The idea that Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy to Oval Office, and do chores such as appointing Supreme Court justices, needs to be explored and documented is headed back to the highest court in the land.

According to the Supreme Court’s own website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case submitted by Orly Taitz.

This particular case has had a long proceeding; it began as a challenge to the legality of the military orders under Obama, whose eligibility to hold the office of president never has been documented to date. While that officer, Capt. Connie Rhodes, ultimately followed her orders, the attorney was fined $20,000 in the case, and it continued its path through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and now is pending in Washington.

Whether it will fall by the wayside as have other cases on the same issue that have been submitted to the court remains to be seen. But even if this case falls, it doesn’t appear the issue itself will fade.

Read the full report on Obama’s eligibility yourself.

Consider:

• More than a year ago, polls revealed that a bare half of the people in the United States even knew there was an issue over Obama’s eligibility but recent polls have indicated up to 58 percent of Americans now have doubts over that issue.
• Fining attorneys, even jailing defendants, as happened in this week’s high-profile case against Lt. Col. Terry Lakin at Ft. Meade, Md., hasn’t caused the issue to disappear.
• A billboard campaign that simply asks “Where’s the Birth Certificate” has appeared in many dozens of locations, and one billboard company that a year ago concluded it was more or less a settled issue now has asked to be allowed to participate in the campaign.
• Various officials have “verified” Obama’s eligibility but have declined to document their statements.
• Extensive examinations of the available record suggest Obama likely is, in fact, ineligible.
• There remains a multitude of lawsuits still making their way toward Supreme Court review:
• In Congress, a pending proposal would require all candidates for the office of president to document their eligibility under the Constitution’s requirement that they be a “natural born citizen.”
• Similar plans are moving even more quickly at the state legislature level.
• And there even are predictions that Congress will take up the dispute.

Retired Cmdr. Charles Kerchner, whose legal challenge to Obama’s eligibility recently was turned back by the Supreme Court on a vote that included two members of the bench appointed by Obama and therefore holding an apparent conflict of interest, said the problems will just get bigger the longer the issue remains unresolved.

“The Obama eligibility matter should have been fully and thoroughly addressed and openly investigated by the investigative reporters in the major media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries to get all of Obama’s documents released to the public as part of the vetting process. It wasn’t done,” he said.

“Congress should have addressed when asked by 100s of thousands of constituent letters and petitions sent to them and when constitutionally it was required to [do] so under the 20th Amendment. It didn’t,” he continued. “Everyone in our system of government chose ignoring the problem and appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else.

Orly Tait

“Now it is far worse. The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law,” he said.

That decision not to address the uncertainty of Obama’s background now, “will only delay the inevitable and fester and grow and in the end be a far worse situation to deal with when the real nature of the tyrant reeals himself in a much bolder way and attempts to take away all our protections to our unalienable rights and liberty,” he said.

Taitz, who was among those who brought concerns to the Supreme Court at the time of the election on an emergency basis – all of which were refused by the Supremes, told WND that she’s convinced ultimately the Supreme Court will review Obama.

“I don’t believe they can continue avoiding this issue,” she said. “They have to show integrity, have to show that the Constitution of the United States matters.”

She said also the case has been getting “ripe,” or coalescing into a specific dispute. There now are disagreements among court rulings, she said. She cited a California court ruling that there could be a door for the courts to determine the issue but only after Congress has acted, even though another judge ruled the matter should have been brought to the courts before the election.

Further, one judge has ruled that the military should resolve the question over Obama’s eligibility to be commander in chief while the result from the recent Lakin court martial was that Judge Denise Lind refused even to allow his defense arguments, evidence and witnesses in her courtroom, essentially withholding related due process and discovery procedures.

Taitz said one of the largest issues that remains a roadblock to the case being resolved is that Obama’s two appointees to the Supreme Court apparently are participating in cases in which they have an interest.

“In my opinion they [Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor, both appointed to the bench by Obama] should recuse themselves,” she said. “However until now they have refused to recuse themselves in such cases.”

Taitz said the conflict is clear: they were appointed by a president who may not have had the authority to appoint them, therefore their own positions would be in jeopardy.

Kerchner brought forward the same concerns.

“The two justices appointed by Obama who in my opinion had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have!” he wrote.

“Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36 with the relevant U.S. Code cited. The two justices and the court ignored that. … I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayor and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against certiorari, and to require 4 votes instead of 3.”

Taitz v. MacDonald, the case now pending before the Supremes, originally was brought on behalf of Rhodes, an Army flight surgeon questioning the validity of deployment orders issued under Obama’s signature. The case argues that Obama has not proven that he is a “natural-born citizen” of the United States, which Article 2 of the Constitution requires any president to be.

A “natural born citizen” was considered at the time the Constitution was adopted as an individual whose parents are both American citizens. Obama’s father was a British subject when Obama was born in 1961.

But Taitz vs. MacDonald goes beyond Obama’s legitimacy to raise the possibility of Social Security fraud.

“Legitimacy is a theoretical question,” Taitz told WND earlier. “This case also presents evidence of criminal actions by Obama, showing he needs to be both removed from office and prosecuted.”

Taitz said the case provides evidence generated by professional investigators showing that the Social Security number currently used by Obama is fraudulent.

“It cannot have been legally obtained,” said Taitz.

Her brief asserts that Obama’s Social Security number was first issued to a Connecticut resident born in 1890.

“This is evidence of fraud,” Taitz said.

More legal documents related to Taitz v. MacDonald can be found on Taitz’ website.

According to Taitz, the likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule on the merits of Taitz v. MacDonald is increased because she personally has legal standing to bring the case. Taitz was fined $20,000 by Judge Clay D. Land in connection with the case, and she’s appealing the fine, which she contends violated her civil rights.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “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.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

3 Responses to “Today’s World Net Daily lead article”

1. Thomas/PatriotofPast
   December 18th, 2010 @ 10:20 am

   They live in a Bubble, They think they wipe different than Anyone else… Thier Days are Numbered, and I’m bringing the Toilet Paper.
   ——————————————————————————–

   ——————————————————————————–
   Why violent revolt lies in our future

   ——————————————————————————–
   Posted: December 18, 2010
   1:00 am Eastern

   © 2010

   President Ronald Reagan used to say that the scariest words in the English language are: “Hi, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Two hundred or so years earlier, our Founding Fathers had essentially the same thoughts when they declared independence from the British Crown based on its refusal to take into account the grievances of the colonies and its peoples, and instead attempted to beat them into submission.

   Today, as we observe the holidays and ready ourselves for a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in the New Year, in the face of continued control of the Senate and White House by the Democrats and President Barack Obama, these words and thoughts ring louder than ever. Never before in the history of our sacred nation has the “State of the Union” been worse and indeed more hostile to the needs of the American people. And both Democrats and Republicans are responsible!

   I have written in earlier columns that I sincerely believe that we have entered a new revolutionary period in American history. With each passing day, I become more convinced of it. And, regrettably, I believe that we are only a year of so from violent revolt if things do not radically change “on a dime.”

   Here are the signs of the violent revolution to come:

   First, the economy continues in a tailspin, with unemployment increasing. Families do not have the financial means, even assuming they are able to bring home a salary, to pay for their children’s higher education, buy a new car, much less put good wholesome food on the dinner table. Couple this with glacial growth in the economy, our dependence on foreign capital to keep the nation afloat and the continued real-estate crisis and the picture is more than bleak. And God forbid we have another large terrorist attack or an oil field or two in the Middle East blows up – the entire world economy could easily go down for the count. People get real upset when they do not have money; plain and simple. Just ask any employer who has missed or is late on a pay period for his employees. He or she is lucky not to be lynched. Our government has not only missed several pay periods, it is taxing the populace into submission and wasting these revenues on projects and graft that return nothing but more hardship.

   Get Larry Klayman’s fascinating account of his battle with the powers that be: “Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment”

   Second, the prospect of war overseas looms large and is imminent. Thanks to the neglect of three successive administrations toward Iran, the fanatical mullahs of Tehran are on the verge of acquiring atomic weapons and undertaking in earnest their long-desired quest of worldwide Islamic rule. Because of President Obama’s and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s policy of appeasement, the situation is now even more dire and will require almost certain military intervention by Israel and the Western powers to stop the potential Holocaust that looms on the horizon.

   Then there is North Korea, which already has atomic weapons and had just this week threatened a nuclear war against its southern neighbor, the United States and its allies. Of course, that’s not to forget about Hugo Chavez, that communist Venezuelan despot Obama hugged and fawned over at the Summit of the Americas a couple years back. He has just acquired hundreds of missiles from Vladmir Putin’s Russia. Chavez is, not coincidentally, a close ally of not only Castro’s Cuba, but Iran and North Korea. These “trouble spots” are on the verge of blowing up, requiring massive U.S. resources, financial and otherwise, to address. This in turn will put even a greater strain on the American economy and our nation’s military, particularly with the continuing counterproductive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our government has more than failed big time; it has lead us into an international hellhole.

   But the crises domestically and internationally are not all. “Above all,” it’s the arrogance, indifference, incompetence, immorality, corruption and slough of our government officials and their body politic, and the media, which are destroying the country.

   (Column continues below)

   Our Founding Father and perhaps greatest American president, John Adams, declared just days before signing the Declaration of Independence that without ethics, morality and religion, we can change our rulers and our form of government many times, but we will have no lasting liberty.

   The cesspool of Washington and our state capitals, furthered by what is generally a degenerate mainstream media, has had more than a corrosive effect on our Judeo-Christian culture. The people have lost any respect for their so-called “leaders.”

   Last week I was watching an episode of Glenn Beck on Fox News. While I generally agree with Glenn and believe he has served the country well, he went off on blasting Julian Assange and WikiLeaks for releasing hundreds of thousands of allegedly classified government documents into the public domain. Beck called Assange a “traitor!” Then, turning to the studio audience, Glenn asked them, with a confident air that they would agree with him, what they thought of Assange. All but a few in the audience refused to condemn Assange and WikiLeaks, despite the respect and adulation they have for their television mentor. The response of the group was telling and scary. The American people sided with Assange and WikiLeaks and threw cold water into their adored host’s face. And why was this? Because “We the People” have come to see the government as so evil that even if it takes allegedly illegal means to bring it to its knees, to prevent its further oppression, this seems justified.

   There we have it in a nutshell. No matter how hard the conservative and leftist media may try to twist the minds of the American people, they have a mind of their own. And, as of today, that mind is on rebellion against the government, at all costs.

   ——————————————————————————–

   Larry Klayman is a former Justice Department prosecutor and the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. His latest book is “Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment.”

2. nanny referral service
   December 18th, 2010 @ 7:28 pm

   https://harry43ferguson.blogs.experienceproject.com/575019.html Thanks for that awesome posting. It saved MUCH time 🙂

3. Florencia Vogelsberg
   December 22nd, 2010 @ 7:01 am

   Oooh, you’re such an inspiration. I love this blog!

Leave a Reply