Inauguration Day - The Oath & The Speech

Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court, and the Oath of Office

How could the failure of Chief Justice Roberts to lead Barack Obama accurately in his oath of office be more poignant? He skipped the word "faithfully," only remembering to insert it at the end of its phrase -- and prompted Obama to say, "President," not "of," but "to the United States of America." Before that, he appeared to want to rush through the oath, not hesitating after "I, Barack Hussein Obama," for that man to state his name only, in that turn, and let it hang for a moment in the air, before proceeding with "do solemnly swear."

The words "faithfully" and "of" are piercingly pertinent indeed, to this man who would be seen as America's president.



As the members of the Supreme Court departed from the lower Capitol building on their way to the ceremony, none appeared lighthearted to me, except Justice Clarence Thomas. No, they appeared somewhat burdened, to me.

They must know that what lies before them, being brought from numerous quarters now, is their duty to immediately decide to either abide by the Constitution under which they are sworn to administer justice, or to take a path of treacherous cowardice, by failing to hold Barack Obama and the process of selecting our Commander in Chief accountable to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The point which pierces his presidency is that Obama is manifestly not faithful to the Constitution as a natural born Citizen of America.

Barack Hussein Obama's Inaugural Speech

Obama's attestation of respect for America's founding documents in this speech is of fundamental dishonesty, even if it carried some heartfelt sentiment. His behavior is antithetical to both the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution which rests upon it.

One recalls, this is the same man who quoted Jesus Christ, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'" (NIV) and in the same forum at Saddleback Church, claimed unaccountability for the innocent least of those among us, whose mass holocaust he has so aggressively championed and to lengths not even approached by some of his most avid pro-abortion comrades. He hardly adheres to America's essential Right to Life.

But, what can one expect, from a man whose very "candidacy" is so clearly an affront to the U.S. Constitution? Let us recite the temerity involved. 1. Obama was born a citizen of the United Kingdom, by natural, patrilineal inheritance. 2. He has hidden whatever actual and evidentiary documentation exists, of his place of birth. 3. He has even refused to submit any record of naturalization into U.S. Citizenship after it was revoked by his Indonesian citizenship as a youth. The overriding evidence indicates that Barack Obama is clearly not a natural born Citizen of the United States of America. Indeed the collection of evidence so far indicates he is not a U.S. Citizen at all and that Barack Obama is an impostor, a fictitious president.

Obama attempted to signal to America a recognition that private enterprise is the critical key to the American economy. Did what he said conflict with wild sounding charges of his Marxist orientation? If he does believe his own words, this is not really in conflict with the evidence cited in Investing Obama that he is a neo-Marxist, which may also be called fascist, by what that term actually means, or anarcho-syndicalist, or anarcho-communist. (In these cases "anarchist" does not mean someone who is against any government, but refers to an extreme and libertine element in the labor movement, intending to eventually force private business to give ownership to its workers.) The false ideal of egalitarianism, controlled by the state, remains the eventual goal of this movement. And the economic end result of this, ironically, is quite similar to a capitalist system corrupted into a controlling oligopoly or monopoly. In each case, one is either among the elite or is a virtual slave. Perhaps this gives the reader an idea of how so many of the wealthiest people in America and the world can also be funding and promoting the global socialist movement.

I will continue to pray for God's mercy and justice in America. And, as Scripture mandates, I will continue to submit to this nation's authorities -- which in essence, are its People, who are its Sovereigns. However, that mandate also refers to officials and in keeping with this, I will warn America of the need to free itself from a false presidency, illegitimately held by an usurper. As for Barack Obama, as all Americans should know, sometimes one must separate the corrupt person from his corrupt practices, in order to do what is best for him, as well as for others.

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

Update, 1/21, ~ 7:00pm: On the Fox News TV network this evening, Shepard Smith reported that Barack Obama had an oath of office do-over, today. Then, he commented (actual or close paraphrase) "There are still some people who question his citizenship."

Update, 1/20, ~ 11:25pm: Does anyone else get all smirky about it, seeing Barack Obama being so fastidious about having every jot and tittle taken care of, with his oath of office -- but the Birth Certificate? Natural born Citizenship? Compliance with the U.S. Constitution, which, by that oath, he has just promised to "preserve, protect, and defend?"

Oh, come on now, who really cares...? who needs to know...?

And after spending how much money in court costs, to keep the SCOTUS from making a decision about the natural, constitutional meaning and the evidence involved? Who needs Casey Anthony, for a crime as entertainment fix?

Proverbs 23 excerpt (KJV)

1When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee:
2And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite.
3Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat.
4Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom.
5Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven.
6Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats:
7For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.
8The morsel which thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up, and lose thy sweet words.
9Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
10Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:
11For their redeemer is mighty; he shall plead their cause with thee.
12Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.
13Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
14Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
15My son, if thine heart be wise, my heart shall rejoice, even mine.
16Yea, my reins shall rejoice, when thy lips speak right things.
17Let not thine heart envy sinners: but be thou in the fear of the LORD all the day long.
18For surely there is an end; and thine expectation shall not be cut off.
19Hear thou, my son, and be wise, and guide thine heart in the way.
20Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:
21For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.
22Hearken unto thy father that begat thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old.
23Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.

hat tip: John Wycliffe & later, Elizabethan English translators
hat off: the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the wise, chosen writer

Celebrating this Journey's Start, toward Slavery to the State

Spirit of the "Useful Idiot?"

resemblance to Mr. Marx noted
hat tip: "Evil Slayer"

Enjoyed Last Night's Discussion w/ Mark McGrew & Friends; Link to Archive

We talked about Investigating Obama and what the name denotes -- and were joined by interesting callers.

An archive of Sunday night's net-radio program is available by this link.

Care for two hours of audio about saving America while you do laundry?

Barack Obama - 'The Future of this Movement'

While some of Obama's moves may be viewed as "liberal" and others as "moderate," or even "conservative," by America's self-confident pundits, essentially, there are only two objectives he must meet, to be a successful neo-Marxist, neo-Fascist (albeit, fictitious) president:

1. Continue to build the armies of the "proletariat" and their movement comrades
2. Continue to increase governmental control of some businesses, especially in big business, while imposing punitive taxes and regulations upon others, especially the SMB's (small to midsized businesses) of the "bourgeoisie"

The following email from this man and this movement is chiefly about the former. Remember, as he told his followers on that eerie night of his acceptance speech, this may be a long process, before ultimate goals are attained.

Saturday, January 17, 2009 12:57 PM

From: "Barack Obama"

To: "XXX"

XXX -- I have some exciting news to share about the future of this grassroots movement. I recorded a personal message for you. Please take a minute to watch the video: http://my.barackobama.com/thefuture What you built can't stop now. Together with our partners at the Democratic National Committee and its new chairman, Governor Tim Kaine, this movement will continue organizing and bringing new people into the political process. The challenges facing our country are too great, and our journey to change America is just beginning. I look forward to working side-by-side with you in the months and years ahead. Thanks, Barack

Paid for by Obama for America This email was sent to: XXX To unsubscribe, go to: http://my.barackobama.com/unsubscribe

Zapem: 'Obama Knew He Wasn't Eligible for POTUS'

In this article, originally posted in the blog of the same name, "Zapem" breaks a report of the history of sidestepping, skirting, and attempted Constitutional tinkering on behalf of unnatural born Citizen, John McCain -- thereby, an attempt to pave the way for Barack Obama.

If one were to look at the activity on Capital Hill during the campaign, there would be no question in their minds that both McCain and Obama were sweating the “natural born citizen” issue.

How do we arrive at that conclusion? We take McCain’s ingrained, glib advice and “Look at the record, my friends“.

Doing just that, we find that back on February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).

Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find.

Sen. McCaskill, her co-sponsors, fellow colleagues and legal counsel, contend that the Constitution is ambiguous in article II, section 1 and requires clarification. But does it? According to the framers and such drafters as John Bingham, we find the definition to be quite clear:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . - John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866

From the days of James Madison to the present, the courts have held that the amendment process be justiciable in accordance with its constitutionality and not self-serving or political. But is that what happened here? Again, we must go to the record.

Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511. On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a “natural born citizen” in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

ABCNews.com reported:

“With questions - however serious - about whether Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is eligible to run for president since he was born outside U.S. borders on an American Naval base, Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. today introduced a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that McCain qualifies as a “natural born Citizen,” as specified in the Constitution and eligible for the highest office in the land.

Co-sponsors include Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois; Leahy said he anticipates it will pass unanimously.”

One has to wonder — what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a “natural born citizen”? Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?

One answer is that looking at John McCain’s long-form birth certificate reveals he was not a natural born citizen and Barack Obama hasn’t submitted his long-form at all. John McCain was born in an “unincorporated territory”, held by the courts to be not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Barack Obama has submitted only a Certification of Live Birth, but Hawaii law will certify a live birth using that document for births that occurred even outside of the country. Furthermore, Barack Obama’s father was Kenyan and never an American citizen. Since the status of citizenship occurs at birth, this makes Barack Obama a citizen if born in Hawaii, but not a natural born citizen. One must have two citizen parents, at the time of birth, and be born on U.S. soil, to be deemed a natural born citizen and be declared eligible for the presidency. The Senate, for all their trouble, cannot legislate a person’s born status. It happens at birth, according to the law.

While Senate Bill 2678 fell to the wayside, Senate Resolution 511 was passed on April 30, 2008 as a non-binding resolution. However, S.R. 511 is not a law, but rather, a unanimous opinion. Technically, it means absolutely nothing what they’ve written as it’s not a law, nor did the matter reach the House for review. It’s a stepping-stone in the larger scheme of things that haven’t happened yet; the push to change our Constitution.

World Net Daily reported on November 13, 2008:

More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status.

An Obama campaign spokeswoman told WND the complaints are unfounded.

“All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage,” she said. “There have been several lawsuits, but they have been dismissed.”

Perhaps someone should have informed Obama’s spokeswoman that many of these cases have not been dismissed at all, rather they are mounting, and her statements are in fact, pure “garbage”.

Then perhaps someone may prompt an answer from the Obama spokespeople as to why they were entertaining the thought of fiddling with the United States Constitution back in February and April of THIS YEAR? Perhaps because it was in the best interest of Sen. Obama.

Then what of Sen. Claire McCaskill? What possible interest could she have had in these proceedings and leading the charge with her proposals? Was it a bonafide Constitutional issue of judicial importance, or rather a political one?

Digging further into the record we find that according to Wikki and subsequent footnotes therein:

“In January 2008, Claire McCaskill decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidential elections of 2008, making her one of the first senators to do so. She has been one of the most visible faces for his campaign.[14] McCaskill’s support was crucial to Obama’s narrow victory in the Missouri primary in February, 2008. She had been frequently mentioned as a possible vice presidential choice of Senator Obama in the 2008 run for the White House…”

So what we see is a definite political motive being dragged into the Senate for the purposes of legitimizing the 2008 candidates. But if these candidates were legitimate already, there would obviously be no reason for these proceedings.

So political was the motive of McCaskill, even Missouri’s Governor, Matt Blunt revealed that Sen. McCaskill was involved in the “abusive use of Missouri Law Enforcement“. This was dubbed as the “Truth Squad” during the election campaign by the media. The Truth Squad was comprised of Missouri officials and attorneys who set up shop on the streets of Missouri and threatened the public with criminal penalties and lawsuits if they engaged in critical speech against Sen. Obama. The Obama campaign also issued cease and desist letters to media station managers who carried advertisers who were unfriendly towards Barack Obama, namely, the NRA. Citizen outrage prompted this response from Governor Blunt:

“Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.”

Considering these facts and the judicial record, there is every reason to believe that Sen. McCaskill had no interest in resolving Sen. McCain’s eligibility, but Sen. Obama’s long-term. She manipulated the Senate and then threatened the media and the public thereafter, politically motivated at the prospect of becoming Obama’s Vice-Presidential pick. But it didn’t stop there.

Chairman Patrick J. Leahy entered into the Senate record a legal analysis of two high-powered attorneys hired by Sen. McCain - Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe - both of whom are extremely politically active and biased, and attached that opinion to S.R. 511.

So controversial was that legal opinion, that it prompted a rebuttal by Professor Gabriel J. Chin of The University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, in a discussion paper #08-14 entitled, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President. Professor Chin points out clearly where Tribe-Olson sought to draw out implied theories in the law, which in reality, are simply not there and in fact have been decided by the courts already, in opposition to the suggestions offered by Tribe-Olson. Simply put, the attorneys hired by Sen. McCain attempt to fit the law into their agenda with contrived implications. Professor Chin brings the law back into focus, requiring no implied theories.

Legalities aside, in anticipation of the feared “Fairness Doctrine”, the whole of the main stream media has since acquiesced to the intimidation tactics of the Obama campaign and paraded the non-binding resolution known as S.R. 511 to the public with unfactual foolishness. S.R. 511 is neither a constitutional amendment nor legally binding in any way. Yet the media caved to political pressure and reported it to the public as Chairman Leahy dictated, giving the illusion to the pubic that said resolution was binding to the 2008 election. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The public responded, initially by way of lawsuits contesting the eligiblity of not only John McCain, but Barack Obama and Roger Calero as well, citing them all, with equal disqualifying merit, as being constitutionally ineligible to run for President of the United States. Later, netizens of the internet caught wind of the court actions and responded with their own explosion of blogs, forums, websites, chatrooms, emails, etc. In an attempt to quell the discord, the main stream media offered personalities such as Thomas Goldstein which only served to infuriate the public further. The public saw such maneuvers as deceitful and an attempt to embarrass the now educated public.

However, the greater proof is in the activity which originated in the Senate in early 2008 which was hidden from the public, that sought to change what our representatives knew to be unconstitutional from the start. The public really needs to look no further than this activity, for it speaks to the heart of the deals that went on beyond the Senate doors. Rather than trust the preservation model our founding forefathers wrote into our Constitution, these respresentatives, beholden of the public trust, saw fit to manipulate the clauses contained therein, for the sole benefit of their own political self-interests.

Perhaps our representatives, the United States Supreme Court and the main stream media would be interested in reflecting on these records and then start answering truthfully the questions which have so far been ignored. The public has been promised transparency, but to date has only been dealt scoffing, deceitful rhetoric, if they choose to address it at all.

While the public has been patient and eduring, the questions remain and refuse to be dismissed. We expect them to be answered, preferrably prior to January 20, 2009.

We the people, deserve an answer!

____________________________________________________

Listing of 9 articles from the 110th Congress as entered.

1 . SENATE RESOLUTION 511–RECOGNIZING THAT JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III, IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN — Senate - April 10, 2008
2 . REPORTS OF COMMITTEES — Senate - April 24, 2008
3 . SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS — Senate - April 10, 2008
4 . JOHN S. McCAIN, III CITIZENSHIP — Senate - April 30, 2008
5 . MEETINGS SCHEDULED — Extensions of Remarks - April 21, 2008
6 . Daily Digest - Friday, April 18, 2008
7 . Daily Digest - Thursday, April 24, 2008
8 . Daily Digest - Wednesday, April 30, 2008
9 . Daily Digest - Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Sources:

http://thomas.loc.gov
(r:110)

←→Calendar No. 715
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. RES. 511
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-simple-resolution.htm

© "Zapem," of Zapem's Blog

The views and statements expressed by Investigating Obama contributors, and in quotations and citations, are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Investigating Obama and Arlen Williams

Provocative Speculations about the Supreme Court's Considerations of the Eligibility Challenges

Quite a bit of contemplating and communicating may be done, before we next hear from the Supreme Court, on Wednesday. Meanwhile, the interested reader is likely to find these items provocative.

