SCOTUS petitioned for writ certiorari in Obama citizenship case, Obama to respond by Dec 1

For anyone who earlier asked about API's newest site, which was at Tripod...That link has again changed, and API is back at the original site at Wordpress.
(And please don't give me any stars for this link, since it seems to upset some people)

africanpress.wordpress.com...

So there are 17 different lawsuits now? How can Obama continue to sweep this under the rug?? It's amazing that he is just letting this controversy grow and grow. It's time to produce or he will never live this down. It would look a whole lot better if he produced on his own without being forced to. This is worse than the 2000 election.

reply to post by MissysWorld

---

It's a blog, what's your point? Blogs don't count for anything in the real world.

reply to post by MetatronCubensis

---

How is he sweeping it under the carpet? By following proper legal procedure?

DING DING DING DING DING DING

There are 17 lawsuits and not one person in a position to gain or lose with the power to move forward cares.

Tell you anything?

It is settled and over.

If anyone is interested, here is a link to Supreme Court Blog, which gives new filings, and daily information on cases that are being heard.
It may be just a "Blog" but its very informative
www.scotusblog.com...

reply to post by MissysWorld

---

Hey as long as you can back it up with other sources, and it does not provide opinions based off of wild speculation, there's no big deal. You can take a smart attitude if you want, but I am just trying to help you and others from looking foolish by posting up blogs as evidence.

Even Wikipedia, for the most part, cites reasonable evidence for its sources. If schools and professionals in general won't take the source, than neither should I, neither should ATS, and neither should you.

If PE Obama is declared ineligible between before dec 15, I do not believe mccain automatically "wins" the office. Obama has not been elected president yet, that will occur, barring his disqualification, on Dec 15 when teh electoral college votes. If he is inelligible to be president then I believe the electoral college can vote for whomever they wish, including HRC. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

there was a point in the past when Hillary and Obama were meeting at (correct me if I'm mistaken as it isn't an unlikely possibility that Iam!) at senator Feinstein's house, for some form of a talk and shortly thereafter Clinton withdrew even if not till later (officially at least). Now she's his head of state. Let me just say that the Clinton's are tied in tight, if shes under him then no lawsuit of any kind is going to stop him from taking office.Whomever is backing his presidency is not going to surrender it to what from a perch of power such as there's would look like a technicality in the game. If he was in a pinch the reporters would be swarming.....the lack of attention to it in the media smacks of external pressure being placed on the major news networks and press to keep their mouths shut and such a widespread black out isn't the type of thing just anyone with a LITTLE influence can do.

reply to post by difsjf

---

How can you be so sure he has the ability to lead?
If all this it true, legal citizen or not, Did you vote for sombody that doesnt heed the call of the Supreme court?
Is that the change you voted for?

Any updates on this? Past Dec 1.

I find nothing on the SCOTUS site to do with Obama other than Bergs case being denied.

The deeper I look the less I think that there is any merit to this at all.

This is worth considering on this subject and if posted already forgive please.



I've tried to keep an open mind, but?

Is there any real proof at all that the SCOTUS has taken any action whatsoever or requested anything from Obama other than the misrepresented normal notice of 30 days to respond?

I'm off the fence on this. This is nonsense started by a bad lawyer who is bilking money from people somehow through donations in my Constitutionally Protected Opinion

May the bird of paradise drop a big one on Bergs head if it turns out he is taking advantage of people.

I don't agree with Obamas politics, but this is just too much.

reply to post by Irish M1ck

---

No. Since the FEC, et. al. waiver of response, nothing has been updated. source

Very well said. I totally agree with you.
The West needs America.
It's good to know that there others out there who feel the same.
We aren't all America bashers. Hope our American friends realise this.

From a Scot who's family has been here for over 300 years, butt out! PERSONALLY, I would not mind a Conservative black, or a woman as POTUS. But NOT a frigin Communist. Especially not an illegal alien, tho that has yet to be proven in court. We don't discuss Scottish politics, and why the Romans could not beat you but the Brits did. And we won't.

I guess the previous poster, who posted scotus.com, should also listen to this. I'm being sarcastic, just so you know. You can print anything you want, and then quote it as a source, anywhere. If someone like the NY Times says something, everyone seems to take it as gospel, but you and I know that a lot of what they print is total BS. Judges and politicians are trained in the finer points of lying without stating an untruth. They are not credible. Chuck Swindle (Swindoll), the infamous evangelical pastor/author lied to me personally. Just who is credible? Certainly not you, to me. I think this whole business of quoting sources is a bunch of crap. Either the supposed statement fits in to the gestalt, or it does not. I dealt with that last night about $508 Trillion that is about to vanish out of the money supply. I read that in a financial newsletter. I don't believe it, I think it meant billion. Too much money. The gestalt. Analyze what is said based on how it fits into the grand jigsaw puzzle. If it does not fit, it must be from a different puzzle. Maybe. Obama lying fits. Obama not being a US citizen fits. The Communist Democratic Party covering it up fits. The Socialist Republicans covering it up fits. You being a troll, fits.

reply to post by Gregarious

---

No. See, there are reputable sources, then there are sources, and then there are blogs. In my opinion, blogs fall to the bottom because they almost always have a biased reason for even existing, and usually, in trying to promote their agenda, lies get strewn out all over the place.

Reputable sources, like the NY Times, may occasionally write about something based off of a misconception, but if caught, they will immediately retract the statement and generally apologize. They may print some opinions in the Opinions section, but that's about it.

Other sources, like .coms or Wikipedia, can have validity to them, but it would be wise to find a second source to back it up.

Just look at it this way:

If it can't be used in a peer-reviewed journal, or in any way scholastically, then it probably shouldn't be used as a source.