Archive for the ‘US SUPREME COURT’ Category
Fbe 19, 2011 WorldNetDaily article Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
The nation is split, those who believe that Obama is eligible to be President and those who do not. It is not important what the public believes is the case, but what the constitutional law requires.
As such in case of a major disagreement in the system by many courts is the duty of the Supreme Court to debate the case in a constitutionally interpretation of the issue at hand.
That this case is politically a very sensitive issue doe not matter to the Justices. But based in the obvious conflict of interest that this case presents it will have ramifications that could act to undermine the rule of law.
If the court acts in a perceived carelessness to the law it would affect the Moral fiber upon which the Constitution is founded on.
Nando
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897
Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
Posted: February 17, 2011
2:23 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
// <![CDATA[
function legalChars(input,fieldName){
var tfld = input.value.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/, ''); // value of field with whitespace trimmed off
var illegalChars= /[\(\)\\,\;\:\"\[\]]/ ;
if (tfld.match(illegalChars)) {
alert(‘Please enter valid characters in your ‘+fieldName+’.');
input.focus();
return false;
}
return true;
}
function mandatoryText(input,fieldName){
if(input.value == ” || input == null){
alert(‘Please enter your ‘+fieldName+’.');
input.focus();
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}
function validEmail(field,fieldName) {
with (field) {
apos=value.indexOf(“@”);
dotpos=value.lastIndexOf(“.”);
if (apos<1||dotpos-apos<2) {
alert(‘Please enter a valid ‘+fieldName+’.');
return false;
}
}
var emailFilter = /^[^@]+@[^@.]+\.[^@]*\w\w$/ ;
if (!emailFilter.test(field.value)) { //test email for illegal characters
alert(‘Please enter well-formed ‘+fieldName+’.');
input.focus();
return false;
}
return true;
}
function checkSignup(newsletterCheckbox,thisNewsletter) {
var inputs = document.emvForm.getElementsByTagName(‘input’);
for (var i=0; i
In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another “conference” on a legal challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate. The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4. It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse. Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question. At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the “motion for recusal” but it changed it on official docketing pages to a “request.” And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion. Available to order now! The definitive answer on Obama’s eligibility, in “Where’s The Birth Certificate?” by New York Times best-selling author Dr. Jerome Corsi.Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing, pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.(Story continues below)
'; _asTag+='
He also argued that if court members continue to “avoid” the dispute they effectively will “destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system.” “We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter,” Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. “A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.
 Case motion for recusal of Sotomayor and Kagan |
“Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make ‘unthinkable’ the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to ‘be’ president the issue has not gone away,” Hemenway said. “Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?” he wrote. The U.S. Supreme Court today did not respond to WND questions today about whether the two justices would participate in the conference, and there was no response to WND’s request that questions be forwarded to the justices themselves about their plans. “The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution,” Hemenway wrote in his petition for rehearing. “To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter.” That the justices are “avoiding” the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.
 Docketing information from Supreme Court |
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary. “I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.” Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office. “I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.” “And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.” “Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?” “We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.” The video: Hemenway’s arguments came in the petition for rehearing that followed the decision last month by the court not to hear the arguments. However, he pointed out in the petition for rehearing that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion. That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama. Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wanted Kagan and Sotomayor to remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.
Hemenway submitted such a motion, but since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court, the petition for rehearing argues.
“Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court,” said the document, submitted to the court.
“Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, ‘as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought … and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.’ Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners’ petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion,” Hemenway wrote.
“Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure,” the brief explains.
“If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate,” the brief states.
The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered “the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president ‘be’ a ‘natural born citizen.’”
The argument continued, “Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners’ motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase ‘natural born citizen.’
“That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country,” the filing said.
In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.
“If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law],” stated the pleading.
“Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure,” it continued.
“Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question,” it continued.
Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.
The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as “denied” with no explanation.
It appears from the court’s documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the “conference,” the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.
Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.
WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.
“Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side,” Taitz said.