In "Berg v. Obama: Case Disposition Likely Wednesday," Phil of TRSoL relates that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will not announce a disposition on today's conference about Berg's application for injunction until Wednesday, 1/21, due to the court being closed Monday and Tuesday.

In his piece, Phil refers to profoundly interesting analyses of the SCOTUS by two experienced, albeit, anonymous legal professionals. One, by "Lawyer from Missouri" was discovered in I.O's second comment to Monday's post, "Countdown of the Fictitious Presidency of Barack Obama."

The other brief analysis is that of the father of FReeper, "hoosiermama" (if accurately copied or compiled; it seems so to me). This hoosier grandpa is a former Federal Appellate Court legal clerk.

Both analyses, plus one other, put Berg's case and potentially others in the "alive and very well" category and fit together to potentially provide significant insight into how the SCOTUS is approaching this. It has also been noted that it took a 5 of 9 majority to accept the Anderson amicus brief, to Berg v. Obama.

Can you write a good amicus brief, for any of the cases being brought to SCOTUS? (See the list, here.) Or, do you know of someone who might? This may be a very good time to do so.

Amidst this analysis, it is mentioned that the Supreme Court might find fraudulent activities in Congress, regarding their treatement of Obama as a certifiably eligible presidential candidate. The next posting in I.O. examines how this may be so.

I.O. may also add another analysis or two, to this posting -- if I can find the time and bandwidth (Internet is down, at home).

Update, 1/16: I'm sure some have already seen this. I'll link again to Phil's news, to present a second-hand report from Obama challenger attorney, Stephen Pidgeon, as presented by a volunteer assistant, "Chalice." I.O. is glad to see him on the job, in a fashion quite complementary to those of Orly Taitz and of Philip Berg.

Update, 1/16: Back to Berg: Comment #13 in this post by "Zapem" in the site of the same name, provides further clarification. Since further discovery is in order, that is the job of the lower courts, not of the SCOTUS.

Obama Makes Himself at Home, at the Supreme Court

In yesterday morning's article, "'Obama, Biden to Visit Supreme Court,' Today, says CBS News," the reader was offered a conversation reflecting what Chief Justice Roberts and Poseur-Elect Obama may have been thinking, but not saying, at yesterday's tea time tour.

While the meeting was held in virtual secrecy, nevertheless the perpetual, neo-Marxist movement campaign of Barack Obama found it very fitting to exploit, at this most delicate hour.

No press was allowed, but Obama posed, relaxed and hanging out in style, for his own photographer, as Biden observes and corresponds (but remains more inhibited by apparent respect). Is that the seat of the Chief Justice over which O Bogus presides?

The following is excerpted from whatever after action report, Tony Mauro was able to assemble in The Blog of Legal Times.

According to Court officials, all the justices except Samuel Alito Jr. joined Obama and Biden in the Court's stately west conference room, where they sat in highback chairs arranged around the fireplace. "Light refreshments" were served. Also on hand were Jeff Minear, counselor to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Gregory Craig, Obama's choice for White House counsel, and Alan Hoffman, Biden's deputy chief of staff. No explanation was given for Alito's absence.

The meeting between the two branches resulted from a Dec. 5 invitation sent by Roberts to Obama, inviting Obama and Biden to visit the Court before they are sworn in. Noting that recent predecessors had arranged similar meetings "so that colleagues in public service might become better acquainted," Roberts said the Court "would be pleased to see that sporadic practice become a congenial tradition." Roberts promised a "warm welcome" from the Court. Roberts' friendly tone was notable, since both Obama and Biden voted against his confirmation in 2005.

Is that a smile for the appreciation of history, upon the face of the Chief Justice? He certainly has the opportunity to contribute to history, after all -- simply by doing his constitutional duty, regarding the suits brought before him, sent in order to bring what is concealed in darkness, to light, for the sake of The People and the integrity of our mandated order of self governance.

Or does the smile reflect a bit of the sycophant spirit which has so pervaded America for that one? Time will tell. So nice they got to chat each other up a bit, though.

Mauro compares the kind of meeting this was, as seen from the outside, against a similar initial visit by Clinton and Gore.

But nothing could be learned about the tenor of the Wednesday meeting, in sharp contrast to the last time a similar encounter occurred. In December 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore made a highly public visit to the Court, entering and leaving in public view and greeting employees. A press pool was allowed to witness the discussion between Clinton, Gore and the justices. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush paid a visit to the Court in late November 1980.

The more closed nature of the Wednesday meeting was explained in part as a matter of security, and also the result of the tight schedules of both the hosts and the guests, which left less time for a more leisurely and public occasion.

Still, the rare visit caused a stir at the usually monastic institution, as Court employees gathered in a ground-floor hallway in hopes of catching a glimpse of the pair. Obama and Biden were briefly sighted as they rounded a stairway on their way to and from the Court basement where they had arrived by car with their security detail. As they departed, a clutch of employees cheered, winning waves from Obama and Biden.

Leo Donofrio, Cort Wrotnowski, and Orly Taitz have come up against this Obama fandom among SCOTUS employees. They did a fine job of delaying, not communicating, losing a filing here, sending a filing out for anthrax testing there... all in a day's work, at the ascendancy of the Marxist Messiah.

Not a bad day, to "call in sick," Justice Alito. A dyspeptic day for any others?

