Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Phil Berg live on "call in show" SUNDAY January 11th
AntiMullah ^ | 01/08/09 | Mark McGrew via Antimullah

Posted on 01/08/2009 12:59:02 PM PST by FARS

TWO SUPREME COURT CASES ARE STILL PENDING AND COULD PREVENT OBAMA FROM BEING SWORN IN.

THE FIRST WILL BE VIEWED BY THE FULL COURT ON FRIDAY JANUARY 9TH WHERE THE CASE REQUESTS SCOTUS TO ORDER OBAMA TO PRODCUE HIS VAULT COPY OF THIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE (if one actually exists).

If he fails to comply, then on January 16th, the full court will view another lawsuit that would then suspend or negate the Congress certification of the Electoral Vote count and put the presidency in limbo.

Military's Duty to Obey Barry Soetoro aka Obama??

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/01/breaking-news-listen-toparticipate-phil.html

(Excerpt) Read more at antimullah.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 911truther; berg; bho2008; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; hollister; lawsuit; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; philipberg; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last
This is the first posting of this on the Internet and provided to AntiMullah by Mark McGrew
1 posted on 01/08/2009 12:59:03 PM PST by FARS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FARS

Isn’t going to happen. Wish it would but it isn’t going to be heard. SCOTUS would be subject to death threats in mass by the crazy liberals if they stopped him from being President.


2 posted on 01/08/2009 1:01:56 PM PST by ritewingwarrior (Just say No to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FARS
The Supremes are getting ready to

Punt

3 posted on 01/08/2009 1:02:54 PM PST by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spunky; ~Kim4VRWC's~; 1COUNTER-MORTER-68; 1035rep; 1curiousmind; 2ndDivisionVet; 4woodenboats; ...

You can also reach the Berg call in radio show at

http://antimullah.com

Permalink is

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/01/breaking-news-listen-toparticipate-phil.html


4 posted on 01/08/2009 1:03:13 PM PST by FARS (If time permits, visit http://antimullah.com after reading all of FR posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Err, “Breaking News”?


5 posted on 01/08/2009 1:08:35 PM PST by JennysCool (Internet Powerhouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool
Err, “Breaking News”?

errr broken news....cause the supremes will not prevent the first President of African extraction from being seated. Like it or not.

6 posted on 01/08/2009 1:11:17 PM PST by Vaquero ( "an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ritewingwarrior
Wish it would but it isn’t going to be heard. SCOTUS would be subject to death threats in mass by the crazy liberals if they stopped him from being President.

Amen to that. You remember the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict? Now multiply by every urban area in the United States.

7 posted on 01/08/2009 1:13:50 PM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Amen to that. You remember the LA riots Amen to that.

Bring it on. Lock and Load.

8 posted on 01/08/2009 1:30:20 PM PST by Vaquero ( "an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

.... add in the riots in Kenya and Indonesia .... They have a citizen/president in this dog fight too.


9 posted on 01/08/2009 1:31:01 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

“.... add in the riots in Kenya and Indonesia .... They have a citizen/president in this dog fight too.”

######

Well, I think I’ll just go ahead and riot as well, if the SCOTUS denies a president that is 50% European-American.


10 posted on 01/08/2009 1:34:21 PM PST by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Does any serious person really think the swearing in will be blocked by the Supremes?


11 posted on 01/08/2009 1:40:21 PM PST by mono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mono
Does any serious person really think the swearing in will be blocked by the Supremes?

No

12 posted on 01/08/2009 2:19:48 PM PST by wastedyears (In Canada, Santa says "Ho Ho, eh?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FARS
Military’s Duty to Obey Barry Soetoro aka Obama.

They are have no duty to obey if he isn't legitimate. They are sworn to protect the Constitution first.

13 posted on 01/08/2009 2:52:05 PM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mono
Does any serious person really think the swearing in will be blocked by the Supremes?

No, I don't. I think his past will be revealed after he is sworn in and he will be impeached and arrested. I think the Supremes think that is far less troublesome. Then Biden takes over. Not good but by far the lesser of 2 evils.

14 posted on 01/08/2009 2:54:00 PM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mono

precisley


15 posted on 01/08/2009 2:54:35 PM PST by Vaquero ( "an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ritewingwarrior

If that is how the Supreme Court makes its decision, we should fire them all immediately and convert the building into condos. Such as Supreme Court is useless, not to mention unworthy.


