“Decision on Obama citizenship pending” By Tom Ramstack



Image By Phil Dragoo

Link for Image:



The Supreme Court held off Friday on deciding whether to grant a hearing in a long-shot lawsuit that would decide whether Barack Obama can constitutionally become president as a “natural born” U.S. citizen.

The Friday list of court orders that denies or grants hearings did not mention the lawsuit, which says Mr. Obama should be disqualified from the presidency because he purportedly acquired the same British citizenship that his father had when he was born.

A spokesman for the court said the decision on whether to hear the suit brought by retired New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio is likely to be announced next week.

A decision not to grant a writ of certiorari — the legal term for the declaration that the justices will hear the case — would mean that a lower court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit can stand.

The Supreme Court’s justices met in a private conference Friday morning to discuss the issue. At least four of the court’s nine justices must approve before the case is heard.

Justice Clarence Thomas picked up the petition to hear the lawsuit after it was denied by Justice David H. Souter. Justice Thomas referred it to the full court, which decided to distribute the case for the justices’ conference.

Mr. Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. But unlike many of the lawsuits regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship — which claim he really was born on foreign soil — Mr. Donofrio’s case concedes that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii but says he still held foreign citizenship at birth.

“Since Barack Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British citizen ‘at birth,’ just like the framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on U.S. soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be president.”

Kenya was British East Africa until it received its independence in 1963.

Legal scholars doubt the court will hear the case. The Supreme Court rarely grants the kind of court orders — or stays — sought by Mr. Donofrio. And doing so in this case would set up an unprecedented challenge to the presidency of a man who already has won the election and almost certainly will have taken office by the time any hearings or decisions could occur.

About a half-dozen people who say the court should stop Mr. Obama from becoming president protested in front of the Supreme Court on Friday morning.

“He does not meet the criteria of the Constitution that the Founding Fathers set out,” said Roger Bredow, an Internet publisher from Bethlehem, Ga., who has tried to rally lawsuit supporters to block Mr. Obama’s presidency.

Valerie Wohllheden, of Alexandria, said the danger is that in deciding the lawsuit, the Supreme Court might bend to “the will of the people” by allowing Mr. Obama to become president despite constitutional provisions.

“Then you’ve got mob rule,” she said. “How can he uphold the Constitution if he’s breaking it?”

After the list of actions was released, Washington resident Theresa Cao said she took heart from the court’s delaying its decision on whether to grant a hearing.

“They apparently need the time to deliberate,” she said.

Freeper Thread on Above:


See also:



Phil Berg Barack Obama Ron Polarik Jeff Schreiber

109 Responses to ““Decision on Obama citizenship pending” By Tom Ramstack”

  1. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    1st ??

  2. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    giggling as I fill up the over the shoulder boulder holder…with candies.
    taking carefull aim like a sling shot ….waiting on Patty to arrive.

    raining down pretty foiled peppermint candies on Patty

    Gotta look out for womens health ya know 🙂

  3. peppermintpatty777 Says:

    You are first JAC! Good Morning!


    Good Morning Dixie! It’s one reason we have such a great group here. It’s been a great learning experience for me. I had not re-read the Constitution since I went to college–well, I did when I homeschooled my kids. But, because of all the information going around, I felt it necessary to re-read it. Still yet, things get ammended, interpreted–and it’s nice to know that if I’m wrong, someone will help me adjust my tin hat a little.

    My point here is, don’t worry about it. If we make a mistake, there’s always someone here to help get it all straight– and so much grace that people don’t get angry… cept Troy if you call BO PE–!

  4. peppermintpatty777 Says:

    Oh, candies, everywhere, raining down like, like, uhhh like–candies raining down everywhere!

    Thank you to the heavenlies for raining candy!

  5. dixieinflorida Says:

    Just when it gets interesting in the other thread she moves us. 🙂

    peppermintpatty777 Says:
    December 6, 2008 at 3:30 pm

    Good Morning Dixie! It’s one reason we have such a great group here. It’s been a great learning experience for me. I had not re-read the Constitution since I went to college–well, I did when I homeschooled my kids. But, because of all the information going around, I felt it necessary to re-read it. Still yet, things get ammended, interpreted.

    My point here is, don’t worry about it. If we make a mistake, there’s always someone here to help get it all straight– and so much grace that people don’t get angry… cept Troy if you call BO PE–!

    GM PP that’s one reason I go to many places and mostly stick to the ones I like that aren’t arguing, but actually have discussions.

  6. peppermintpatty777 Says:


  7. thinkingmom11 Says:

    Dixie says:
    IMO the college needs to be abolished as it was set up when women were not allowed to vote and they thought men were too stupid to know who would really make the best president. LOL

    Seriously that’s kinda how I summerized what I read. Back in the 1800’s there was a lot of rural areas and farmers and the framers of our constitution thought they weren’t paying attention to politics therefore when they voted if they voted they didn’t really know who was the best candidate

    Doesn’t seem much has changed unless…not really …there are SOOOOOO many voters who DO NOT educate themselves when they vote. I would venture to say that the most uneducated voter back in “the day” of the Constitution were more educated on politics than most people today. Have you read the Federalist Papers?! Those were written for everyday folks to read and discuss and they understood them! And debated them among themselves. De Toqueville was astonished at the level of education, general knowledge, and Constitutional understanding among the “common” people in America.

