Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Bob Unruh from WorldNetDaily writes:

A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama’s name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a “conference” at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation’s next president.

The Supreme Court’s website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama’s name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.

We will see in a few weeks what will come of it.  Remember there is still Berg’s case and Keyes’s case that will still be in the works.


Read Full Post »

There are so many questions that have yet to be answered by President-Elect Barack Obama or his staff.  What are on these documents that are so bad that they must be sealed and not released?  Does it show connections with other people that will shed light negatively on the President-Elect?  Does it show him not to be eligible for office?

It only makes me think Obama is trying to hide something by not releasing his medical history, college transcripts and college papers, and his actual birth certificate to the public.

Not Released

  • Occidental College Records
  • Harvard University Records
  • University of Chicago Records


Read Full Post »

As many as fifteen states have heard cases relating to Obama’s citizenship, but now with Keyes adding his name to the list of people who want to know the truth, he may just have enough standing to see this all the way through.  Since he was on the ballot and lost to Obama he would have enough standing since if he is not a citizen of this country or not able to hold office, Keyes could have possibly (although unlikely) lost because of it.

What ever happens to Berg’s Case?

On September 29th of this year a Federal District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that the Democratic Nominee for President Barack Obama had 72 hours to turn over a copy of his long form “vault” birth certificate to long time Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, Philip Berg. In the DNC’s motion to dismiss they argued Mr. Berg had no “standing” upon which to bring his lawsuit and therefore the Federal Court should dismiss it.

The court refused to accept the DNC’s and Mr. Obama’s argument instead issuing a ruling that gave numerous statutes and case law which, in the court’s judgment, gave Mr. Berg standing. One such case was the 1998 Supreme Court case of FEC v. Akins. In this case the United States Supreme Court held that Akins, et.al. acting as voters had standing to challenge the FEC for information under the FECA, Fair Election Campaign Act. The court so eloquently held that “the injury pertaining to voting, the most basic of political rights, is sufficiently concrete.” For a petitioner to have standing the injury, in the eyes of a court, must be sufficiently concrete as to merit a case or controversy. In the case of Akins, et.al. the court sided with the voters.

Although the Pennsylvania court sided with Mr. Berg it wasn’t 30 days later, when on October 24, 2008 this same court reversed its own ruling by dismissing Berg’s lawsuit for lack of standing. A careful examination of the court record reveals no introduction of evidence, testimony or affidavits from either Mr. Obama or the DNC. One must wonder aloud what the reasoning was for the court’s reversal of its earlier position.

Berg told LifeSiteNews.com that more court activity across America calling for the withholding of electoral votes until the matter is settled, like Keyes’ petition, is likely.

Berg says he is very optimistic about his pending case, and says he is certain the Supreme Court will not be able to ignore the issue.  “Our government is based on the U.S. Constitution, we’re asking for the enforcement of certain terms here that are very basic,” he said.

“I think this is the biggest hoax perpetrated upon the American public in the history of our country, and I really think certain people should end up going to jail,” Berg added.

Berg warned that, if Obama truly is ineligible, and nonetheless inaugurated, there would be “a real constitutional crisis.

“We’d have a nightmare on our hands,” he said.

Read Full Post »

American Thinker,

Among the throng of Clinton regime retreads recruited for the Obama administration we find Gregory Craig. Craig served as Obama’s advisor on Latin American during the campaign, and was appointed last week as chief White House Counsel.

The MSM has mentioned Craig’s role as Bill Clinton’s impeachment lawyer, but mostly has omitted mention of Craig’s role as chief facilitator for Fidel Castro’s shanghaiing of Elian Gonzalez.

Read Full Post »

LA Times

Bet you didn’t know how much your vote cost to get.

Here’s the kind of stuff real politics fans revel in: Which candidate spent the most TV advertising money per vote received

Barack Obama spent $14.85 per vote received in Nevada.  The John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket spent $13.95 there.

Obama spent $7.23 per vote in Missouri, but still lost to McCain, who shelled out “only” $5.19.

Obama spent $12.15 to win each vote in Virginia while the Republican spent $4.35.

How about Florida? McCain = $2.11. Obama = $8.86.

New Mexico: Obama = $7.23. McCain = $9.25.

Montana: Obama = $6.09. McCain = $0.

Ohio: Obama = $7.90. McCain = $5.80.

Pennsylvania: Obama = $9.08. McCain = $8.51.

For some other states, the National Journal compiled the TV ad costs per vote here.

Read Full Post »

How Obama Won

A poll was done for Obama voters, outside their polling places and were asked questions.  Check out some of the answers.

Of course this is not too surprising if you watched any TV for the last two years and saw the biased coverage.

Read Full Post »

Obama’s groupies, they are all big fans of the Fairness Doctrine which they are dead set on reinstating it.  This is not a “Fair” its censorship, it blocks first amendment rights of all talk radio hosts, by telling basically telling them what to say and what not to say.

The Washington Post said in a 1987 editorial:

The truth is…that there is no ‘fairness’ whatever in the ‘fairness’ doctrine. On the contrary, it is a chilling federal attempt to compel some undefined ‘balance’ of what ideas radio and television news programs are to include….The ‘fairness doctrine’ undercuts free, independent, sound and responsive journalism — substituting governmental dictates. That is deceptive, dangerous and, in a democracy, repulsive.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »