why couldn’t he be forced out? Sounds like a “duh” to me, but then, as I said, I am not a lawyer.

    I do not see language as to a statute of limitations on this standard. Are you all suggesting that if he can “beat the clock” he wins and we are screwed?

  13. Anonymous says:

    “While others are certainly in the works or already in circulation in various lower courts across the country, four main cases challenging Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States remain active and pending.”
    Isn’t it redundant to say” active and pending. You know, sloppy writing. . .

  14. MIDDLE CLASS GUY says:

    Another left wing radical media cover up. The KHQA story about Barry Soetoro’s meeting Gov. Blago on 11/05/08 has been scrubbed form the site It was evidence of Barry’s lying about discussing a replacement for his senate seat. Yesterday he lied and said it was never discussed with Blago. This story and the Axelrod story blow that theory all to hell. However, somebody had the influence to have the story scrubbed from the website.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Berg optimistic? The only thing he should be optimistic about is the fact that he’s not a patient in a locked psychiatric unit being forced to take large doses of risperdal. Talk about a borderline personality with psychotic features. Do you think he’s aware of the fact that legitimate legal scholars think he’s insane? Just the name Berg brings about gales of laughter here.

  16. Anonymous says:


    Assuming that SCOTUS punts on all of the cases for one reason or another…what’s your take on the likelihood of success on any of the state cases — especially the Broe v. Reed (Washington state) case for which oral arguments were just scheduled (for Jan. 8)?


  17. Anonymous says:

    Jeff thank you for your diligence and I respect all of your work.

    This is off topic–This is my summary from

    Google HJR08 Did you hear that this country has 32 states that have ratified the call for a Constitutional Convention (CON CON)!
    OHIO voted on it as soon as today, I have not checked result making 33!! 34 states ratifying <(sp)a call for a CON CON will oblige the US CONGRESS to form a CON CON first time since 1787! I am blown away at the new and the ramifications of this.

    You might as well toss that mini Constitution that you carry with you. All the laws you and everyone else studying to become a lawyer and have spent your money going to law school to learn about the law of the land are potentially null and void.

    I can't fn believe it.

    If you or someone you know can put this up for general knowledge and please refute it that would be great.
    I hope this is wrong.


  18. Lisa says:

    On a totally different subject, but equally as maddening…

    Did any one notice this line at the bottom of many reports on the house approval of the auto bailout…

    “Also included in the bill is an unrelated pay-raise for federal judges.”

    All I can say to this is WTF????? It’s not bad enough that they want to use taxpayer money to bail out these poorly run and undeserving companies… but now they are going to tack on a pay raise for federal judges. This is just turning the knife in the wound. Hey… can you tack on a pay raise for me as well??? I could sure use one and it’s been a long time.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Maybe the SCOTUS or other elected officials are allowing Barack Obama time to produce his birth certificate and put this issue to rest, or at least provide the factual information himself before they lower the boom on him. Even allow him to take the oath of office, and then expose the deception by the Democrat National Committee and Obama on voters.

    Once exposed the American public will not consider his removal from office as a poltical ploy to destroy the first black-skinned president on MLK’s birthday.

    Remember, the fear factor has worked thus far with MSM and other white politicians. James Carvel stated there would be riots in the streets if he were publically attacked. Hands off, and this seems to be working for Obama.

    I firmly believe that non of the truly honorable officials want to be made out a fool in the public’s eye. We are dealing will some big egos here. If this is a major scam on the American public by these corrupt politicians, I do believe there will be an element of surprise waiting for Mr. Obama and company after January 20th.

    Politicians want public opinion on their side when they take him out.
    One of those big egos will finally expose him to be a liar and a fraud to bring him down. After all, they do have their own reputations to protect, and if Obama should be exposed by other means, their credibility will be questioned forever by voters and the public. Keep the faith that truth will prevail in this matter. Obama and company have not bought off everybody.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Maybe the pay raises for federal judges is the reason the republicans in the senate are reluctant to support the bill. this is another political ploy by the democrats to payoff each of their supporters. They have control of both the House and Senate. If the bill does not pass in the Senate and more Americans lose their jobs, they can continue to blame Bush and the Republican Party.

