The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it would not hear Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve in the Oval Office.
The case is the latest in a lengthy series of cases in which U.S courts have refused to hear any arguments about Mr. Obama’s eligibility.
The court effectively killed the Kerchner case with one terse statement: “The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.”
“I don’t think the court helped heal the country,” said Mario Apuzzo, the New Jersey attorney who argued the case on behalf of retired Navy CDR Charles Kerchner. “We still don’t know Mr. Obama’s status. … The court is supposed to take cases that are important, and I can’t imagine a case more important than this one.”
“You need justice to resolve conflicts between people, and when justice is denied people continue to go after each other in a savage way. We did not get justice, ” Apuzzo told WND. “For the court to deny our justice sets the country back terribly.”
“This decision did not help Mr. Obama,” Apuzzo added. “It did not bring legitimacy to his office. Mr. Obama does not have legitimacy of office by the court or by the consensus of the nation, because many people question whether he is a natural born citizen. How does our nation go forward with this kind of result?”
“This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn’t,” wrote Kerchner Monday morning. “Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. It didn’t. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn’t. Everyone in our system of government chose appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else.”
“Now it is far worse,” Kerchner continued. “The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken.”
Read More: By Brian Fitzpatrick, WorldNetDaily
We all applaud the successful thwarting of the Christmas-Tree Bomber and hope our government continues to do all it can to keep us safe. However, the latest round of publications of leaked classified U.S. documents through the shady organization called WikiLeaks raises serious questions about the Obama administration’s incompetent handling of this whole fiasco.
First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop WikiLeaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a “journalist,” any more than the “editor” of Al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.” He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?
What, if any, diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt WikiLeaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber-tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle WikiLeaks? Were individuals working for WikiLeaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?
Most importantly, serious questions must also be asked of the U.S. intelligence system. How was it possible that a 22-year-old Private First Class could get unrestricted access to so much highly sensitive information? And how was it possible that he could copy and distribute these files without anyone noticing that security was compromised?
The White House has now issued orders to federal departments and agencies asking them to take immediate steps to ensure that no more leaks like this happen again. It’s of course important that we do all we can to prevent similar massive document leaks in the future. But why did the White House not publish these orders after the first leak back in July? What explains this strange lack of urgency on their part?
Read More: By Sarah Palin, Fox News
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore Creative Commons
A new peer-reviewed scientific study says the backscatter full-body imaging X-ray machines being used by the federal Transportation Security Administration could be fooled by terrorists who simply would mold explosives to conform to their bodies.
WND obtained an advance copy of the report, titled “An evaluation of airport X-ray backscatter units based on image characteristics,” in which University of California scientists Leon Kaufman and Joseph Carlson demonstrated that packages of explosives contoured to the body or worn along the sides likely would not be detected by TSA X-ray units built to “see” hard edges and anatomical features, and used primarily to image the front and back of the body.
The article comes from Dr. David Brenner of Columbia’s Center for Radiological Research, whose research includes estimating the risks of low dose X-ray exposures.
WND previously reported that Brennan has cautioned that it is “quite likely” that radiation from screening machines being installed nationwide by the TSA to use on airline passengers will cause cancer, especially among high-risk groups that include frequent fliers and children.
The issue has erupted into headlines and protests during this month as the agency rolled out new requirements that demand passengers go through a scanning process through which essentially nude images are produced for TSA agents to screen, or submit to a hands-on full-body pat-down that includes agents touching private areas of the passengers’ bodies.
Read More: By Jerome R. Corsi, WND
One of the first subjects Laura Schlessinger will tackle in depth on her new Sirius XM Radio talk show in the new year is the one that nearly derailed her.
In confirming the exclusive arrangement to bring her talk show to satellite radio beginning Jan, 3, Schlessinger said Monday she intends to introduce roundtable discussions. Within the first three weeks one topic will be race relations and free speech.
“Racism, bigotry and hate,” Schlessinger told the Hollywood Reporter, “what they really are, instead of the politically-inspired efforts to eliminate dissenting opinions or state facts.”
The “politically correct version is what happened to me,” she said, referencing the controversy that erupted during the summer when she used the “n-word” several times during her show “The Dr, Laura Program” to illustrate her point that the term “racist” is overused.
That incident led liberal activists to call for her dismissal and to encourage advertisers to yank their support. Schlessinger responded in August by announcing she’d end her syndicated show on regular terrestrial radio at year’s end.
When she begins on Sirius XM, expect her to come out swinging against those she perceives as being a threat to the First Amendment protecting free speech, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, Democratic U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Media Matters, the organization that spearheaded the attacks against her after her use of the “n-word.”
Read More: By Paul Bond, Reuters
DEAN: GOVERNMENT SHOULD PICK GUESTS ON FOX & MSNBC BECAUSE IGNORANT AMERICANS DON’T KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON
Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a “natural-born citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the “Vattel theory,” which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term “natural-born citizen” to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
“This case is unprecedented,” said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. “I believe we presented an ironclad case. We’ve shown standing, and we’ve shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There’s nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari.”
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the “writ of certiorari,” it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court’s decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
Read More: By Brian Fitzpatrick, WND
Wikipedia, the widely read, online, multiauthored encyclopedia, features an entry on the term “memory hole,” which originated with the prescient if not also clairvoyant George Orwell. The Wikipedia definition begins:
“A memory hole is any mechanism for the alteration or disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs, transcripts, or other records … particularly as part of an attempt to give the impression that something never happened.”
Wikipedia itself may have just offered a good example of how the mechanism works when unknown, unknowable site authorities “took down” a new entry on Lt. Col. Terrence “Terry” Lakin’s challenge to President Obama’s eligibility to hold office almost as soon it went up.
I read a screen shot of the entry and it is factual and noninflammatory. Did Lakin’s page go down the memory hole?
Wikipedia readers who seek information about Lakin are redirected to a synopsis of his case within a composite entry on the larger Obama citizenship controversy. Not all but much of the same information is available there, only now, instead of appearing under a biographical entry titled “Terrence L. Lakin,” it is included within “Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories.”
I linger over this incident not only because Lakin supporters have dubbed this week Terry Lakin Action Week, urging American citizens to take the occasion to call their congressional representatives about the case, or even because Lakin, a decorated, 18-year Army officer and physician, faces an upcoming court-martial at Fort Meade, Md., on Dec. 14 for refusing to follow orders to redeploy to Afghanistan because of his conviction that the president hasn’t proven his eligibility to hold office.
Read More: By Diana West, Washington Examiner
Photo Credit: The US Army Creative Commons