Items on this page archived in order
of discovery.
Evading The Eligibility Issue
Justice Thomas: "We're evading that one" (01:16)
In a polite exchange between Justice Thomas and subcommittee
chairman Serrano, the eligibility issue comes up with an apparent
admission that the court is avoiding it. Things may not be as
they seem though. Much could be read into this... judge for
yourself.
The following exchange occurs, beginning at 50
seconds:
Thomas: "You don't have to be born
in the united states and you never have to answer that
question."
Serrano: "Oh, Really? So you
haven't answered the one that one about whether I can serve as
president, but you can answer this one?"
Thomas:
"We're evading that one."
"kyright" on Free Republic notes Thomas’s
use of the word "evade" vs. "avoid":
He is very intelligent
and very articulate, so I must assume he did this on purpose.
I can’t tell for sure if he was joking about the subject matter or
not, but as far as word usage, according to Encarta:
Avoid, evade, or elude?
All three
words involve keeping away from a person or thing or keeping a
person or thing away from you. The main difference between
avoid and evade is that avoid is neutral in tone, whereas evade
implies dishonesty or deception, or at least some sort of
ulterior motive. If you avoid a responsibility, you take
measures to prevent it from being necessary, whereas if you
evade a responsibility you get out of it in an underhanded or
deceitful way."
More On Evading The Issue
Attorney Mario Apuzzo has a few
observations about the above video of
Justice Thomas' revealing statement.
What does all of this mean
in relation to Obama’s eligibility question? What is the message
behind all the joking, laughter, and body language that can be viewed on
the video? From Justice Thomas’ first mentioning that one does not
have to be born in the United States to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court,
it appears that Justice Thomas is telling Congress that the Court is
angry with Congress for allowing Obama to sit as president even though
there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he was born in the United
States. Rep. Serrano read the real message of Justice Clarence’s
statement and let him know about it, saying "Oh, really." Rep.
Serrano did not like Justice Thomas blaming Congress for the mishandling
of the matter so he shoots back at Justice Thomas by telling him the
Court failed to answer the Obama eligibility question when it should
have but now is answering the question of whether someone who is not
born in the United States can sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. From
this comment we can conclude that Congress did not believe that it was
its job to answer the question of whether Obama is eligible to be
president and expected the judicial branch of government to answer that
question. This is borne out by the many letters that Congressmen
wrote to concerned Americans on the question of what was being done to
address the issue of whether Obama was eligible for the Presidency.
Justice Thomas then answered that the Court is "evading that one" and
giving Congress "another option." Here we can see that the Court
is telling Congress that it avoided addressing the Obama eligibility
issue so Congress could resolve it through the political process, giving
Congress some other unknown "option" to resolve the crisis. We can
only speculate what that other "option" is at this point. Needless
to say, it appears that both Congress and the Court are angry at each
other for the constitutional crisis that each accuses the other to have
caused regarding the Obama eligibility question.
The Obama
eligibility issue has run its course through the political process.
We can reasonably expect Obama to run for a second term. We surely
do not want to repeat during Obama’s second run for president what
occurred during his first. We cannot reasonably expect to resolve
the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii and the meaning of the
"natural born Citizen" clause by way of Americans voting at the polls.
This issue is not going away. It is dividing our nation and needs
to be decided as soon as possible. There is now no other way to
resolve the question of Obama’s eligibility other than through the legal
process. As Chief Justice John Marshall so well taught in many of
his important U.S. Supreme Court decisions, there is no doubt that the
judicial branch of government is well equipped and capable of deciding
this critical issue of constitutional law and by doing so will not
interfere in the work of the other two branches of government.
SCOTUS Fears POTUS But Not US
Jerry McConnell
says, I
will begin today by asking the same question that I have asked at least
several times before in my columns: Is there even just ONE judge
anywhere in the United States with superlative courage, who lacks fear
of reprisal or retribution for simply, "telling the truth" and ruling
accordingly? Or have our judicial authorities at the higher levels
devolved into catatonic wimps who are afraid to "embarrass" someone in
high authority?
