Skip to comments.Elena Kagan tied to Obama's birth certificate
Posted on 08/05/2010 3:08:51 AM PDT by OldBlondBabe
Just when you thought there couldn't be any more players in the ongoing soap opera over the hunt for President Obama's original birth certificate and his constitutional eligibility for office, there comes yet another name: Elena Kagan.
Yes, the same Elena Kagan nominated by the commander in chief to be the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has actually been playing a role for some time in the dispute over whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Refute the content of the article. This is more evidence of the illegal nature of this 0bamunist regime, and Kagan is in it up to her armpits.
I clicked on the search, clicked on the third one (randomly) and it came up “Louis Lutz” vs Obama. I can’t find anything else on “Louis Lutz”. Is he a birther?
We have a Supreme Court nominee who is implicated in helping to prevent disclosure of information pertaining to a President’s eligibility for office, nominated by that President himself. Does this not strike you as a quid pro quo? Dangerous at all?
Apparently not, all you can do is pop on the thread and condemn anyone who has a problem with it by using a leftist term of derision.
Strange. I take it you approve of Kagan.
Oops, sorry, that response was intended for Palmer.
Conspiracy Theory of the Day: Elana Kagan has the goods on the Kenyan, and the Supreme Court seat is just a pay-off...
That’s not a ‘conspiracy theory’: in Democrat politics this is the equivalent of the sun rising in the East, same as it does every morning.
No, a vote for Kagan is a vote against the Second Amendment. That's reason enough and I don't see how a bunch of obscure cases makes a difference when I can't find any info on the plaintiff.
Sorry, but as I posted in the other thread, this article really annoys me. Kagan was Solicitor General. The role of the Solicitor General is to represent the United States in all suits brought against it in the Supreme Court.
One can search SCOTUS cases for any and all Solicitors General and find dozens of cases with their names. It’s what the job is.
I am not happy that Kagan will be sitting on the High Court, but that’s a consequence of the ‘08 elections. We should all be sure that the ‘10 elections have a totally different outcome in the House and Senate, so any other Sotomayor’s or Kagan’s never make it to the SCOTUS.
When is this vote? I thought it was this week. We can still Bork her....let’s do it. Wouldn’t that be great if we made her feel confortable about winning and having it in the bag and then she does not get enough votes. That would be awesome!!!!
Ease off Freepers ... She don't know nothing ... nothing ...
I don't see that in the supremecourt.gov petition language. It could be there in some legalese that I don't understand, but I think the website doesn't have the details of the case. I did searches on Louis Lutz and all I came up with is his (presumed) wife Linda works or worked for the state of Texas. I think I would have found a news clipping or press release or something about his case against the President. My results prove nothing of course, because his case is there in the docket in black and white, and obviously he was petitioning for some reason. If that reason were not eligibility, then I should have still found something with Google.
You didn’t notice the “/s”?.......................
OK. Kovacs writes "A simple search of the high court's own website reveals Kagan's name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues." He links to this page as support for that claim.
Out of those "nine times" Kovacs cites, it appears that precisely ZERO of them actually involve Obama eligibility issues, as Kovacs claims.
Louis Lutz is a fruitcake who sued Bush for $100 billion, and then appealed his way up to the Supreme Court.
Jerome Julius Brown and Gary William Holt are prisoners, and their cases appear to be civil rights claims.
The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., Petitioner v. Federal Election Commission was an FEC case about anti-Obama ads about abortion.
And Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi and Jamal Kiyemba were Guantanamo detainees who filed suit over their detention.
Nothing about Obama's eligibility in a single one of them. Notice how Kovacs doesn't actually quote anything from any of the cases that shows they're eligibility-related; he just says they are. This is a good illustration of how much trust you should put in WND's reporting.
I see. So you're okay with a news site printing outright lies as if they were true, just so long as those lies annoy the right people. Have I got that right?
WND has been the one lone voice in the wilderness concerning the 0bama eligibility issue and I challenge you or anyone to refute ALL of the questions that they have raised and continue to raise.
Your case of premature exasperation was based on my tongue-in-cheek response to LorenC, so “no, printing lies is NOT ok”, so untwist your freakin panties and go find something else to get indignant about, because this ain’t it.
Based on your FR page, you’re nothing but an apologist for 0bama in the first place, since you’ve spent lots of time justifying ‘why’ 0bama MUST be eligible to serve as President, when the fact is, his long form birth certificate continues to remain in hiding, and 0bama’s crew continues to fight any and all efforts to force him to prove his bonafides, but you’re quite ok with that.
What else are you willing to overlook from this illegal regime? I’m willing to bet: PLENTY.
Say SJB? Check out this joker.
Yes, a "lone voice" that's done little more than print unsourced rumors, distortions of the truth, and sometimes outright lies.
and I challenge you or anyone to refute ALL of the questions that they have raised and continue to raise.
ALL of them? Have you any idea how much time that would take? Sorry, but I have better things to do than refute every single piece of nonsense put out on the net by some idiot who thinks dinosaurs still live somewhere in Southeast Asia.
Your home page says you are very interested in immigration. Please enlighten us with your wisdom on this matter.
WND has completely deleted the article from its site. No explanation given.
LOLOLOL......I laughed so hard. She really does look like a man.
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.