Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dr. Manning: We have proof of Obama’s ineligibility
thepostemail ^ | 4/27/2010 | Sharon Rondeau

Posted on 04/27/2010 10:31:22 AM PDT by rxsid

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-145 last
To: Bellflower

I agree although I would add that our unconscious is where we often recieve divine messages from the Lord. I think the difference between pop psychology and the Jungian type of psychology is exactly that. Jung believed that the divine spark(God) animated everything seen and unseen. At least that is what I understood from studying him years ago. Nice talking with you and thanks for sharing your dream.

Blessings!


141 posted on 04/29/2010 7:02:39 AM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; Natural Born 54; LucyT
"So original jurisdiction is granted when the state is the plaintiff?"

The Supreme Court has "Original jurisdiction" over every court of law inside the United States. Everything court is their domain.

The term "original jurisdiction" is normally used to refer to cases that can be initially filed before the Supreme Court--a suit by one state against another over the question of the location of the common boundary between them is a good example.

I haven't read the Constitutional provision on original jurisdiction in many years and on reading it now, am surprised at the issues I now remember.

But the current point I think is that getting to a claim filed for the first time before the Court is very difficult and I don't see how you fit any of the facts before us into that kind of claim with respect to the Obama eligibility issue except to the extent that you can find a collateral claim in which that would be the issue that a party already had the independent right to file.

My claim with respect to Sonya is an example but it takes a peculiar alignment of parties to work.

142 posted on 04/29/2010 9:18:57 AM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: David
but here is an outstanding American citizen who isn't likely to be accused of pursuing a racial agenda

He is. I heard him yesterday on the Alex Jones show. He is very lucid, a little out there but very lucid and a very clear thinker.

I am not exactly sure what is is setting out to accomplish but one thing is for sure -- he has more stones than our entire congress put together. He painted a disturbing picture of just how many heads of state have come from intelligence. (Bush Sr, Clinton (surmised), Blair, Putin) He claims Obama was recruited during his days at Occidental College. He said he was reluctant to make it public because he feared it may make him look like a patriot.

who knows any more? On thing is for certain as Beck said the other day the script is not matching what we are watching on the screen anymore. Something's afoot.

143 posted on 04/29/2010 9:25:36 AM PDT by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Natural Born 54
I’ll try one simple one instead. The simple (maybe not so simple) question is - is there any way the states suing over the health care bill can insert the Sotomayer issue into the case? You said “A variation of that attack is to move on behalf of any party to a Supreme Court appeal to exclude Sonya as a Justice to hear the case on those grounds.” (I note the word “appeal” which may make this not applicable unless the circuit court first rules against them?)

Maybe the circuit court rules in their favor and the US appeals? In which case, I think this is a right of appeal case (holding a federal statute unconstitutional).

Problem is that in that case or for that matter an appeal by the states from an adverse ruling which would be a certiorari case, there are lots of ways the Supreme Court may be able to duck the issue.

Further, suppose it is a certiorari case by the states in connection with an adverse decision; the Supreme Court by four justices, grants cert--one of the four is Sonya; you don't really want to move to kick out the cert grant by kicking Sonya because you then lose your Supreme Court appeal.

But maybe by not moving, you waive your right to get her off and to get a ruling on the eligibility issue.

Lots to think about when you start down any one of these paths. Further, in the time you have to think about it, you need to be lining up your financial support.

And in the same time frame, you also need to get your hands on your evidence to support the prima facia case--birth certificates; affidavits; etc. When you get there, you will ask the court for an order opening up the Hawaii state files--maybe you could get one.

144 posted on 04/29/2010 2:20:58 PM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: David

Thank you, David.

Very complicated, isn’t it? I am in no position to forward the idea (if it is worth having) to where it would matter. Perhaps someone reading this will do so.


145 posted on 04/29/2010 2:28:03 PM PDT by Natural Born 54 (FUBO x 10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-145 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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