Berg v. Obama to Reach Conference on January 9, 2009

Philip Berg’s case against Barack Obama and the DNC, the first such lawsuit and the one broken here at America’s Right, will be discussed by the Supreme Court Justices at conference on Friday, January 9. This is the same type of conference seen in Wrotnowski and Donofrio, only Berg has filed a petition for writ of certiorari and not merely an application for emergency stay.

For all intents and purposes, this is a distinction with no discernable difference when it comes to the eventual outcome — I still feel that the odds of any of these cases being heard on their merits are slim to none to completely insurmountable.

Unfortunately, because of time constraints, I cannot discuss this any more today. A few days ago, I discussed a realistic approach to where Berg’s case goes from here — please take a look.

In the meantime, it’s back to work for me.

UPDATE, 11:15pm

Home, and done with exams.

As for the Kennedy denial so many of you have asked about, I’m fairly certain that the denial is of the application and not the petition for writ of certiorari. I’ll check around tomorrow. For now, for crying out loud, I’m getting some sleep!

Share

Comments

  1. Tilli says:

    from AJC.com

    WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has rejected two more efforts to get the court to consider whether President-elect Barack Obama is eligible to take office.

    Kennedy on Wednesday denied without comment an appeal by Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney, that claims Obama is either a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia and is ineligible to be president because he is not a “natural-born citizen” of the U.S. as required by the Constitution. Another appeal from California, based on Berg’s claims, also was denied.

    Individual justices and the entire court have turned down emergency appeals over Obama’s eligibility at least seven times in the past six weeks.

    Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 to an American mother and a Kenyan father.

    Reacting to Internet-fueled conspiracy theories that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake, Hawaiian officials have said they examined the document and have no doubt it is authentic.

  2. Anonymous says:

    What does the last line in the list there mean? It states “Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy”

    WND is reporting that this case has been denied.

    So has it been distributed for conference, or has it been denied? Or am I not understanding that “denied” means?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Looks like Lawdawg was right again. How is he getting this information before everybody else?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Now this is weird, or maybe not.

    http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com

    “A reader, Jane, conducted some Google searches relating to the Obama home on Greenwood Ave and discovered the following (see three screen shots).

    Phone# of the address,if you can’t make it out, is 415-821-6171, a San Francisco Area Code.

    The # associated with the Obama address is the # for the national Party of Socialism and Liberation. When she clicked on that link, it was the PSL site for local offices”.

    Is this brazen or what?

  5. toto says:

    What I still don’t understand is why the Supreme Court can’t or won’t take this seriously. After all, unless I’m wrong, they are suppossed to protect the constitution, and yet, they refuse to do it.

    Also, in WND today, the article about this is pretty poignant in my mind. The question it seems to always come back to is why would Obamas team spend around $800k to fight this, when for a simple $10 birth certificate would answer all the problems. Thats the part that I keep getting stuck on, it just doesn’t make sense unless he has something to hide.

    It is my firm belief that at some point, someone will finally come up with the truth, how? I don’t know that, but even if he gets inaugerated, you can believe people won’t stop looking for the truth. After all, until he actually has the position, there isn’t really a problem. What I mean by that is the constitution states that “no one shall hold office of the president….”, and at this point he doesn’t hold office. Of course I realize that IF they were to discover the truth later, say August or something, all laws signed by him are moot. All anyone is asking is to verify his birth place, and all the problems stop, and any future problems are avoided. If the SCOTUS doesn’t see this, they are basically saying we have no constitution, and thats what frightens me the most.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Hey Jeff…Obama has made the front page of the Globe newspaper.

    BREAKING NEWS:
    Obama election illegal!

    Shocking charges threaten his presidency.

    He wasn’t born in U.S.
    Birth certificate is FORGED!

    The Globe refers to the lawsuits and talks about what Berg has stated in his lawsuits……Go figure a gossip paper finally hears the issues…..

    By the way I hope you had a wonderful day off….Thanks for all you do…..Take Care

  7. Sherry says:

    What the hell! Obama’s home address is associated with the Socialist Party??

    I did a search and came up with the same results……..

    http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/google-obamas-residence-linked-to-psl-phone-number/

  8. Laptoplizard,Tn says:

    AHH…Yee of little Faith, although you do know much more than I about such things and are most likely right, I shall continue to hold out hope. But I must say that hope is more along the lines of “Givem enough rope” ya know?

    But it does seem to a layman as myself that they didnt just toss the whole thing at once?

