Ok—Now I see the big picture! by Tom Waite
The Bear on Dec 26 2008 at 9:30 am | Filed under: Election 08’
In my previous analysis of the Berg v. Obama Supreme Court case, I said that the Supreme Court Justices were very sly by scheduling a January 9th conference date in order to discuss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari. Because just one day earlier, congress is to open up the Electoral College’s sealed votes from each state, count the votes and declare a presidential winner. But now there is a new development, which seems very perplexing at first but I believe I can shed light on this news and reinterpret it as a sign of political chess.
[…]
Jeff Schreiber (the person running this blog), is a law student and he can’t fathom the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision to set a date to discuss Berg’s injunction that is well after the time congress will have counted the Electoral College’s votes. In doing so, Jeff feels this conference on January 16, 2009 to discuss Berg’s injunction will be a moot issue.
However, I see it differently, the Justices of the Supreme Court aren’t sequestered in some castle. The Justices know exactly what the issues are and are constantly being bombarded with similar legal applications to be considered regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility for president. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, if the Justices wanted to dismiss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari they could have but they deliberately chose to discuss it 24 hours after congress officially counts the Electoral College’s votes; reason being Berg’s issue of standing will now be valid! Once Obama official wins the national vote (via the counting of Electoral College’s votes), Berg’s issue of harm being done to him by Obama now becomes legally valid it is no longer theoretical; thus Berg does have legal standing!
Now in a political game of chess, the Supreme Court’s manoeuvring of the January 9th date to discuss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari can be seen as a move of check against Obama. Obama is now in a corner but still can move his king chess piece and similarly with the Writ of Certiorari, Obama still could refuse to deliver evidence proving he was born in United States. I understand why the Justices set a date one week later (January 16) to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes, this move can be seen as check and mate! Meaning Obama’s king can’t move in any direction on the chessboard, thus he’s trapped and has lost the game!
Setting a date to discuss the injunction on preventing congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes isn’t a moot issue; in this context any judgement is retroactive! So that even if congress has counted the Electoral College’s votes and have declared Obama the presidential winner; if the Supreme Court finds Obama ineligible to be a presidential candidate, they can retroactively cancel the results of the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!
And that’s why the Supreme Court is allowing for a January 16th conference on Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s vote on January 8th. It’s not a moot issue, it’s a very deliberate political game of entrapment or as in chess it can be seen as a move of checkmate. Because the Supreme Court is basically giving Obama no wiggle room to manoeuvre and escape from the January 9th’s conference of Berg’s Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court is ultimately saying to Obama, if you don’t hand over your evidence to us on January 9th, you will be forced to hand over your evidence to us on January 16th, otherwise we’ll retroactively cancel the results from the Electoral College’s votes that were counted back on January 8th!
Related
Berg’s Application for Injunction Curiously Moves On at Supreme Court
In the meantime, the underlying petition for certiorari is scheduled for conference on Friday, January 9, 2009, and Berg seems to think that the selection of the date for conference could have something to do with the electoral votes being counted the day before.
“Until January 8, Obama is really nothing. He’s president-elect in name only, technically, until those votes are counted,” Berg said. “Seeing that we got to the Supreme Court before the other cases and are only now going to see conference weeks after they did, perhaps the timing is significant. I don’t know.”
Read more from America’s Right
IMPOSTOR PRESIDENT OBAMA: VICTORY WILL BE SHORT LIVED
[…]
“I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
-
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
2 Responses to “Ok—Now I see the big picture! by Tom Waite”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] recent Internet article notes “…As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, if the Justices wanted to dismiss [...]
[...] Nancy (2 Jan 2009) [US SUPREME COURT vs OBAMA] “Judge’s Entrap Obama? [T. Waite]” Filed under: Biblical Prophecy, Pentecost, Rapture, US SUPREME COURT, antichrist, escatology, political commentary — twelvebooks @ 4:19 pm Nancy (2 Jan 2009) “Judge’s Entrap Obama? [T. Waite]“ Very interesting… Ok?Now I see the big picture! byy Tom Waite [...]