Saxby Chambliss replies to Birth Certificate

Priceless! I think we need a “tin foil hat” alert around here. I haven’t seen people so unhinged about a non-issue since PJ-Comix posted his latest list of DUmmie Funnies.

If you guys want to pursue this silly issue for the next four years while taking your eyes off the REAL ISSUES, be my guest. I plan to take Ronald Reagan’s approach towards the Soviets (”Trust but verify”) to whatever Obama-lini and his willing accomplices, Dingy Harry and Nancy with the Smiling Face plan to throw at us in the near future.

Of course, living in Cali-phony-a, I’m double screwed, since we have a bunch of tax-lovers in Sacramento who are trying to see how much they can line their pockets before they get term-limited out and have to try for the next office.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg

Factcheck.org run by Brooks Jackson...OK...nothing biased about him and his crew. [/sarcasm off]

My main point about this is that no judge anywhere wants to actually address this "certification of birth". It's either thrown out because the plaintiff has "no standing" or it's simply not responded to at all. If this document is official why wouldn't the Judiciary Branch simply rule on it and make that the end of it?

BTW, it’s my understanding that Factcheck.org never saw the original document so how is it they can vouch for two different views—front and back—of it without having it physically in hand?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
and:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg
Factcheck.org run by Brooks Jackson...OK...nothing biased about him and his crew. [/sarcasm off]

My main point about this is that no judge anywhere wants to actually address this “certification of birth”. It’s either thrown out because the plaintiff has “no standing” or it’s simply not responded to at all. If this document is official why wouldn’t the Judiciary Branch simply rule on it and make that the end of it?

What the courts have said (primarily through US District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick who dismissed Phillip Berg’s suit) is that it will be Congress’ responsibility, if it so chooses, to promulgate a new law which defines specifically what proof of birth is required to verify natural born status.

In the absence of that new law, current verification of natural born status has been accepted on a state by state basis in accordance with the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Hawaii’s laws (HRS 338-18(b) and 338-19) say that the state issued short form Certification of Live Birth is good to prove place of birth in all court proceedings. Thus far, no state or federal court has ruled otherwise but there are more legal challenges to follow.
The denial of the Berg suit at the District Court level WAS the judiciary “settling it.” But every civil litigant has the right to appeal and that’s still what’s happening as Berg and various other litigants have tried to get the US Supreme Court to take the case on the appeal.

My main point about this is that no judge anywhere wants to actually address this “certification of birth”

Totally wrong.

Wrong! Wrong! Berg's case is scheduled to be heard twice, once on JAN 9th and another on the JAN 16th by the Suypreme Court he Supreme Court has deliberately chosen to wait until January 9th to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari, whereby Berg’s legal standing (harm that can be done to him by Obama) becomes valid!

And finally, the Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear to Obama by its deliberate action of allowing for a January 16th conference regarding Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes; that unless he hands over his evidence to them on January 9th—they’ll retroactively cancel the Electoral College’s voting results from January 8th!

I’m smiling so much now because all this time Barack Obama has hired teams of lawyers to go to court and ask to dismiss all these lawsuits that have one similar theme—show proof you were born in the United States. Alan Keye's case is scheduled for review in California,

But now because just one of these ‘nuisance’ cases (as Obama sees it) has made it to the Supreme Court, the Justices have already out manoeuvred Obama and his team of high priced attorneys.

First, they’ve cornered Obama with a move of check by setting a conference date of January 9th (24 hours after congress counts the Electoral College’s votes) to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari; the case can’t be dismissed—Berg will have legal standing! And finally the Supreme Court has made its devastating move of checkmate by allowing a conference on January 16th to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes!v

There’s no more wriggle room left for Obama because essentially it’s a fait accompli by January 9th for him to hand over his evidence to the Justices otherwise, if he doesn’t comply by January 16th, te Justices’ will have it within their power to retroactively cancel the results from the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!

, current verification of natural born status has been accepted on a state by state basis in accordance with the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

States do not verify natural born status. Only a Federal court cangiven that POTUS is a fedferal job.

