Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

After reading this

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2008/12/ ... 145198.txt

[quote]In Washington state, 12 voters have filed a suit, asserting that the Secretary of State failed to impose the constitutional requirements on Mr. Obama to get on the state’s ballot. The case, called Broe v. Reed, is scheduled to be heard en banc at the Washington Supreme Court on Jan. 8.

“The issue of standing seems to be behind us,â€

On Thursday. the Supreme Court of the state of Washington dismissed without comment a lawsuit by James E. Broe and 12 others which alleged that Sec. of State Sam Reed failed to confirm Barack Obama's eligibility for the Presidency.

The following is my limited and fallible mortal understanding, upon observation, of some court "code-words".

In a case of national importance, "dismissed without comment" is a pass to the superior court, which would be taking the case on appeal in any case. The lower court has no interest in making a judgment which is inevitably going to be overruled by a court with higher jurisdiction.

"Dismissed or denied on grounds of ..." invites the superior court to rule on the grounds of denial and return the case to the inferior court for trial.

"Dismissed for lack of standing" may mean "dismissed for lack of standing" of the plaintiff. It may also mean "dismissed for the lack of jurisdiction or authority of this court." It allows the inferior court to save face and not call attention to its lack of authority to rule on the case.

In this case and others like it, "dismissed without comment" avoids wasting time and money in the lower court and gives the case a fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS already has two such cases docketed, Berg v. Obama and Lightfoot v. Bowen.

www.blogtalkradio.com/mommaEradioRebels/2009/01/11/Momma-E-and-the-Radio-Rebels-Hosted-By-Mark-McGrew issued a call for constitutional lawyers (in addition to those already involved) to sue:

1. President of the Senate Dick Cheney for not calling for, (that is, not allowing) objections to the certificates received from the Electoral College election, according to 3 USC Ch. 1 § 15; and
2. the joint session of Congress for committing an unconstitutional act by confirming a Constitutionally unqualified candidate.
   (In the same way, the Supreme Court overturns an unconstitutional law passed by Congress.)

3 USC Ch. 1 § 15 reads, in part, at the paragraph,
"Counting electoral votes in congress
§ 15."

"Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper [of the electoral votes], the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified."

Minuteman, are you saying that they did not call for objections?

I did not watch it, and this is the first I heard of it. So those in congress, mostly on the republican side, who had been hinting that they would object did not because the powers that be unconstitutionally did not give them the opportunity? If that is what you are saying, I am terrified for the future of this country.

I would like a couple of sources on this.

Originally Posted by cayla99

Minuteman, are you saying that they did not call for objections?

I did not watch it, and this is the first I heard of it. So those in congress, mostly on the republican side, who had been hinting that they would object did not because the powers that be unconstitutionally did not give them the opportunity? If that is what you are saying, I am terrified for the future of this country.

I would like a couple of sources on this.

This is the first I heard of this also but, of course, anyone who was watching may not have been aware of the required procedure to note that it was not carried out, or; was maybe distracted for a bit by something else and thought they missed that part.

It would be great if there is a video out there somewhere showing what went on!!

One big question though......if Cheney decided to do this, why did not an all out ruckus break loose on the floor?

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mommaEr...By-Mark-McGrew issued a call for constitutional lawyers (besides those already involved) to sue:

I corresponded with Mark McGrew and asked him if he was blacklisted in the U.S. This was his reply:

"No, I am not blacklisted. The subject of Obama is blacklisted.
All of my information comes from smaller news sources or public records.
Major media doesn't cover it because they are part of the con.
These articles have been on over 300 websites, in 20 countries and translated into 7 languages that I know of. If you type my full name in google.com or yahoo.com you'll seem them.
Thank you for writing. And for reading!
Mark"

BTW, BlogTalkRadio is very good.

Originally Posted by cayla99

Minuteman, are you saying that they did not call for objections?

I did not watch it, and this is the first I heard of it. So those in congress, mostly on the republican side, who had been hinting that they would object did not because the powers that be unconstitutionally did not give them the opportunity? If that is what you are saying, I am terrified for the future of this country.

I would like a couple of sources on this.

I'd read in the comments area of another blog that there was no call by Cheney for objections on the same day that the Electoral Vote count was received in Congress, but had no way of verifying if that was true. Would C-Span have sent a camera crew to cover that joint session of Congress?

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

I corresponded with Mark McGrew

You, too, huh? Seems like a good guy. I was just curious since he has such an Irish or Irish-American name, and yet he's got articles in Pravda. (Yeah, point a finger at me for thinking that all Pravda bylines would have names like Igor or Ivan. )

I didn't know what such an Anglo-American name on a Pravda byline might mean. He reported on being shut out by the U.S. media that typically buys his articles if the topic was Obama.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

and asked him if he was blacklisted in the U.S. This was his reply:

"No, I am not blacklisted. The subject of Obama is blacklisted.
All of my information comes from smaller news sources or public records.
Major media doesn't cover it because they are part of the con.
These articles have been on over 300 websites, in 20 countries and translated into 7 languages that I know of. If you type my full name in google.com or yahoo.com you'll seem them.
Thank you for writing. And for reading!
Mark"

Further btw, he thinks the foreign intelligence services of major nations already know, with certainty, where BO was born. And, obviously, also our CIA as a part of State Dept. and FBI and those who would have access to what those agencies know. (Bill Clinton's repeated emphasis about people running for POTUS "if they're qualified under the Constitution" whenever he was asked if BO was ready for the office keeps coming back.) The research trail undertaken by others is running in a different direction than Kenya, and Hawaii is discounted as not being "it" as far as a birthplace.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

BTW, BlogTalkRadio is very good.

I'm a technical dunce and can't figure out how to get the radio program on that link to play. Can someone walk me through the steps of what icon I should click to download and/or obtain a playback? (I have QuickTime and Windows Media - will either work?)

The more I look at what has gone on, following a timeline and trail of facts that can be verified in public records, the more it seems like this past election intentionally accommodated two candidates known to have problems with clearing the minimum threshold of 'natural born' eligibility. Wholesale knowing conduct by the leaders of the two major parties, and an oddly cheerleader-like attitude by MSM. I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories in general, but just weight of logic poses the question: What lies ahead for the U.S. such that having a POTUS who could be made to "take a fall" and, thereby, invalidate whatever official actions he took while pretending to be POTUS, would serve somebody else's plans or interests?

I keep coming back to the notion that there's to be a massive debt-repudiation by the U.S. How else to explain the Congress acting like drunken sailors on shore leave when Paulson and Bernanke crooked their fingers and said "Cough up $750 billion." ????

You, too, huh? Laughing Seems like a good guy. I was just curious since he has such an Irish or Irish-American name

Hey! Watch it boyo!!!!!! Us Irish-American types are wonderful wonderful people as a rule. Unless of course you are talking about the Chicago branch, but heck, the Chicago branch of any group is crooked. Not all of the Kennedys were bad either. Cousin Ronnie was me favorite Leprechaun POTUS though.

Further btw, he thinks the foreign intelligence services of major nations already know, with certainty, where BO was born. And, obviously, also our CIA as a part of State Dept. and FBI and those who would have access to what those agencies know. (Bill Clinton's repeated emphasis about people running for POTUS "if they're qualified under the Constitution" whenever he was asked if BO was ready for the office keeps coming back.) The research trail undertaken by others is running in a different direction than Kenya, and Hawaii is discounted as not being "it" as far as a birthplace.

I fully agree with the above.

Originally Posted by azwreath

MOD EDIT

Mirse, I'm with Cayla and the others here.

This may not be this woman's SSN, but it IS her phone number and, most likely her address.

Would you please consider deleting it from your posts here? I just don't see why anyone should have any reason to know this woman's phone number or address. Or the names of her relatives either for that matter.

These people are going to find themselves wrapped up in a situation disruptive to their lives over INACCURATE information and that just shouldn't happen.

******
This is mirse. I would be glad to delete the message you are referring to.

How do I that?

Note: In another messge, I wrote that the person may have made a mistake when he wrote that Obama's mother used another person's social security number.