    The ONLY change I would support in altering the Electoral College is to allow the electoral votes be distributed proportionally to each candidate based on the percentage of votes received in each state. That seems fair and, hey, even a Republican might get a vote or two out of California and a Dem might get a vote or to from Texas!!

    The Founding Fathers were very well educated and disciplined thinkers. It is amazing to me how many issues that have come up that were anticipated by them many years before they popped up. The reason is human nature never changes. No matter how we would like to think it has, does or will – people are basically the same today as the were 2 years ago, 200 years ago, 2000 years ago. We should be loathe to change what these great men fought and thought for so long, hard and well so many years ago.

  8. justanamericancindy4 Says:


    nope nope nope.. never say PE in front of Troy

    Or anyway dis Hillary in front of Fox …. no way!……. fox only lives 15 minutes from me…..she could personally kick my butt for dissing Hillary 🙂

  9. dixieinflorida Says:

    I do wish Rose would add links on the side to the previous topics as I find this site kinda hard to get around in sometime as I forget I can just click on the top and it will take me to the home.

  10. dixieinflorida Says:

    Excuse my ignorance but what is PE?

  11. jjones35811 Says:

    I totally agree with Troy on the PE thing… it just pisses me off everytime I here him refered to as that and it completely infuriates me with the “Office of the President Elect”

  12. thinkingmom11 Says:

    President Elect

  13. thinkingmom11 Says:

    All of the acroyms get me confused sometimes…I am terrible at the whole texting thing – I have to think to hard to figure it out sometimes 🙂

  14. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    At my meeting last night during break….. a few people were talking politics I took the opportunity to talk about how even if you supported Bo fully, that it was only good for the county as a whole for him to just show those documents and clear the air…

    Had to play it safe…… so they just didn’t tune me out…… everyone agreed with me….

  15. peppermintpatty777 Says:

    I second that motion TM!

    The present day “leaders” who so desire to change what they do not understand, have had such a narrow experience. We read about tyranny, but we are taught to “tolerate” it. The foundationless cannot appreciate, and therefore fail to desire and protect the firm foundation we stand on.

    Our founding fathers knew and understood from a first hand experience what it meant to live under the thumb of tyranny. They also knew what it was like to fight for, under extreme conditions, freedom. It wasn’t a “media” experience, but one that was real, on their own soil, and effecting every aspect of their lives.

  16. thinkingmom11 Says:

    Good job JAC – sometime you have to tread lightly to avoid the “Shut Down” — ya know what I mean? I know you do…..

  17. thinkingmom11 Says:

    I wonder how many election results would be changed if the EC was change to proportional distribution? That would be an interesting long term project for a good homeschool kid….

  18. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    I posted a few good links late last night.

    I didn’t know some are working on a TV ad to show up on fox

  19. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    TV ad

  20. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    TV ad


  21. thinkingmom11 Says:

    Thanks for the support Pep. In studying the Constitution and the history surrounding it – political, societal, moral and international – I have a heightened interest in this Constitutional issue. The exceptional nature of our Constitution and the men who crafted it (no, they were not perfect – no one is) is quite fresh on my mind as I ponder over this situation.

    The thing that comes to mind is how the men running this country and wanting to run this country wouldn’t hold a candle to the Founding Fathers in their depth of knowledge and understanding of human government, their depth of thought, and certainly not in their honor, morality and humility. I wonder what might have become of this nation if John Adams were more concerned about public opinion than public virtue? If George Washington were more concerned about personal ease than personal honor?

  22. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    i do it because it needs to be done,

    But going into article comments really feels like a battle ground….
    doesn’t matter now many facts you give them for your opinion, they only resort to insults…
    usually when they go into that phase I comment on how much they enjoy the freedom of speech the Constitution gives them, why don’t that honor the whole document, including the strict requirements for President

  23. Foxtrot Says:

    Good Morning Ladies! (at least, I think there are only women posting here right now). I can only stay for a little bit as I have to do some Christmas shopping. I am so far behind!

    I had a thought last night, after talking to one of my old college roomies. When I went to college, and I was born the exact year and one month apart from Obama, virtually ALL colleges lumped “foreign students” in rooms or actual dorm buildings together. It was policy. Probably because they knew they might have more of an instant comradery having travelled from another country–you know, emotional support, if you will. Obama has stated his roommates were all from Middle Eastern countries. Of course, Obama silenced them from talking to the press after the one Pakistani made one comment once about Obama. Then we never heard from him again! Interesting though. Why would Obama, a supposed American citizen, be placed as a roommate for foreign students during that time?

    Food for thought!

  24. jjones35811 Says:

    Hey ! not ALL women here!