16 posted on 01/08/2009 3:35:53 PM PST by OneTimeComment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Congress certifited the vote today so I seriously doubt anything will be done now. I’d love it if I was pleasantly surprised but I’m not counting on that.


17 posted on 01/08/2009 3:41:11 PM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FARS

This case is really getting strong against Obama.

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244


18 posted on 01/08/2009 6:03:03 PM PST by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba; All; Spunky; ~Kim4VRWC's~; 1COUNTER-MORTER-68; 1035rep; 1curiousmind; 2ndDivisionVet; ..

Friday 9th - SCOTUS reaction - will tell us a lot and then Jan 16th will be the final nail in somebody’s coffin. Remains to see in whose. The Constitution or Barry Soetora.

Listen/talk to Phil Berg on SUNDAY (11th) to hear full details of source and talk to Col. Hollister, too.

Check for details on http://antimullah.com (scroll down as needed)


19 posted on 01/08/2009 6:04:52 PM PST by FARS (If time permits, visit http://antimullah.com after reading all of FR posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OneTimeComment

If that is how the Supreme Court makes its decision, we should fire them all immediately and convert the building into condos.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

At first glance I read, “...convert the building to a **condom**! :)


20 posted on 01/08/2009 6:11:10 PM PST by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

Cna’t impeach him, he is not a legal president....Just arrest him


21 posted on 01/08/2009 6:11:48 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mono
Does any serious person really think the swearing in will be blocked by the Supremes?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We have the next presidential election in 4 years. I am willing to bet that the red states will enact legislation that **all** candidate must show proof of citizen status before the name is entered on the ballot.

If this happens, Obama will develop a vague health problem, and choose not to run for a second term. And...Of course there's the “more time with the family” line.( yeah right!)

That is if the communists will allow another election. :(

22 posted on 01/08/2009 6:16:35 PM PST by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FARS

I’m thinking the SCOTUS won’t be the vehicle to unseat the marxist fraud. It will have to start at a state court.


23 posted on 01/08/2009 6:18:16 PM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

LOL! Now, now, Clinton has finished his terms in office, so that won’t be necessary.


24 posted on 01/08/2009 6:21:50 PM PST by OneTimeComment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Well that could be the state court in Washington.

The Washington Supreme Court has arrived at a decision, but as of now, have not released the decision.

Pidgeon said the person who gave him the news was a little hostile. Sounds good so far.


25 posted on 01/08/2009 6:23:02 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ritewingwarrior; All

So they cave to a terrorist threat? Throw the Constitution under the bus? Then thye are not worthy of their postions.

Their duty is to the Constitution, even if it creates riots or their own deaths. It is notthere to be addressed only if that can be done comfortablu or without personal risk.

Anymore than one of our brave military can ignore the mission to protect our nation and to honor a legitimate order and Commander in Chief.


26 posted on 01/08/2009 7:23:40 PM PST by FARS (If time permits, visit http://antimullah.com after reading all of FR posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe; All

“They are have no duty to obey if he isn’t legitimate. They are sworn to protect the Constitution first.”

That is questionable. If you are enlisted your oath is as follows:

“I, (NAME), 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Notice that enlisted personnel have limitations placed upon them....”obey the orders.....”

However, commmissioned officers have a little more wiggle room. Here is their oath of office:

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

However, openly showing disrepect or contempt for the POTUS is a courts-martial offense for commissioned officers in the UCMJ. It would be extremely risky for an officer to oppose the POTUS without rock solid proof first. There is the “Catch 22.”


27 posted on 01/08/2009 7:55:05 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FARS

bttt


28 posted on 01/08/2009 8:28:28 PM PST by 1035rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Thanks for the ping!


29 posted on 01/08/2009 8:40:43 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Thanks for the ping!


30 posted on 01/08/2009 8:44:39 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
You remember the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict? Now multiply by every urban area in the United States.

Gleefully looking forward to it.

31 posted on 01/09/2009 4:29:09 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs...nothing more than Bald Haired Hippies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FARS

I didn’t say I agreed with it, I just am saying what is going to happen. SCOTUS took a lot of heat from the 2000 election. They are not wanting to do that again. We will see what happens today. I won’t be surprised if they throw the case out.

