Supreme Court Rejects Obama Birth Certificate Case

Now, if we can just all survive until January 20, 2008, without another war or false flag attack on our nation, there may be some hope for the future.  Until then, Bush is still President and still a very dangerous man.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/obama-birth-certificate-c_n_149229.html

• Supreme Court Rejects Obama Birth Certificate Case - Marmann
  • You were good until your paranoia reared up again. - GhostMom
    • Again? I'm askeert of ghosts, too. - Marmann
  • Hi Marnann............sm - m
    • To m: - Marmann
    • you are wishing him out before he has even started? - ExMQMT
      • It's called prejudice, as in pre-judge. - no further comment warranted.
  • To GP and SM - Marmann
    • Yeah, I read this morning - gourdpainter
  • I hope you don't think s/m - gourdpainter
  • Don't hold your breath waiting for the fanatics - to acknowledge the SC ruling. sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I stated in a previos post a few days ago that BO birth certificate case would not be heard by the Supreme Court.   As many of you have said the judges and the Supreme Court are suppressing evidence as to the real situation that many of you do have extemsive, and true facts about.  Clearly from your in depth knowledge about this situation, a cover up is occurring, not only by the Federal courts, but by the Supreme Court as will.

As in my previous post I strongly suggest that with the real evidence that you posses, that you most simplyt take action now, and save this country, not only ultimately disallowing Obama to be president, but to ultimately perform the ultimate patriotic duty for yourselves, as well as performing the highest civic duty that you likely will ever do in your lifetimes.

There is another current legal case in the works regarding this serious situation. Thus far the costs for persuing this matter are over $30,000 dollars. This can be found by doing a Google search, donations are badly needed,  and if you people will make substantial donations regarding this, the higher the likelihood that the case will be placed in the hands of a federal judge.

The other possibility here is to start as a group, a collective case, pool your resourses to hire an attorney who speecialises in these matters, pay the retainer fees, the attorney's hourly fees regarding the case, and get the case filed in the Federal courts. The fees for doing this are not cheap, but you are MTs and make high paying salaries, so $20,000 to $30,000 should not be a problem here. Even the appeal process that is likely to occur is not out of your range as MTs, as it really only costs about double the amount of money to do so, as  again  the total expenses regarding filing an appeal would likely only be about $50,000 to $60,000 dollars,, and the beauty of the system is that if you are ultimately successful in winning the case, and you likely would be with the real facts at your disposal, the court costs are covered, and you would become true national hero's!!!!!

I don't understand that with the true information that you posses, why you are not persuing this instead of writing about on message boards.

With the true facts that you posses it is quite likely that you will ultimately win the case, would have completed the highest of civic duties, and will be held in the highest of esteem for finally exposing a person who has committed a terrible fraud, not only to the election process, but also to the federal judicial system, and ultimately going as far as perpetrating that fraud up to and inc;luding the Supreme Court.

I laud you in advance for having the fortitude for persuing this, and look forward to saluting you as well all of of the other American people, for performing the highest civic and patriotic duty that one ever could. It's people like you, that never give up, and get to the bottom of such an important situation. You are the true American heroes.

May 26, 2009, 8:15 am
Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court Nominee
By Jeff Zeleny

Ron Jordan Natoli Studio/U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, via Associated Press

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. President Obama will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as his first appointment to the court, officials said Tuesday, and has scheduled an announcement for 10:15 a.m. at the White House.

If confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, Judge Sotomayor, 54, would replace Justice David H. Souter to become the second woman on the court and only the third female justice in the history of the Supreme Court. She also would be the first Hispanic justice to serve on the Supreme Court.

Conservative groups reacted with sharp criticism on Tuesday morning. “Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written,” said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network. “She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.”

The president reached his decision over the long Memorial Day weekend, aides said, but it was not disclosed until Tuesday morning when he informed his advisers of his choice less than three hours before the announcement was scheduled to take place.

Mr. Obama telephoned Judge Sotomayor at 9 p.m. on Monday, officials said, advising her that she was his choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Later Monday night, Mr. Obama called the three other finalists — Judge Diane P. Wood of Chicago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Solicitor General Elena Kagan — to inform them that he had selected Judge Sotomayor.

White House officials worked into the night to prepare for the announcement, without knowing who it would be.

Judge Sotomayor has sat for the last 11 years on the federal appeals bench in Manhattan. As the top federal appeals court in the nation’s commercial center, the court is known in particular for its expertise in corporate and securities law. For six years before that, she was a federal district judge in New York.

In what may be her best-known ruling, Judge Sotomayor issued an injunction against major league baseball owners in April 1995, effectively ending a baseball strike of nearly eight months, the longest work stoppage in professional sports history, which had led to the cancellation of the World Series for the first time in 90 years.

Born in the Bronx on June 23, 1954, she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 8. Her father, a factory worker, died a year later. Her mother, a nurse at a methadone clinic, raised her daughter and a younger son on a modest salary.

Judge Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University summa cum laude in 1976 and and attended Yale Law School, where she was an Editor of the Yale Law Journal. She spent five years as a prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney’s office before entering private practice.

But she longed to return to public service, she said, inspired by the “Perry Mason” series she watched as a child. In 1992, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended the politically centrist lawyer to President George H. W. Bush, making good on a longstanding promise to appoint a Hispanic judge in New York.

On the Circuit Court, she has been involved in few controversial issues like abortion. Some of her most notable decisions came in child custody and complex business cases. Her most high-profile case involved New Haven’s decision to toss out tests used to evaluate candidates for promotion in the fire department because there were no minority candidates at the top of the list.

She was part of a panel that rejected the challenge brought by white firefighters who scored high but were denied promotion. Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff, argued that it was unfair he was denied promotion after he had studied intensively for the exam and even paid for special coaching to overcome his dyslexia.

The case produced a heated split in the Circuit Court and is now before the Supreme Court.

For those that feel strongly that Obama is ineligible to be the president due to unanswered questions regarding his birth certificate, there is something that you can do about it. 

The key here is that you need to be very proactive.  Posting about Obama's birth certificate on message boards, in emails and such will not result in him ultimately being unable to serve as president due to this very important issue. 

Many here have written extensively about this issue, and seem quite knowlegable regarding the actual facts surrounding his birth certificate, and the fact that he, in reality, is legally disqualifed from serving as president.

The many posters here who are deeply concerned about this issue, need to take thiings a step further than merely posting about this. 

Here is what you need to do.  Make an appointment to consult with an attorney and state your concerns to said attorney.  For a retainer fee the attorney will accept the case on your behalf.  Retainer fees are not that high, usually for a case such as this the retainer fee would run a couple of thousand dollars, plus whatever hourly fee the attorney charges.  The more people that take this proactive approach, the higher the likelihood that the case will be heard and ultimately Obama would be removed from office due to this birth certificate issue. 

In the event that the case is heard and dismissed, the next step is to file an appeal.  The retainer fees for an appeal run higher than the initial  retainer fee, however again it is not that expensive, with the ballpark figure of approximately $5,000.plus whatever hourly fee your attorney charges, and here again the more people that do this the higher the liklihood of Obama being removed from office due to this so very important issue.

On December 5, 2008, this issue will be addressed by the Supreme Court and likely there will be no furtherance on this. As many of you already know, a federal judge dismissed this very important case, and the Supreme Court is likely to follow suit in this coverup regarding Obama and his birth certificate.

I urge  all who post about this so often and feel very strongly about this issue to take action, retain an attorney and follow through with the case to its conclusion.  In the end, with your collective efforts and knowlege about the real issues regarding Obama and the birth certificate, you will have prevented, or caused the removal of, a person from serving in the highest office in the nation  who, in fact, is not legally qualified to serve in that capacity.  In doing this you will have performed the ultimate act of patriotism.

Sometimes in life you have to put your money where your mouth is, and this is one of those times. 

Wow, I believe we have some sore losers!

From NBC’s Pete Williams

When the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet on Dec. 5th, in their regular private conference to decide which cases to hear, two lawsuits that have captivated a segment of the blogosphere will be up for discussion.

Both urge the court to consider claims that President-elect Obama is not qualified to be president, because he is not a natural-born American citizen.
Persistent concerns about the qualifications of both major party candidates rank among the oddest aspects of 2008's historic campaign.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen" is eligible to be president. John McCain's status was questioned because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and various theories have been advanced to cast doubt on Obama's.

Lawsuits over the inclusion of their names on state general-election ballots popped up around the country and were quickly dispensed with by local courts. But two challengers have pursued their cases to the Supreme Court.

Pennsylvania lawyer Philip Berg claims that the circumstances of Obama's birth are vague and that he may have been born in Kenya. Obama's mother, Berg asserts, later flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer, contends that election officials in his state failed to ensure that only legally qualified candidates were placed on the ballot. Obama may have been born in the United States, Donofrio argues, but "natural born" status depends on both parents being American citizens. Obama's father was Kenyan.

The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.

In dismissing Berg's complaint, a federal judge in Pennsylvania found that he failed to meet the basic test required for sustaining a lawsuit, because he couldn't show how the inclusion of Obama's name on the ballot would cause him -- apart from others -- some particular harm. Berg's stake, the judge said, "is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters."

Other courts presented with similar challenges have reached the same conclusion, ruling that there is no general legal right to sue over the Constitution's eligibility requirements. Federal courts typically reject claims of legal standing based simply on a litigant's status as a voter or taxpayer.

The Obama campaign had hoped to end the controversy last spring by releasing his actual Hawaii birth certificate. But that prompted further questions about its authenticity, which were compounded when state authorities in Hawaii said they could not vouch for it, because they were constrained by the privacy laws.

Then, on Oct. 31st, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health issued a statement, proclaiming that he had personally seen and verified that the state has "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record," which shows that he was born there.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/01/obama-birth-certificate-rears-its-ugly-head-again/

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Either that or this is one heck of a fake, plus someone planted an announcement back in the 1961 Honolulu newspaper....

!!!!!

credibility in the Bush/Gore recount. 

Thate 5-3 decision would have been a 5-4 decision, had Roberts not recused himself from ruling due to his prior ruling in the case at a lower court.

Alito and Roberts are Bush loyalists who will vote in his favor every time.  Same with Scalia and Thomas.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, is 86.  This means there is a very good chance that Bush will have the opportunity to appoint a third Supreme Court Justice, thus negatively tipping and fixing the scales of justice for decades to come, long after Bush is gone.  Some radical right-wingers (including Ann Coulter) have publicly called for the assassination of a Supreme Court Justice, and Pat Robertson has been *praying* for another Bush appointment.  If/when that happens, freedom as we know it in the United States will be gone for generations. 

In the meantime, the current Supreme Court ruling won't mean much.  They're already talking about creating a law to make Bush's tactics legal.

Not that even THAT would matter much.  Bush hasn't agreed with Congress' laws 750 times since he's been in office, and he's issued *signing statements* allowing him to ignore the law.

He apparently views himself as having expanded Presidential powers in a time of war.  Maybe that's a large part of the true reason we're at war with Iraq.

July 2008

In a stinging blow to the Bush administration, the Supreme Court has ruled prisoners in Guantanamo Bay can challenge their detention in civilian federal courts. The ruling marked the third time in four years the Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush administration concerning the rights of Guantanamo prisoners.

The Texas state supreme court ruled unanimously on Friday that a town which had altered its zoning to ban two church-sponsored halfway houses in a residential neighborhood was in violation of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

That act, which was passed in 1999 and endorsed by then-Governor George W. Bush, affords greater legal protection to religious operations than to equivalent secular operations.

Under its provisions, cities have to prove that zoning regulations — like the one passed by the town of Sinton to ban jails and rehabs within 1000 feet of a home, school, or church — further a “compelling” interest, such as protecting public safety, and do not place a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion.

Town officials asserted that the zoning regulations placed no restrictions on worship or the practice of religion and were merely intended to protect the safety of residents. This position was upheld at the local and appeals court levels.

However, the all-Republican and generally conservative state supreme court agreed with Pastor Richard Barr’s claim that because the town of Sinton is so small, the regulation had the effect of excluding him from operating his “ministry” for parolees anywhere.

Barr’s case was argued by the conservative Liberty Legal Institute (LLI) and was also supported by the American Center for Law and Justice — founded by Pat Robertson — and by the ACLU.

LLI was involved several years ago in a widely-noted case against a Texas school district which its litigation director, Hiram Sasser, claimed had demonstrated “pervasive religious hostility” by banning the distribution at Christmas time of candy canes with a religious message.

According to Sasser, today’s decision “means that in zoning cases you have to give churches special treatment. … You have to have very special reasons for telling a church you can’t locate here and locate there. That’s going to be a touch burden for cities.”

“This is a home run,” Sasser proclaimed. ‘I think it will be a model for other states.”

As in the words of Archie Bunker from "All in the Family" to his TV wife Edith:  "Stifle yourself...geeeez".

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90125

this is an outrage.  citizens of this nation have demanded to see his birth records.  he answers to us and he refuses to be accountable to us.  i think that i should no longer be required to show mine.  if he has that right, why don't I? 

It's good to know this is still pending.

Honor the constitution.

http://texashillblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/scotus-requires-obama-to-show-birth.html

Is Barack Obama a U.S. citizen?"

Of course he is, dummy..

"But how do you know?"

Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website. Not to mention, the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . Also, factcheck.org (a non-partisan and highly credible political fact checking website) investigated it heavily and validated, beyond doubt, that the birth certificate he posted was real. Did I mention that if there were an actual conspiracy surrounding this...it would have to be 47 years in the making? That's right, read it and weep: his birth announcement was posted in a Hawaii newspaper way back in 1961! But if you're really not sure, just remember there have been court cases challenging his citizenship, and every one of them was laughed off the docket.

"That's all pretty compelling. But I got this email that said...."

The email you got is just a crazy, internet-born rumor. It's nothing but a desperate attempt to discredit him. Trust me.

"Yeah, I'm sure you're right...."


Sound familiar? I've personally had a similar conversation several times, but mine ends differently.


"Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website."

Really? Well humor me, because I think this is important enough for us to get our facts straight. So let's explore that. Hawaii doesn't issue "birth certificates". The state offers "Certificates of Live Birth" and "Certifications of Live Birth." What Barack Obama has posted on his website is a "Certification of Live Birth." So let's talk about the difference between the two documents. As you probably know, the document we commonly refer to as a "birth certificate" (more formally called a Certificate of Live Birth) is packed with detail. Detail like the hospital you were born in, the doctor who delivered you along with his/her signature, etc. It looks like a tax form with all the boxes and everything. The Certification of Live Birth is really just a snapshot of that. So which one is more credible? Which one does the state of Hawaii give the "last word" to? Based on information that existed long before this issue came up, let's take a look at one example of what the state of Hawaii has to say on it:

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." ( http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl ).

So if the state of Hawaii itself doesn't accept "Certifications of Live Birth" as a last leg of verification, it's safe to say there's a pretty solid distinction we too can make when comparing a Certificate to a Certification. What Barack Obama posted, was a Certification. What people want to see, is the Certificate. When you say he "posted his birth certificate" on his website, the truth (painful as it may be to hear) is that he posted a much different document that if accurately described, would be a "birth certification" - which is far less credible and far easier to alter.

"That's pretty lean. It's not really a big deal to me because I know it's just a rumor. But still, if you're going to insist there's a question here, I have to tell you....the state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . They have the 'Certificate' you're talking about, and they proved it was authentic. Are you saying they're in on this crazy conspiracy?"

I'm not saying they're involved in a conspiracy, or even that one exists. But I'm not sure you can honestly say you actually read that statement. Here, take a look:

Director of Health for the State of Hawaii , Chiyome Fukino: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i."

Now you tell me, where in that statement does it say anything about where he was born? Public officials are very careful when they release these statements. They carve their words out precisely and check and double check to make sure what they release is accurate and viable. I have to be honest, it wasn't until this statement came out that I became more concerned by the citizenship question. If you actually read it, it's plain to see that as it relates to his birth, the statement really only "proves" 3 things: 1) Barack Obama was born, 2) proof of that birth exists on paper, and 3) their office is in receipt of that paper. An official statement with a lot of affirmatives about requirements and procedures means nothing if they can't find the words, "originating from Hawaii " or "was born in Honolulu " or "as documented in the Certification he has already released". Now maybe it was an accident that Dr. Fukino was able to authenticate virtually every scrap of it's existence - except the part everyone is asking about. However, pressed on this, there has been ample opportunity for her to revise or expand her statement, and she still to this day has not done so.

"Wait a minute, Hank. Didn't factcheck.org already investigate this whole thing. You're just grasping at straws. What do you know, that they don't?!"

I guess the first thing I'd tell you is that, on this particular subject, factcheck has already missed a lot of "facts", and even created a few of their own. You know that statement we just read from Hawaii 's Director of Health? Well this is what factcheck had to say about it: "Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu " ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ). Did you see that in the statement? I didn't. If this site's only claim is to report facts in a non-partisan manner, how much credibility can we really give them when they start making up their own, very partisan and very inaccurate facts? They also failed to make the distinction between the Certificate and the Certification. And to be fair, factcheck.org is a product of the Annenberg Foundation. You may remember, Barack Obama worked for Annenberg as a spoke in their umbrella. If you look at the actual facts, this is a slight conflict of interest on factcheck.org's part - which might help to explain their not having met their own obligation of getting the facts right. An accident on their part? Maybe. But they too have had plenty of time to correct it, but chose instead to close the book on this one...fabricated facts and all.

"Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack's parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There's a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud."

Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you're bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn't have to be a "conspiracy" for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.

"Hmm. Okay. Well newsflash Hank. This has already been challenged in court and the judges dismissed it as frivolous and ridiculous."

Actually, this has been heard in a handful of courts. The judges by-in-large dismissed the cases, you're right. But the majorative reason was not merit, but rather standing. "Standing", as an act of dismissal in the courts, is a technicality. The judges said that individual citizens did not have standing to ask that the Constitution be upheld. This raises a pretty clear question: If "We The People" don't have standing to ask that the contract we hold with our government be upheld (ie the Constitution), who does? There are several other cases still pending; at least 12 confirmed. One of those is actually active on the Supreme Court's docket, as we speak. Another has been brought in California by 2008 candidate for the Presidency, Alan Keyes...and several of California 's electors (members of the electoral college who will officially vote our President in on December 15, 2008).

I don't think too many grounded people could say, "I know the answer." For instance, I am not saying Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. I'm not saying he was born in Kenya . I'm not saying he renounced his U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and attended school there (a right reserved only to Indonesian citizens - in a country that didn't recognize any dual citizenship.) I'm not saying that due to his father's citizenship at a time when Kenya was still part of the British empire , Barack, as a son, was automatically and exclusively afforded British citizenship. I'm not saying the video footage of his Kenyan grandmother claiming to have been in the delivery room, in Kenya , when he was born, is necessarily "evidence." I'm also not saying he was born in Hawaii . What I'm saying is, none of us have these answers. I'm saying, there is an outstanding question here - that only Barack Obama can answer. And rather than answer it, having promised a new sense of transparency throughout his campaign, his course of action has been to spend time, money and the resources of at least 3 separate law firms....fighting to keep any and all documentation off the discovery table and out of the courtroom. It is a well known legal fact that if you have documentation/evidence that will help you - you are quick to produce it. If that documentation will hurt you, however, you fight to keep it out of court. Let's be fair. He was quick and happy to give documentation he claimed validated and authenticated his citizenship to a website - but is fighting to keep that same documentation out of the courts. If that document really does authenticate and validate everything, why not just hand it over? Why fight?

"Alright Hank. Well MY question is, if there was any validity to this, why isn't the media covering it?"

I have no idea.


As an Independent and initial Barack Obama supporter, I can safely say that contrary to what many think, asking these questions is not an attempt by Republicans to win a technicality-laden seat in the White House. Republicans lost. They were due the loss. Most know that. The seat will ultimately go to a Democrat. But if there is truth to Barack Obama not being able to formally prove his a) natural born, and/or b) properly maintained citizenship statuses - we as Americans must not gloss past it. If there is truth to it, this will represent the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and our most coveted process of democracy. If there is truth to it, this will demonstrate a wanton and relentless pursuit for power which left President-Elect Obama trapsing all over our Constitution - in pursuit of a position that ironically and foremost swears him to uphold and protect that same document.

There is much unanswered here. I know it is very embarassing for the Democratic party to have allowed what might be such an incredibly elementary oversight to occur - but nothing good that Barack Obama might do in the next 4-8 years, will be able to repair the damage done by setting a precedent that affords anyone in our Country the room and right to trample the contract "We The People" hold with our government, let alone a person who is asking to be our next President.

"Everyone will riot if they kick him out." We can't be intimidated by that. The people of our country elected a black man for the Presidency. Nothing can change that. If it turns out his entire campaign and effort were based on fraud, that reality is still 100% independent of the color-blind lenses our nation took to the polls. So if we bow down to the potential for race riots - recognizing that we did in fact (perhaps ignorantly relating to his eligibility) initially vote for him, we are only fostering a new evolution of racism that is nurtured by intimidation and complicit with failing to incite accountability over a man, people and process - simply based on color.

Very few people know any of this is even occurring. Those who do are greatly divided. Some are sure Barack Obama has acted fraudulently, some are sure he hasn't. Neither group can be sure of anything though, until Barack Obama himself answers the question for us. We all show our "birth certificates" (Certificates of Live Birth) several times over the course of our lives. Why should someone running for the Presidency be an exeption to that expectation, or even a more fiercely vetted recipient of it? More questionably, how can we as a government, media and nation - allow someone running for the Presidency to be an exception to that expectation?

The behavior, mostly (to my personal dismay) for his part, has only fueled speculation. Why factcheck.org? Why not a governing body like the Federal Election Commission, Board of Elections or even the DNC? When a governing body did finally inject itself in to this matter, why were they only able to do so vaguely...leaving the real question entirely untouched and unanswered? Why spend more than $800K fighting this in court, at a time when our nation is in economic crisis and that money could be better spent in far more charitable ways; when it could ultimately and universally be resolved for the small $12.00 fee required by Hawaii for a copy of the actual Certificate of Live Birth? In the spirit of transparency, why refuse to release this basic document for inspection? In the spirit of unity, why leave so many Americans alienated and debating the matter - when all most of them want is affirmation so that people on both sides of the debate can move to more healthy and productive lines of communication?

It was opinionated that he had left this door open prior to the election, so that those who opposed him would be led down a blind and pointless alley. The general election is over though. And still, he offers nothing to end the speculation.

By the time I am done with the conversation I outlined above, those I am speaking with inevitably return to what I have typically found to be their first and last refutation....

"He must have been properly vetted. Right....?"

I don't know. And without support for that contention coming directly from the Federal Election Commission, the Board of Elections or (ideally) Barack Obama himself, neither does anyone else.

"This is ridiculous" doesn't count as a refutation. Simply, answer the question with the simple documentation that is being asked of you in double digit numbers of court rooms across the country, including the Supreme Court. It may go away. It may be dismissed again based on standing. But President-Elect Obama's refusal to quell what have become very real questions about this, will only serve to leave many good Americans who hope to vigorously support their President...with far too much doubt to be able to do so. Production of a Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price to pay for unity.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-156768

dressed like he is in that picture.  All he needs is Osama Bin Laden with his arm around his shoulder and each one holding an automatic weapon.

First rejected by Ginsburg.  Then accepted by Scalia for conference.  Scary.  I wonder when Scalia (the "President Maker) and Cheney last went hunting..'tis the season for "hunting," no?

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

I wonder how many more of these cases are out there.

From his speech today:  He also said if the demonstrations didn't stop there might be chaos and bloodshed, and that rival candidates calling for protests would be blamed.  See link for full details.

This is going to get really, really bad.

Sanity as attested by Hannity would be nice for this place, also, but still strictly optional.