Congress cannot create a law to the constitution -- it takes an amendmendment

Since Berg’s petition has been denied without comment in Supreme Court conferences twice already under Justice Souter and again under Justice Kennedy, I doubt that the result will be any different in January since neither Souter or Kennedy could get four Justices to agree to take on the case, but we’ll all just have to wait and see what actually happens.

I can guarantee you though that there will be no invalidation of the Electoral College vote because that is not even being asked for in the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. All a successful grant of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari would mean is that the Supreme Court would agree to hear oral arguments on the issues in Berg’s suit. That would probably occur sometime next Fall given the Supreme Court’s calender.

The Joint Session of Congress with Vice President Cheney presiding as President of the Senate will meet to certify the Electoral College vote on January 6th not on January 8th.
If Congress certifies the Electoral College vote, that actually makes it LESS likely that the Supreme Court would intervene, not more likely since Berg’s suit was a request for an injunction to stop the Electoral College from voting in the first place. The vote has already occured on December 15th and will have been officially certified on January 6th.
I’ll be sure to drop by here after January 10th and again after January 17th following the next two Supreme Court conferences to review their decisions.

Since Berg’s petition has been denied without comment in Supreme Court conferences twice already under Justice Souter and again under Justice Kennedy..

Not quite, but you're not alone as most people don't know all of the facts. People ought to rely on ObamaCrimes.com, and make it their source.

There are two appeals that are pending a conference by the entire SCOTUS: one is the three-part Injunction:

Emergency Motion For An Immediate Injunction Prohibiting The Certification Of Electors By The Governors Of Each State, To Stay The Electoral College From Casting Any Votes For Barack H. Obama On December 15, 2008 And The Counting Of Any Votes Cast For Barack H. Obama By Vice President Richard B. Cheney, The House Of Representatives And The Senate On January 6, 2009 Pending Resolution Of Petitioner’s Appeal,

and the other is the Writ of Certiori. There is a conference scheduled for SCOTUS on Jan. 9 to discuss the writ of certiori, as well as a conference scheduled for SCOTUS on Jan 16 to discuss the injunction.

I can guarantee you though that there will be no invalidation of the Electoral College vote because that is not even being asked for in the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

Well, yeah, because that's not the purpose of the Writ -- that's the purpose of the Injunction (and I recommend that you read it). Keep in mind that our government is sailing into uncharted waters here, and this is the Pearl Harbor of the Presidency -- something that cannot be ignored by all three branches, and not just the Judicial.

This is the most important case to ever come before SCOTUS, so you can forget about them scheduling it after the Inauguration when they agree to hear it.

The whole purpose for having a Supreme Court is to deal with issues like this (and one which will not go away), and if they refuse to deal with it, then they will have rendered themselves impotent for future Constitutional cases.

If it's not Berg's lawsuit, then it will be Keyes' lawsuit, someone who does have standing and who can demonstrate direct harm from the election of Obama. SCOTUS will have to deal with that if the lower court rejects it. Same goes for the other lawsuits currently under review, and should Obama gets past the electoral hurdles, then there will be dozens more requesting emergency stays of the inauguration until Obama proves his citizenship status.

To get you up-to-speed, here's a chronological review of everything that has happened from August 21 to December 23:

08/21/08: Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief
08/21/08: Memorandum in support of temporary restraining order
08/21/08: Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order
08/21/08: Temporary Restraining Order
09/24/08: Obama and DNC's Motion to Dismiss
09/29/08: Berg's Opposition to Defendan't Motion to Dismiss
10/06/08: Motion for First Amended Complaint
10/06/08: Obama and DNC's Request for Protective Order Re: Discovery
10/09/08: Berg's Opposition to Obama and DNC's Request for Protective Order Re: Discovery
10/21/08: Motion for Order Deeming Request for Admissions Admitted
10/24/08: Judge Surrick's Memorandum and Order Granting Obama and DNC's Motion to Dismiss (signed by Judge Surrick, faxed copy)
10/24/08: Judge Surrick's Memorandum and Order Granting Obama and DNC's Motion to Dismiss (unsigned clear copy)
10/30/08 2 Exhibit Charter Schools Rainbow Edition Newsletter
10/30/08 3 Exhibit Star Bulletin Obama born in different hospital
10/30/08 Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae
10/30/08 Affidavit of Reverend Kweli Shuhubia
10/30/08 Application to Justice David H. Souter for stay of the Presidential Elections
10/30/08 Exhibit Plaintiff Request for Admissions to Obama
10/30/08 Exhibits for Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae
10/30/08 U.S. Supreme Court Writ of Certiorari
10/31/08 Order from the United States Court of Appeals from the Third District
12/04/08 Emergency for an immediate injunction prohibiting the certification of electors filed w/ the US Court of Appeals from the Third District
12/12/08 U.S. Supreme Court Application to Justice Anthony Kennedy for an immediate injunction to stay electoral college
Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.

