WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it would not hear Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve in the Oval Office.
The case is the latest in a lengthy series of cases in which U.S courts have refused to hear any arguments about Mr. Obama's eligibility.
The court effectively killed the Kerchner case with one terse statement: "The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."
"I don't think the court helped heal the country," said Mario Apuzzo, the New Jersey attorney who argued the case on behalf of retired Navy CDR Charles Kerchner. "We still don't know Mr. Obama's status. … The court is supposed to take cases that are important, and I can't imagine a case more important than this one."
"You need justice to resolve conflicts between people, and when justice is denied people continue to go after each other in a savage way. We did not get justice, " Apuzzo told WND. "For the court to deny our justice sets the country back terribly."
"This decision did not help Mr. Obama," Apuzzo added. "It did not bring legitimacy to his office. Mr. Obama does not have legitimacy of office by the court or by the consensus of the nation, because many people question whether he is a natural born citizen. How does our nation go forward with this kind of result?"
"This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn't," wrote Kerchner Monday morning. "Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. It didn't. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't. Everyone in our system of government chose appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else."
"Now it is far worse," Kerchner continued. "The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken."
Kerchner v. Obama argued that Mr. Obama is not a "natural born citizen," which article II, section 1 of the constitution requires any U.S. president to be. According to Swiss political theorist Emer de Vattel, whose writings heavily influenced the founding fathers, an American "natural born citizen" must be the child of two parents who were both American citizens. Mr. Obama's father was a British subject, a Kenyan student living temporarily in the United States.
"A person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil," Apuzzo explained to CNN. "It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States."
"If they wanted to they could have taken this up," Apuzzo told WND. He surmised the court decided, "I don't want to rock the boat too much because that will make it worse, let me be nice and things will go away."
"None of this is moot. If he runs again in 2012, people will want to know" [whether Mr. Obama is a legitimate president], said Apuzzo. "The issue is not going away. … You're going to have a lot of states that are going to be on this, they will want to see that birth certificate."
Like previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility, Kerchner v. Obama foundered in lower courts on the question of "standing." Mr. Obama's attorneys have avoided addressing the merits of an eligibility case. Instead, they have repeatedly succeeded in persuading courts to dismiss cases because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they could not prove they were directly harmed by Mr. Obama's occupation of the Oval Office.
Another case currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, Barnett v. Obama, may not be stopped by the standing problem, according to United States Justice Foundation Executive Director Gary Kreep. Kreep, author of the Western Center for Journalism amicus curiae brief cited above by the Supreme Court, represents two plaintiffs in the Barnett case.
Kreep explained that one of the plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Alan Keyes, was a presidential candidate in 2008.
"According to case law, candidates have standing to challenge the eligibility of other candidates," Kreep told WND. "The Department of Justice, which is handling Obama's defense, is not even addressing standing. They're saying it's a political question," and therefore shouldn't be decided by the courts."
Apuzzo and Kreep both suggested that Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor should have recused themselves from the Kerchner case.
"We've seen Justice Kagan recuse herself in various cases, and here's a case where she did not recuse herself, and also Justice Sotomayor, which struck me as really odd because they were appointed by President Obama," said Apuzzo.
"If he's not eligible to be president, he never was, and it could jeopardize their appointments," said Kreep. "An argument could have been made that they should have recused themselves."
"If either of them had anything to do with any of the eligibility decisions, they should have recused themselves," Kreep added. Kagan, as President Obama's Solicitor General, was "probably" involved in planning his legal strategy in earlier eligibility cases.
Apuzzo suggested Kagan's and Sotomayor's participation might have changed the outcome of the court's deliberations.
"We don't know what the vote was," Apuzzo pointed out. "If it was a dog of a case, you don't need Kagan's or Sotomayor's votes. Why did they leave this ethical cloud hanging in history? For what? For a dog of a case?"
The "Supreme Court Of The United States Communist Party" (SCOTUSCP) has once again shown their communist colors by refusing to hear the case against the evil muslim communist USURPER, barack hussein obama, "Kerschner Vs obama" eligibility challenge! The traitorous so called prez, the 111th congress, SCOTUSCP, federal/state judges, the Joint Chiefs of Staff & all of their decision making military officers have no standing! None of these traitors are worthy of the office/position that they hold and must be held accountable for their traitorous acts against the United States of America and its citizens!
Based on the past two (2) years of the "F MINUS MINUS ANTI-AMERICAN" performance, the evil muslim communist & rattle snake USURPER, barack hussein obama, the 110th & 111th congress, SCOTUSCP, all appointed judges/officials, the Joint Chiefs of Staff & all of their decision making military officers, HAVE PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT, that the U.S. Constitution no longer works, it has no meaning what-so-ever to the governing body of the USA and, is no longer the law of the United States of America! In fact, the only law governing the good ole USA now is the communist New World Order (NWO)!
Our life style is gonna change over night if we don't do something now, before it's too late. This whole scenario, the evil performance of the evil muslim communist & rattle snake USURPER, barack hussein obama, the 110th & 111th congress, SCOTUSCP, all appointed judges/officials, the Joint Chiefs of Staff & all of their decision making military officers, the "FEMA CAMPS" and the "Plum Island Experimental Laboratory", all a replay of the Hitler/Nazi regime of WWII and, is a snapshot of our freedom less future!! The more we yell "WOLF" the less effective it becomes and very soon will be meaningless sabre rattling. History tells us the rest of the story, the story our traitorous "fearful leaders" in Washington D.C wants us to forget!!
We American Citizen Patriots know "HOW" we'll make our stand for the U.S. Constitution and freedom, the only question is ... "WHEN & WHERE" will we make that stand? BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE OR AFTER IT'S TOO LATE?!?!
The evil muslim communist & rattle snake USURPER, barack hussein obama, the 111th congress, SCOTUSCP, all appointed judges/officials, the Joint Chiefs of Staff & all of their decision making military officers and the New World Order (NWO) are counting on the latter choice, "AFTER IT'S TOO LATE"!
WHAT'S YOUR CHOICE PATRIOTS?!?! THE U.S. CONSTITUTION & FREEDOM OR BONDAGE?!?!
THE CHOICE IS YOURS TO MAKE & LIVE WITH!
"No man who refuses to bear arms in defense of his nation can give
A sound reason why he should be allowed to live in a free country"
AMID THE GUNS BELOW ...
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
- Lt.-Col. John McCrae (1872 - 1918)
REMEMBER THIS ...
You don't vote a communist government out, got that? I repeat, you don't vote a communist government out! The buzz words are "You don't vote a communist government out!!!" In fact, with a communist government in place, you don't get to vote!!!
BE ADVISED ...
I will fight to the death to help ensure that the U.S. Constitution remains the law of the land of the United States of America! I will fight to the death to help ensure that the freedoms and way of life that so many of us military veterans served, fought and died for, are maintained! This is my promise to Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior and, those great American heroes who gave their all so that we could enjoy the good life, the freedoms and way of life that we American citizens had, before the EVIL Muslim communist USURPER, barack hussein obama and his evil wife Michelle obama, crawled out of their slimy snake holes and into the white house, my house!!!
THIS IS MY STATEMENT, I APPROVE OF THIS STATEMENT AND I'M STICKIN TO IT, SO HELP ME GOD!!
A United States Veteran is someone who,
At one point in his or her life,
Wrote a blank check made payable to,
"The People of the United States of America",
For an amount "...Up to and including my life."
~Author Unknown ~
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
GOD BLESS ISRAEL!
GOD BLESS CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO , TEXAS, ALL BORDER STATES!
United States Marine Corps Retired
AMERICAN CITIZEN BY BIRTH, UNITED STATES MARINE BY CHOICE!
The Usurper has dozens of social security numbers: there’s far more to this story than we thought ... Click on
By Suzanne Eovaldi
According to a search done by former British police detective Neil Sankey, now a U.S. Citizen and a licensed private investigator in Los Angeles, Barack Obama reportedly has 27 different social security numbers under 21 different personal and/or familial name variations in 22 different states plus the District of Columbia.
Along with PI Susan Daniels, Sankey generated a large social security public data base in his lengthy research project, titled “List of Properties associated with Barack Obama and his family.”
Sankey’s research is featured in a web video entitled Dossier2MP4 produced by Jim Przybowski. The Sankey/ Daniels social security investigation segment alleges Obama currently is using a social security number of someone born in Connecticut in l890.
When asked, “How long does a social security number have to be set aside after a [death] . . When can it be used again after someone dies?” a Social Security agent named “Kathy” said “it can’t be used again. . Once it’s been assigned, it can’t be used again. . .”
Sankey and Daniels report that Social Security numbers connected to Barack Obama and the addresses they trace to are as follows.
363 Notlem St., 34982-7358 Fort Pierce Florida non existent address.
A Social Security number beginning with zero is connected to “White House, Irvine, CA.”
A number starting with 282 connects to “713 Hart Senate, D.C.”
There was one connected to “White House, Baltimore, MD.”
Six more social security numbers beginning in the 400s show up with addresses in Washington, Colorado, Georgia, New Jersey, Tennessee and Maryland.
Another five beginning with 500 connect to more cities in California, Washington, Maryland, and Georgia.
Two starting with 600, trace to Florida and Texas. Of the three numbers beginning in the 700s one is listed as “Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, Utah.”
Three 900s connect to addresses in California and Utah postal box numbers.
Fifteen Social Security numbers connect to addresses in Illinois.
The same number appears twice for addresses in Sommerville, Massachusetts. One goes to 300 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D. C., the other traces to a postal box in Chicago.
Two odd entries have this same number, but no street address is mentioned. Three different social security numbers for the spelling “Barak” Obama appear in addresses on Happy Street in Covington, Washington, on Digital Highway and Video Drive in Los Angles, California.
In the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail a news story by David Jones, 27th November, 2009, said Neil Sankey is trying to prove that “Barack Obama is guilty of the most audacious act of fraud in the U.S. Political history, having become President when he was not eligible to run for office. Sankey is a former detective sergeant who served Hampshire police for 26 years and left with an exemplary record.”
The story continues, “As a highly regarded young detective, Neil Sankey was once seconded to elite Scotland Yard units hunting down IRA bombers, dangerous anarchists, and organized crime barons.”
Several calls to Sankey’s CA office were not returned. Because the data base may not be downloaded, this appears to be protected research, It also appears the author apparently does not want to answer further questions. No copyright statement is attached to any of this research.
The danger is real. Do something yourself because the Democrats won’t and the Republicans don’t have the power.
What did you do to support and defend American freedoms yesterday? What will you do today and tomorrow?