  25. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    hey foxy

  26. Foxtrot Says:

    Oops, sorry jj! Didn’t see you in here!

    Hi JAC!

  27. jjones35811 Says:

    I read an article this morning somewhere that was by a person who went to Columbia the same time as BO and he was saying that NO ONE remembers BO and he was not in any year books and that there is no evidence of him ever going there… true or not, I don’t know, but I thought it was interesting

  28. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    I was talking about ya earlier,….. was your ears burning?

    justanamericancindy4 Says:

    December 6, 2008 at 3:41 pm

    nope nope nope.. never say PE in front of Troy

    Or anyway dis Hillary in front of Fox …. no way!……. fox only lives 15 minutes from me…..she could personally kick my butt for dissing Hillary

  29. Foxtrot Says:

    jj- LOL! I love your avatar! A wingnut, huh?

  30. jjones35811 Says:

    haha, yeah. someone called me that so I thought it was appropriate

  31. Foxtrot Says:

    JAC, I did see that comment you posted. Got a good laugh to start my day. Thanks for thinking of me and my feelings!

  32. justanamericancindy4 Says:


    I read that too,……. this guy truly has no past!

  33. Foxtrot Says:

    jj – some people think Obama is not listed because he registered under Soetoro, instead of Obama. Don’t know if anyone checked under that name. Also should check under Dunham as well, to cover all bases! I wonder if we can access the student lists from the years he was at Columbia? Anyone know what years he was there? I think it was two, but I don’t know which ones.

  34. Ted Says:

    Seems the Supreme Court is waiting to hear from me before issuing a decision on Donofrio, so here goes: While the Court is more than loathe to enter this dispute, currently it has no choice (thanks to the audacious one — and I don’t mean Leo, I mean Barack) and the ONLY WAY to bring closure, knowing CLOSURE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL before any Presidential inauguration, is to back the original intent of the Constitution, meaning, Obama is NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” (albeit Obama may or may not be a “citizen”, a question heated by the steadfast refusal of the DNC or any of the Secretaries of State to require his birth certificate, which the Court will now not have to confront).

  35. jjones35811 Says:

    do you still have the link for that? I’ve been to so many places this morning, I can’t find it anymore

  36. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    good article


    but don’t look Foxy……….

  37. thinkingmom11 Says:

    Veeewwwyy EEEEnteresting, Foxy. I believe you may have a point there…that would explain a lot about why no one in the US remembers the bloke. I REALLY want to see his college records now!! Since it is MY responisibilty now to figure out if he is qualified to be president (according to Mel Martinez and maybe even the 10th amendment) I DEMAND to see those records. I am unable to complete my investigation with out the following items:

    =Vault form of Hawaiin Birth Certificate (and a team of forensic document experts to examine it)
    =Records from Columbia U. and Harvard, including any applications for financial aid.
    =An explanation of what official documentation in Kenya and Indonesia has been sealed and possibly copies of that information.
    =A Supreme Court interpretation of “Natural Born Citizen” and an explanation why a person with multiple dual citizenships could be considered such a citizen.

    I am sure there is more to know, but that should do it for me.

  38. justanamericancindy4 Says:


    I’m the same way…. didn’t bookmark it

  39. jjones35811 Says:

    I think he was there in 81-82. Not positive about that

  40. thinkingmom11 Says:

    JAC 3 – don’t even take the bait…

  41. Foxtrot Says:

    Mom, don’t forget the records from Occidental College. That was the first one he attended as a Freshman!

  42. thinkingmom11 Says:

    OK ignore my last post I am easily confused….can’t even rationally explain what went through my mind….was scanning the posts and my eyes saw what I thought was the clone JAC3 talking to OUR cindy…I obviouly need more coffee…sorry

  43. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    lol mom

  44. thinkingmom11 Says:

    ok added to list… maybe I should send a list to Mr. Martinez asking for his help in doing my job.

  45. Foxtrot Says:

    “Hillary Clinton’s reaction to Al Gore’s failure to win the Electoral College was to declare that she would work to abandon the Constitutional system.” (from the video)

    JAC — of course I just had to view it after you told me not to . . . GEEEZ!
    However, this schmuck got it wrong! Hillary wanted to abolish the Electoral College, not interfere with anything else Constitutionally. She made that very clear. Actually, I too, like Mom stated, think that it is strange that someone can win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College. Isn’t the will of the People, the one who gets the most votes by the People?
    Now, that being said, this election will be the true test of the Electoral College’s original intent. The Founding Fathers also wrote that they didn’t want people to be POTUS if they were yahoos (not an exact quote by George Washington, but maybe Franklin!) or interlopers, and this was their last “check” to make sure it never happened. If we have now, as a country, gone into “auto pilot” in regard to the Electoral College, then its original intent is completely lost, and therefore, the College is irrelevant from here on out. I hope they prove me wrong this time, for all of our sakes. However, if they do not, then they should be abolished because they would only be acting as a ‘rubber stamp’ instead of truly acting on the roles they were meant to play.