In all my life I never imagined that I would hear
of a Unites States Army Colonel being afraid of "embarrassing" a high
level politician simply by producing a truthful document with accurate
personal birth information. But it happened recently when US Army
Colonel Denise R. Lind, the presiding judge in a lawsuit that questions
Obama’s natural born status and requests that the original birth
certificate be presented as evidence when Judge Lind said "opening up
such evidence could be an 'embarrassment' to the president."
So
it appears that our United States Army, at least in the person of one
Army Colonel Denise R. Lind, has placed in jeopardy the 18-year career
of a highly decorated medical officer, Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin, over the
supposed "embarrassment" of a very possible usurper in our nation’s
highest elected office who may not even be eligible to be there.
Is this the sort of justice we will now be faced with in this once Land
of the Free and Home of the Brave?
Examiner.com NATIONAL edition
of December 02, 2010 published an article written by Anthony G. Martin
titled, "SCOTUS: petition denied in Presidential eligibility case" which
stated, "In a ruling that was issued without comment this morning, the
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) denied the petition
submitted in the Kerchner v. Obama case involving the question of
Presidential eligibility."
This is just the latest in a most
puzzling series of requests for information that would lend some closure
to many lawsuits before the courts of our land. If, as Judge and
Army Colonel Denise R. Lind, states that opening such evidence would be
"embarrassing" to the President, I should think these continuous
refusals for clarity would also be overwhelmingly "embarrassing" for our
judicial entities throughout our entire nation.
Are we no longer
interested in the average person’s status in accordance with the law and
only concerned that some exculpatory evidence might "embarrass" another
more privileged person of higher standing? Is our Constitution no
longer as stated therein, for WE THE PEOPLE, or has it devolved to, only
as long as it doesn’t "embarrass" someone higher up?
I wonder
what our Founding Fathers would say about these judicial refusals based
on possible embarrassment to others than those seeking redress of unfair
withholding of aid in their plight.
The total number of
incidents such as this latest refusal of a judicial authority, and
unfortunately, the highest, must number in the dozens, and lower courts
now will be buoyed by this Supreme Court decision not to get involved,
and will do likewise, throttling justice in every court in our country.
This only lends credence to the theory that money and power can get away
with impunity for even the most serious of violations. Again; this
is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind when our Constitution was
constructed.
So the ruling, by way of NOT ruling on the issue,
gives support and credibility to a wayward person’s efforts to usurp
presidential authority by means of cover-ups and refusal to provide
information of ANY sort that could reveal his or her true identity.
These widespread and superabundant decisions that are really
non-decisions, could set a dangerous precedent for future misdeeds
against our government that could survive unpunished due to the
inability to acquire personal information from a suspected individual.
As Anthony G. Martin observes in his article cited above, "the
nation still has no word from the judicial branch on the all-important
subject of what the Framers meant when they specified that a President
must be a 'natural-born' U.S. citizen. In spite of the fact that
the matter would be settled once and for all should such (Obama’s closed
to public) documents be opened, the Court has decided instead not to
issue an order but to allow the question to remain unanswered.
Why?
There is no conspiracy here, but cowardice. It is
clear that the Court knows that for the truth to be made public about
Obama’s heritage would risk sending the country into social upheaval and
violence in the streets.
Such malfeasance in office of all of
these "refusnik" judges does not tend to help bolster a strong
government of laws; instead showing weakness in rendering decisions that
may, or may NOT, cause public unrest. My personal thoughts are
that a large majority of the people would be so relieved to have closure
and settlement to the question that only minor public reactions would
occur. Contrarily, the reverse or current attitude against ruling
fairly could spawn at least as much unrest to the public.
Supreme Court Warned Not To Avoid
Eligibility
Bob Unruh
is
reporting that a veteran attorney who has pursued a lawsuit
challenging Barack Obama's presidential eligibility since he was elected
is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that if its members continue to
"avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional
rule of law basis of our legal system."
And he asks whether the
justices still are committed to the principle of considering the
Founders' intent when ruling on constitutional issues.