  9. Anonymous says:

    THANK YOU FOR THIS NEWS TODAY JEFF, PLEASE TELL US THAT YOU CAN GET EXTRA CREDIT IN ONE OF YOUR CLASSES FOR EXCELLENT REPORTING ON LEGAL AND ELECTION MATTERS THAT IS OF NATIONALIMPORTANCE FOR THREE MONTHS TO THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. THEN WE CAN FEEL LIKE WE DID SOMETHING GOOD FOR YOU.

  10. Anonymous says:

    This will not go away unless they do something definitive. Might as well say that a woman who is a born American can give birth to a president anywhere, anytime, at any age. Because as of Obama, that’s what it is. Daddy don’t matter as long as the media hypes the candidate enough.
    It isn’t like Obama is any worse philosophically than the other Democrats who ran for president.
    Roses,WA

  11. Michelle in Texas says:

    Jeff, this is confusing. It looks like Justice Kennedy reversed his decision to refer Berg’s case for conference and actually denied it.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Jeff,

    The following is a post from the obamacrimes blog. Can you and others please provide an analysis and comment on whether you agree or disagree with this opinion:
    —————————–

    This comment is in response to [user 2burm's] update on cases. Most of the folks here have failed to notice the significance of the SCOTUS conference scheduled for Jan 9th, to review Berg’s case. From US District Court Judge William Alsup’s ruling in the Robinson v Bowen case, it can be seen that mechanisms exist to handle the challenge to a Presidential candidate’s eligibility when the electoral college votes have been counted and that will happen by Jan 8th. Here is the link to the article that quotes this ruling:

    http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/100108.html#5

    Also, in all the other cases filed in the SCOTUS, challenging Obama’s eligibility(including Donofrio and Wrotnowski’s cases), only the stay applications have been denied. The decision on the Writs of Cert are still pending and that is why, in the SCOTUS order lists, which show the denial of the stay applications, these cases are still being considered as pending cases. Even though, none of the other cases except Berg’s case have a formal Writ filed, the SCOTUS has in the past considered stay applications as a Writ, as in the case of Bush v Gore, in 2000.

    So, I believe, what the SCOTUS is doing is waiting for the right moment, as allowed by law, to handle challenges to the Presidential candidate’s eligibility. The Obots should not necessarily get too happy about the denials to these stay applications.

    ————————–

    I’ve read differing opinions about whether SCOTUS would intervene because some don’t believe they would take action which would overturn the choice of the people and the vote of the electors. What do you say?

  13. Anonymous says:

    Jeff, Good Luck with all your studies and exams! I so appreciate your articles. They are so insightful and informative.

  14. webpet says:

    Jeff, can you shed some light on standing vs merit? Let’s assume that Berg’s case is 100% air tight in evidence, does this give him standing? Or is standing a total different issue from merit? From what I’ve gotten out of reading the different reports, it seems that standing is more on Berg than his case, in other words, Berg is on trial up to this point. Please shed some light after you get rested up from your gruling week of exams.
    Thanks,
    Tom C

  15. Koyaan says:

    webpet wrote:

    Let’s assume that Berg’s case is 100% air tight in evidence, does this give him standing? Or is standing a total different issue from merit?

    I’m not Jeff, but it’s a completely different issue.

    When the lower courts dismissed Berg’s case for lack of standing, they did so with the assumption that all of Berg’s claims were true.

    k

  16. Jeff Schreiber says:

    webpet,

    Koyaan is right on the standing/merit differential. The time-line of materials is linked on the right-hand side of the page under “ESSENTIAL READING” and, in it, you’ll find a number of articles on the standing issue — including one which is entitled, “who DOES have standing?”

    – Jeff

  17. Marcia says:

    Obama’s mother was not old enough to pass on her citizenship to him. Also I am thinking after reading the the comments. That maybe once the Electrol College votes are counted then the Supreme Court can review the lawsuites as he has been confirmed a President. That may be why we are so frustrated. Once he is President then we can take him out with all the information on Berg vs Obama. Lets hope at lest

  18. Anonymous says:

    I wonder if there is a possible way to see Obama’s vault birth certificate: I heard somewhere that in Hawaii, there are only two ways to see a locked copy of an original birth certificate. One is if you are the individual named on it. The other way is if you have an interest in it because of a “common or mutual ancestor.”

    Does anyone know if this is true? If so, can we get some FAST genealogical research done, find a common ancestor of Obama’s who is willing, and facilitate their application to see the birth certificate?