The crucial factor here is for Berg to get past the discovery phase in trial. Right now they are being blocked from their discovery efforts to get the ‘vault’ copy. If the court allows them to move forward then we will find out the answer very soon.


32 posted on 01/09/2009 6:40:57 AM PST by ritewingwarrior (Just say No to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ritewingwarrior
The Supreme Court has released the list of cases it has agreed to hear as a result of todays conference. Berg's case is not on the list. That means that, most likely, cert. was denied, but there is a theoretical possibility that consideration of the case was delayed to next week's conference. We will know for sure on Monday, when the Court releases the list of cases that were denied at today's conference. (The Court's practice is that if they grant cert., they release that order immediately; if they deny cert., they release that order the following Monday.)
33 posted on 01/09/2009 11:37:51 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; little jeremiah; LucyT; pissant; Calpernia; Polarik; PhilDragoo; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ...

for your various CertifiGate ping lists

MHGinTN; little jeremiah; LucyT; pissant; Calpernia; Polarik; phil dragoo; ernest_at_the_beach; starwise; FARS; sunken civ

The Supreme Court has released the list of cases it has agreed to hear as a result of today’s conference. Berg’s case is not on the list. Note two of the cases below that the SCOTUS has agreed to hear. They see a constitutional issue on minority rights but see no constitutional issue on the eligibility of the president elect?

Today’s orders list is now available here.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-orders-1909/#more-8498

The Supreme Court agreed to hear argument in four cases today, filings for which are available after the jump.

__________________

Docket: 07-1428; 08-328
Title: Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al.
Issue: Whether municipalities may decline to certify results of an exam that would make disproportionately more white applicants eligible for promotion than minority applicants, due to fears that certifying the results would lead to charges of racial discrimination.

Docket: 08-289; 08-294
Title: Horne v. Flores; Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives v. Flores
Issue: Whether the courts below improperly declined to modify an injunction against Arizona for failing to provide sufficient funding for non-English speaking school children.

Opinion below (9th Circuit)
Petition for certiorari (08-289)
Petition for certiorari (08-294)
Brief in opposition (Flores)
Brief in opposition (Arizona)
Petitioner’s reply (08-294)
Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation (in support of petitioners)
Brief amici curiae of the American Legislative Exchange Council as Amicus Curiae (in support of petitioners)


Pray for the Supreme Court Today
Free Republic | 1/9/09 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2161668/posts
Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 9:32:42 AM by Kevmo


34 posted on 01/09/2009 12:02:21 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ritewingwarrior

I rather agree with you. I don’t think even the Supremes have the cojones to take the heat should Obama be found ineligible. Look at what happened when they got involved with the Bush-Gore election. That would be a child’s birthday party compared to the ruckus made if Obama is ousted becaue of a discrepancy.


35 posted on 01/09/2009 12:30:02 PM PST by brooklyn dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ritewingwarrior

Also, the fact that the Supremes have decided to look at this again and again rather than just dismiss the folks bringing the petition as a bunch of nutjobs says that something is afloat.


36 posted on 01/09/2009 12:39:18 PM PST by brooklyn dave (Show me the Birth cert Barry!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

I am willing to bet that the red states will enact legislation that **all** candidate must show proof of citizen status before the name is entered on the ballot.

If this happens, Obama will develop a vague health problem,
***Yup. I think I’ll submit that as an Intrade contract.


37 posted on 01/09/2009 12:51:21 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave

What are you trying to imply, that black people will riot and murder if the affirmative action candidate is not seated regardless of ineligibility? ... Think about hwta you’re accusing. Do you think the majority of black people are criminal and would resort to criminal behavior if they don’t get their way regardless of the Constitution??


38 posted on 01/09/2009 12:58:31 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; penelopesire; BulletBobCo; seekthetruth; Kevmo; gunnyg; television is just wrong; ...

Friday, January 9, 2009
Berg v. Obama at Supreme Court Conference Today

As soon as I hear something on today’s scheduled conference at the United States Supreme Court for Berg v. Obama, I’ll post it in this space. Of course, word of the court’s determination as to Philip Berg’s petition for writ of certiorari may very well not come until Monday.

Regardless, check back here from time to time for news. As soon as I know something, you’ll know something.