  46. justanamericancindy4 Says:


    you gotta admit…….. except for that it was a good article

  47. Foxtrot Says:

    I will be back later! I have to do some Christmas shopping. JAC, I see you got your dog avatar back! Yay!!!!!!!!!

  48. justanamericancindy4 Says:


    lol didn’t know i lost it

    c u later

  49. thinkingmom11 Says:

    Uh Oh Foxy – I LIKE the electoral college. I would like to see it ADJUSTED but NOT abolished. I think a proportional distribution of votes would be fair enough. There may be times that the popular vote getter is not the EC winner. So be it. I agree that the EC should NOT be a Rubber Stamp but if they are it is not the PURPOSE of the EC that is the problem, it is the lack of education of the ELECTORS themselves (and the laws that prohibit them from voting differently than there State did if their conscience should dictate a deviation) on what the gravity of their responsibility. I think that they think they ARE a rubber stamp and indeed may state laws make it so.

    So before we go completely abolishing a facet of the Constitution, let’s consider some Re-education of our citizens as to what the EC etc. is all about. If the EC votes were distributed proportionally, then candidates might be forced to visit states they normally ignore, people in traditionally party-loyal states (ie CA, TX, NY, etc) who might not vote because they are overwhelingly in the minority in such state would be more encouraged to vote if they felt it just might make a difference.

  50. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    Ok,…… just got off the daily call from my mother,……lol

  51. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    we live in a different age,…… *sigh*

    taking things at face value just isn’t enough
    always did think instead of making new laws they should clarify and uphold the ones they already have in the books..

  52. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    the Senate and Congress could spend the next 10 years just tossing out the rubbish and clarifing…. Government needs to be simplified…… get everyone on the same page ……. lol almost like a “do over”

  53. thinkingmom11 Says:

    So True JAC. That holds true especailly true for gun control laws. Legislators are NOT going to finally pass a law that law-breakers are going to look at and say “You know, I know I am a criminal and I may have even done time for my crime, but even I can not break THAT law!” Come on. It comes down to moral decline and lack of respect for life, liberty and property. Until those issues are addressed violence in society is going to continue to escalate. Even in places where guns are illegal, violent crime is still rampant – they just use a different weapon. I tell people “If someone really wants to kill someone else, if they don’t use a gun, they will use a knife. If they don’t have a knife, they will use a bat. If they don’t have a bat, they will use poison. If they don’t have poison, they will use their bare hands. People were killing each other long before there were guns and it will continue even if every gun on the planet is incinerated. If we use the logic that guns kill people, then I guess my spoon is making me fat.”

    (I am not really fat though- BTW hee hee)

  54. thinkingmom11 Says:

    I like the purge idea!! We should advance that as a platform….

  55. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    I do come up with good ones now and then

    but really I have always thought that,.. simplify Goverment…..

  56. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    never did make since to me they would have conflicting laws on separate documents…… what trumps what?……. even they don’t know

  57. thinkingmom11 Says:

    AWESOME article I found linked in a post at Leo’s website – don’t think I have seen it here before…


    gonna go finish reading it…

  58. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    You spoke of guns,… I believe in the 2nd amendment…
    BUT I also think it comes with responsibility,… tougher standards, making sure those who want to own one, goes through a gun safety class etc.

    Violence is violence… whether by gun or by hand…
    not saying they shouldn’t have very strong laws about illegal guns, ammo and trafficking.

  59. thinkingmom11 Says:

    Leo’s “essay” on Chester Arthur is an interesting read as well…


  60. thinkingmom11 Says:

    Absolutely, there should be responsiblity in gun ownership and safety. However, more and more laws are not going to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them if they are determined to get them. If the legal system would STRICTLY enforce the laws already on the book, impose harsh sentences for those who break those laws and go after the ones who sell the weapns illegally (there are already laws for that too) as well as those who seek to purchase them illegally, THEN we will make a difference. More law that are not enforced is never the answer. Then you just head into muddled meaning, conflicting laws and misunderstanding.

  61. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    most gang shooting happen with illegal guns by those under law of a criminal record should not be in possession of a gun in the first place..

    enforce the law, not take the rights away from those who act responsibly

  62. thinkingmom11 Says:

    When I bought my hand gun, I had to take a test on it’s operation and safety. Before my son can get his first Hunting License he will have to take a hunter safety course. There is a 10-day waiting period and a background check to purchase a firearm in CA. If you purchase a gun through legal channels in the state of CA there are plenty of checks to make sure you are competent and legal to own one. You can’t even buy ammo or even Air Soft and paintball guns and have them shipped into CA but there is still plenty of gun violence out here because criminals who want guns are going to get guns regardless of what the laws are. It comes down to a persons character wether they use a gun for violence. No amount of laws or safety classes will compensate for lack of character.

    I think we are on the same page, JAC – I hope my post is not coming off as combative – just trying to put thoughts on the screen which doen’t always sound to others the way it sounds in my head.

