Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Looks like the Supreme Court will conference on the Obama citizenship lawsuit:

A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama’s name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a “conference” at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation’s next president.

The Supreme Court’s website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama’s name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.

The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court’s docket says: “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.”

If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled.

The action questions whether any of the three candidates is qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.”

The rest of the article goes on to detail the fact that the FEC has waived its right to respond to the Berg complaint:

“There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond. First, because the court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg’s petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg’s lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response,” the blogger speculated.

“Another thing which is not completely clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents,” he added.

“If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I’m surprised,” Berg told America’s Right. “I’m surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn’t seem to exist.

“However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion,” he said, noting that the attorney from the solicitor general’s office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.

Stop The ACLU is asking those of us who believe there is a valid question to Obama’s place of birth to write to SCOTUS at:

The Honorable Associate Justice
Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First St. N. E.
Washington DC 20543

Put docket # on Envelope 08-A407

Ask him UPHOLD our Constitution with Full Disclosure as the only Constitutionally viable answer.

Not too hard is it? Full disclosure. But as commenter CTN has stated on this earlier thread, its not only the question of producing the original live birth certificate:

More specifically, the issue at hand is one fold — “loyalty” — as demonstrated by the founding fathers’ absolute, non-negotiable insistence that only a “natural born citizen” could hold the executive office. They placed this requirement in the Constitution to insure that no one with any conflicts of interest would sit as president, and in this case “conflict of interest” means “possible loyalty to another country.”

Obama’s website has already conceded that he is a “natural born citizen” of Kenya, which was under the dominion of the King when he was born, and that he allegedly allowed his Kenyan citizenship to expire when he turned 21. Expiration does not remove the problem, however, because it does not eradicate his “natural,” i.e. “inherent,” loyalty. In other words, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he would hold “natural born citizenship” in two different countries, which is tantamount to saying that he has “dual loyalties” to two different dominions.

This means that, in the end, someone will have to define the founding fathers’ intent vis-à-vis the “natural born citizen” requirement. Did they require a pure pedigree? — or would they accept split loyalties in the executive office? The answer to this question strikes me as a no-brainer. My brain notwithstanding, however, the question must be answered at a constitutional level — the Supremes must define “natural born citizenship” and they must apply their definition to the Constitutional requirement. In short, Obama’s in a world of hurt, which explains why this Harvard-trained Constitutional attorney has consistently ducked the issue. Once he produces a birth certificate, he will be compelled to answer all the other questions, and there is no satisfactory answer that won’t demonstrate his dual loyalties.

Consider, for example, that less than one year ago Obama campaigned for his cousin Odinga in Kenya. Most Americans understand that an American senator campaigning in Kenya for a Communist who pledged to institute Sharia Law was problematic. This matter becomes even more complex when you remember that the same American senator is a “natural born citizen” of Kenya — it just looks funny. And now he wants to be president.

I’m telling ya, the next four years will see a increase in popcorn sales.

Also:

Majority Of Americans Approve Of The Way Obama Does Nothing

Awesome! 61% of the American people approve of how Obama is doing nothing. A higher percentage then he got in the general election:

Overall, 61% of voters somewhat or strongly approve of Obama’s performance so far while 35% disapprove.

But I have to say, come January 21st….that number will be going down down down.

Finally:

Rebuilding the Conservative Majority

You don’t get there by compromise!

While I have been procrastinating on an in depth post about reorganizing the Republican Party, I’ve been reading a lot of great material like this op-ed by South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint(R):

Republicans Must Fight for Freedom to Regain America’s Trust
By Senator Jim DeMint(R-SC)

November 10, 2008 - They say that elephants never forget, but that’s exactly what the Grand Old Party has done.

Between the 1950s and 1970s, Rockefeller and Nixon Republicans kept the party in a seemingly permanent minority with a “me-too” philosophy that allowed Democrats to balloon the size and scope of government.

But, when Ronald Reagan ran unashamed on conservative principles in 1980 and Republicans in Congress embraced bold conservative reforms in 1994, America responded with overwhelming approval.

Since then, many Republicans have run for office as conservatives but governed as scandal-plagued big-spending moderates. They stopped offering common-sense solutions and broke promises with Americans by overspending and wasteful earmarking to special interests.

In the name of bipartisanship, our leaders supported amnesty, big new entitlements, more federal control of education, and compromises on energy. And too often Republicans shied away from defending values of life, family and faith.

The final straw for many was a series of Wall Street bailouts that cost over a trillion dollars and looked more like knee-jerk socialism than confident conservative leadership.

No wonder Republicans have lost a dozen Senate seats and nearly 50 House seats in two years.

Democrats will likely mistake Republican failures as a mandate for their liberal policies. Obama promises to “spread the wealth” and repeal all restrictions on abortion.

Nancy Pelosi wants trillions in new federal spending. Barney Frank promises higher taxes and massive military funding cuts. Harry Reid will kill the secret ballot for union elections. Patrick Leahy yearns to pack federal courts with activist judges who are hostile to traditional values.

Americans know little about these far left plans because Democrats didn’t run on their liberal agenda, they ran against George Bush.

Yet, a strong majority of Americans are conservative and support the principles of freedom our nation was founded on.

The bipartisan Battleground Poll has found every year since 2002 that 60 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives and only 30 percent call themselves liberals. That’s why Obama and the Democrats talked so much about conservative themes of tax cuts, spending restraint, second amendment rights and energy independence.

Americans haven’t changed, Republicans have.

Recent Republican leaders said earmarks proved we could deliver for our districts and higher spending demonstrated our compassion. But a recent Club for Growth poll found that 66 percent of Americans favor candidates who will cut federal spending even if it means less local funding.

They said fighting for values that strengthen families and protect life is outdated, but ballot propositions to protect traditional marriage still pass overwhelmingly, most recently in California. Numerous polls on abortion reveal most Americans value life and want fewer abortions.

Republicans can regain America’s trust only by acting on our conservative principles and offering real solutions.

First, we must lead by example and limit our own power in order to guard against corruption, starting with a unilateral, two-year earmark moratorium.

Then, let’s end the seniority system that turns too many Republican outsiders into Washington insiders. This requires term limiting our conference leader and appropriations committee members, then choosing committee heads on merit, not seniority.

Second, Republicans must reestablish ourselves as the Party of Ideas with new, principled solutions for today’s challenges. We offer more jobs, more take-home income, and more opportunity to succeed.

We offer more choices, personal control, and better quality in health care, education, and retirement. We offer more protection of life and the family, freedom of political speech, and respect for the right to bear arms. As global threats increase, Republicans offer a stronger national defense and secure borders.

Third, we must do everything in our power to stop President-elect Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Reid from enacting liberal policies that reduce freedom. Democrats and Republicans should work together, but not when it hurts the American people. As the minority, we don’t control the Senate agenda, but we still have a moral responsibility to fight for freedom and liberty in our great country.

Finally, we must recruit new leaders. We’re never going to reshape the way Americans see Republicans with the same old faces. There are good conservatives in Congress now, but our bench is not nearly as deep as the Democrats, who have plenty of career politicians.

We need more Sarah Palins - moms, dads, teachers, doctors and business owners who want to defend liberty and solve big problems, not become part of the Washington establishment. We must find them, encourage them and fight for their elections.

These are painful times for the party of Lincoln and Reagan, but we have a golden opportunity to demonstrate its character and its convictions, and rebuild stronger than ever. So let’s get going.