The Joint Session of Congress with Vice President Cheney presiding as President of the Senate will meet to certify the Electoral College vote on January 6th not on January 8th.

So noted in the Injunction and which also answers the remainder of your comments, except for the likelihood issue.

BTW, the vote by the House and VP does not have to take place on January 6. It can be delayed, as well as the date of the Inauguration, and I predict that it will.

Before I give you my take on it, I want to mention a possible action that could be taken to force Obama to prove his eligibility.

As improbable as it sounds, Bush can issue an Executive Order demanding proof of Obama's eligibility, even without asking Obama to produce it. Obama is a security risk, and to allow an illegal immigrant, or a US citizen with dual citizenship to one or more hostile countries, to be in command of our armed forces and nuclear arsenal presents a major national security issue. In fact, he should have issued an EO a long time ago.

Right now, SCOTUS is hoping that the House invalidates the Electoral count, either outright, or by way of requiring Obama to prove his eligibility. Yet, even if that doesn't happen, SCOTUS will have no choice but to require Obama to show it. I just do not see how Obama will be allowed to serve as POTUS without proving his eligibility.

Thanks for all the explanation and time line. Gives me some hope.

Excellent timeline ... but I doubt jamese777 cares about any of it, the poster appears to be an Axelrod astroturfing agitprop, based on previous posts viewable via profile page links.

I wonder if anyone has tried to find a paper copy of the newspaper entries from 1961, to make a comparison. There has to be a file of papers somewhere, a public library, etc, is anyone looking for authentication to a microfiche which is easy to replace with a forgery?

RE: "I wonder if anyone has tried to find a paper copy of the newspaper entries from 1961, to make a comparison."

Find a paper copy of the issue of the Advertiser to compare to the digital copy?

It just gives names and addresses. The column is labeled "Birth statistics" or similar title. Nothing about hospital, address of birth if not hospital, witnesses, doctors.. nothing.

It the parents didn't place the notice and instead the notices came from a government source it still means nothing vis-a-vis where Obama was born.

The lovely Miss Stanley Ann could have filed a "Delayed Registration of Birth." What's a little white lie or two for a free-spirit, liberated Marxist of the the 1960s and her friends and parents?

>>>Obama is a security risk, and to allow an illegal immigrant, or a US citizen with dual citizenship to one or more hostile countries, to be in command of our armed forces and nuclear arsenal presents a major national security issue.

Yes, the Enemy Combatant is a security risk.

Perhaps some Hawai'ian Freepers could look here?

NewspaperHoldings / Hawai'i State Library

HAWAII STATE LIBRARY
2004 SERIALS HOLDINGS LIST
NEWSPAPERS LOCAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
H-K

HONOLULU ADVERTISER
Daily; Micro: Mar. 31, 1921 - Feb 27, 1993
Daily & Sunday
Micro: Mar. 1, 1993 +
Formerly: PACIFIC COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER
see also: SUNDAY STAR- BULLETIN & ADVERTISER

"And if the B.C. shows what Obama claims it will show, then he is manifestly not a natural born Citizen."

Huh? What does that mean?

I'm more concerned with authenticating the microfiche the Obama goon squad so quickly cited as proof he was born in HI.

One of the three accesses to his passport file was by a firm owned by an ex-CIA operative who is on Obama's staff. A forged microfiche would not be unusual for the criminally inclined democrats.

People have assumed the microfiche from two newspapers are genuine. Those are easy to produce a forgery and replace the original square of microfiche with the forgery.

As far as we've been able to discover, Barack Obama has never been forced to produce to a court anything verifying his certificate of birth or certification supposedly issued from HI. The copies at Factcheck and Obama's website are likely forgeries, and he has spent a lot of money avoiding having to place documents in court custody for authentication. His house isn't even in his name so that transaction was carried out without legal documentation of this lying bastard as well!

We know he lied on his application to the Illinois Bar Association in the section where he was to state any other names by which he has been known ... he put none yet we know he's used Barry Soetoro, Barry Dunham, and Barry Obama, as well as Barack Obama with no 'Hussein'.

Why would anything this man presents without authentication be accepted as genuine?

Knowing how easy it is to forge and replace microfiche files, I would like a paper from 1961 to verify the claimed entries of the two newspapers. We're talking the most powerful job in the world this affirmative action candidate is trying to scoop. Good forgeries are not out of the question so authentication is essential with a lying, perjuring, wicked man.

“BTW, the vote by the House and VP does not have to take place on January 6. It can be delayed, as well as the date of the Inauguration, and I predict that it will.”

I have read that the January 6th date had been changed some time ago and it is January 8th for this year only. So I believe the Special Session of Congress IS on the 8th.

I also agree with your statement. I can not imagine that SCOTUS will pass on this issue and believe they are waiting to see if Congress does their job to uphold the Constitution. Here is a posting another Freeper sent me from ObamaCrimes. In the meantime I am writing, emailing and faxing Reps and Senators from now through January 7th. Hoping many others join in! Here is a great link to the list of addresses for all members of Congress:
http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm

Here is the posting mentioned above:
The following is an interesting post from Obamacrimes.com:
http://www.obamacrimes.com/

Ok—Now I see the big picture! Part 1
written by Tom Waite, December 24, 2008
In my previous analysis of the Berg v. Obama Supreme Court case, I said that the Supreme Court Justices were very sly by scheduling a January 9th conference date in order to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari. Because just one day earlier, congress is to open up the Electoral College’s sealed votes from each state, count the votes and declare a presidential winner. But now there is a new development, which seems very perplexing at first but I believe I can shed light on this news and reinterpret it as a sign of political chess.

The new development is that on December 18, 2008 Berg filed an injunction (to stay the congressional electoral vote count on January 8, 2009 until Barack Obama proves his qualifications, i.e. that he was born in U.S.A.) and he submitted it to Justice Antonin Scalia. Now the very perplexing news is that this injunction has been granted a conference date of January 16, 2009! I know—you’re all rubbing your eyes in disbelief and also when you put into context that the inauguration is on the 20th of January, I have no doubt that you’re saying, what the ?

Whenever I try to type a website on my comments, I never get posted on this blog, so I’ll creatively refer you to the following website, type in three ‘W’s’ and then a dot and then type ‘americasright’ then a dot and finally type ‘com’. Read the story ‘Berg’s Application for Injunction Curiously Moves On at Supreme Court’ under Tuesday, December 23, 2008. Jeff Schreiber (the person running this blog), is a law student and he can’t fathom the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision to set a date to discuss Berg’s injunction that is well after the time congress will have counted the Electoral College’s votes. In doing so, Jeff feels this conference on January 16, 2009 to discuss Berg’s injunction will be a moot issue.

However, I see it differently, the Justices of the Supreme Court aren’t sequestered in some castle. The Justices know exactly what the issues are and are constantly being bombarded with similar legal applications to be considered regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility for president. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, if the Justices wanted to dismiss Berg’s writ of certiorari they could have but they deliberately chose to discuss it 24 hours after congress officially counts the Electoral College’s votes; reason being Berg’s issue of standing will now be valid! Once Obama official wins the national vote (via the counting of Electoral College’s votes), Berg’s issue of harm being done to him by Obama now becomes legally valid it is no longer theoretical; thus Berg does have legal standing!

Now in a political game of chess, the Supreme Court’s manoeuvring of the January 9th date to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari can be seen as a move of check against Obama. Obama is now in a corner but still can move his king chess piece and similarly with the writ of certiorari, Obama still could refuse to deliver evidence proving he was born in United States. I understand why the Justices set a date one week later (January 16) to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes, this move can be seen as check and mate! Meaning Obama’s king can’t move in any direction on the chessboard, thus he’s trapped and has lost the game!

Setting a date to discuss the injunction on preventing congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes isn’t a moot issue; in this context any judgement is retroactive! So that even if congress has counted the Electoral College’s votes and have declared Obama the presidential winner; if the Supreme Court finds Obama ineligible to be a presidential candidate, they can retroactively cancel the results of the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!

And that’s why the Supreme Court is allowing for a January 16th conference on Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s vote on January 8th. It’s not a moot issue, it’s a very deliberate political game of entrapment or as in chess it can be seen as a move of checkmate. Because the Supreme Court is basically giving Obama no wiggle room to manoeuvre and escape from the January 9th’s conference of Berg’s writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court is ultimately saying to Obama, if you don’t hand over your evidence to us on January 9th, you will be forced to hand over your evidence to us on January 16th, otherwise we’ll retroactively cancel the results from the Electoral College’s votes that were counted back on January 8th!
Ok—Now I see the big picture! Part 2
written by Tom Waite, December 24, 2008
So now I see the big picture and the ultimate endgame that the Supreme Court has in mind for Barack Obama. Just like in chess, the winner is the person who sees many moves in advance; in this case the winner is the Supreme Court! They’ve set a checkmate legal trap for Obama, whereby even if there are no objections by any members of congress, the Electoral College’s votes are counted and Obama is declared the presidential winner on January 8th. The Supreme Court has deliberately chosen to wait until January 9th to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari, whereby Berg’s legal standing (harm that can be done to him by Obama) becomes valid! And finally, the Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear to Obama by its deliberate action of allowing for a January 16th conference regarding Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes; that unless he hands over his evidence to them on January 9th—they’ll retroactively cancel the Electoral College’s voting results from January 8th!

I’m smiling so much now because all this time Barack Obama has hired teams of lawyers to go to court and ask to dismiss all these lawsuits that have one similar theme—show proof you were born in the United States. But now because just one of these ‘nuisance’ cases (as Obama sees it) has made it to the Supreme Court, the Justices have already out manoeuvred Obama and his team of high priced attorneys. First, they’ve cornered Obama with a move of check by setting a conference date of January 9th (24 hours after congress counts the Electoral College’s votes) to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari; the case can’t be dismissed—Berg will have legal standing! And finally the Supreme Court has made its devastating move of checkmate by allowing a conference on January 16th to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes! There’s no more wriggle room left for Obama because essentially it’s a fait accompli by January 9th for him to hand over his evidence to the Justices otherwise, if he doesn’t comply by January 16th, the Justices’ will have it within their power to retroactively cancel the results from the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!

So Obama tried to play a game of legal chess against the Supreme Court—well guess what? Obama—you’ve already lost! Checkmate!

RE: Why would anything this man presents without authentication be accepted as genuine?

There is no reason to accept anything he says.

He's an Isflamist. They lie. Everything they say is flam as in flim flam.

Microfiche (or microfilm?) from two newspapers? This is really news to me. I had been under the impression that there was only one birth announcement which allegedly appeared in the Advertiser.

BTW, now that I think about it, most birth announcements contain the baby's name. The Obama announcement didn't. IIRC, none of the other birth announcements in the paper(s) did as well. Is this some unusual policy of the newspaper(s) involved or the State Health Department which purportedly informed the paper(s) of the births, or could this be additional evidence of a fraud?

Microfiche is squares of microfilm which contain the miniaturized copy. The square is placed in a machine for viewing via magnification. The squares are easy to forge, especially when you are only making minute changes to the full square.

It never seems odd to the obamanoids that microfiche imagery is touted as proof of this man's claims. The COLB isn't proof he was born in Hawai'i, hos own admission si that he was born with dual citizenship, and he has spent a million to keep from providing a court any documentation of his claims, yet he supposedly releases his COLB to a Chicago ally (factcheck.org) for whom he has been a Board Chairman, an act that carries zero legal weight but upon which the obamanoid campaign has relied.