The
warning comes from attorney John D. Hemenway, who is representing
retired Col. Gregory Hollister in a case that alleges Obama never was
eligible under the Constitution's requirements for a president to occupy
the Oval Office.
"We have not exaggerated in presenting the
question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this
matter," Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high
court. "A man has successfully run for the office of president and
has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under
the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.
"Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable'
the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the
Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away," Hemenway
said.
"Instead it has steadily grown in the
awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows
no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would
we expect?"
"The real question here is one of getting
members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore
to protect and preserve the Constitution. To continue to avoid
the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our
legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the
conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our
founding charter."
That the justices are "evading" the Obama issue
already
has been confirmed by one member of the court.
Palin/Obama Paper Trails And ObamaMedia
Hypocrisy
Stanley Kurtz
says the deafening roar of nothingness emerging from the Sarah Palin
email trove points up the media’s hypocritical lack of interest in
Barack Obama’s pre-presidential record.
Just as Palin’s emails
were released, Slate’s David Weigel pointed out that Barack Obama’s
State Senate records are not available. Weigel quotes Obama’s
statement to the effect that he didn’t have the staff or financial
resources to preserve office paperwork. As a result, Obama claims,
his State Senate records may have been thrown out.
In fact, Obama
could easily have preserved his State Senate records had he wanted to.
The papers of many Illinois legislators are preserved at the Abraham
Lincoln Presidential Library. I know, because I went through many
a box there. The records are in various states of completeness and
(dis)organization. Often, chaotic boxes of papers have been handed
over to the archivists with little effort at cataloguing.
Nonetheless, many records from state legislative offices are preserved.
Some of the most interesting revelations in Radical-in-Chief emerge
from Jeremiah Wright’s correspondence with Howard Brookins, an Illinois
State Senator who was a member of Rev. Wright’s congregation around the
time Wright and Obama first connected. I found the Wright-Brookins
correspondence in Brookins’ archived records at the Abraham Lincoln
Library. If Brookins could preserve his records there, Obama could
have preserved his as well.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton
made this point in 2008, saying, "Our investigation suggests Senator
Obama could have had his records archived so that they are available to
the public, but, to this day, he does not want a complete paper trail of
his time in the Illinois State Senate. Where are his office
records?"
Radical-in-Chief is filled with revelations about
Obama’s past dug out of archived records. Yet none of the
mainstream outlets frantically searching through Palin’s emails has
reported on these revelations, much less disputed my account of their
significance.
The revelations in Radical-in-Chief include a
reconstruction of socialist conferences Obama himself admits attending
in the mid-1980′s; heretofore unknown documents from Obama’s initial
stint as a community organizer in Chicago; documents closely tying Obama
to a hard-left community organizer training institute; documents
detailing Obama’s ties to ACORN and the ACORN-controlled New Party–and
revealing his public account of those ties to be false; documents
shedding new light on Obama’s foundation work and his sustained
political alliances with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright; documents
shedding light on Obama’s endorsement by the Democratic Socialists of
America in 1996, and much more.
I’m not the only one who’s
noticed Obama’s desire to hide his record, as well as the reluctance of
mainstream outlets to investigate such sources as do exist. Obama
fan and sympathetic Obama biographer Sasha Abramsky writes:
Much of the media, including his
biographers, have concluded that the community organizing period of
Obama’s life should be accorded relatively little space, assuming
those years simply reflected the radical foibles of a young man
trying to find himself.
Abramsky goes on to argue, in opposition to the
media’s implicit judgment, that Obama’s community organizing years were
actually the key to who he became. I agree. Yet the media
continues to ignore important documentary revelations from a sitting
president’s political past, while devoting enormous attention to the
emails of an unsuccessful candidate for the vice-presidency.
Isn’t it obvious that the media’s lack of interest in Obama’s radical
past -- noticed even by a supporter like Abramsky -- is a simple case of
political protection, not to mention journalistic abdication?
Actually, much of the media,
including his biographers, have concluded that the community organizing
period of Obama’s life should be accorded relatively little space.