At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
 |
Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.
Hollister’s case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama’s eligibility.
Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.
The petition for rehearing explains that the “certification of live birth” posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since “Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader,” was granted “the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House ‘proves’ that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii.”
It cited as an example of Obama’s disconnect from the “rule of law” his administration’s “illegal ban on offshore drilling,” which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.
“They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all,” the petition argues.
Further is the recent judge’s ruling in Florida that Obama’s health-care law is unconstitutional.
“The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened,” the argument explains.
The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.
 Judge James Robertson |
In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, “The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.”
Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.
The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a “biased” decision on “a completely extrajudicial factor” — twittering — prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.
The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve “even the appearance of impartiality.”
“It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases,” the motion said.
The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.
“Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that … respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not ‘eligible to the office of president,…’ Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition,” the motion explained.
Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.
“It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton’s orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment,” the site explains.
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been “twittered,” the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn’t allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Hollister’s concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama’s orders.
“If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders,” the pleading said.
The case doesn’t have the “standing” dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama’s eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson “found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing.”
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama’s eligibility appears to be legitimate.
Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that “he does not want the public to know.”
WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama’s eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a “natural born citizen” was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama’s father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.
Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case <I>another</i> look http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EQEk7Xyb
The docket case is listed below
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~Phone~~~ |
| Attorneys for Petitioner: | ||
| John David Hemenway | 4816 Rodman Street, NW | (202) 244-4819 |
| Washington, DC 20016 | ||
| johndhemenway@comcast.net | ||
| Party name: Gregory S. Hollister | ||
| Attorneys for Respondents: | ||
| Marc Erik Elias | Perkins Coie, LLP | (202)-434-1609 |
| Counsel of Record | 700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 600 | |
| Washington, DC 20005-3960 | ||
| melias@perkinscoie.com | ||
| Party name: Barry Soetoro, et al. | ||
Mike Curtiss (2 Nov 2010) “Our New Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble with SCOTUS”
Mr. Obama and his administration have gotten away with blatantly breaking the law in a number of ways and times. This whole disregard for the law(the lawless one) will soon start changing with today’s election and as the article here implies with the US Supreme Court of the United States of America.
http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/nov2010/mikec112.htm
Mike Curtiss (2 Nov 2010)
“Our New Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble with SCOTUS“
Dear Doves,
Not less than 2 weeks ago, I predicted the coming collision between the Judicial Branch and the Executive. The outcome will determine the fate of the Republic. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem and our nation. Eagles Up Sister’s and Brother’s
Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.
Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.
Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.
The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s not true,’when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.
As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years. Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’
Apparently, the Court has had enough.
The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.
First
there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.
In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’
Second
sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.
And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third,
several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court.Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.
Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona.
That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.
And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party.
The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.
A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.
This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling–that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
August 5, 2010 Elena Kagan tied to Obama’s birth certificate
Elena Kagan is linked to the denials in the US Supreme court to hear the case of Obama’s citizenship.
Great article.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=187797
BORN IN THE USA?
Elena Kagan tied to Obama’s birth certificate
‘It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn’t it?
Posted: August 04, 2010
10:55 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
// <![CDATA[
function legalChars(input,fieldName){
var tfld = input.value.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/, ''); // value of field with whitespace trimmed off
var illegalChars= /[\(\)\\,\;\:\"\[\]]/ ;
if (tfld.match(illegalChars)) {
alert(‘Please enter valid characters in your ‘+fieldName+’.');
input.focus();
return false;
}
return true;
}
function mandatoryText(input,fieldName){
if(input.value == ” || input == null){
alert(‘Please enter your ‘+fieldName+’.');
input.focus();
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}
function validEmail(field,fieldName) {
with (field) {
apos=value.indexOf(“@”);
dotpos=value.lastIndexOf(“.”);
if (apos<1||dotpos-apos<2) {
alert(‘Please enter a valid ‘+fieldName+’.');
return false;
}
}
var emailFilter = /^[^@]+@[^@.]+\.[^@]*\w\w$/ ;
if (!emailFilter.test(field.value)) { //test email for illegal characters
alert(‘Please enter well-formed ‘+fieldName+’.');
input.focus();
return false;
}
return true;
}
function checkSignup(newsletterCheckbox,thisNewsletter) {
var inputs = document.emvForm.getElementsByTagName(‘input’);
for (var i=0; i
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.
