Twelve Books – Rapture, Antichrist, False Prophet, End Time Signs, Bible Prophecy, Nando

End Times Bible Prophecy News and Articles

Archive for the ‘US SUPREME COURT’ Category

June 25, 2016 America is now in danger of Judgment last message given by Jonathan Cahn

As is it is his calling, Jonathan Cahn has delivered another detailed message outlining the economic effects of the Shemitah year that ended in 2015.

This year is probably a Jubilee year and as such a pivotal year in the plan of God for the redemption of His people Israel and the gentiles that will hear His call in the future.

s you all know the UK left the EU with disastrous economic repercussions the same day in the whole world. Is this the pattern of downturn that can be expected on this Jubilee year to prepare the world for the restoration of planet earth to the dominion of Jesus Christ at the end of the seven year Apocalypse?

Am I seeing things negatively of realistically as this drama unfolds? Will being positive or negative alter reality or just alter your personal reality to save or doom you?

If you are not following Jesus that will affect you negatively and doom you forever.

Nando

Nando

Nando end

 

 

 

 

 

Oct 21, 2015 Shemitah year 2014-2015 update by Jonathan Cahn

This is an important video update by the discoverer of the Shemitah (Sabbatical year) mystery. For those of you reading this and do not know Jonathan Cahn and what the Shemitah year is please use this blog or the internet to research it more. In this post I will also include a link to another video referred by BG Ellis about the lingering effects of the Shemitah just ended and the ramifications of the year of Jubilee just started.

Jesus Christ is at the door, are you ready to be in His presence if He comes now?

Nando

Nando

Nando end

Aug 10, 2015 A recent message to America from Jonathan Cahn

The post by Joe Wise brings us very wise and important words and wisdom from Joe and Jonathan Cahn as well as a short clip of a young girl’s rap for Jesus Christ. All are very good and thanks to Joe! Nando http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/aug2015/joew89.htm Joe Wise (9 Aug 2015) Jonathan Cahn’s compelling message to America!


THE SEVENTH SHEMITAH 
AND
THE HARBINGERS LEADING UP TO IT
THAT COULD HOLD THE SECRET OF 
AMERICA’S FUTURE,
 THE WORLD’S FUTURE,
 AND
 YOUR FUTURE
For those of you who couldn’t be there live last Wednesday,
here is the message from Jonathan Cahn.
I
STRONGLY
encourage you to watch it ASAP!
His message details the correlation between
America and Israel
as it relates to completed (fulfilled) Harbingers (Isaiah 9:10)
stemming from their rebellion and refusal to repent!
Remember:
 Jesus fulfilled the Spring Feasts to the very day and hour!
The Fall Feasts begin with the Feast of Trumpets at Sunset
Elul 29 ( September 13, 2015).
This is the same day the Shemitah ends at Sunset
and the same day
the Sun will be darkened by a partial Solar Eclipse!
Jonathan
 further explains historical events
 that have taken place during Shemitah years past,
 Super Shemitah’s, (Year of Jubilee),and on the exact day of Elul 29!
Jonathan points out
 God is not in a box!
He isn’t required to do anything
 on Elul 29 or the Feasts this year!
However,
 if Gods Judgments have been determined for America,
He is a God of Order,
and it makes sense His Judgments
will take place at the appointed times,
His Feasts!
POSSIBLY
THIS FALL!
ARE YOU READY?
The
GOOD NEWS IS
There is still time to:
 Repent! Get right with God!
 Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
 Share the Gospel
and store up treasure in Heaven!
“Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and
understand what he is saying to the churches.
Whoever is victorious will not be harmed by the second death. –
Revelation 2:11 NLT
I recommend reading the rest of chapter 2
Please forward to every American you know!
BLESSINGS!
YouTube
YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO WATCH
Jonathan Cahn’s inaugural prayer breakfast speech 2013
or
this 1 minute 41 second fun rap sermon from 2010
(not Jonathan)

For His Glory, Honor, & Praise, Joe Wise

Nando end

June 30, 2015 The danger of mocking God

God has always been the ruler and King of the Nations of the world but in His wisdom He has aloud Satan to rule under His authority the Kingdoms of this world ever since the fall of men. This rule of Satan is not absolute as the Holy Spirit opposes evil and acts through the church to do its work.