  19. Anonymous says:

    WILL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PUNISH OBAMA LIKE IT DID STEVENS?
    The Bush Justice Department won a conviction against Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens (R) yesterday on seven counts of hiding nearly $250,000 in free home renovations and other gifts from a wealthy oil contractor. Stevens’ indictment and conviction in the middle of his re-election bid ensures his defeat. Democrats are celebrating Stevens’ conviction, hopeful now of capturing 60 Senate seats in this year’s election. Ironically, Democrats have been accusing the Bush administration for the past 8 years of engaging in political prosecutions of Democrats. Let’s see, the Justice Department prosecuted Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Scooter Libby, GOP powerhouse lobbyist Jack Abramoff, U.S. Rep. Randy Cunningham, U.S. Robert Ney and U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi. It is currently investigating at least a half dozen other GOP members of Congress. So, what about Sen. Barack Obama? After all, his convicted political fixer friend, Tony Rezko, put about $300,000 in his pocket to help him and his wife, Michelle, purchase their South Side mansion. After hearing rumors that Rezko was helping funnel cash to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagoyevich to help with remodeling work on his home, Sen. Obama called on his good buddy Rezko for help. It seemed a co-worker of Michelle’s at the University of Chicago hospital had this beautiful Hyde Park home, but they insisted the buyer purchase the vacant lot next door. Obama couldn’t swing the more than $2 million the sellers wanted. So Obama takes Rezko over to the house for a walk through and Rezko comes up with a plan. He had his wife, Rita, purchase the vacant lot at an inflated price of $650,000. If you don’t believe me on that, just ask the bank appraiser who lost his job and has filed a whistle blower lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court accusing Mutual Bank of tossing his lower appraisal in favor of the inflated appraisal and withholding that information from a federal grand jury looking into the transaction. At the same time, the sellers knocked off $300,000 from the selling price of the home for the Obamas, who received a discounted jumbo mortgage to purchase the home for $1.6 million. Later, Rezko improved the lot with a privacy fence and sold a portion of the lot to the Obamas, thereby rendering the balance of the lot worth significantly less than the original purchase price on it. You can shake that up in a brown paper bag however you like, but when you open it up, it is still a shady land deal designed to personally enrich the Obamas.
    Where’s the Justice Department? Let’s see an indictment of Obama now so the voters will know that Obama is just a typical Chicago politician on the take. This deal is no different than the set of transactions for which you just prosecuted Sen. Stevens. If it’s fair to indict and convict Stevens in the middle of his re-election, then it’s fair to indict Sen. Obama.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Jeff, you do a geat job on here. I agree with everything you have stated regarding the cases. I too keep hoping for a miracle and that at least one of these cases will be heard but I am losing hope as each day passes. I sure don’t know who Lawdawg is but that guy has been right on the money. I just wish he would offer his opinion of this instead of just giving us the bad news before it hits. So Lawdawg if you are reading this, please tell us if you think any of these cases have merit. Thanks!! By they way, I can’t remember my password but my name is Kenny.

  21. 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?

  22. Anonymous says:

    Barack Obama has not taken the oath of office for POTUS. Until then there is no decision for the Supreme Court to make.

    FYI and reading – parts of this documents relating to the subject.

    The Constitution of the United States

    Article I – Qualifications and Powers of Representatives and Senators

    Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. …………..
    No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
    The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
    The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

    The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

    Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

    Article II – Qualifications and Powers of the President

    Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

    In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

    Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Section 2: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

    He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

    The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

    Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Article III – Powers of the Supreme Court

    Section 1: The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

    The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

    Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;– between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

    In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

    In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

    AMENDMENT XI

    Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

    Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

    The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

    Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies,giving them aid and comfort.

    No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

    Article IV

    Section 1: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

    Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

    Article VI

    All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United

    AMENDMENT XII

    Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

    Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

    The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

    – the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; —

    The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President,

    the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

    But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

    [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.

    But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

    *Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

    AMENDMENT XX

    Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

    Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

    Section 1: The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

    Section 2: The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

    Section 3: If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term,

    or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    Section 4: The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

    Section 5: Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

    Section 6: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Jeff, this may be a repeat.

    In response to Toto’s question, there is no direct requirement that the SCOTUS must defend of protect the Constitution. The Constitution prescribes an oath that the President must swear to, but there is no oath required of the Justices. Instead the oath the Justices swear to was created in law.

    USC 28, Chapter I, Part 453. Each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

    “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

    Article II, Section I, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, prescribes the following oath for the President:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Perhaps the Justices feel that protecting the Constitution isn’t their responsibility. As Obama might say, “…that’s above my pay grade.”

    When Obama swears to the oath will he do so honestly?

