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

Skip to comments.

Elena Kagan tied to Obama's birth certificate
WorldNet Daily ^ | 8/4/10 | Joe Kovacs

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; kagan42tieredlaw; kagan4bccoverup; kagan4dncfraud; kagan4dncrico; kagan4fakedocs; kagan4fauxdocs; kagan4obama; kagan4perjury; kagan4plagiarism; kagan4resumefraud; kaganvsjurisprudence; kaganvspeople; kenya; noaccountability; nobc; nobirthcertificate; notransparency; obama; scotus
Did a search and didn't find this posted.
1 posted on 08/05/2010 3:08:54 AM PDT by OldBlondBabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldBlondBabe
Without birther approval that will sink her chances for sure

/s

2 posted on 08/05/2010 3:10:27 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer

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.


3 posted on 08/05/2010 3:12:19 AM PDT by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

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?


4 posted on 08/05/2010 3:22:12 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldBlondBabe

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.


5 posted on 08/05/2010 3:28:29 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldBlondBabe; palmer

Oops, sorry, that response was intended for Palmer.


6 posted on 08/05/2010 3:29:17 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldBlondBabe

Conspiracy Theory of the Day: Elana Kagan has the goods on the Kenyan, and the Supreme Court seat is just a pay-off...


7 posted on 08/05/2010 3:29:32 AM PDT by Haiku Guy (If you have a right / To the service I provide / I must be a slave...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Haiku Guy

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.


8 posted on 08/05/2010 3:34:13 AM PDT by agere_contra (...what if we won't eat the dog food?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
I take it you approve of Kagan.

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.

9 posted on 08/05/2010 3:38:55 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
...This is more evidence of the illegal nature of this 0bamunist regime, and Kagan is in it up to her armpits.

WAKE UP AMERICA


SUPREME COURT-2

10 posted on 08/05/2010 3:40:06 AM PDT by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldBlondBabe

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2564917/posts

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.


11 posted on 08/05/2010 3:45:36 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldBlondBabe

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!!!!


12 posted on 08/05/2010 3:47:37 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer
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?

Well if Lutz is challenging 0bama's eligibility to serve as POTUS, I suspect the default assumption would safely be that he is a 'birther' as they say, although it does amuse me that after less than an hour, Google has already picked up this thread and sucked it into it's ever-expanding archive, lol

(fifth entry from the top)

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&as_q=obama&as_epq=louis+lutz&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off
13 posted on 08/05/2010 4:01:26 AM PDT by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OldBlondBabe

Ease off Freepers ... She don't know nothing ... nothing ...

14 posted on 08/05/2010 4:01:40 AM PDT by Zakeet (The Big Wee Wee -- rapidly moving America from WTF to SNAFU to FUBAR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
Well if Lutz is challenging 0bama's eligibility to serve as POTUS

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.

15 posted on 08/05/2010 4:24:32 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

PRICELESS, thanks!!!


16 posted on 08/05/2010 4:42:49 AM PDT by Mich Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

You didn’t notice the “/s”?.......................


17 posted on 08/05/2010 5:28:05 AM PDT by Red Badger (No, Obama's not the Antichrist. But he does have him in his MY FAVES.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldBlondBabe

Drudge?


18 posted on 08/05/2010 7:44:53 AM PDT by Wu (Excuse me while I kiss the sky......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
Refute the content of the article.

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.

19 posted on 08/05/2010 10:03:11 AM PDT by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LorenC
This is a good illustration of how much trust you should put in WND's reporting.

If WND is causing grief in any form to this illegal 0bamunist regime, they're ok in my book.
20 posted on 08/05/2010 10:44:01 AM PDT by mkjessup (0bama squats to pee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup; LorenC
If WND is causing grief in any form to this illegal 0bamunist regime, they're ok in my book.

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?

21 posted on 08/05/2010 1:24:28 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: curiosity; LorenC; stephenjohnbanker

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.


22 posted on 08/05/2010 2:08:05 PM PDT by mkjessup (0bama squats to pee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
WND has been the one lone voice in the wilderness concerning the 0bama eligibility issue

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.

23 posted on 08/05/2010 3:45:45 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Sorry, but I have better things to do

Yes, making excuses for 0bama's questionable eligibility is clearly your priority.

...than refute every single piece of nonsense put out on the net by some idiot who thinks dinosaurs still live somewhere in Southeast Asia.

Pure Alinsky. Undistilled. It figures.
24 posted on 08/06/2010 1:56:38 AM PDT by mkjessup (0bama squats to pee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: curiosity; mkjessup

Your home page says you are very interested in immigration. Please enlighten us with your wisdom on this matter.


25 posted on 08/06/2010 7:20:42 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kagan.asp

WND has completely deleted the article from its site. No explanation given.


26 posted on 08/06/2010 9:07:46 AM PDT by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: OldBlondBabe

bttt


27 posted on 08/08/2010 6:41:58 PM PDT by Hypo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

LOLOLOL......I laughed so hard. She really does look like a man.


28 posted on 08/08/2010 6:46:13 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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