As the time of the end to Satan’s rule (6,000 years since Adam) comes to its close we see the hand of God easing its grip and permitting evil to gain the upper hand until the mystery of lawlessness or iniquity is destroyed forever.

Satan will be allowed to take full control of all the kingdoms of the world during the seven years of the soon here Apocalypse. His delusion of winning this epic millennial battle will be reinforced as he sees the fruit of this long effort appear to bear fruit. Christians are killed in masses in the middle east and persecuted elsewhere. It is ironic that some denominations and amilenialist belief that the church will conquer evil and be the instrument that brings the kingdom promised by God, thus taking the glory that belongs to Jesus Christ only. It is He Jesus who is given the scroll of the seven seals and is He alone who controls the destiny of the Universe and its ruler-ship.

From day one of the Tribulation we see the two witnesses giving the rebellious world a testimony of the truth of salvation and the evil of the Antichrist. Soon after God seals 144,000 descendants of Israel to be His priests and proclaim the message of the coming Kingdom of God. In His mercy the world is not left without a testimony of the true ruler of the Universe.

Sin is prevalent in all of us and when people of God sin and they repent the blood of Jesus blots away the sin as if it never existed. Believers who abide in sin suffer chastisement and correction to correct their behavior. When non believers dwell in sin they exhibit judgment and punishment. When nations go against the word of God such nations exhibit judgment or destruction.

An article by Dan Payne in Rapture Ready illustrates these points further and more precisely.

Nando

http://www.raptureready.com/soap2/payne49.html

Thou Bald Head

By Dan Payne

“Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, ‘Go up, you bald head! Go up, you bald head!’ So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths” (2 Kings 2:23-24).

When I was younger I used to think that those youths suffered a very harsh punishment just for the crime of mocking an old man. Well as you already know, they suffered very swift and severe consequences for publicly blaspheming God Almighty as represented by His prophet Elisha.

In the verses just prior to the verses quoted above, Elisha made the emphatic statement: “Thus says the Lord,” after he brought healing to the water source of the city of Jericho.

Everyone in ancient Israel knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that the beloved prophet Elisha represented God’s presence on earth at that time. Even the elders and kings would tremble when one of God’s prophets came to visit them:

“And Samuel did that which the Lord spake, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming” (1 Samuel 16:4a).

The sons of the prophets had just bowed down before Elisha before he cast salt into the waters of Jericho:

“Now when the sons of the prophets who were from Jericho saw him, they said, ‘The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha.’ And they came to meet him, and bowed to the ground before him” (2 Kings 2:15).

When those youths mocked Elisha they were mocking God Almighty in full view of the public. They committed full public blasphemy against the God of Israel.

Well just fast-forward to today and we all know full well who represents the presence of the God of the Bible on this earth in human form: The members of the true Church who maintain the testimony of Jesus Christ within whom His Holy Spirit dwells.

The world knows full well that all who maintain the testimony of Jesus Christ as their Messiah and Savior are worshiping the true God. If you want to know how you can prove this concept, just look at how many times those who claim to represent the God of the Bible also say that Jesus Christ in the only way to salvation.

Many may quote Bible verses and mention the Name of Jesus here and there but if they don’t unashamedly and proudly declare that Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), then they are false teachers, preachers, and politicians.

They condemn themselves as false because they claim to represent the God of the Bible while at the same time they deny Jesus Christ as the Messiah and the only way to salvation.

That means that the voices of those who stand alone against the vile immorality of this country while maintaining their testimony of Jesus represent the voice of God Almighty Himself. The atheists, the gays, and all the liberals know that we who stand alone on the Word of God represent the real Creator God. The White House and the Supreme Court know it, too.

