US Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Presidential Eligibility

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Are you in denial of US Court Records?
United States Public Law 103-150
The "Apology Resolution"
Passed by Congress and signed by President William J. Clinton
November 23, 1993 witnessed by Vice-President Gore and
Hawaii's Congressional delegation, Sen. Daniel Inouye,
Rep. Patsy Mink, Rep. Neil Abercrombie, and Sen. Daniel
Akaka, offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of
the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii
a sovereign nation and other court documents that attest to this
as well as a very well documented history of this illegal overthrow.

Or is it that you just don't believe this happened?

Reply To BH:

BH, what's your point? Do you need YOUR EGO stroked constantly? I stand by what I said! You are going to continue to support this guy no matter what he does! Why do you trust him? He has lied over and over! Proven lies! Which is not what this thread is about so I'm not going to get into now.

For the last time I never said Obama Himself renounced his citizenship as a child!!! That is you putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it!!

Why has this gone all the way to the SCOTUS, if their is nothing to it? Are the judges
Just a bunch of "hacks"? Or do you think maybe they know a little something about the law?

Please exercise some common sense before answering that question? Why would they waste their time with a so called ridiculous rumor, when they denied EVEN hearing the case of Terry Schiavo? A woman's life was less important than a "trivial rumor"? The fact stands that if Clarence Thomas has agreed to call a conference of All judges than their IS something going on!

Not you or I can change that!!

Thank you for ignoring the most important part of my post that spoke of the destruction of our country. You just proved that you care nothing about what that decsion would mean for America! Seems to me
You just want to be right at all cost!! Spoken like a true partisan liberal!

Factcheck.org has lied several times, is owned by Annanberg who is "in bed" with William Ayers! So I don't count them as an unbiased source.

Ps I'm posting from my bb so you will have to wait a minute for my source regarding the above statement.

































[edit on 24-11-2008 by paxnatus]

Forgive me it this has already been pointed out:

Produce the Dog Gone Birth Certificate

Read this frightful article.



If that certification of live birth form we've all seen, from 1961, is legitimate, why does it say LASER in the bottom left corner? They didn't have laser printers back then, in 1961, did they?

Where's the real birth certificate, with the attending physicians signature, the document registered to obtain that certification of live birth form we've all seen? He can obtain a copy for $12 if he lost his copy..

Some say he was born before his mother turned 16, which would not make him a naturalized citizen. Rumor has it his real certificate of birth was falsified with an incorrect birth date and never filed until much later, which is why the certificate # has been blanked out on that certification of live birth form we've all seen. The number would show it is out of sequence from that era, 1961, and registered much later when laser printers existed.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Divinorumus]

reply to post by DOHC


Offering an apology to someone is NOT the same as declaring that Hawaii is no longer a state. In fact, this whole country was "taken" by people. An apology to native Americans does not make our country null and void.

Originally posted by paxnatus
I stand by what I said!

Ok. So you apparently think that someone renounced Obama's US citizenship... Even though I've shown you proof that he's the only one who could do it, you still believe the fantasy. That's ok. I just wanted to know if you had read the sources (from the State Department) and still choose to believe World Net Daily. Your choice.

You are going to continue to support this guy no matter what he does!

Actually, that's not true. I would not support him "no matter what he does". There are plenty of things he could do that would turn me against him. You may have me confused with someone else.

For the last time I never said Obama Himself renounced his citizenship as a child!!!

So, if HE didn't do it, who did? I have shown you that the State Department says that no one can renounce it for him. He has to do it himself. And you still think someone did it for him? That's why I asked if you had read my source.

Why has this gone all the way to the SCOTUS, if their is nothing to it? Are the judges
Just a bunch of "hacks"? Or do you think maybe they know a little something about the law?

I'm not sure you understand. The judges THREW IT OUT OF COURT. The petitioner (the one who started the lawsuit) took it to the Supreme Court. The judge didn't do it. That's how it works.

Why would they waste their time with a so called ridiculous rumor, when they denied EVEN hearing the case of Terry Schiavo?

Are you aware that they are not hearing this case, either? They have NOT decided to hear this case. They are meeting to DECIDE whether or not to hear it.

The fact stands that if Clarence Thomas has agreed to call a conference of All judges than their IS something going on!

It's NOT a fact the "something is going on". They're going to TALK about it. That's all. It's not "going to court".

Factcheck.org has lied several times, is owned by Annanberg who is "in bed" with William Ayers!

I don't think you read my post at all... I'm not using factcheck as a source.

Ps I'm posting from my bb so you will have to wait a minute for my source regarding the above statement.

Don't bother. I've seen all the rags I need to see. Your posts indicate that you don't know the law or what's happening with this case and it's not really worth my time to discuss it with you if you're not really reading my posts.

Thanks anyway. Good luck with your position.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Offering an apology to someone is NOT the same as declaring that Hawaii is no longer a state. In fact, this whole country was "taken" by people. An apology to native Americans does not make our country null and void.

Then it would appear quite clearly to all that you haven't read the links and have a very poor understanding
of what an illegal takeover is, and don't start with the Native Americans because they too have court proceedings in
process and have reclaimed some land belonging to them because of false/illegal treaty's and are now once again sovereign,
other tribes are still in litigation to this very day.
In 1999, the United Nations confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii's statehood was in violation of article 73 of the United Nations' charter. The Hawaii statehood vote, under treaty then in effect, was illegal and non-binding. (The same is true of the Alaska plebiscite).

On November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150, which not only acknowledged the illegal actions committed by the United States in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Hawaii, but also that the Hawaiian people never surrendered their sovereignty. The latter is the most important part of United States Public Law 103-150 for it makes it quite clear that the Hawaiian people never legally ceased to be a sovereign separate independent nation. There is no argument that can change that fact.Unable to argue against these legal issues calling into question the legitimacy of the United States presence in Hawaii, supporters of the Status Quo have put forward various straw-man arguments to justify why, even if the Hawaiian people were deprived of their government and lands illegally, that things should stay just the way they are today.

One of the most often-used straw-man arguments is that a Monarchy limited by a Constitution would be a bad thing. It does not seem to have harmed England, Monaco, or any of the quite prosperous Saudi Emirates. Two of Hawaii's Kings were elected to that office by popular vote. No other Monarchy boasts such a democratic process. And as the Wilcox Rebellions proved, Hawaiians found life under American rule much less enjoyable than it had been under Queen Lili`uokalani.

The final straw-man argument is that Hawaiian independence would cause the society in the islands to fall apart. But the truth is that a new government of an independent Hawaii is well motivated to NOT change anything; to keep the industry, tourism, high tech, indeed all of Hawaiian life pretty much as it is now, and to displace or disrupt as little as possible. Extremists and obvious fear-mongers aside, a transition of Hawaii from a state to an independent nation would change to who rent checks and taxes are sent, and little else. Even the flag of Hawaii would likely remain the same. Hawaii would lose the massive and complex bureaucracy that connects Hawaii to the mainland, and Hawaii's citizens would be free of their shares of the $7 trillion dollar federal debt and its ruinous interest, but who would mourn the loss?

Source

What it really comes down to is whether one believes in justice or not. It's easy to support justice that works to your own favor, but the true test of moral citizenship is when you uphold justice even when it is a personal inconvenience.

If one holds that the government of the United States is obliged to obey the laws and the UN charter it freely signed, then the status of the Hawaiian people as a distinct and sovereign nation is beyond debate.

Originally posted by Realtruth
This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.

The only reason for this happening is to yank the public's emotions, on both sides.

You tell me that a candidate for president of these United States can get through the entire process and be elected, but not be a citizen. I think not.

1) Screening process?

2) ethics on Obama's part by saying I am not sure where I was born or I know where I was born here is my certificate of birth, ethics pure and simple.

3) You tell me with all the $hit the media, and both sides dig up before elections would somehow stop the process or make him ineligible.

4) I don't believe that the USA and the powers that be are this incompetent, but if we are .............well I don't even have a comment on that.

Let's wait and see.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Realtruth]

Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints -- none! There is no Obama documentation -- no records -- no paper trail -- none -- this can't be an accident.