    The democrats owe the labor unions big time. The Wall Street investors, real estate brokers and banker have been paid off and still no recovery. Obama, Dodd, Frank, Schumner, Pelosi owed Wall Street and the unions.

    It seems they want President Bush’s signature on all of these huge spending bills so they can further blame him for the huge deficit leaving office. In four years use the budget deficit issue and he unemployment rate to be reelected in against republican candidates in 2010 and for president in 2012.

    The only spending bill President Bush needs to sign before leaving office is the one to bailout homowners.

  21. Anonymous says:

    One has to ask themselves why Berg’s case still breaths, when it could be easily dismissed by Souter?

    Berg’s case is the only case before the court with Obama as a defendant asking him to produce a birth certificate to clear his way to the White House.

    Obama has not won any points with the Justices by ignoring this matter and snubbing them along the way.

    Think of Phil’s case as the bait and Cort’s case as the trap.

    Phil has the case that requests Obama produce a birth certificate and Cort’s case needs the birth certificate evidence to support his case.

    I would bet a weeks pay all the cases were discussed on the 5th and the weaker one tossed to set up a slam dunk by the court.

    When setting a precedent by ruling, it is best to rule on all angles, so it never appears again.

    An injunction and two trials of the century announced on the 15th of December. Merry Christmas everyone!

    Berg will be scheduled first with Cort to follow.

  22. Anonymous says:

    There is a great article on another site that asks the question “Is Hillary Blackmailing Obama Because She Knows His Dirty Little Secret?”

    I read it and it seems to connect the dots. Something is going on with Obama’s and Hillary’s recent love affair. Here is the link:

  23. tanarg says:

    Re: the post below

    In a nutshell:

    - By looking at his mother's hospitalization records, which are NOT sealed, a private eye determined she was a patient in neither of the two hospitals.

    - By looking at the Soetoro divorce papers, Berg concludes that had BO not been adopted, his name would not be in the papers as a child of the marriage.

    - BO will be arrested soon, the poster predicts.


    To those who refuse to believe me and insult me instead of listening…
    written by Linda Starr, December 10, 2008

    You're asking for a legal document that proves Obama is in fact Barry Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia? I have been telling you all the records were not sealed that prove Obama was legally Soetoro's child. Some of you have been ridiculing me while I had to keep silent about the evidence. There's more I can't discuss here. I'll tell you as soon as possible.

    Anyway, I can now tell you that Phil Berg & his Assistant Lisa acquired Barry's mother's divorce papers from Lolo Soetoro in which we see listed 2 children of the parties of the marriage, one over 18 and one under 18. We know Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro only had two children – Barry and Maya. Even in those days, a step child who was not the legal child of one party in a divorce would not be listed as a child of the parties of the marriage. They would either not be lsited at all, or be listed as a child from a previous marriage. Surely you do understand the legal difference? This is a legal certified court record. Like I've been telling you, not ALL the records of this man are sealed. When crimes are committed, there are always loose ends one can not go back and tie to prevent getting caught. There's more he can't seal before jan 20th, and we are after them.

    Let me explain to you now about why we know the PI hired by Corsi found out BO wasn't born in either of the two hospitals he and his sister claim. His mother is deceased and her hospitalization records would not be sealed. We can't ask if he was born there, but Cori's PI could find out his mother was NEVER A PATIENT IN EITHER PLACE! If she wasn't a patient, then he couldn't have been born there.

    That means he and his sister LIED about where he was born because he was born in Kenya. it also says to me his sister supplied her COLB (she was a foreign birth in Indonesia and registered in Hawaii) for someone to forge. Someone got a copy of her COLB on June 7, 2007. Maybe even she got and altered it for her brother because it isn't a very good forgery? TADA! The noose is tightening around the lies about BO's birth and citizenship.