When they openly and publicly condemn and mock the true Church, they are in full knowledge that they are publicly mocking God to His face.

The farther mankind moves away from respect of the morality of the Word of God, the closer they move toward fitting the description of Romans chapter 1.

“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting” (Romans 1:26-28).

And they are also moving closer toward the judgment that is also described in Romans Chapter 1:8 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”

Just like Elisha, we who are few in number but yet speak out for the truth of God and the Bible against infanticide, against sodomy, and in full support of the nation of Israel say a collective: “Thus says the Lord.”

In light of the “decisions” of the week of June 26th, 2015, and in light of God’s track record of not letting those who openly blaspheme His Word go unpunished, I’m convinced that an exceedingly great shaking is about to tremble not only across America, but also across the entire planet.

I pray that the Father has compassion and mercy on those of us left who still maintain our testimony of His beloved Son Jesus Christ as our Savior. May we humbly let our lights shine before men until we are taken home.

Nando end

Neil Lipken (11 Feb 2013) “U.S. Supreme Court to look at Obama eligibility to be President on Feb. 15th, 2013!”

The article below is the latest attempt by determined lawyers to bring Obama in front of the Supreme Court. The powerful people behind this person will make this latest attempt fail again.

The US has permitted through evilness or ignorance for the Antichrist Obama to be reelected president. It is my opinion that God has allowed this to happen to fulfill the prophecies of the end times.

Nando

Neil Lipken (11 Feb 2013)
U.S. Supreme Court to look at Obama eligibility to be President on Feb. 15th, 2013!


Maybe, just maybe, something will come out of this?!  It would be awesome if it did, but so far Obama has successfully covered his tracks, and like teflon, everything seems to fall off of him!  But would smilin’ Joe Biden be any better of a President?!  And make no mistake about it, the New World Order would roll out their plans for America through Joe Biden just as they are doing through Obama now!

Neil
P.S.  Mr. Obama said very recently that “America has no spending problems”!  Really?!  Obama has watched over America spending 6 trillion it does not have in his first four years!  One of the goals of the New World Order is indeed to bankrupt America so America will go quietly into the coming global government.  That is why their stooge says that America has no spending problems!

Nando

The following is the docket in the US Supreme Court.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a606.htm

No. 12A606
Title:
Edward Noonan, et al., Applicants
v.
Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed: December 13, 2012
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
  Case Nos.: (S207078)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 11 2012 Application (12A606) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 13 2012 Application (12A606) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 26 2012 Application (12A606) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 9 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Jan 9 2013 Application (12A606) referred to the Court.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy (949) 683-5411
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA  92688
Party name: Edward Noonan, et al.
Attorneys for Respondent:
Kamala Harris Attorney General (916) 445-9555
P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA  94244-2550
Party name: Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State

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

U.S. President Barack Obama (R) delivers remarks at the Chrysler Indiana Transmission Plant II in Kokomo, Indiana on November 23, 2010. Obama along with Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Kokomo as part of their White House to Main Street tour of areas helped by the Recovery Act and auto industry bailout.   UPI/Brian Kersey Photo via Newscom

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)

 

 

 

// 

//

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.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the fourth day of her confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on July 16, 2009. UPI/Kevin Dietsch Photo via Newscom

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.'”

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, President Obama's pick to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, testifies during the second day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 29, 2010. UPI/Kevin Dietsch Photo via Newscom

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

No. 10-678
Title:
Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.
Docketed: November 23, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-5080)
Decision Date: March 22, 2010
Rehearing Denied: August 23, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 23, 2010)
Nov 22 2010 Appendix of Gregory S. Hollister filed. (Volumes I, II, III)
Dec 22 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barry Soetoro, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 29 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 14, 2011.
Dec 30 2010 Request for recusal received from petitioner.
Jan 18 2011 Petition DENIED.
Feb 7 2011 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Feb 16 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2011.

~~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.

Nando

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.

Written by twelvebooks

November 2, 2010 at 4:43 pm