Here’s the connection. Kagan served as solicitor general of the United States from March 2009 until May of this year.
In that role, she legally represented the U.S. government in numerous cases coming before the Supreme Court.
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.
 Searching the dockets at the U.S. Supreme Court’s website reveals Elena Kagan’s name coming up numerous times on cases challenging President Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office. (Supreme Court screenshot with name highlighted by WND, Aug. 4, 2010) |
Docket No, 09-724, for instance, comes up with this in the search result:
Title: The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., Petitioner v. Federal Election Commission, et al. Reply of petitioner The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. filed. The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. Elena Kagan
(Story continues below)
| //
&lt;script language=”JavaScript” type=”text/javascript”&gt; document.write(‘&lt;a href=”http://clk.atdmt.com/INV/go/249561002/direct/01/” target=”_blank”&gt;&lt;img src=”http://view.atdmt.com/INV/view/249561002/direct/01/”/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;’); &lt;/script&gt;&lt;noscript&gt;&lt;a href=”http://clk.atdmt.com/INV/go/249561002/direct/01/” target=”_blank”&gt;&lt;img border=”0″ src=”http://view.atdmt.com/INV/view/249561002/direct/01/” /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/noscript&gt;
|
//
|
Clicking on any of the dockets reveals who the original petitioners were, as well as what proceedings and orders were issued in each case. Here’s another docket, with Jamal Kiyemba v. Barack H. Obama.
 Elena Kagan’s name is noted as solicitor general for cases involving Obama’s consdtitutional eligibility. (Supreme Court screenshot with name highlighted by WND, Aug. 4, 2010) |
The fact Kagan handled these cases and is now Obama’s first choice for the high court is raising some eyebrows.
“She was the solicitor general for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural-born citizenship,” notes WND reader Carl Jorgensen of Farmingdale, N.J. “He owes her big time.”
“All of the requests were denied of course,” Jorgensen continued. “They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn’t it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It’s all about payback time for those that compromised themselves to elect someone that really has no true right to even be there. We should be getting so sick of all of this nonsense. The USA has finally become the laughing stock of the world. God help and deliver us.”
 |
Related offers:
Make yourself a walking billboard! Wear the T-shirt that demands eligibility proof from Obama …
Have you signed the petition that started it all?
Get the most comprehensive special report ever produced on the Obama eligibility issue.
Previous stories:
THE FULL STORY: See listing of more than 200 exclusive WND reports on the eligibility issue
July 12, 2010 VERY QUIETLY OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT
A friend of mine sent this e-mail to me today.
Copy the article and send it to other people.
Nando
VERY QUIETLY OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
AP – WASHINGTON 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 school indicates that Obama, under the name
Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia
as an undergraduate. 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. Along with the evidence that he was first born
in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship,
this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White
House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and
qualification to serve as President article titled, “Obama Eligibility
Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic
issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under
growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced
that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s
legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio
of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him
from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought
by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to
serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the
results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study
estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past
year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block
disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the
investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the
U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on
the matter…
LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON’T !
Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?
While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth
issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can
be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use
when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without
the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price
of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and
Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and
Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions,
they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a
rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S… Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S… State Department’s
“no travel” list in 1981.
Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either
with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that
he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if
he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove
that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or
American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he
managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by
his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented
to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
If you Don’t care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and
in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your
American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on
life-support, and won’t survive much longer.
If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you
can, because our country is being looted and ransacked!
(March 16, 2009) Taitz vs Obama US Supreme Court
Today in fivedoves.com the case of Taitz vs Obama was resurrected. follow the link below.
http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/march2009/jim316-1.htm
Jim Bramlett (16 March 2009)
“Fiery Orly Taitz, a Blonde Russian-Born Attorney“
Blonde Russian-Born Attorney Tenaciously Pursues Justice Over Obama Citizenship
I Did It. Justice Roberts Agreed to read all of my documents
http://www.defendourfreedoms.us/
by Orly Taitz, esq.
March 14, 2009
Yesterday I traveled to Idaho. I was able to address Chief Justice Roberts during the question answer session after his lecture. There were numerous cameras recording this event and simultaneous feed broadcast to all the campuses of the University of Idaho. Roughly 5,000 people in all the campuses had an opportunity to hear what I had to say, it is in video archives and now everybody knows the truth and knows that leftist media thugs such as Seattle Washington Observer shamelessly twist the truth to fit their Pro Obama blind idiot agenda.
It was a grueling day, I left home at 3 in the morning after sleeping only 3 hours and drove to San Diego, from there flew to Salt Lake City, from there to Tacoma, Washington, from there I drove for a couple of hours to be in Moscow Idaho, to address Chief Justice Roberts. After the lecture the audience was told, that they can ask questions, give their name and present a shot question.
I was the first to run to the microphone and told Roberts. ” My name is Orly Taitz, I am an attorney from Southern California. I left home at three o’clock in the morning and flew and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and ask you a question”. Roberts seemed to be impressed by that and I continued. “Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States. I have submitted my case Lightfoot v Bowen to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all 9 Justices on January 23.
Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief, he has hidden it from you and refused to post it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket, completely erased one day after the inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. On Monday I saw Justice Scalia and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case, that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd.
It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you Justice Roberts demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be the President of the United States.” At that point I have shown to Roberts a stack of papers, that I held. Those were my pleadings and printouts that I got from WorldNetDaily. It contained your names, names of about 350,000 that signed the petition. (there were others that have written individual letters,) ..
Roberts stated “I will read your documents, I will review them. Give them to my Secret Service Agent and I will review them”. His Secret Service Agent approached me and stated ” Give me all the documents, I promise you Justice Roberts will get them”. I had a full suitcase of documents. The agent went to look for a box, he found a large box to fit all the documents, he showed me his badge, and introduced himself as Gilbert Shaw, secret Service Agent assigned to the security of Chief Justice Roberts.
I gave him:
- Motion for reconsideration of Lightfoot v Bowen with all the supplemental briefs.
- Quo Warranto Easterling et al v Obama et al
- 3300 pages of your names, people that signed WorldNetDaily petition, demanding that the Supreme Court hear Obama elligibility case.
Copy of a 164 page dossier and all the other documents sent to Eric Holder, Attorney General, describing suspected criminal activity, associated with Obama and his supporters. It described a whole campaign of cyber crimes, intimidation, harassment, defamation and assassination of character, impersonation of US army officer Scott Easterling and impersonation of me, it showed screen shots of information being erased from the docket of the Supreme Court, it contained information of court cases being created, fabricated in order to commit voter fraud and sway public opinion, it contained a list of a 100 addresses for Barack Obama with numerous different social security numbers, issued all over the country and attached to those addresses. It showed the address Obama used in Somerville Massachusetts, attached to the social security of a man who is 118 years old. It showed evidence of Obama committing perjury, lying under oath. It had his school registration from Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia, religion Muslim. Right after this page there was a page of Obama’s registration to become an attorney and officer of the court in Illinois, where he stated under oath that his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he had no other prior names. It contained a report from a federal agent Steven Coffman, stating that there are numerous signs of forgery in his Selective Service Certificate. It contained a letter from a renown expert Sandra Line, stating that there are signs of forgery in Obama’s short version Certification of Live Birth, and original birth certificate needs to be reviewed in order to ascertain his status. It contained 130 current job positions for Barry Obama, Barack H. Obama and Michelle Obama, that were obtained from Intellius Jobs.com. None of them were reported on Obamas’ tax returns. All of these documents suggest possible massive tax fraud, corruption of a public official, bribery and massive campaign contributions fraud, whereby large campaign contributions, over allowed limits were reported as fictitious positions with different companies, not surprisingly involving most mainstream media outlets. These need to be reviewed in light of a pattern, I’ve seen previously. For example, as a State Senator Obama arranged for his friend Robert Blackwell from killerspin to get a grant of $320,000 of our taxpayers money for his ping-pong tournaments. In exchange Blackwell gave Obama back roughly a third, $100,000 in the form of a salary. Similarly Obama arranged for Chicago university hospital to get $1 million grant of our taxpayer money and they gave him back roughly a third $357,000 in the form of a board salary for his wife Michelle for working 20 hours a week, even though Michelle was totally worthless as a board member since she had zero medical education and her law licence is on a mandatory inactive status (I wonder why).
I am writing this in a hurry, ready to leave my hotel room, finishing yesterday’s dinner leftovers and ready to board a plane for a grueling flight back home. I’ll add one more detail. As one of the announcers introduced Roberts, he stated that Roberts has his priorities straight. He described an event when Roberts missed most of a reception because he wanted to be there for his young son, at the sports tournament where his son was participating. He described Roberts as a caring and loving father.
At that point I was just about ready to cry. I have 3 sons, I love them too and I would love to be there, attending their events. I am a proud parent. My oldest son scored in top one percent in the Nation in PSATs and he is in an IVY league school studying to be a doctor. He is also a gifted comedian, who formed a stand up comedy improve group and I would love to see him perform. My wo younger sons are great students. My middle son has a beautiful low bass Elvis Presley voice, he sings opera and I would love to hear him perform.
My youngest son is a top student taking 5AP classes in tenth grade, gifted mathematician and basketball player, I would love to see him get academic awards and play basketball. I missed time with my children, time that will never come back because a am criss-crossing this country talking to Justices of the Supreme court, Representatives, Senators, FBI agents, Attorney Generals, US attorneys, telling all of them, what is wrong with you?
Did some evil magician put a spell on the men in this country and they stopped being men? Why are you afraid to speak up, to stand up for you constitution? Why are you afraid to tell this arrogant jerk from Africa and Indonesia- You need to go home, you cannot be a president and commander in chief because you are not a Natural born Citizen. To be a Natural born Citizen you have to have both parents as citizens. Your father was never a US citizen and you don’t qualify and you also spit us in the face by refusing to unseal your vital records.
There is no proof that you are even a citizen. For all we know, you need to go back to Kenya and wait for your green card, and that after we try you for all the crimes perpetrated upon American citizens. I hope Justice Roberts teaches his son that he is a descendant of people that were real men and fought in Alamo and at Valley Forge. Chief Justice Roberts has a right to issue a stay and appoint Joe Biden a president pro-tempore until Obama proves his qualifications or until a new president is chosen. I hope Roberts teaches his son by example and not by empty words.
Make sure you go below and read these three postings they are more important than the present post.
You will need March 2 to fully understand March 1 link.
March 2 ,2009 More Numbers
March 1, 2009 Obama Antichrist in Genesis link follows.
http://www.fivedoves.com/rapture/2008/obama_666_part5.html
March 3 ,2009 Obama Antichrist Readers Digest
(Feb 17, 2009) Obama Threatens Keyes and Other Eligibility Plaintiffs
THERE WAS A POSTING TODAY IN fivedoves.com THAT SEND ME TO THE KEYES WEB SITE. HE IS ONE OF THE PERSONS THAT HAS CHALLENGED OBAMA’S BIRTH PROOF IN THE SUPREME COURT.
http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-threatens-keyes-and-other.html
(Feb 15, 2009) Obama and the pending court cases.
A few weeks back I published a letter stating that I had seen a license plate with the number 555 and another with the 777 and another with the 77. After I thought that the case numbers in the US Supreme Court Order # 555 was the reference to the plates and that the case of Berg against Obama at that time was going to bear fruit, which it did not . Today I went to Mr. Bergs web site and found that he has three other cases pending, but what caught my attention is the following.
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court #12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
http://www.obamacrimes.info/
As you can see his address is 555 Andorra… and he is pursuing cases that will eventually go to the Supreme Court. Now I think that the double incidence of the cases being 555 and the address was what God was calling my attention too. My interpretation is that Mr. Berg will be successful in the Court which this year carries the number 555 for all its cases.
http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/jan2009/nando113-1.htm
Also I have read about the # 555 relating to Obama. Time will tell and a short one at that.
| Welcome to Obama Crimes |
|
This website was created after research indicated that Barack Obama is not a “natural born” citizen or a Citizen of the United States as required by the United States Constitution to be eligible for the Office of President. Former Deputy State Attorney General, Attorney Philip J. Berg filed a lawsuit against Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee. This case is now pending at the U. S. Supreme Court. The United States Constitution The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: …No Person except a natural born Citizen …….. shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. (words were removed for clarification purposes only) This full page advertisement was run in the Washington Times Weekly on November 17, 2008 and December 6, 2008 and Human Events on December 6, 2008. This advertisement can be used by you to express your concern about this matter to your public representatives. We have pending three [3] other cases because we are determined, no matter how long it takes, to expose Obama’s “Hoax” on the 305 million people in our country, that Obama is “not qualified” pursuant to our U.S. Constitution to be President. Three cases are still pending on this issue: Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340 Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court Hollister vs. Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Docket # 08-02254 Case filed 12/31/08, Defendants answer is pending |
Nando
Jim Bramlett (30 Jan 2008) “The continuing saga of Soetoro’s eligibility”
Jim Bramlett (30 Jan 2008)
“The continuing saga of Soetoro’s eligibility“
Dear friends:
The fight to expose Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama) as a pretender and not a natural-born U.S. citizen is not going away until or unless he produces a legal and authentic birth certificate and not a phony one. The fact that he refuses is one of the major reasons for suspicion.
The latest effort I am aware of is that of Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S., a Russian-born California dentist and attorney, who speaks 5 languages. Dr. Taitz is a very feisty, bright, and tenacious woman and I know she is not going away, unless carried away, as were many of Bill Clinton’s opponents. Pray for her safety. At Obama’s level of power, strong and ruthless forces are behind him and they will do anything to prevent being denied of power.
Her Web site is at http://drorly.blogspot.com/. Her latest effort is to force the U.S. Supreme Court to release the records of a suspicious “private” meeting of eight of the nine justices with Barry Soetoro just before the inauguration. This doesn’t smell right to me. See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87270.
The public needs to know what that meeting was all about. You will not hear it in the news media. What if the U.S. Supreme Court is conspiring with Soetoro to hide the truth? That would be the mother of all conspiracies! Based on the “honorable” Court’s actions on this case so far, I would not doubt it.
Dr. Taitz says the behavior of the news media during the election was worse than that of the government-controlled behavior of the media during the Soviet era. She is fighting to try to avoid what she experienced in her country of birth happening in America, her beloved country of choice. You can watch her at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DrOrlyTaitz&view=videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir8c0nrW_cY
Don’t lose hope but keep praying that the truth will come out, regardless of the consequences. Too many people have bled and died for our Constitution to trash it in the first years of the 21st Century.
Jim
(jan 29, 2009) US Supreme Court in colusion with Obama ? Dr. Orly Taitz case 08A524
The info on this posting at fivedoves.com is very interesting and brings a new angle to the Supreme Court cases against Mr. Obama.
Nando
Frank R Molver (28 Jan 2009)
“follow up on Obama citizenship case“
You never know.
Dear fellow Americans and Patriots,
As you probably know, in my case Lightfoot v Bowen I filed a petition for emergency stay and asked it to be treated as a writ of certiorari based on Bush v Gore 2000 precedent. The Supreme Court has logged this petition as an application for stay pending filing a writ of certiorari. Since they denied the emergency petition today, it gives me an opportunity to file immediately the actual Writ of Certiorari and it will be done within a few days.
However, a number of things have transpired lately.
First, an ex-parte private closed door meeting between 8 out of 9 Justices of the Supreme Court (Justice Samuel Alito was not present) with Mr. Barry Soetoro-Barack Hussein Obama. I will file a motion to the Chief Jastice to compel the records of this private meeting, that was held only a few days before my case was supposed to be heard, where the plaintiffs state that Mr. Soetoro-Obama is illegitimate for presidency due to the fact that his father was a foreign subject and there is no evidence that Mr. Obama was really born in Hawaii, since the state of Hawaii statute 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian certification of live birth and such certification can be obtained based on an affidavit of one relative only. In spite of 32 legal actions filed around the country, Mr. Soetoro-Obama refused to provide his original birth certificate that is sealed in Hawaii, no hospital in Hawaii could find any records of Mr. Obama ever being born there and affidavits were given by a number of parties in Kenya, stating that he was born in Kenya. We believe that Mr. Obama has spent over $800,000 on numerous attorneys to keep his original birth certificate sealed, because the original vault birth certificate does not provide any corroborating evidence from any hospital about him being born there.
Additionally, Mr. Obama has immigrated to Indonesia as a child with his mother and step-father Lolo Soetoro and his school records from Indonesia show his legal name to be Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia. Due to the fact that Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Mr. Soetoro -Obama’s parents had to relinquish his US citizenship in order to obtain his Indonesian Citizenship. There is ample evidence that Mr. Soetoro-Obama has travelled on his Indonesian passport up to the time he became US Senator, whereby he reaffirmed his Indonesian citizenship as an adult.
The swearing of Mr. Obama is null and void due to the fact that he was sworn in on a name that is not legally his name and he is a foreign subject from birth and now and never qualified as a Natural Born US Citizen.
On Wednesday, January the 21st, when the Supreme Court reopened for business after inauguration, somebody deleted from the external docket all information about my case. Millions of people around the country and around the world watched that docket. A number of concerned parties have called the Supreme Court and got no explanation. Other cases were on the docket. Finally, information about my case was re-entered on the docket. I will be demanding from the Chief Justice John Roberts an immediate full investigation, as to how the information about a case of National and World importance, dealing with Mr Soetoro- Obama’s illegitimacy for Presidency, disappeared from the docket of the Supreme Court. Incidentally an article about me and the cases I am handling, has disappeared from the Wikipedia. A copy of this letter will be forwarded to the Congressional and Senatorial Judicial committees for full investigation and hearing as well as FBI and US attorney’s offices.
I would ask all of the citizens that observed this disappearing and reappearing of information on the docket of SCOTUS to write affidavits to that extend. Please go to the nearest UPS store. They usually have notary public on the premises. Have your signature notarised and have the affidavit scanned and e-mailed to me.
Watergate investigation started with a small hotel braking. Obamagate Congressional and Senatorial investigation will start with this breaking into the computer system of the Supreme Court of the United States and illegal deletion of all the information about my case from the external public docket.
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
dr_taitz@yahoo.com
drorly.blogspot.com
Lisa (22 Jan 2009) “A Letter from Scott Walkington”
After I posted the letter before this post I went out to eat dinner, came back home and watch Bones for two episodes, at 10 PM I went to the site of five.doves.com and read this letter that was posted there. It is written by Mr. Walkington. Very interesting, I will wait and see but I beleive him until proven wrong.
Lisa (22 Jan 2009)
“A Letter from Scott Walkington“
Hi Lisa!
Thanks for your email of encouragement. I got a lot of negative email last week. Today has been quiet. Mostly emails of encouragement.
Something you may find of interest though. Last week I prayed, asking the Lord if I was misquoting Him. I got no response. I asked if I was doing wrong. No response. I even asked for forgiveness if I doing something against His will. Still no response. Everything I asked, I got no response. Finally Saturday night, I decided that I wasn’t asking the right questions. So I asked if He wanted me to stop talking about this story since I surely must have misunderstood or did He want me to continue speaking about this story. Finally I got this response, “Patience. Just be patient.”
Today a minister/friend from the St. Louis area called and asked how I was feeling. I told him what I just said. He said he had some words of encouragement. In the St. Louis newspaper today, there is a story about Chief Justice John Roberts starting the case against Obama’s birth certificate in Supreme Court on January 23rd. On January 26th is the official date that documents would be signed making the President, officially President. That date will be put on hold until his birth certificate and his citizenship can be proven. As their newspaper said, according to this minister, if the Chief Justice finds Obama not a legal US citizen, then this whole Inaugeration Day was a sham and, according to the Constitution, Bush would automatically become President.
I have seen so many times when our Lord will hold things out till the longest time possible. I believe it is His way of testing us, testing our faith in Him. But remember, I’ve always said that things may be different than we’re expecting or completely take us off guard.
When Jesus described the Second Sign (which became 9/11/01) to me, I imagined fighter jets and missiles. I never dreamed it would be passenger jets.
When the Fifth Sign was beginning, our troops were in Kuwait waiting for orders to cross the border into Iraq. Afterwhile though, it looked like Bush might call off the war and bring the troops back home. Everyone here at home thought I had missed it…missunderstood. I began to believe the same thing. Folks called me phoney, stupid, ignorant, as well as unmentionable names, made jokes about me. On a Wednesday night or Thursday night (or don’t remember which), I was working at a Presbyterian church where I was organist, pianist and choir director. The pastor and some of the congregation knew about my heaven experience. The night we had choir rehearsal at about 8:30 pm the choir was getting tired so I decided to adjourn rehearsal. The pastor decided to close with prayer. Right at that very moment, I remember hearing the Lord speak to me, “The war has started.” For some reason I never heard the pastor’s prayer. When everyone looked up, the choir members exclaimed, what’s wrong Scott, are you okay, are you feeling okay. It must have been the look on my face. I told them that the Lord had spoke to me, that the war had started. Most of them including the pastor did not believe me. A few said they would check their TV or radio. It was exactly 8:30 PM Central Time. Afterwards when I got home, my mother was watching TV. She said, “Tom Brokaw just came on with a news bulletin that the troops crossed the border at 9:30 PM Eastern Time (which of course would be the same time as 8:30 PM Central Time).” That gave me chills. Then on Sunday morning at church, the Presbyterian pastor said he had not prepared a sermon for wartime and asked me to take the pulpit and explain to the congregation why we were in war.
What I find interesting though, within the last two months since my story went on the internet, I have talked to about a dozen others who have had the same heaven experience as mine. All were told the same seven signs, including the part about the president-elect not getting into office. A lady minister from John Hagee Ministries (Cornerstone Church, San Antonio, TX) told me that another minister that works there, Jessie Duplantis, had the same heaven experience about 2 or 3 years ago. He told John Hagee about it and mentioned that Jesus said that the president-elect would not make it into office (exactly what I was told). So I think, if there was at least a dozen of us (and who knows how many more who have never come forward) with this same experience, how could we have got this so wrong or misinterpretted the same way. And then if you forget about the president-elect part, just think about this one statement that Jesus gave us back then, “The president you know right now is the last president you will know at the time of the rapture,” how many different ways can you/we re-interpret this?
So I believe whether or not this court hearing is the Seventh Sign or not, we must do as He told me. Just be patient. Although it is human nature to try to figure it out, we must wait and see what the Lord has in store for us. As one of my aunts put it, “If God told us everything He was going to do, He wouldn’t be much of a God, would He?”
Just be patient.
God bless,
Scott
