Thursday, January 28, 2010


Supreme Court justices sit stoically as Democratic leaders behind them rise Wednesday night to applaud President Obama's attack on the court's recent...

Supreme Court justices sit stoically as Democratic leaders behind them rise Wednesday night to applaud President Obama's attack on the court's recent decision re campaign contributions.


The Court: In Mel Brooks' "Silent Movie," the pantomimist Marcel Marceau hilariously uttered the film's only audible word — "Non!" — when asked if he'd appear in it. The State of the Union contained such a moment.

Thanks to Justice Samuel Alito, who merely mouthed what appeared to be the words "Not true," the president's sense of decorum — not to mention his celebrated grasp of constitutional law — was called into question. Hilariously, too.

In the chilly House chamber, the president was somewhere in the middle of his stemwinder when he arrived at the sentences on his teleprompter written to attack the Supreme Court.
"With all due deference to the separation of powers," he began, "(the court last week) reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."

The berobed justices, as they traditionally do, sat directly in front of him, keeping straight-faced, their hands motionless so as not to betray an actionable opinion. All, that is, except Alito, who seemed to be channeling the spirit of Marceau.

He couldn't contain it, the cameras caught it, and within minutes of the speech's end the scene went viral. It's now the single most memorable moment from a night of rhetorical excess that only Alito's silent gesture could punctuate.

Now Washington's keepers of decorum are tut-tutting Alito's federalist-mannered reaction, finding it almost as scandalous as Republican Rep. Joe Wilson's shout of "You lie!" as the president was similarly explaining his policies last September.

We all know the footnote to that outburst: Wilson apologized but reaped huge rewards from sympathetic financial contributors.

Alito is not positioned to receive contributions, which leads to a key difference: The long-established protocol at State of the Union events is that the justices, even there exercising judicial restraint, appear as a matter of courtesy.

Likewise, the Joint Chiefs of Staff show up, sitting stony-faced as presidents occasionally set impossibly naive missions for them.

Only senators and representatives are, by tradition, allowed to whoop it up in response to the president's oratory.

So when Obama targeted the Supremes, he attacked targets that couldn't answer. Except Alito, who reached into his quiver and found the now-famous silent objection.

The late conservative political scientist Willmoore Kendall argued that all three branches of government should be able to criticize each other. Indeed, some of the president's defenders point out that recent Republican chief executives have in their own congressional speeches attacked Roe v. Wade, the high court's 1973 decision to legalize abortion.

But those criticisms never landed on a decision so raw as this one, in a matter of days after the ruling, and crafted in such a way as to humiliate the justices before a national TV audience.

And there's that matter of factuality, so crucial to the president's sense of himself. Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission left untouched the regulation against foreign money in political campaigns. The president and his speechwriters could benefit from a fact checker.
To be sure, President Obama may well be foreshadowing the qualifications he expects in his next Supreme Court appointee.

But his tactic may just backfire, as the hitherto swing votes, and maybe even a left-leaning justice or two, rally silently to the defense of their constitutionally essential institution.

The President's Pantomimist


He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment