Saturday, December 06, 2008

The Big Question (Update: Stay denied)

Earlier this morning I was reading the polls results and comments over at WorldNetDaily regarding the opinions of several people who thought that the U.S. Supreme Court would cave and not have the guts to "stay" the electors from casting their votes for president on December 15, 2008. According to postings at The Right Side of Life and Citizen Wells, the "stay" has been denied. As of this writing, there is no additional information about the Writ of CERTIORARI that was also requested by Mr. Donofrio. Updates will be included here as I find them.

Another brief article at WorldNetDaily

While reading the poll results and comments at WND, I got the sinking feeling that this was going to happen. The rule of law seems not to matter anymore - and the U.S. Constitution is "just a piece of paper."

I have read that Obama has said himself, (paraphrased here until I find the exact quote) 'The Constitution is a fundamentally flawed document.'

So. What do we conclude? We have a Supreme Court that agrees with him and will allow Obama to take the presidency while hiding all of the following information about him:

Mr. Barack Hussein Obama -

The American People want to know, who sent you?

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

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

What a terribly sad day in America.


P.S. It is now up to the individual states (several lawsuits are still out there) to take the action needed that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to do. I wanted to include a comment from a writer over at the WND poll:

Law of the moment!
Posted by mac1 on Dec 08, 2008 09:06

I guess their[sic] are three views folks can have here.

1. Nothing is unusual here. Just politics as usual. Won't effect me.

2. The Constitution is null & void. We need a current up to date one.

3. The Constitution is the document that this Country was based on and powers (people) within this country have successfully destroyed most of what it stands for.

We have done exactly what the writers of the Constitution wrote and warned us not to do. In order to do it, people had to commit treason and blatently[sic] break the "laws of the Constitution of the United States". To do so, all the branches of government had to stand idly by and allow it, or in most cases be fully involved in its demise. Also, we the people, had to stand by and let it happen. The federal government has turned into the monster that the founders of the Constitution hoped would not happen in this nation. That monster, they knew, would devour all wealth, freedoms, hopes, and rules of law. It will then devour all that oppose it.

The Constitution by its very purpose made it clear that the people would follow it or change it by clear methods of amendment by law. If the people chose not to amend it by proper law then it would be trampled on and all that it stood for and the guidence that it was intended to give would be lost. We are a generation that is witness to that terrible reality.

The matter needs to [be] addressed and could be taken care of very easily in a country that followed its "Constitution". As for the Supreme Court looking at the President elects' eligibility constitutionally, why would they? We don't follow that old out dated piece of paper any more.

The case of Leo C. Donofrio v. New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells, which claims Obama does not meet the Constitution's Article 2, Section 1 "natural-born citizen" requirement for president, was initially denied a hearing by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, but Justice Clarence Thomas agreed to bring it back for review today.

In order to go forward in the process, the case needs four of the Supreme Court's nine justices to approve a full hearing.

Will Supremes review citizenship arguments?
Lawsuit: Even with a valid birth certificate, 'he still wouldn't be eligible to be president'


P.S. To stay up to date on what is happening (and, to dispel incorrect information that the media of mass deception is spreading) please visit Natural Born Citizen

Update on 12/8/08 at 12:54 p.m. PT:

Perhaps there is more hope for this case:

The Right Side of Life reports: Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Distributed for Conference by Justice Scalia


World Net Daily

Natural Born Citizen


Ted said...

Seems the Supreme Court is waiting to hear from me before issuing a decision on Donofrio, so here goes: While the Court is more than loathe to enter this dispute, currently it has no choice (thanks to the audacious one — and I don’t mean Leo, I mean Barack) and the ONLY WAY to bring closure, knowing CLOSURE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL before any Presidential inauguration, is to back the original intent of the Constitution, meaning, Obama is NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” (albeit Obama may or may not be a “citizen”, a question heated by the steadfast refusal of the DNC or any of the Secretaries of State to require his birth certificate, which the Court will now not have to confront).

rebecca said...

If three supreme court justices be not joined to Justice Thomas, I pray that the Lord of Hosts will rain down fire and damnation on this apostate court! The people are WAYWARD and ERRANT and FOOLED by the media of mass deception; I pray that the Lord will redeem those beguiled by CNN and NBC, but know that our righteous God will condemn this wicked nation for our sins!

The Lord founded this nation on a CHRISTIAN nation, gave us CHRISTIAN sovereigns from WASHINGTON to BUSH -- but now we betray Him and install a MUSLIM FOREIGNER to that high and noble office? Never in the justice of the LORD shall this "obamanation" stand!

PS I believe that "Obama" if that be his real name is a homosexual and is using the media and the power of the presidency to hide that fact. I am afraid he will use the power of that office to corrupt the nation!

GMpilot said...

So...what happened?

Ted said...

The choice facing the Supreme Court on Monday boils down to civil unrest to protect the Constitution or civil war to proceed to 'inaugurate' a non-"natural born citizen".

Gary Baker said...


Sadly, I think you have it reversed. I believe there will be civil unrest if Obama gets a pass without confirmation, but a much higher likelihood of civil war if the court intervenes. The people supporting Obama in general have already proven themselves much more prone to violence and abuse than those opposing him.

As for myself, I am much less interested in the outcome of such a review of his birth credentials than that one is performed openly. I believe that if a person can't even get a job without showing a social security card, a proper examination of a birth certificate for the highest office of the land is hardly unreasonable. The process is the important part, not the outcome.

rebecca said...

we need to keep focus on the truthful allegation of larry sinclair et al. of the cocaine sex abuses of the FRAUD from Chicago. I think this little man, this SHAMMER, is no more than a puppet of the great liberal BEAST-DEN of Delaware!

America doesn't even begin to know the sordid history between "Beau" Biden, Caroline "Kennedy", and Emil Jones, the far-left moonbat THUG who groomed OBAMA for this impotent role of HANDPUPPET in chief! God bless you Christinewjc for exposing this sick lying scheme! I feel like the USA I have loved all my life is about to die, killed by the Maoist Jihadi Firebrands of Chicago and Wilmington!

AMERICA let's put JESUS in our hearts and in command!

Christinewjc said...

Ted and Gary,

No matter what happens, there WILL be civil unrest. I truly hope that it doesn't amount to a "civil war." That would be devastating.

However, as Gary had mentioned, the Obama side would rage much more than the "natural born citizen for POTUS only (NBCITIZEN for POTUS)" crowd.

Evidence of this can be seen in that when Leo Donofrio met with the Supremes in private conference, the small vigil outside was quiet, civil and meant to show support for both Mr. Donofrio's case and the U.S. Constitution.

The other side WON'T CARE ONE BIT about the law(s) set down by our Framers of the U.S. Constitution. They would only see it as "the presidency taken away from the first black (in reality - bi-racial) president-elect" and all hell will break loose here in America. There would be no reasoning with such people.

Even if the Donofrio case doesn't get a hearing, there are still the various lawsuits across America regarding preventing the electors of several states from casting their votes for Obama because he is not a NBCitizen and therefore, ineligible for POTUS.

Interestingly enough, we can get a glimpse of what SOME of the Obama electors might do (and believe) via a comment posted over at Natural Born Citizen blog.

[Note to GMPilot - you can get the most up-to-date information about the case there.]

Here's a copy so you don't have to hunt for it:

John Nada Says:

December 7, 2008 at 12:07 am
FYI I thought you might be interested in this item that I just ran across @

Obama Denialism: the Electors Respond
December 6th, 2008 · 1 Comment · Author - Ames, Politics
Per Patrick at Yes to Democracy, one elector’s humble reply to a deluge of e-mails from Obama denialists, demanding that he refuse to certify Obama’s victory:

December 6, 2008

I have been asked by some concerned citizens as part of my Constitutional responsibility as a member of the College of Electors to review the evidence and make a determination regarding the natural born citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama II, or to join in a lawsuit against him in this matter. They have also forwarded a great deal of information to me which I have now reviewed.

After reading this information it is my opinion that none of it is conclusive in its own right. Most of it is speculation, rumor, or opinion rendered by “experts” or others whose qualifications and
motives are suspect. However, given the volume of information put forth, the question of Mr. Obama’s natural born citizenship was worth my understanding.

Since the United States Supreme Court has not rendered an opinion regarding the validity of the “natural born” status of a U.S. citizen or otherwise defined this term, I am therefore at liberty to make my own determination as a Presidential Elector. In my opinion a person is a natural born citizen if he or she is granted citizenship either at birth or at the age of majority by the United States government. And has never been required by the United States government to become
“naturalized” or take the oath of citizenship. This seems to me to be a straightforward and logical understanding of the term. If you are presumed to be a U.S. citizen at your birth, and no government entity says otherwise, then in fact you are.

If someone emigrates from another country to the United States, and wishes to become a citizen, that person must enter a legal process culminating in taking the oath of citizenship and being “naturalized.” This is why for example the current Governor of California cannot
claim “natural born” status and become the President of the United States. He was born an Austrian. He emigrated here. He sought citizenship. And he was “naturalized” in a ceremony conducted by United States officials.

And there is also in the United States the use of Common Law as a part of our judicial system. Most of the time the law is codified by us, but in fact there are traditions and understandings which have not always been codified. My point here is that for example if you have a right of way from your property across another person’s property to a road, that person after a specified period of time (dependent upon a particular state’s statutes) cannot suddenly decide that you cannot cross his property anymore to get to the road. It is presumed after a certain period of time that this right of way is a right that you retain since he did not protest your crossing his property for years.

These are the two bases upon which I have rendered my decision. Even if some or all of the scenarios to which these concerned citizens have pointed regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship are true, two facts remain. The United States government has never required Mr. Obama to take the oath of citizenship, or even to render a decision at the age of majority between having U.S. citizenship and Kenyan citizenship, or U.S. citizenship and Indonesian citizenship. And he has lived here and been reared and educated as a U.S. citizen. It would seem to me that 47 years is a sufficient amount of time to have lived here as a U.S. citizen, with no government entity challenging it, for us and for Mr. Obama to presume that he is a natural born U.S. citizen.

Whether through clerical error, or bureaucratic malfeasance, or simply because it is actually true as was stated on October 31, 2008 by the Director of the Health Department for the State of Hawaii, that he was in fact born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Barack Hussein Obama II has been presumed by the United States government itself to be a natural born citizen of the United States for 47 years.

It issued him a Social Security number and a passport, obviously accepting his Hawaiian birth certificate without requiring a team of forensic scientists to examine it. He has lived in the United States as a U.S. citizen for his entire adult life. He has been not only a de facto U.S. citizen, he has been a de jure U.S. citizen. A citizenship conferred upon him by the United States government at his birth, and never questioned by any court, or executive branch official for 47 years. The United States government itself accepted his natural born citizenship when it issued him a passport without requiring him to take the oath of citizenship in a ceremony like all other immigrants to this country.

Therefore, as the Presidential Elector for the 6th Congressional District of North Carolina it is my Constitutional determination that Barack Hussein Obama II is a natural born citizen of the United States, and is qualified to become the 44th President of the United States of America. I will cast my Electoral College vote accordingly on December 15, 2008.


Wayne Abraham

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but from what I have read in the U.S. Constitution, as well as in arguments from lawyers and historical commentators (such as Donofrio's case and Frank Salvato's article) I, for one, find that the quoted elector's words (above) as quite the convoluted argument and a stretch of the imagination to get to the claim that Obama should be considered "natural born."

Christinewjc said...


You are so upset! But I know how you feel. It is hard not to worry about this case. But God is on His throne in heaven and He sees the big picture. We don't. All we can do is keep praying and alerting people about this Constitutional crisis. There is still time to prevent Obama from being sworn in. Even if he does get in, there will still be lawsuits and perhaps it will be found that he needs to be removed from office.

Like everyone else, I hope and pray that Obama's status - that he is NOT eligible to be POTUS, is settled before Inauguration day.

You mentioned the Larry Sinclair story. Sinclair has written a book about it and it has Obama & company hopping mad.

I have been writing about Obama for over a year, now. However, I must admit that until your last comment I had never heard of "Emil Jones." Who is he?

rebecca said...

Emil Jones is the crook thug PATRIARCH of corrupt Illinois politics who "tutored" Barack HUSSEIN Obama on the ways of brutal leftwing CHICHAGO-style gangster "Hope & Change." Now sick communist yugoslavian Gov. BLAGOJEVICH wants to put this criminal syndicate in the US SENATE to fill in BHO's blood-stained seat!

Meantime we hear C. Kennedy and B. Biden lining-up for their slice of the pie... Is it possible that this whole sham election "took place" so this shameful GANG of three could cheat their way into the US Senate? why are the voices of the millions for McCain/Palin shut out like this?

I can't believe 52% voted for this HYPE! I'm the opposite of that "pig in lipstick" Michelle Obama -- for the first time in my adult life, I am ASHAMED of being an American!

God's blessings of peace on your heart! Thank you for understanding my pain -- very few seem to know the pain of this DEMENTED election.

Tori said...

Has any one any thoughts on Bill Richardson's apparent statement in which he characterized Obama as an "immigrant"? The link to the YouTube clip is...

Coming from a prominent political player, it seems to me that Richardson's statement merits some investigation.

Christinewjc said...


Do you have any links to share where I can read more about Emil Jones? I wonder if he is connected with that corrupt atheistic financier - George Soros. He is the money behind this corrupt Obama campaign.

As I had mentioned in a previous comment thread, there are some Americans who took the blue pill. and voted for Obama. The fact that some of these people are self-professed Christians and Catholics - absolutely astounds me!

Warning! The following portion of my comment is NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT. However, I think it needs to be said.

Jesus told us that the world would be easily deceived - especially the closer we get to the end times.

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Notice it says that such great "signs and wonders" would be as such that "they shall deceive the very elect" if [it were] possible. That means, it is NOT possible to deceive those who genuinely believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior!

The CINOS - "Christian in name only" who are not born again and are NOT "Jesus' own" CAN be deceived by "false Christs and false prophets."

Therefore, they can EASILY BE DECEIVED by a person like Obama.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Tori,

Welcome! I watched that brief video clip and Richardson certainly opens his mouth and inserts his own foot! LOL

Thanks for sharing that!

It's also a great idea to investigate Richardson and have him come clean - what does he know about Obama and when did he know it?

rebecca said...

Here is a link about Jones:

but I can't find more than that right because I am in TEARS and WEEPING for America because of THIS:


The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied."


Do we still say "God Defend this Honorable COurt"? No, no, no! We say, "God DAMN this DISHONORABLE Court!" This Court is no court but a court of FRAUD and DISGRACE!

IT IS NOT TOO LATE FOR AMERICA. We need the states to spring into action and call for a new Convention and amend the constitution to disallow ATHEISTS and MUSLIMS and African-born FAR LEFT blackpanther inspired LUNATIC marxist CHicago-style machine pols from staining our beautiful WHITE HOUSE.

If this course of action fails I see no option except for the patriots in the top ranks of the army, navy, and air force to take charge and prevent this Pacifist weirdo from selling America to the Islamic Jihad! This is a HOMELAND SECURITY issue!

Christinewjc said...

Thanks for the link, Rebecca. I will go and check it out.

This is quite a disappointment. But I don't think that this issue will ever die until it is resolved by visual proof of Obama's vault-length COLB by the public.

There are over a dozen other lawsuits going on out there. More people are becoming aware of the controversy, too.

Over at the NEIN blog are the following two comments:

December 7, 2008 10:50 PM
fooser77 said...
Who here has viewed Dr. Vieira's latest? Talk about a "popcorn moment." Here's a teaser:

"On some Monday not so far in the future, “President” Obama meets with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to announce that “Operation Sandblaster,” for a massive nuclear attack on Iran’s supposed “weapons of mass destruction," will be launched on the coming Friday. The Joint Chiefs remonstrate, pointing out that such aggression will trigger retaliation by Russia and China, almost surely plunging the whole world into a thermonuclear World War III. “President” Obama, however, is adamant, and instructs the Joint Chiefs to have the necessary orders for “Sandblaster”—or their resignations—on his desk by Wednesday morning. Knowing that, if they resign, “President” Obama will simply appoint some unprincipled uniformed “yes men” to carry out his plan, the Joint Chiefs immediately order covert break-ins around the country to obtain his original birth certificate and other material evidence relating to his ineligibility for the Office of President. With these documents in hand, on Wednesday morning, accompanied by a contingent of heavily armed Marines, the Joint Chiefs confront “President” Obama with the evidence, arrest him as an usurper and all the Members of Congress as his co-conspirators, and appoint themselves a Military Commission to function as a “caretaker government” during the ensuing “national emergency."

Not that I personally wish for this to come to pass. However, there is this "ghoulish curiosity" that I just can't resist within my fallen human soul...

December 8, 2008 10:16 AM
SeanOsborne said...
I've been patiently waiting for this subject to emerge by quietly holding to an almost 90% certainty that it would become a relevant near-term issue.

Upon commissioning all military officers recite the United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office.

"I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn 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 office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God."

The above is different than the "Oath of Enlistment in that it says nothing about following the orders of POTUS, the Commander-IN-Chief.

The "Oath of Enlistment" includes the following statement:

"...that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me..."

In this the chain-of-command and the UCMJ are the guiding legal authority, and lawful orders are the rule of military law.

December 8, 2008 12:51 PM

Christinewjc said...

Update on 12/8/08 at 12:54 p.m. PT:

Perhaps there is more hope for this case:

The Right Side of Life reports: Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Distributed for Conference by Justice Scalia