  24. Anonymous says:

    While I don’t understand the silence of the media or SCOTUS, I do think that until the law is actually broken by a known usurper attempting to take office, that there may be little SCOTUS can do. They probably expect Obama to give himself up. A rational man would. But then why be rational when for a mere $500,000 Obama can throw out his play to pay hand?

    Last night I overheard a ten year old boy say, “I can’t believe people in this country would vote for someone who stole a car.”

    I can’t believe that the 235 million Americans who did not vote for him who stole a car will stand by and let him who stole a car steal the presidency and country as well.

  25. Anonymous says:

    John Linder to stand and object Obama at Electoral Count

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2150318/posts

  26. Anonymous says:

    Assuming that Obama is not qualified to be president, isn’t it true that any violation of the Constitution would only occur at such time that he is officially and finally elected, that is to say when congress certifies the electoral college tally? As of today, Obama isn’t even a senator.

    That will (or won’t) happen January 8. Berg’s case is scheduled for conference January 9. Is this timing mere coincidence?

  27. Anonymous says:

    Obama DOESN’T OWN the houses in Chicago, his and Rezko’s Attorney Miceli owns it acccording to the Recorders office of Crook County.

  28. K says:

    While we are waiting for Jeff to catch up on sleep, chew on this brilliant comment from former Mayor Ed Koch concerning Caroline Kennedy.

    “When you look at her, and you know what the Kennedy’s are capable of and you know the family she comes from … think of the DNA,” Koch said.

    I guess the rest of us can get ready for the next bus to Auschwitz since we don’t have the right DNA!

  29. Anonymous says:

    Something about this whole fiasco of paying employees with Visa cards on November 5th is driving me crazy.

    http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=9299280&ClientType=Printable

    The article mentions a couple of names, however there are no expenses listed for these persons in the campaign records (through 11/24/08). How were these people paid with no payroll taxes? or record of they're being paid at all?

    Just based on the simple statements in this article it looks like there must have been at least $50,000 in payments made.

    Also, where did these prepaid VISA cards come from? Were they purchased or donated? I'd sure be interested to know who donated them (if that's the case) considering all the prepaid credit card donations…………….

  30. msjudy says:

    Jeff,
    Talking about ‘seeds.’ The bus driver wouldn’t let me on the bus if I had them. I eat them by the bags.

    On the Orly site, someone has looked into O’s ancestry, here it is. It is a first draft.

    http://www.wargs.com/political/obama.html

  31. Anonymous says:

    I don’t understand the people who are still calling us names because we don’t believe the birth information that Obama posted. The man himself…on his own website…admitted that he was born in Kenya. Why will they not believe him!? Why, with this admission, are the courts turning back the challanges?

    Another curious item that I can’t get my head wrapped around is why did 17 year old Ann Dunham give birth to Obama on August 4th in Kenya and rush to Hawaii to register his birth on August
    12th? Did she know then that he was going to run for President in 2008? I doubt it! All investigation and evidence points to Obama being born in Kenya and his own admission should bring the birth certificate issue to rest.

    The dual-citizenship issue is the only important issue!

    Of course, no one really knows because Obama will not let the information be accessed. Lacking information to the contrary, we have the right to form our opinion of what happened at his birth. If Obama and his supporters don’t like it…tough! Prove us wrong!

    Why is Kenya making his “birthplace” a shrine…and why is Hawaii not?

    Let’s all hope that the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution. They may be waiting to see if one Senator and one Congressman will stand up and not certify him before taking action themselves.

  32. Anonymous says:

    K -

    I know it is off topic, but when I read the quote by Ed Koch, I noticed a couple of things.

    “When you look at her, and you know what the Kennedy’s are capable of and you know the family she comes from … think of the DNA,” Koch said.

    Either the former mayor or the reporter writing the story (or both) must have gone through the same school district as Obama’s new Secretary of Education! In the first place, that sentence is a fragment and doesn’t make sense. In the second place, the name Kennedys is plural, NOT POSSESIVE! Why do so many people insist on putting an apostrophe in where one is not needed? See how the Mallard Fillmore comic strip addressed this topic with great humor!

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp?date=20050828

    Anyway, I’ll stop ranting now.
    Merry Christmas to all!

    Anonymous SQ

  33. Koyaan says:

    Anonymous wrote:

    The man himself…on his own website…admitted that he was born in Kenya. Why will they not believe him!? Why, with this admission, are the courts turning back the challanges?

    Because there was never any admission on his website that he was born in Kenya.

    And this is why people call you names. Because you go around making bullshit claims like this as well as others.

    If you don’t want to be called names, then stop doing stuff like this.

    k

Speak Your Mind

*