Update, 1/17: This comment about the top photo was given me in another place -- interesting:

Obama, dependent on the chair for "support"
Arms crossed - not open, standing behind the chair... hiding??
Not "face to face" with the Supreme Court Justices, but with the camera.
Justices looking downward.

Seems just a photo op to provide an "impression" of his being in control, when everything else about the photo says he's not.

ht: STARWISE

Jim Simpson: Dear President Elect Obama...

Those in the global neo-Marxist, neo-Fascist movement have stated they wish to bring America down to a level even with the rest of the world. Ironically, their own policies are the instruments for doing just that. In his open letter to Barack Obama, Jim Simpson investigates this economic change and pleas for positive, American policies, instead of what is coming out of Alinsky Town.

Dear President Elect Obama,

I understand that our economy is in rough shape....

Jim Simpson is an economist and former budget examiner, Federal Office of Management & Budget

Letter resident in The New Media Journal

'Obama, Biden to Visit Supreme Court,' Today, says CBS News

by Arlen Williams

Well, here is a quaint, little item. Who got the story, besides CBS News? I failed to find anyone else coming up quickly, on search results pages. Was CBS News believed to be especially sensitive about a subject such as this, by the Obama machinery?

Jan. 13, 2009 (CBS) President-elect Barack Obama will visit the Supreme Court tomorrow, according to his transition office, reports CBS News correspondent Steve Chaggaris.

At the invitation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Mr. Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will pay a protocol visit to the Supreme Court of the United States Wednesday afternoon, the office says.

This will mark the third time in recent history a president-elect and vice resident-elect have visited the court. The last such visit was made by Bill Clinton and Al Gore on Dec. 8, 1992.

On Nov. 19, 1980, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush made the same visit.

Mr. Obama and Biden will visit with the justices in the ceremonial West Conference Room.

The visit is private; reporters and photographers will not be present.

I might have excerpted the story in case CBS is unappreciative of fair use doctrine, but it is so brief that excerpting becomes difficult. More here, after I do a bit of searching: "Steve Chaggaris"

Searching in the CBS News site done: Steve Chaggaris is "CBS News Political Director." As in directing viewers and readers, politically, via CBS News? Sounds rather like good ol' Dan, if so. And as I gather, his latest stories have been all about telling us how important Barack Obama is, as he embarks upon the salvation of the presidency at this historically critical time. Well, except that his immediately prior article is entitled, "Michelle Obama Picks White House Decorator." Obviously, a tough, critical newsman, in the post-WWII CBS mold.

Edward R. Mur--I mean Mr. Chaggaris seems to have an ear to the lips of the Obama ascendancy.

And, how do you think the conversation will go, between Bogus POTUS - Bogus Elect Obama and Chief Justice Roberts?

Good day, Mr. President-Elect.

Why, good day to you, Chief Justice Roberts; um... uh... so! Read any letters from Orly Taitz, lately?

Well, Barry-er may I call you, "Barack?" No, I'm sorry, too informal. You see, Mr. President-Elect Soeto-oh-oh-Obama, I've been hearing the darnedest things about you! Please, have a seat and tell me a little about yourself. Begin at the v-e-r-r-y beginning, if you can -- that's the natural place to start, eh? I mean, wherever that place happens... to be.

Alas, we will have to guess how it really goes/went. "The visit is private; reporters and photographers will not be present." Then again, we simple Sovereign Citizens are used to just having to guess about all this.

Week 1/4-1/10; Path to BHO Breakthrough or Constitutional Travesty

A week's worth of naturally borne Citizenship in action, with I.O's agenda in the flux

1. Congress voted Thursday, to "certify" the E.C. vote for The Unkown, Unvetted, Usurping President.
2. Friday, 1/9, the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) apparently conferred about what to do with pesky Philip Berg. Do they now deign to grant him standing, this mere Sovereign Citizen? Then, on the 1/16, he gets another meeting of the Supreme How 'Bout That BOGUS POTUS Committee. Is Tom Waite right and does SCOTUS not like it that BHO has not responded to Souter's prior... invitation? [Ed. 1/12: even if Souter really did not want to invite attention; it is SCOTUS procedure to receive responses from defendants.]
   
3. By Mr. Phil's TRSoL report, Berg v. Obama was not dealt a miscellaneous order Friday. SCOTUS disposition should be announced Monday, as is customary. Phil does a great job of putting this into perspective, here.
   
4. Attorney, Orly Taitz appreciates that Chief Justice John Roberts has sent Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page) to committee for 1/23. Wednesday's I.O. article and interview with Taitz here. Also, Orly Taitz' subsequent press release, over there. She exhorts more letters and other petitions from concerned Americans. Her cover letter to Roberts was an interesting move; maybe it helped, at least in citing some of the known references to the meaning of the Article 2 phrase, natural born Citizen. Be apprised, now: this Lightfoot is not a petition for writ of certiorari, it is an appeal for an injunction against the California Electoral College vote, which has already happened. To I.O's ken, Dr. Taitz will need assistance from someone licensed to present before the SCOTUS, if she wishes to petition for a writ (for full review, oral argument, and quite possibly, for such a thing as a reversal of an unconstitutional election). She describes Lightfoot v. Bowen as a "step," but at least it is a step to bring a federal candidate's standing, along with two of the three arguments against Obama's candidacy to the SCOTUS and we are in uncharged jurisprudential waters.
   
5. Orly Taitz is in hyperdrive. Maybe we should all pray for her safety.
   
6. What has been transpiring in other cases?: Obama legal challenge scorecard
   
7. Well, Broe v. Reed was dismissed, Thursday by the WA Supremes, which notified the local media instead of that first, before any contact with Broe attorney, Stephen Pidgeon, if at all. Huh. And to the SCOTUS Pidgeon will fly. He thinks the WA court, like their Secretary of State may just be saying, "'S'not my job, man" and for some reason does not feel encumbered with the qualifying of a presidential candidiate. If so, they hide in a nationwide cloud of confusion, due to lack of legislative procedure to support the natural born Citizenshp clause and that causes a further confusion regarding "controlling legal authority" (as Al Gore appreciators might remember, i.e., how he avoided prison, per his past foreign fundraising, Hindu monks and all). In Broe v. Reed, Pidgeon refers to all of the three major contentions with BHO II: 1. U.K. citizenship at birth via BHO I, 2. no valid proof of natural born Citizenship provided and, 3. apparent Indonesian citizenship as a child, revoking any U.S. citizenship. Pidgeon's Broe case did receive oral argument by the WA SC, which may help in terms of standing (with all the various "objective" elements for SCOTUS to consider, you do know that, at least for those justices unwilling or unable to apply the finest of epistemological categorization of constitutional law with natural accuracy, a lot of this is subjective for them, don't you?).
   
8. Schneller v. Cortes (based upon no valid proof of n.b.C. by Obama) was taken from Pennsylvania to Justice Souter, Thursday, in the attempt to delay the congressional certification of the Electoral College vote and whaddyaknow, Souter denied.
   
9. I.O. still finds it more than "odd" that after Donofrio was given the run-around by the SCOTUS clerks and Wrotnowski's filing was sent away for "anthrax testing," Taitz' Lightfoot filing was "lost" before Christmas. Perhaps more on that, later.
   
10. PlainsRadio.com-ops: may get to that later, priorities are priorities.
11. Does the narrative of August, 1961 in the life of Stanley Ann Dunham fit the possibility of a birth outside the U.S.A.? Sam Sewell of The Steady Drip presents, below
    
12. Do you know why it shouldn't matter and that BHO is ineligible, anyway? More on this, all over Investigating Obama. Click the "I.O. Docket" index on the sidebar, or the lazy click here).
13. How about that new kind of case, some have heard about, boiling up in a conservative state? Something having to do with the military? Must be taking a bit more time.
    
14. Those Top-5 "Daddy Says No!" nbC article awards that I.O. has not found the time to do yet... um... see the line-up of natural born Citizen articles, here.
15. Beyond the essential crisis-solving necessary to preserve the U.S. Constitution, against an usurpation by an ineligible candidate, why does it matter that Barack Obama is kept out of the Presidency? Answer, here.
    
16. Read up on Obama researcher, Mark S. McGrew's outrage, below -- and hear him on Internet radio
17. FoxNews is featuring... Casey Anthony a lot, lately. Fox asks why it is that she did not reveal what she knew about her daughter's disappearance and points out that, in itself, is incriminating. I.O. points out, this sounds like Obama and his Hawaiian birth certificate, does it not?
    
18. What? BHO Continues to Press His Mega-Money Fundraising?
    
19. Keep an eye on that I.O. Sitebar Sidebar, especially "The Unconstitutional Usurper" lineup:

What? More Money, Barack?

The press for "unprecedented" (understatement) money continues, using whatever excuse and presumably from all quarters, legal, or scofflaw, or worse. Italicized words are I.O's. So are the new and improved links -- I.O. encourages you to click them in order.

Deadline: Midnight

Thursday, January 8, 2009 12:08 PM

From: "Barack Obama" info@barackobama.com
To: the cells in the matrix @ everywhere . we can plug into you

Sycophant --

On January 20th, our journey to bring change will officially begin.

We're organizing the most open and accessible inauguration in our nation's history. And we're doing it without contributions from Washington lobbyists or big corporations.

Just like we did on the campaign, we're relying entirely on supporters like you -- ordinary people giving whatever they can afford to make this an event for all Americans.

I know we've asked a lot of you. But changing the way business is done in Washington will take a commitment from all of us. Right now, you can help give this administration a strong start.

And if you make a donation of any amount before midnight tonight, you could be selected to come to Washington, D.C., and be part of the welcome ceremony, the swearing in, the Inaugural Parade, and the Inaugural Community Ball.

Make a donation of $5 or more and be part of the historic moment you made possible.

We have a long road ahead of us, and we're going to face some major challenges as soon as we start. But I know I can count on you every step of the way.

Thank you for everything you've done and happy New Year,

Barack

P.S. -- You could be there for this historic moment even if you cannot make a donation. You can show your support by sharing what this Inauguration means to you. Learn more here:

h.h.hippos://donate.pic2009.org/tickettohistory

Paid for by Obama for America

This email was sent to: said sycophants

To unsubscribe, go to: http://my.barackobama.com/unsubscribe

Interview, Orly Taitz: Chief Justice Roberts Calls Conference on Obama Challenge: Lightfoot v. Bowen

Breaking...

by Arlen Williams, 1/7/2009

Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama's presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). I.O. interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney, Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT, today, minutes after she learned of this move.

Taitz believes, "This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress... the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election."

The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot's vice presidential candidacy in California. It also addresses two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama's failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama's apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet, to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama challenger, Philp Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.

Roberts was submitted this case on 12/29, originally a petition for an injunction against the State of California's Electoral College vote. His action comes one day before the Congress is to certify the Electoral College votes electing Barack Obama, 1/8. The conference called by Roberts is scheduled for 1/23. Orly Taitz is not deterred by the conference coming after the inauguration, which is to be held 1/20, "If they find out that he was not eligible, then they can actually rescind the election; the whole inauguration and certification were not valid." The strongest time for legal and judicial rulings are generally after the fact.

Taitz reacts to this new event as a project manager, "We'll continue working, one step at a time. Now we need to get the word out to all the media, congressmen, senators." It remains to be seen whether the "major media" will deign to cover this story, or continue to mainly report news that is negative as it pertains to natural born Citizen actions addressing Obama.

"They will hear the case, then, if they find out... Obama was elected fraudulently, they will find out the whole process was not valid." Taits calls this conference itself an important hearing and then, "I think that we'll have four Justices, then it will go to oral arguments and all American Citizens will be able to hear the case." In such a conference, four Supreme Court Justices of the nine must vote for certiorari -- to have a full review generally including a public hearing. However, the Lightfoot filing is not at this point a petition for a writ of certiorari. In theory, the court may issue an order of the court regarding the process, or pertaining to a then, apparent President Obama's standing.

Taitz stressed that the public must know immediately about matters that may have been hidden in Barack Obama's candidacy, citing one example, that, "Most of the country has no clue that one relative can go to the state of Hawaii and sign an affidavit that 'my relative was born a citizen'" and thus gain an Hawaiian birth certificate for that person, even if he were born abroad. That is the same kind of birth certificate that Barack Obama has not allowed to be seen, but which Hawaiian state officials have reported exists in privately held state records.

The earlier Lightfoot petition to the California State Supreme Court for a stay of that state's Electoral College election had been denied at that level.

One of many potentially odd twists to monitor in this electoral process is that as of Friday, 1/2, the National Archives had received Electoral College votes from only twenty-four of fifty states, not nearly enough votes for Congress to count, tomorrow for an election.

Investigating Obama will continue to monitor this and related cases, and link to news and examinations of them, from other newsworthy sites. The Web site of Orly Taitz relates her perspective, further. Readers are free to repost or excerpt this article.

A Guide to the Legal Challenges of Barack Obama’s Candidacy - Continually Updated - See Below & Sidebar

Update, 1/9/2009: This post is now slipping down the I.O. blog files.

Please contact your senators and representative in Congress (and others you believe may care about the Consititution) by phone call, fax, and/or telegraph. Let them know they have an overriding duty to perform, of being faithful to and defending the Constitution. And the Constitution requires that both parents of a president must be American citizens at that person's birth. They have no place to hide. Congress is due to vote on certifying the Electoral College vote, this coming Thursday, 1/8. And Justices on the Supreme Court are waiting for their application/petition against a malfeasant Obama certification.

Meanwhile, only half the states have submitted their votes? Demand that a count of submitted votes be done (so they know what they must refuse by constitutional law).

Senators' and representatives' addressses, telephone and fax numbers, and email addresses
Additional contact information, including staff of Senate & House leaders' staff
Protocol for a letter to United States senator

Congressional Oath of Office

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Question:

Please make a list of what the SCOTUS Justice, Scalia, would need to show to his colleagues in order to get three more to agree to cert or to remand back to lower court with stipulation that Berg now has standing. Telegrams [I.O.: and faxes and calls -- also, call senators and representatives before or even through Thursday, 1/8] to the judges can still get to them before the 1/9/09 conference meeting. What are the 'bullet points' to raise?

I.O's Answer:

1. Barack Obama is manifestly not a natural born Citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, due to his citizenship in the United Kingdom at birth, by hereditary right from his father, as conferred by British law and recognized by American law (and international law). The purpose of this clause is clearly to preclude from the Presidency as Commander in Chief, any person with, from birth, any competing national allegiance -- an intention of national security as outlined to George Washington by letter of John Jay. (And an allegiance to the U.K. was their chief concern, as it was clearly the nation which posed America's greatest threat.)

Further, the meaning of natural born Citizen at the time of the framing is clear, from Vatel and Tucker, whose writings were held at the highest educational authority by the framers and were uncontradicted at the framing of the Constitution; also subsequently, by Bingham and the case, Perkins v. ELG. The criteria: both, a. born in U.S. territory and, b. each parent being U.S. citizens, hence no other national jurisdiction.

Further, if Barack Obama's father was not married to his mother at the time of his birth, his mother was not old enough to bestow natural born Citizenship upon her son.

2. Barack Obama became an Indonesian citizen as a child, while the United States had no arrangement for dual-citizenship with Indonesia. Thereby, if he was before that time a United States Citizen, that Citizenship was revoked.

3. Barack Obama has shown no valid, legal proof of United States Citizenship, nor United States birth, to any agency of government whatsoever that is or must be charged with the supervision of any process of the election of a president, or the certification of its candidates.

See this article regarding issue number 1. // ht: MHGinTN

Update 12/30, PM - Obama's online "Birth Certificate" is not evidentiary, according to a professional document examiner. See the report, along with an riff about how "evidence" may or may not be evidence -- plus one idea of why Barack Obama might not want his actual Hawaiian Birth Certificate revealed, even if it does show he was born in America.

Update 12/24, AM - See today's posting, "Oklahoma St. Rep. Mike Ritze Requesting Congress to Challenge Obama's Eligibility" for some of the latest news in the efforts to get U.S. senators and representatives to challenge the Congressional certification of Obama's election, January 8 -- and to prepare to take it to court.

Get a snapshot of each natural born Citizen case on the "Eligibility Lawsuits" page at The Right Side of Life -- like checking the "Standings, Scores, and Schedule" page of the sports section, if you will. The Right Side and others are countering the media black-out and spin by chronicling developments in these cases. See their section on the I.O. Sidebar.

You may also wish to check out: "Save our Rights" -- a wiki, documenting all the attempts to avoid America's fictitious presidency.

Please, let us demand that a few honest patriots in Congress, on behalf of our constitutional cohesiveness as a nation, move to avert the national disaster of an unchecked and illegitimate, "Citizen of the World," presidency.

This can be an update-intensive entry. You can use ChangeDetection.com to be emailed with updates, or use the newsfeed of your choice.

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

Does America have one honest, courageous senator?
If God gives us one senator to take this to the Supreme Court, representatives will also be found.

This remains a critical time at the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and courts below. One lower court ruled in September that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear challenges to presidential candidates' eligibility until after Congress certifies Monday's Electoral College vote (mandated for January 8). This is now being tested by petitions to the SCOTUS seeking injunctions against that very certification.

Is the SCOTUS holding review of any of its earlier natural born Citizen cases as "pending," though the Donofrio and Wrotnowski petitions for injunction against the popular and Electoral College votes have been denied? Are they keeping them on file as it were, for potential reference or formal review, when further challenges to Obama's candidacy (in addition to the Berg case) occur, immediately after January 8?

On January 8, if at least one U.S. senator and at least one representative object to the certification of the Electoral College vote, they must confer and caucus. Then, if the Congress still certifies the vote for Obama, these objecting congressmen would theoretically have the greatest standing before the Supreme Court. Are there such members of Congress who will take this before the Court?

If not, who will the SCOTUS deem worthy of being granted a writ of certiorari -- to have their case given a formal review and decision? Upon what grounds? Who will come forward and whose case(s) will be allowed into the chamber?

These are questions I.O. is attempting to answer where possible, or at least provide a reasonable "weather report."

Some of these cases are based in large part, upon Barack Obama's foreign citizenship at birth, by inheritance from his father; others, chiefly about his withholding of his actual and presumed original, Hawaiian Birth Certificate.

Since Barack Obama's father (BHO I) was apparently an U.K. citizen when BHO II was born, by the original intent and understanding of the Constitution, he was never a natural born Citizen as that term was meant and therefore unable to serve as United States President. That, by the careful interpretation of the Constitution's framers, based upon authoritative sources, corroborated by pertinent contemporaneous commentary, and unhindered by case law. See I.O's "Daddy Says No! - Articles Assessing the Constitution's "Natural Born Citizen" Clause, Barack Hussien Obama I, and BHO II" among the articles below.

Then, there is the original, authoritative birth certificate. Why has Obama spent nearly $1M to keep it unseen? If it disqualifies him, Obama may be guilty of criminal fraud -- major criminal fraud.

Numerous of the civil cases also point out that due to his apparent Indonesian citizenship as a child, Obama has since become a naturalized citizen, or else he is an illegal alien.

Whatever Obama's particulars are (and America does deserve to see his actual birth certificate) there is no apparent "out" here -- no sound explanation in sight but that Barack Obama is constitutionally disqualified from being sworn in, on January 20. That being the case, his candidacy has been legally fictitious from the Iowa Caucuses, onward and each presidential ballot including his name was an injury and insult to the Sovereign American Voter.

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

.EQUAL . JUSTICE . UNDER . LAW...

From December 4 onward, Investigating Obama will publish a guide to on-line information about the legal challenges of the status of Barack Obama as a candidate for United States president. Links will be provided to pertinent information. Analysis will be included, for the sake of cutting through clutter and to provide rationale.

Purpose: to clarify what has been underreported and obfuscated in the media, and to allow U.S Citizens to spread the news on their own, taking comfort in documented verifiability where that is found.

Why should the Supreme Court decide upon these matters before the voting taken by the Electoral College, scheduled for December 15, the subsequent congressional recognition, and the Oath of Office on January 20?

1. Because our nation's integrity and social order are based upon the firm and definite meaning of the Constitution, or we become a nation of increasing tyrannies, where breakdown and elitist domination, or outright authoritarianism historically ensue.

2. Because we risk having a fictitious, usurping presidency, which would mean, sooner or later, any of our false president's decisions, including executive orders and signed legislation, would be subject to court challenge, or international challenge, to be considered null and void. This could well bring both national and international chaos.

3. Because the People of the United States of America are simply owed a legitimate president and to be presented with constitutional candidates only.

See below, see the I.O. sidebar:

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

I.O. will also continue to refer to top links covering the Fitzgerald investigations, branching out from the prosecution of Obama's financier middle-man and slumlord, the Arab oil-moneyed Tony Rezko (his sentencing delayed again as he sings) and now extending to the charges against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, and beyond.

For instance, have you heard from the "mainstream" media that Fitzgerald "interviewed" (interrogated?) Obama, on December 18?