— Jeff

11:45am

Until we know anything further—that is, until any result is reflected on the docket or by any of the contacts that I trust—please think twice about subscribing to blanket assertions with regard to the disposition of this matter. Of course, the odds against the Supreme Court granting the petition for certiorari in this case, or in any case for that matter, are longer than long so the unsubstantiated rumors of either denial or acceptance should be treated as just that — rumors founded in safe guesses.

Furthermore, with regard to the rumors swirling around as to a unanimous denial, please remember that generally it’s only in the rare case of a dissent as to the Court’s decision on a petition for certiorari that the actual voting result will be released.

12:45pm

I spoke with Philip Berg a few minutes ago. He said that he was realistic but hopeful, that he had a feeling that the Court would take the case “because, perhaps, they’re seeing just how much it matters to the American people.”

Berg also referred to the current controversy surrounding Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s appointment of Roland Burris to Barack Obama’s vacant seat in the U.S. Senate as a timely bonus, mentioning that it was nice to hear Sen. Harry Reid and others earlier this week talk about how the Senate retains the right to ascertain the qualifications of Burris.

“All this talk about the Constitution and qualifications to serve can only help,” Berg said, “though in the end it will come down to the Constitution itself. I’m hoping that the Justices will see that upholding the Constitution may not always be easy, but outweighs any outside considerations when it comes to the welfare of the United States of America.”

2:15pm

Berg v. Obama is not among today’s list of orders, though nothing new has appeared on the docket. Make of that what you will.

Posted by Jeff Schreiber

http://www.americasright.com/


39 posted on 01/09/2009 1:05:16 PM PST by STARWISE ((They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I’ll let you come to your own conclusions. Let’s not put all the focus on just black people-—all those white socialists will want to get in on the riots as well.


40 posted on 01/09/2009 1:35:11 PM PST by brooklyn dave (Show me the Birth cert Barry!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I didn’t see anyone say anything about the ethnicity of potential rioters. While there would certainly be some outrage from black America (look at the riots now because of the shooting) most violence would probably come from the uneducated white kids who votes for the Messiah.
This case is over with. SCOTUS denies hearing the case it is clear.


41 posted on 01/09/2009 2:31:21 PM PST by ritewingwarrior (Just say No to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave
I’ll let you come to your own conclusions. Let’s not put all the focus on just black people-—all those white socialists will want to get in on the riots as well.

Indeed, just the ANSWER and Code Pink folks would raise quite a ruckus.

42 posted on 01/09/2009 2:43:48 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo; LucyT; STARWISE; MHGinTN

Yes, but they do also list on Mondays, cases conferred during Friday, upon which they are proceeding.

Treated by Phil of TRSoL, currently item 3 on http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/01/historic-week-month-breakthrough-or.html


43 posted on 01/09/2009 3:11:10 PM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo; All; Spunky; ~Kim4VRWC's~; 1035rep; 2ndDivisionVet; 4woodenboats; 5Madman2; ...

Contact with the SCOTUS indicates these four cases were emergency hearing ones only and the rest will be listed Monday


44 posted on 01/09/2009 3:41:19 PM PST by FARS (If time permits, visit http://antimullah.com after reading all of FR posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave

says that something is afloat.
***Then they need to write something on the bathroom wall as a hint for others instead of just flushing stuff down the toilet with no comment.


45 posted on 01/09/2009 3:43:26 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Yes, but they do also list on Mondays, cases conferred during Friday, upon which they are proceeding.

No, on Friday they release the (short) list of cases in which cert. was granted, so the lawyers can start drafting their briefs. On Monday, they release the (much longer) list of cases which they denied the previous Friday. If this case was not on today's list, that means either that it was denied (likely) or that it was postponed to next Friday (barely possible).

46 posted on 01/09/2009 3:45:56 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

or that it was postponed to next Friday (barely possible).
***Berg v Obama was already scheduled for a 2nd conference next Friday; so how does that fit in with the “barely possible” scenario?


47 posted on 01/09/2009 3:49:56 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Twenty-four business hours.

And twenty-four business hours after that.

Can anyone say “bait-and-switch”?


48 posted on 01/09/2009 3:50:12 PM PST by Old Sarge (For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be an American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

You won’t shoot another American, for all your tough talk.

None of you Internet Rambos will.


49 posted on 01/09/2009 3:54:53 PM PST by Old Sarge (For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be an American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; STARWISE

Uh?


50 posted on 01/09/2009 3:55:20 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson