“angels81″ sounds very much like (and use the very same incorrect themes as) the notorous Flying Monkey “smrstrauss” and wife “ann1″ who have been clearly “outed” on another thread and who have (along with others using the group nics for convenience and effect) posted thousands of time in support of their hero always spouting complete misingormation/disinformation and who attempt to mislead anyone by various red herrings and straw men.

They are not to be believed.

It is you who are delusionsl and Beckwith is quite correct.

The DOJ attorneys specitically in the Kerchner et al v. Obama et al case are actually violating the oath they took (similar to the military oath) pledging to protect and defend the Constitution. The DOJ lawyers are actually working to attack the US Constitution by trying to prevent any court hearing the case on merit and keep a man in office illegally. This case if presently in Federal Appeals Court and will eventually go the SCOTUS. The final outcome will tell us much about whether there is a Constitutional Republic left.

As for “standing” that is completely a judicial fiction and the attempted use of such by the DOJ guys is based largely upon the opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife with the court opinion written (extensively) by Justice Scalia. The opinion, correct in the context of the case involved, refers to a plaintiff’s ability to bring a legal action against an act or acts of the Legislative or Executive branches (i.e., a statute of regulation thereof).

As such, “standing” has application only to those actions just mentioned and does not in any way relate to the US Constitution (that is supreme with respect to the acts mentioned) which may not be changed by the Legislative or Ececutive branched at their whim, but only by Constitutional Amendment. The attempted use of “standing” in the Kerchner et al case is therefore entirely misplaced and has no effect as the case involves Constitutional matters. You need to find out more about the case and what it involves.

To understand just what is being appealed in the Kerchner et al case it would be helpful to read this legal analysis:

A Federal Judge takes 4 strikes!!!

and, following that, if you go to the Mario Apuzzo website and actually read the Initial Appeals Brief of Jan 19, 2010, you’re in for a real eye-opener (as are the DOJ attorneys “defending” Obama using our tax money).

That’s doubly ironic since these attorneys – and their bosses – took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic but they are now in the position of actually attacking that very document rather than defending it and are trying to get an obviously ineligible man to remain in an office he has never shown himself to be eligible to hold.

The wonderful Apuzzo Brief is a primer on both Constitutional law, the meaning of it, the Founders’ intent vis-a-vis Article II of the Constitution and a forceful put-down of the lies and misinformation put forth by the Obama Flying Monkeys such as “smrstrauss” (and apparently you) and others.

I’d urge everyone to read the Initial Appeals Brief from Attorney Apuzzo’s website along with the many essays by both Mario Apuzzo AND his Lead Plaintiff, Charles F. Kerchner. While there, it would really help to donate even a small amount to the publicity/education fund presently used only for full-page newspaper ads in the Washington Times National Weekly Edition.

The Initial Appeals Brief gives a very good overview of the original action AND it puts the lie to the many false arguments by the Obot Flying Monkeys about why BHO is either (their words) eligible to hold the office he now occupies OR that it (their words) doesn’t matter that he is not eligible.

Your understanding of the relation of the U. S. Constitution to We The People will be forever enlightened.

Actually, Obama’s whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction. The man has never shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

If you’d like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data – more than we’ve seen from Obama.

In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like “Our Boy” and really strikes a chord.

Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC – but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:

Three Little Words

Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!

You are, quite simply, WRONG in everything you say. I understand how to support the guy you so love that you’re willing to (let’s say) stretch the truth, but Obama has hever presented any proof of his birth, citizenship, date of birth, etc., etc. to any rigorous court of law – let alone to the American people. He (and his supporters such as you) have stated many things and shown many bogus Photoshopped documents but nothing that would stand up under Judicial examination in a court of law.

In addition, no court has ever “ruled” on anything resembling the merits of the cases brought to the courts – in fact they so far have universally refused to hear anything. Most probably this is because many of them realize that the man is a usurper.

Apparently you do not know that or do not care that a person who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies has your (and your family’s) life virtually in his hands … and he is by no means like Jesus Christ. If fact he’s not even a Christian and truly hates this country and fully intends to destroy it.

If you’d like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data – more than we’ve seen from Obama.

In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like “Our Boy” and really strikes a chord.

Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC – but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:

Three Little Words

Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!

1. “Obama has a “new” hospital of birth and things are heating up with the recent Army Major’s refusal to deploy to Afganistan and claiming CO Status based on Obama’s eligibility status.”

“when a Army Major claims CO Status over “Obama’s Illegal Presidency”, nothing is said. Everyone is staying away from this news story. Obama is scared to death over this…. therefore, the internet is being scrubbed to reflect his latest hospital of birth.”

The Roger Hedgecook Show, July 15, 09;

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103626; ”

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/07/obama-scrubs-the-web-of-all-birth-docs.html#more

2. Barak Hussein Obama has been legally charged in a few U.S. Federal Courts [E.g., The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Berg V. Obama] and in the Superior Court of California, that he is NOT a Legal President of the United States.*

* “AP- WASH. D.C. — In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group Americans for Freedom of Information has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.

The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.”

(Crusader Rabbit, July 08; 19, 2009)

3. Barak Hussein Obama has declared [via the U.S. State Department; A7News July 2009] that what is — by all verifiable evidence known to all during thousands of years — the core homeland of the Hebrews, in and around the old city of Jerusalem, and their holiest site in its very center — the Temple Mount [see below] — are not for them but for the Islamic Palestinians — for according to the revised history that Obama supports — these are “illegal” settlements for the Jews. [A7News and below]

You are absolutely correct most Americans do not know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy … and that includes many of our lawmakers and most of the MSM.

Does anyone really believe a democracy will improve healthcare or racial equality? Just look at the UK …we have the worse health-care sytems in Europe and more young black men are stabbed by other black men than all other race groups combined!

The issue is not whether the President is a natural born citizen or not it is all about deception and whether or not a person loves the truth.

As the employers of the POTUS dont the american people have the right to demand the same proof? I say yes we do.

But the American people (with a capital A) do not have a right to ignore the proof once it’s been presented — or in this case, presented six separate times.

If you present proof of your citizenship to a potential employer and the employer refuses to look at it, he has no right to claim that as an issue in the hire decision. In some cases, the employer might be subject to prosecution.

Six times Obama’s made the showing that he’s eligible. There is not a shred of evidence to refute. There is no document that shows a different citizenship at any point. There is no one who has presented an affidavit of information that would invalidate Obama’s eligibility.

Since the proof has been presented, and since there is no rebuttal at all, the issue is settled. And so the courts have ruled.