Original, vault copy birth certificate -- Not released
Certificate of Live Birth -- Released -- Counterfeit
Obama/Dunham marriage license -- Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license -- Not released
Soetoro adoption records -- Not released
Fransiskus Assisi School School application -- Released shows Indonesian citizenship. US does not allow dual citizenship.
Punahou School records -- Not released
Selective Service Registration -- Released -- Counterfeit
Occidental College records -- Not released
Passport (Pakistan) -- Not released
Columbia College records -- Not released
Columbia thesis -- Not released
Harvard College records -- Not released
Harvard Law Review articles -- None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
Baptism certificate -- None
Medical records -- Not released
Illinois State Senate records -- None
Illinois State Senate schedule -- Lost
Law practice client list -- Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None

Just because the media refused to ask any of these questions does not make them go away.

reply to post by Dragonsbreaths


So what are you saying? I won't waste time arguing over which of your points are false - let's just say all your accusations are legit (heeheehee). What are you proposing? Is Obama some KGB sperm project? Is he a demon from Hades who didn't really exist before winning the state senate seat? Maybe a "walk-in" from another dimension? Surely you can see how demented this sounds. True - YOU hae not seen certain records, but others have. You guys are really, seriously sad.

Take a look at other presidential candidates since FDR. How many presented their birth certificates? Baptismal papers? Give me a break. My only fear is that he will now become a "centerist". I know he's not really a leftist (so few Americans are), but if he could could just throw us a bone...

Review This Link: Terms and Conditions: Recruitment

1 e.) Recruitment/Solicitation:

i) You will not use your membership at The Above Network, LLC site(s) for any type of recruitment to any causes whatsoever. You will not post, use the chat feature or use the private message system to disseminate advertisements, chain letters, petitions, pyramid schemes, or any kind of solicitation for political action, social action, letter campaigns, or related online and/or offline coordinated actions of any kind.

[edit on 11/24/2008 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by Benarius
I seriosly get upset how in times like these, where the world economies are falling apart, americans have nothing better to do than play armchair lawyers. Start to find a way to work together and get on with it. It sickens me how these righteous and wicked people play games.

I agree!!! Screw that old Constitution!!! What did those Founding Fathers know anyway??? I say after Obama gets his 8 years, we elect Putin!!! He knows how to "CHANGE" an economy!!!

Originally posted by Twilly
I agree!!! Screw that old Constitution!!! What did those Founding Fathers know anyway??? I say after Obama gets his 8 years, we elect Putin!!! He knows how to "CHANGE" an economy!!!

Yeah, they're just wiping their feet all over the Constitution, aren't they. First Obama, now Hillary.
Hillary Ineligible for Cabinet Post?
The source of the issue is something called the Emoluments Clause.

reply to post by Divinorumus

You're being silly.
The fact that you don't want Obama to be eligible to be President doesn't make it so.
In appointing Hillary, Obama is following the precedent of a Republican President, Nixon.

Besides, taking inflation into account, it may well be that the stipend set for the Secretary of State has decreased while Hillary has been a Member of Congress.

Since we are actually in a deflationary mode, inflation has nothing to do with it. The Saxbe fix can be implemented, as Nixon did, or we can just allow the Constitution to be trampled over yet again.

But the more I read, here and other places, it seems that many people in the US don't think that the Constitution really matters anymore - on many issues.

I really don't want to see what type of government we end up with when those who don't think the Constitution matters anymore finally get what they wish for

What's all this got to do with the "conference"?

Does anyone have any news to report on this? All this big stories keep popping up about how Obama is so much trouble, yet nothing ever happens.

How do you people keep falling for the same trick over and over again?

reply to post by Gools


i am very concinced that Obama is not legible to be president but... i dont think anyone is going to do anything about it unless there is a protest

reply to post by Irish M1ck

Mick, the conference is scheduled for Dec 5th. until then it's just a waiting game filled with debate and speculation.

Of course, Hillary's ineligibility is a new subject, and should probably have a thread of it's own

reply to post by Irish M1ck


It's still waiting for the justices to conference on it on the 5th as far as I'm aware. Nothing has been updated on the docket since the 19th.

Other than that, on the blog linked in the OP there is an update saying that Donofrio has filed a complaint against somebody from the courts for not updating the case correctly or something like that... Can't get the page to load for me now and can't remember the specifics off the top of my head.

I'll edit this post if that page ever loads and add the name of the person he filed the complaint against. I knew I should have higlighted and copied the text before changing pages.

reply to post by Jenna


Thanks.

I can always count on you to keep the topic on track and have a bit of common sense.