  63. j.b. Says:

    I read an article this morning somewhere that was by a person who went to Columbia the same time as BO and he was saying that NO ONE remembers BO and he was not in any year books and that there is no evidence of him ever going there… true or not, I don’t know, but I thought it was interesting

    I read that, too! I went back to find it last night and could not. ugh. Is that the one you now are sayng you can’t find either? I googled some of the words I recalled and just came up with an e-mail convo between two people about the article. So frustrating. I thought it was from America’s Right, but I combed through those comments looking for a link-3 times!
    I wanted to share it here and with my husband………oh well.

    Hey, LadyLiberty! Snowed in? I noticed you are from MI. Me, too. We are snowed in…….I’m so glad I shopped for groceries yesterday.

    This fits perfect with my plan to Chrismatize my home. 🙂

    If you go out shopping-please remember the Toys for Tots program! A great way to spread a little cheer to a child and it warms your own heart as well.

    Enjoy your weekend all………..

  64. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    no problem, and I didn’t take it that way……

    I had a heated argument with someone on another blog

    if the internet and specifically google was held to the freedom of speech amendment.

  65. thinkingmom11 Says:

    Well, I gotta run – clean and decorate, run errands etc. I will be popping in and out…and in the spirit of Foxtrot, I leave you with this thought “Save the world while I am gone, please” bbl

  66. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    cu mom

  67. thinkingmom11 Says:

    I want to see my kitty when I get back too- dammit. I can’t see my kitty STILL…

  68. Tenacity Says:

    I just wanted you to know that I read your post on absolute truths and that they are never changed by the whims of society/culture. Right on. The humanists/naturalists are all about self and denying any creator that may have the right to judge/discipline human sexual mores and lusts for self power. That which is “good” sustains us eternally…that which is bad/sinful consumes us. This principal defines Truth absolutely. This is why we are experiencing this life…to determine our decision to follow the Creator’s truth. If we do not surrender self and choose the path of consumption, we will be left only with self, the true hell. Our country faces this very decision. The framers of the constitution relied upon the Creator’s truths as the basis of its principles. No divided loyalty can be tolerated because it is fatal. Humanists cannot accept the necessary exclusiveness of Heaven, which is the only way it can be sustained. Few understand the real meaning of “Holy”, being separate and apart from that which destroys. If our country accepts this unholy usurper as its leader, then our country may very well face destruction. Let those who have ears hear.

  69. Al Says:

    Good day everyone. The link below provides some insight into answering/clarifying/pin-pointing the date/time that Mr. Obama may have entered Columbia (as some earlier posters were wondering). However, in respect of Rose’s wishes, the http (****) has been omitted but just add if interested in reading the full link…Have a wonderful Saturday. Peace.


  70. rosettasister Says:

    Interesting Commentary Found at TexasDarlin:



    reps–I like your speculative shot, as you say. I think this is what I envisioned if our system was working properly. A coordinated, orderly rearrangement and implementation of the 20th amendment.

    The vote of the electoral college–would probably still happen but Obama’s votes will be invalidated when found ineligible somtime between now and January 6th.

    thanks for some alternative ideas on how this could work out.

    (ps, yes the silence is deafening)


    MEDIA ALERT: I heard this evening on BTR that the ‘media is saying that the Supreme Court will not overturn the will of the people’. Where have we heard this line before????

    Do not let them ’spin’ and issue of constitutional eligibility as “the Supreme Court overturning the will of the people.”

    Remember Alinsky’s words that if the organizer (aka obama) can succeed in having the ’system’ label him as an enemy (ineligible), the people rally to his side via mass demonstrations…”that he is so willing to represent them that he puts himself at risk of ridicule (disqualification) from the system…”

    The media is playing right into this with an informed and purposely disorted view of the issue at hand. It is not about the popular vote!


    oops, media has an UNinformed view



    “The will of the people” must be in Obama’s talking points. The Washington Times reporter also used it in his article today. Worse, he ascribed those words to me, and they never passed my lips.


    Other errors: there were 30 people there, and not “half a dozen,” and Obama’s British citizenship at birth is not “purported,” but immutable fact. Admitted, in fact, by him.

    In 1776, Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” aroused patriotic American sentiment in those who had considered themselves Loyalists. It was the start of a rising tide. “Stand By Me” will have the same effect on patiotic Americans, removed from Paine’s generation by two centuries, but joined forever in our common belief in the Constitution, and the “glorious cause.”



    “The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years.

    These nations have progressed through this sequence:

    From bondage to spiritual faith
    From spiritual faith to great courage
    From courage to liberty
    From liberty to abundance
    From abundance to selfishness
    From selfishness to complacency
    From complacency to apathy
    From apathy to dependency
    From dependency back to bondage.”

    I saw apathy today. I see dependency about to be sworn in to office.

    Bondage won’t be that far off.”

    We are Rome and the “Obamabarians” are at the gate….


    To that point, Lightfoot v George has cleared CA courts and is available for submission to Justice Kennedy on Monday.



    Another case headed for the SCOTUS.


  71. rosettasister Says:

    Polarik Comments at Free Republic:

    “Obama’s Birth Announcement”



    To: Red Reign

    No offense to you, personally, Red Reign, when I say this, but I have to tip my hat to Medical Science for finding a way to awaken people out of hopeless comas just in time to discover, for the very first time, what has already been recycled through a bull’s digestive system at least five times.
    Rip Van Winkle took a power nap by comparison.

    Anyway, I’ve got work to do for my day job — which comes first, second, third, and on to the ntih degree — so I’m out of pocket until Tuesday, and even for posting this little bon mot, I’m gonna get bitch-slapped for it.

    Never fear, FReepers, for I’ve got a trusted counterpart on here who keeps her ear to the ground, her eye on the ball, and her feet ready to deliver a roundhouse kick to anyone who fails to get this memo, so please keep that in my if you are just dying to ping or PM me…because you’ll wonder why I’m not responding, and get all upset, and we would not want that to happen.

    BUT, just in case the brain-dead media should twitch so much as an eyelid in response to the biggest national news issue since Paul Revere went for a pony ride, talk amongst yourselves, and I’m sure I’ll hear about it, one way or another.

    One final thing, re: my contest. Ya gotta search only on those three little words, OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE, because I know my blog is indexed by GURGLE.

    Have a good weekend, Chow for now.

    195 posted on Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:49:30 AM by Polarik

  72. rosettasister Says:

    “Supreme Court to Consider Obama Birth Certificate Case”

    “Old Claims Stir New Controversy for President-Elect Obama”


    The validity of President-Elect Barack Obama’s birth certificate continues to stir controversy in the days leading up to the Presidential Inauguration. According to the Los Angeles Times, Justice Clarence Thomas distributed legal papers regarding the Donofrio v. Wells lawsuit. This lawsuit challenges the assertion that Barack Obama is a “natural born citizen” as defined in the Constitution. The original lawsuit sought not only to remove Obama as an eligible candidate, but also Senator John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone while it was a U.S. possession.

    This lawsuit continues a line of allegations against President-Elect Obama questioning his United States citizenship. These allegations began long ago, with claims that Obama is actually a Kenyan citizen, or an Indonesian, or a British citizen because of his father. They run along the same currents that claim President-Elect Obama was an Hawaiian citizen before Hawaii was considered a state, or that he was a Muslim, and other such claims. Most of these claims have been cast aside as nonsense. This lawsuit, however, now set to go before the Supreme Court and its nine justices, brings them all back into the limelight.

    According to Salon.com, those hoping this lawsuit will keep Obama from being sworn in as the forty-fourth president of the United States are “almost certain to be let down.” Many experts have claimed this issue as a new brand of conspiracy theory; those who are already convinced-or have allowed themselves to be convinced-of Obama’s ineligibility as President, according to Salon, have little chance of ever being convinced otherwise.

    The primary fuel behind this lawsuit and “conspiracy theory” is the birth certificate released by the Obama campaign while the campaign was still in full-swing. The “Certification of Live Birth” began wide speculations regarding its authenticity; for those who claimed it proved Obama’s legal status as a United States citizen, there were just as many others who claimed it proved nothing. While the state of Hawaii has stated for the record that the certificate is legitimate, they also noted that the actual birth certificate could not be released-because of Hawaiian privacy laws-unless Obama himself requested it be so. As of now, President-Elect Obama has not made any such request, adding another ounce of kindle to an already growing fire.

    While many thought the flame of controversy would be dowsed by Obama’s election in November, the contrary proved true. In the early days of December, paid advertisements appeared in the Chicago Tribune questioning President-Elect Obama’s citizenship. The advertisements are sponsored by anti-tax activist Robert L. Schulz, chairman of the We The People Foundation. The ads appeared on the first Monday and Wednesday of the month, and according to the Tribune “echo accusations circulated online by some Obama opponents before the election.”

    Despite the ousting of several cases questioning Obama’s citizenship, and the state of Hawaii’s vouching for the Certification they released, Schulz’s ads rely primarily on speculations already well known and widely disregarded. However, as many have noted, it doesn’t take much to cast a shadow of doubt over even the most seemingly blatant truth; the Supreme Court’s review of the Donofrio v. Wells lawsuit provides evidence of this fact.

    While the Donofrio case has not officially been granted a hearing before the Supreme Court, it still lingers as a possible delay to the inaugural events of late January 2009. However, most agree that just as the majority of the American people decided Obama was good enough to be President, the Supreme Court would likely decide his birth is good enough to swear him into office.


    Andrew Malcolm, “Supreme Court today deliberated suit blocking Obama presidency” , Los Angeles Times


    Alex Koppelman, “Why the stories about Obama’s birth certificate will never die” , Salon.com


    Sara Olkon and James Janega, “Tax activist’s ad challenges Obama’s eligibility for office”, Chicago Tribune


  73. j.b. Says:

    Thanks, Al, for the link. Unfortunately (for me) it isn’t the article I recall reading yesterday.
    Oh, well.

  74. Al Says:

    j.b. Says:

    December 6, 2008 at 7:30 pm
    Thanks, Al, for the link. Unfortunately (for me) it isn’t the article I recall reading yesterday.
    Oh, well.