    His legal name is STILL Barry Soetoro, and he is a legal citizen of Indonesia since he was born in Kenya. And the big bombshell will be coming out in the next week. I strongly suggest you keep watching Patrick Fitzgerald for the next week. I can't tell you what will happen, but I can tell you to watch him closely, especially in light of the arrests today of BO's political buds.

    Phil Berg did not pull this suit out of thin air. The circle around BO's lies is tightening. I believe he is going to be arrested very soon. He can't very well be sworn in if he's in jail in Illinois. Do you really think Chief Justice Roberts won't put a stop to this nightmare? Or Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Kennedy? I know what evidence Phil has acquired. I can't talk about it, but it's real.
    I wouldn't be crowing with glee too loudly right now if I were some of you who has hurled insults and cast aspersions on me and Phil's integrity.

    You've all had a grand time at our expense, but this is nothing to celebrate proving ourselves right. This is about our Constitution. Why do you really think Clinton and Biden haven't resigned their senate seats yet? Do you think they know something about the truth the DNC is desperate to hide? Inquiring minds want to know.

  24. C says:


    Are these the Ohio bills to vote for a Constitutional Convention to be convened in Washington, D.C.?

    Lord help us, Obama and the far-left really DO plan to hijack the country!!!

    Can you tell if they’ve already voted on it?

  25. Anonymous says:

    Barak Hussein Obama, the crook, will become president officially and no matter what happens to the different legal cases still running, when Obama is president, it will be impossible to change the fait accompli!!!!

    This Supreme Court has proved once again that it is a bad joke and that the word justice does not mean much to these Supreme Court judges!!

  26. Anonymous says:

    The Democratic-Disaster new video and campaign:

    “To the Electors” …

    Thank you my Patriotic friends!
    Richard Lawrence in Florida

  27. harris smith says:

    “One has to ask themselves why Berg’s case still breaths, when it could be easily dismissed by Souter?

    Berg’s case is the only case before the court with Obama as a defendant asking him to produce a birth certificate to clear his way to the White House.

    Obama has not won any points with the Justices by ignoring this matter and snubbing them along the way.

    Think of Phil’s case as the bait and Cort’s case as the trap.

    Phil has the case that requests Obama produce a birth certificate and Cort’s case needs the birth certificate evidence to support his case.

    I would bet a weeks pay all the cases were discussed on the 5th and the weaker one tossed to set up a slam dunk by the court.

    When setting a precedent by ruling, it is best to rule on all angles, so it never appears again.

    An injunction and two trials of the century announced on the 15th of December. Merry Christmas everyone!

    Berg will be scheduled first with Cort to follow.”

    I’m not sure what you get paid in one week, but I will take your bet. I will happily take your money. The Court will not hear any of these cases because doing so will severely tarnish THEIR credibility. Why hasn’t the RNC joined Berg, et al., in suing for Obama’s birth certificate? Any other top-ranking republicans? If this was a huge socialist ‘hoax’ something tells me that more important people than no names would be concerned and would enjoin the suits to give them credibility. Think about it.

  28. BIGAL says:

    The post about how close we are to calling a Constitutional Convertion has me shocked!

    Who is behind this? There has to be a group, or groups, with money and an agenda to organize a country wide initiative. And I doubt that their motives are pure.

    Can anyone think of a group of patriots alive today that you would trust to protect our freedoms by rewriting the Constiution? Can any of the current crop of politicians hold a candle to our founding fathers who created the masterpiece that is the US Constitution?

    There are no Ben Franklins, John Adams, James Masons, Thomas Jeffersons, etc. anywhere on the political landscape. All we have today are a plethora of special interests, socialists, radical environmentalists, America haters, historical revisionists, etc., whose fundamental interests are not what’s best for this counrry.

    We need to find out how this started, and express our outrage at the politicians that are supporting this movement.

  29. Anonymous says:

    I know this isn’t the NY Times or the Washington Post…BUT….It will be on every newsstand and in every grocery store..TOMORROW…This is getting interesting…

    The MSM is ignoring this matter…Their hill just got harder to climb…LOL


  30. Anonymous says:


    You eejits are so funny.

    “I believe he will be arrested soon”

    Whatever, lady. Go back under your rock and hurl your fake claims there.

    There was some idiot on the Hannity message boards claiming that Bush had secretly dispatched the national guard to quell the inevitable riots after Donofrio’s case was heard and accepted by the courts and Obama was found ineligible.

    Except it didn’t happen. And it won’t happen.

    He will be PRESIDENT on January 20th.

    Get over it. We had to deal with that idiot Bush for 8 years, you can deal with Obama for 8.

  31. dcomus says:



    But in the long run, the chances that a federal court will demand that Hawaii allow a forensic inspection of Obama’s birth records are better than one might assume. Edwin Vieira explains: “Assume, however, that no inquiry, or only a perfunctory inquiry, or only an obviously tainted inquiry takes place at the stage of counting the Electors’ votes. Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have ‘standing’ to challenge Obama’s eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon as Obama’s Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminal prosecutions some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign — such as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama’s derisive terminology) they ‘cling.’” So as soon as Obama signs a bill into law that has a negative effect on an American, that American will have standing to sue Obama to find out whether Obama actually has the power to sign the bill. Things could get interesting.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Get over it. We had to deal with that idiot Bush for 8 years, you can deal with Obama for 8.

    Oh the lovely irony! All you libs/progressives who only knew two words for the last two years – Bush! and Change! are now seeing the current policies of your Obama guy giving you 4 more years of …. yeah, Bush! Maybe now, finally, the griping by the disillusioned lemmings will hit the tanker MSM, and they’ll begin tearing down the foundation they themselves built for the O-change-messiah. And all that new, transparent, politics of change?…from where – Chicago thugs? What a mess. And he isn’t even “President-elect” yet…Really!!

  33. C says:

    Devon Young,

    You asked why, if there’s no statute of limitations, it matters whether Obama is found to be ineligible BEFORE he takes office or after….

    Once he’s sworn into office, the only way to “force him out” is for Obama to either voluntarily resign office (as Nixon reluctantly did), or for Congress to impeach him…and a Democrat-led Congress won’t be *at all happy* about impeaching him, even if he’s shown to be a usurper.

    Additionally, once Obama takes office, his replacement will be Joe Biden for the next four years. Think about that. “Diarrhea-mouth Joe”, who’s ‘one brick shy of a full load’, as my husband likes to say…meaning his intellectual capacity is somewhat lacking, compelling him to speak before thinking.

  34. Anonymous says:

    The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.

  35. Anonymous says:

    Has anyone come to the conclusion that Bill Ayers just may be at the bottom of all of this with Nobumma, the Illinois Govenor,Little Jessie& etc….. on down the corrupted list?
    They all are terrorist….think about it…The Supreme Court is only making things look good to save face, but will decline all suits against NOBumma.

  36. Anonymous says:

    I repeat, maybe the courts are allowing Obama time to produce his proof of NBC and they want public opinion on their side before they remove him from office after Jan
    20th, MLK's birthday to avoid a possible riot.

    When the American public realizes Barack Obama is a liar and a fraud, I don't believe there will be any riots. Each of these public officials have huge egos and a reputation to protect. None will appreciate being made a fool by OB and company. The U S Constitution will be upheld in the end.

    All of these were called from November 20 – December 2nd 2008. It is confirmed, OBAMA not born in any hospital in Honolulu County! NONE FACT!
    Hospitals you can check yourself
    • The Queen’s Medical Center – Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital
    • Kapi’ olani Medical Center Obama’s sister claims Barack Obama born here
    • Honolulu Shriners Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
    • Straub Clinic & Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
    • Hawaii Health Systems Corporation – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    • Cancer Institute of Maui – Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment ???
    • Kuakini Hospital – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    • Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    • St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii – Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    • Straub Heatlh – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    • Tripler Medical Center – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    • Wahiawa General Hospital – Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    • Wilcox Memorial Hospital – Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    We were pretty detailed in our calls. You can look at every hospital here and call any of them. You can file freedom of information acts, you can do everything and anything you wish. Barack Obama was never born in a hospital in Hawaii as claimed.
    Only his original that he has sealed will have this info. Will the Supreme Court force it open and thus preserve the Constitution of the United States?

  37. Anonymous says:

    SOS… – - – …
    REF. 12-15-08 Electoral Collage

    4. Hold the Meeting of Electors
    On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008), the electors meet in their respective States. Federal law does not permit the States to choose an alternate date for the meeting of electors – it must be held on December 15, 2008. The State legislature may designate where in the State the meeting will take place, usually in the State capital. At this meeting, the electors cast their votes for President and Vice President.

    If any electors are unable to carry out their duties on the day of the Electoral College meeting, the laws of each State would govern the method for filling vacancies. Any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of electors must be decided under State law at least six days prior to the meeting of the electors.

    the following found at:

    * See Title 3, Section 6 of the U.S. Code

    There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. Some States have such requirements.
    SOoooo if the states Govenors are a central part of events:smokethe phones with the ‘natural born’ question?

  38. Anonymous says:

    Wrotnowski DENIED. Cases that were granted cert are published and the denials come out on Monday. Another one bites the dust..

  39. Anonymous says:


    White House says “No Blair House for Obama until after Electoral College vote count”.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Concerning the possible call by Congress for a Convention to Propose Ammendments:

    In the 230+ years since Article Five snd the rest of the Constitution was ratified, over 600 applications by all fifty states have been ignored by Congress. So I doubt one will be called for in any near future. Also, Article Five states that the Constitution can not be replaced, and any new ammendments have to repeal an existing article or address an entirely new subject, that any ammendments must be ratified jaust like any others are, by 2/3 of the states, and once ratified will become oart of the existing Constitution and can not be conatradictory to it.

    Article Five was one of two tools given to the people to help control government, the other being the vote. Congress has chosen to ignore one tool for over 230 years. It’s about time We the People had our chance.

    Also, If Obama is inaugurated and then found to be ineligible, the FBI has the authority to arrest him on the spot as a usurper. He is ineligible and, therefore, was never the President. All of his action, orders, etc., are null and void and he is determined to be a fraud on the people. The FBI, FEC, and possibly some members of Congress would be involved.

    Glenn Flowers

  41. Anonymous says:

    @ 1:07:

    The original Constitutional Convention was intended to amend the Articles of Confederation, and the delegates were explicitly told that they were not to rewrite or replace them. How’d that work out?

    Also, please explain where Article V forbids replacement or modification of parts of the existing document, and how that affects the 14th Amendment (striking the infamous 3/5 of a person clause) and the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators, instead of appointment). Oh, btw, it requires a 3/4 majority of states to ratify an amendment. A 2/3 majority is what’s required for Congress to send an amendment to the states.

    Also, the FEC has no jurisdiction over Obama once he’s in office. The FEC has no jurisdiction over him now. They have jurisdiction over his campaign finances and may fine his campaign treasurer if there are ineligible contributions or expenditures. The FEC does not have the authority to disqualify him from the ballot or otherwise remove Obama from office.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Where as a question of Constitutional requirement… for office of the president meeting the Natural Born test has yet to be proved: stop the electoral procedure!
    (Likely you grammar/legal writers could word it better)
    Contact NASS

    National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS)
    Hall of States
    444 N Capitol St, NW
    Suite 401
    Washington, DC 20001
    Telephone: 202-624-3525
    Fax: 202-624-3527

  43. CAPT-DAX says:

    Question: Jeff,

    Would you agree that the reason why SCOTUS has not granted Writ of Cert yet is because, legally, Barack Obama has not caused injury yet?

    That up until now, he is still only a candidate?

    That after Congress certifies
    his election and the Electoral Congress,

    then and only then, there would be injury?

Speak Your Mind