    You’re welcome, JB. Do you recall the gist of the article you read?

  75. Clarity Says:

    In watching Today show yesterday, something struck me in the NBC debate. In the constitution, it says

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, ….

    Notice that natural born is not capitalized. Usually for a word to have specific meaning in a document it should be capitalized. For example, New York isn’t new York (New York and York are two different places). Thus, we will not find Natural Born Citizen defined anywhere because it wasn’t meant to be.

    Thus, I would say natural born Citizen, is a citizen who is naturally born. We should all agree with this so far. The question is, what does naturally born mean at that time and now?

    There are three definitions

    1) That the baby was born a citizen and didn’t need to be naturalized into citizenship at any time

    2) That the baby was born a citizen at birth one way or another

    3) That the baby was born naturally without any artificial measures (c-section, insemination, etc.).

    I wanted to believe the lawsuit saying that a person could not be a dual citizen. I could see this if they said Natural Born Citizen where they intended it to having meaning (as letters state). Yet, now I am second guessing that.

    I don’t think a citizen of the United States at the time of adoption means that they meant that a dual British citizen was meant to be excluded. Really no one was a citizen of the US (at birth or otherwise) until the document was signed. Thus, no one was born a Citizen at the time. Reading into it too much is a mistake as if they wanted it to be pure, they could have said a Citizen at the time of adoption who was born in the Colonies. There was plenty of people like this (including Washington, Adams and Jefferson) and would exclude anyone who had recently immigrated from England.

    Third, the scary thing, is the Constitution now excluded many people because their moms did not go through natural childbirth :-> Thought this is now an unintended consequence but technically the rule. How do you respond to the question if your child was born naturally? No, I didn’t use an epidural?

    I doubt anything will happen to any of the lawsuits … just too many small strings that are not definitive. And, for me there is enough smoke, yet with the fire of the economy no one else cares.

  76. j.b. Says:

    Al, the gist of the article I read was nailed in the article you posted. Just a different conversation, if you will, with/in the article you posted. The one I read had many quotes from a Columbia grad (same major and year as BO) that had NO memory of him what- so- ever. (and neither had his friends/or other classmates)

    No biggie.
    I have officially moved on. 🙂

  77. Tenacity Says:

    Unclear (Not Clarity),
    I find your nickname to be misleading.
    Go and read the articles by Judah Benjamin, P Madison (Federalists) and Leo Donofrio’s site naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com. The article by Dr. Kate posted by Rose above is one of the best I’ve seen and should provide a lot of “clarity” for you.

    A natural born citizen means: Born on U S soil (territory) of two (2) U S Citizen parents, without any divided allegiance and a citizen by no other cause.

  78. peppermintpatty777 Says:

    Clarity, I can see where you might think that, however, if you are going to go with what would have been the thought at the time, there was no such thing as anything but “natural birth”. There wasn’t a concept of artificial insemination or cloning.

    It was a good try, but really, natural born meant someone who was born naturally into citizenship in the good old USA!

  79. Tenacity Says:

    Good avatar. Did you see my post to you above?

  80. peppermintpatty777 Says:

    Hi Ten,

    I did. And, everyone around here calls me Patty– if you wish. Seems strange to me, cause my late sister’s name was Patty– but I like it. My nickname at one time was Pepper. But, Patty is special… Some just call me Pep..

    Thank you about the flag. It’s a pic of the one flying at our home! My husband used to be a professional chef in the merchant marines–well, in alot of rest. too. But for years he worked on ships and oil rigs and yachts as a chef. For a while it was on ships named after Pirates– and since I grew up in NC, where we had plenty of pirates on our coast– Black Beard (Ed Teach) being one of the most infamous– well, the Jolly Roger says it all!

    I did read your post and I agree.

  81. Tenacity Says:

    I noticed some calling you Susan?

  82. peppermintpatty777 Says:

    I want to invite everyone over to my “place”, but don’t want to “steal” Rosie’s gang. I tried to add my link in my name here, but couldn’t figure it out just yet!

    You’ll find my house at (http) //deliciouslycapricious.wordpress.com/

    Drop by and say “Hi”

  83. peppermintpatty777 Says:

    Yeah, I’m a little twisted. I can’t figure out who I am– it’s my mom’s fault. She calls me either by my name or my late sissy’s name–

    Call me anything but Sue! Susan, Pepper, Patty, Pep, Susie,

    Just DON’T mess with my hat!

  84. Tenacity Says:

    I will stick with Patty. Ten is okay since I am originally from Tennessee. TC works too…my first 2 initials.

    I will come and visit at capricious when I have a little time.

  85. peppermintpatty777 Says:

    Thanks Ten.

    I gotta go have some dinner with my hubby. I’ll drop by later. Have a good afternoon/evening. Keep the faith!

  86. thinkingmom11 Says:

    avatar check…

  87. thinkingmom11 Says:

    aaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhhhh…..stupid penguin! Are y’all seeing Yoda Kitty?

  88. Foxtrot Says:

    Just a quick look-see. Patty, where in NC did you grow up? Are you familiar with Wilmington?

  89. Foxtrot Says:

    No, Mom. No delightful kitty avatar yet! Only the penguin. It could be worse. The male penguin takes care of the eggs until they hatch. Also, penguins are a loyal breed and mate for life! What great role models!

    As a matter of fact, my twenty something daughters always say they are looking for their “penguin” when they are talking about “Mr. Right”. LOL!

  90. Foxtrot Says:

    Sorry to post and run, but I have to get ready for the Symphony tonight. My husband missed one Board meeting and when he got back, they told him he was President of the Board this year! That will teach him to miss another Symphony Board meeting!! LOL!

  91. thinkingmom11 Says:

    I guess then, I already have a “penguin” 🙂 I have a wonderful Mr. Right – so blessed!

  92. j.b. Says:

    I see the kitty. All day in fact…….never saw no penquin.

  93. Foxtrot Says:

    jb is pullin’ your leg, Mom! It is definitely a penguin on the screen.

  94. Foxtrot Says:

    Gotta run! See you all late tonight (I hope).

  95. thinkingmom11 Says:

    seriously – jb, you see the kitty? cuz I see the “chill out penguin”

    man oh man do I ever need to get a life…maybe Fox will take me to the symphony!! I used to play French Horn – I wanna go!!!!!

  96. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    I see kitty

  97. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    Like j.b I have seen the kitty all day….

    someone said i got my chihuahua back…..lol I never knew it was missing

  98. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    well gotta dash….. will try to be back later

  99. thinkingmom11 Says:

    bye JAC – bbl too.

  100. Al Says:

    j.b. Says:

    December 6, 2008 at 8:26 pm
    Al, the gist of the article I read was nailed in the article you posted. Just a different conversation, if you will, with/in the article you posted. The one I read had many quotes from a Columbia grad (same major and year as BO) that had NO memory of him what- so- ever. (and neither had his friends/or other classmates)

    No biggie.
    I have officially moved on.


    Okay, JB, thanks for your response. Was simply hoping your particular article had more revelations to glean from as there seems to be a clear pattern developing, where no one seems to be able to produce much background if any at all. The $64,000 dollar question is why?

  101. Tenacity Says:

    I think it’s the pinguin. It says chill out at the bottom. Some people may think it looks a kitty. This is a cartoon-like character. Wasn’t your kitty a real picture?

  102. thinkingmom11 Says:

    Yes a real (ugly) kitty…oh well.

    Hey Al.

    Sorry I don’t have much to say today, haven’t been able to stay on my computer for long so I don’t have much of interest to discuss beyond my silly penguin issues so I am going to sign out for a while. I am going to a very cool dinner at a steak house owned by the former Energy Secretary for Ronald Reagan – John Harrington. This is their first night open so it should be very interesting.

  103. thinkingmom11 Says:

    actually here is one website of interest:


    Tenacity you and Pep will probably really appreciate this one. It is an organization dedicated to educating people to the true (Judeo-Christian) heritage of our country. They have a lot of primary source documents online. I want their cd that has ALL of their resources on disc for a price I can’t afford to pay – but I sure would like to have it!

  104. rosettasister Says:

    Have a safe, fun Saturday night!

    New Thread:


  105. Al Says:

    thinkingmom11 Says:

    December 6, 2008 at 11:27 pm
    Yes a real (ugly) kitty…oh well.

    Hey Al.

    Sorry I don’t have much to say today, haven’t been able to stay on my computer for long so I don’t have much of interest to discuss beyond my silly penguin issues so I am going to sign out for a while. I am going to a very cool dinner at a steak house owned by the former Energy Secretary for Ronald Reagan – John Harrington. This is their first night open so it should be very interesting.


    Have a wonderful dining experience, ThinkingMom’. Save room for dessert. Bon Appetit!

  106. whatafoolbelieves1 Says:

    I have a feeling that the world is laughing at us. It is obvious to all that Obama has something to hide yet the Electoral College will install this man as POTUS. This tells the world that we stand on no principal including our own Constitution. For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be an American.

  107. rosettasister Says:

    whatafoolbelieves1 Says:
    December 6, 2008 at 11:46 pm


    hello, whata!

    I hope it’s okay.

    I copied your comment to new thread.

    “For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be an American.”

    Well, look at it this way.

    At least you were proud until just recently.

    Michelle Obama got it backwards.


  108. whatafoolbelieves1 Says:

    Amen sisterrosetta. I don’t mind at all. I weep for our country.

  109. ladyliberty Says:

    Hey J.B.,
    We got a couple of inches and roads were covered, but I live in the “burbs” and as the day went on we had salt on the roads. I am surprised that the roads were not better. I guess all the cut backs are making the counties reduce their use of salt. I know they laid-off hundreds of snow plow drivers.

    How much snow did you get up there? Are you near Marquette, Houghton or Iron Mountain? Been to all of them and they are BEAUTIFUL!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: