Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 622 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:31 pm Post subject:
cayla99 wrote:
HighlanderJuan wrote:
FreedomFirst wrote:
Look for more of these nullification laws and stances to start coming to the fore as DC goes totally berserk with its push toward socialism. The Commerce Clause has been over-used to the point of abuse; officials in many states are clearly recognizing that and looking for ways to stem the tide.
Even worse, the feds are using the commerce clause to regulate and control business between the states, and it is my understanding that the commerce clause was intended to allow the feds to facilitate commerce between the states.
It looks like power does corrupt absolutely.
And when the states pass laws in which the commerce clause was written to protect us from, DC does nothing! such as for 10 years California had a tax on any vehicle brought in from out of state, regardless of whether or not it had "California emissions" on the vehicle. The tax wasn't little either, I think it was something like $500.00.It took well over a decade for the courts to decide it was unconstitutional, when they did, refunds were only given to those who applied for them and still had their original receipt from paying the tax. When asked, the legislators who implemented the tax said they KNEW it was unconstitutional when they did it, but at the end of the day, even after the refunds, California was still billions ahead. IMHO everyone who voted on the original bill should have been fined 500 dollars for every vehicle that the tax was charged on.
And you're right - that's a state issue. The Californians keep electing folks who don't represent their best interests, and they get what they vote for. _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 622 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:59 pm Post subject:
I came across this interesting post on jbjd's blog, and thought it worth passing along. The post below was presented to the South Carolina Elections Board as a followup to a previous complaint of election fraud perpetrated by Nancy Pelosi in 2008. [emphasis added below was mine]
Noting this state action, I wonder if any of the other state election fraud complaints have born fruit. Anyone know for sure?
Virginia State Board of Elections
What: SBE Meeting
When: Friday, October 9, 2009
Time: 11:00 am EST
Where: General Assembly Building, 4th Floor East Conference Room
TESTIMONY OF d2i TO THE VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS:
Good morning, Madam Chair, and members of the Board of Elections,
My name is (name omitted) and I am a long time resident of this great Commonwealth of Virginia. I sincerely thank you for this opportunity to provide citizen testimony to the Board. I will keep my remarks brief.
I am here today seeking a response to the complaint I delivered to the Board almost 3 (three) weeks ago, charging that during the 2008 general election, The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair, 2008 DNC Convention, committed election fraud by Certifying to this Board that Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, was Constitutionally eligible for the job so that you would place his name on our general election ballot, even though based on documents in the public record she could not have ascertained whether Mr. Obama was eligible for the job.
Let me explain how I came to file this complaint.
I followed the 2008 primary very closely. At some point, I began hearing rumors concerning whether Barack Obama was a natural born citizen. Evidently, these rumors reached the candidate, too. Because in June 2008, he created a web site called “Fight the Smears” for the express purpose of ‘getting out the truth.’ On the web site, he posted a photocopy of a heavily redacted image of a document entitled, “Certification of Live Birth,” indicating he was born in Hawaii. He now proclaimed this image proved he was a “native” of the U.S.A.
But having taught Constitutional law, surely he knows, the Constitution requires him to be a “natural born citizen.” Besides, how did we know whether this document was even real? Well, it seems the candidate was one step ahead of us.
In case we didn’t take his word, he said we could just ask Annenberg Political Fact Check; he even provided a link from his site to theirs. He assured us, Annenberg was an “independent group.”
No, they’re not. Annenberg is the same group that had hired him to run their Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Not surprisingly, Annenberg rubber stamped Mr. Obama’s claims: ‘We have seen the original Certification of Live Birth and we find this proves he was “born in the U.S.A.”
Why would I believe them?
Then, in August 2008, without even a roll call vote on the floor of the DNC Convention, Chairwoman Pelosi Certified Barack Obama had been “duly nominated” as the Democratic candidate for President, and submitted this Official DNC Certification of Nomination to this Board. And you added his name to our general election ballot.
Now, as you know, Virginia law requires that only the names of eligible candidates may appear on our ballots. Plus, the law requires the major political parties to determine candidate eligibility. DNC rules also say, the nominee must be Constitutionally eligible for the job. So, it only makes sense that when you received that Certification from Ms. Pelosi, you assumed Mr. Obama was a natural born citizen.
But based on the documentation available in the public record – an image of a document redacted so as to prevent further investigation, posted on a web site paid for by the candidate, and verified as real by his former employer – I had to wonder:
HOW ON EARTH DID NANCY PELOSI VERIFY THIS MAN WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB? Then, 4 (four) months AFTER she signed this Certification, something happened that made me believe, she didn’t.
In January 2009, Barack Obama was the Defendant in a civil suit brought in federal district court, in which Plaintiffs tried to get to the heart of his Presidential eligibility status. Mr. Obama, through his attorneys, submitted a Motion to Dismiss based on procedural issues like standing and jurisdiction. But they also inserted into the Motion this odd footnote.
Mr. Obama asked the judge not only to dismiss the case but also to take judicial notice of the ‘fact,’ Annenberg Political Fact Check said, they had seen the original Certification of Live Birth, a copy of which is posted on his web site; and it is real.
Think about that. Four months earlier, when Chairwoman Pelosi signed that Certification of Nomination, the best evidence she could have that he was even a citizen, was that photocopied redacted image posted on the internet, which Annenberg said only proved, he was born in the U.S.A.
But in January 2009, the best evidence to establish, Mr. Obama was a natural born citizen, was that Certification of Nomination signed by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in line of Presidential succession, which was submitted to elections officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, who, based on this document, printed his name on their general election ballots.
With all of the gravitas of THIS document, why on earth didn’t he ask the federal judge to take judicial notice of THIS?
Well, I have to tell you, since Mr. Obama determined that document was not good enough for the federal court then, I decided, it’s not good enough for my Board of Elections.
In a state like VA, with a law that says, the candidate must be eligible to appear on the ballot; swearing he is eligible without first ascertaining whether he is, is election fraud. And based on these facts I just presented, as well as others I did not present due to time constraints but which facts are in my written complaint, I believe Nancy Pelosi committed election fraud here.
Therefore, I respectfully request that you refer this complaint to the Attorney General so that he can commence a formal investigation.
Thank you.
+++++++++++++++
UPDATE 10.09.09, AFTER THE HEARING: I got a call from d2i after her testimony before the VA BoE, and asked her to send a brief summary of her appearance, which I am posting here.
To my jbjd family –
Thank you for your kind words and prayers of support. They worked.
I set out to achieve three goals today regarding my testimony before the Virginia State Board of Elections:
1. To inform the members of the State Board of the election fraud AND to request they send my complaint for immediate investigation to AG Mims.
2. To literally take the heavyweight of carrying around all these months this information and the burden that comes with it. None of this fraud belongs to me or you, but we have studied it, we understand exactly what the DNC, State Democratic Parties and Chair Pelosi did to perpetrate election fraud across the United States, and we know more about the empty suit who occupies the People’s House.
3. To have the testimony entered into record.
Regarding the first goal, we know that the complaint is criminal. We’ve known that all along. This is the chief reason why these complaints are sent to respective AGs offices across the USA rather than Election Boards. However, after reading the SBEs website and code regarding election fraud, I wanted to be safe, cover all of the bases to be certain all i’s were dotted and t’s crossed. I wanted to be certain no one could come back and say, you should have gone through the SBEs. Therefore, the Chair, after allowing me the time to read my complaint stated correctly that this matter is not in the purview of the SBEs but rather the Commonwealth’s Attorney.
However, it is now on the record with the SBE which was my third goal.
And I do feel a bit lighter. I don’t know about you but to finally take all that we know and put it into a big burlap sack and give it back to the charlatans that thrust these lies into our lives is somewhat relieving. Although the burden is a bit lighter, I still carry a load. Aaarrrgggghhhhh!
Lastly, I want to let you know that SBE Chair, Jean Cunningham, was gracious and accommodating. She extended an apology about Monday’s mishap and thanked me in the end for bringing this testimony to the board.
So, no fireworks, folks. Just respect for the process and the opportunity to get my testimony into the record. By the way, the Chair thanked me and dismissed me allowing for no questions from the members. She did her job. I did mine. If the members wish to reach out to me to learn more they know where to find me. So with that, I want to tell you that you need to do the same thing. It’s important to get this into the record especially when it comes to future elections.
Onward!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++
One further add-on from jbjd:
"As I have said all along, the problem with going after BO for election fraud for swearing he is Constitutionally qualified for POTUS, given the legal requirement of qualification for office to get onto the state ballot; is that, he KNOWS whether he is qualified. So, in order to go after him for fraud, one would need to prove he lied. It is much easier to create the circumstantial case, no one could have established he is qualified before Certifying he is. This shifts the burden to the alleged wrongdoer. Now, in one state, SC, the law requires the party to swear the primary candidate is qualified for the job, instead of just the candidate swearing he is qualified to be in the primary. So, in the SC complaint for election fraud, we go after both the members of the D party who swore to BO’s qualifications to get his name onto the Presidential preference primary ballot in that state, AND the party members whose signed Certification got his name onto the general election ballot." _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
Last edited by HighlanderJuan on Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 622 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:33 pm Post subject:
jbjd has posted two very interesting and informative Revolution Radio interview audio posts on her page: http://jbjd.wordpress.com/
==========
drkate has launched her own blog talk radio show called, "Revolution Radio" and I was the premier guest on Wednesday, October 28, along with her guest co-host d2i. (Part II of the show was aired live on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, at 9:00 PM EST.) Here is the blurb she posted to announce the show.
"Welcome to drkate's Revolution Radio! Tonight we get right down to work, with two very special guests in “Witness to Election Fraud” on Wednesday evening, October 28, at 9 PM EST (7 pm MST), with special guest “jbjd” and "d2i". Don’t miss this exciting evening! “jbjd” will explain how witnessing the fraud perpetrated throughout the 2008 election inspired her to devise creative yet simple solutions that all citizen activists can adopt, now."
Part II is at jbjd WITNESS TO ELECTION FRAUD (Part II) on drkate's REVOLUTION RADIO:
http://tinyurl.com/y9m4m7b _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
All of these lawsuits depend upon an independent judiciary which is neither corrupt, intimidated, nor coerced by organized crime, Is|amist terrorists, communist/globalist influences, or a usurpation government.
From what I saw of U.S. District Judge Clay Land's outrageous hostility, prejudice, spite and malice toward Maj. Cook and Orly Taitz, whom Judge Clay Land sanctioned $20,000 for bringing a legitimate suit of national consequence;
from what witnesses noted about U.S. District Judge David O. Carter's change in countenance, conversation, and conduct, his hiring as his clerk an attorney from Perkins Coie, the law firm defending Mr. Obama, his reversal of his announced plans for conducting the case, and his breaking his promise to hear the case on the merits;
from the mockery of justice in 30 other cases where the judges have dismissed Obama eligibility suits with very similar statements, all provided by the Obama defense attorneys, that plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit;
from the chorus of judgments, all in perfect harmony, that neither the plaintiffs nor anyone else outside an elite and totally politicized group of 1133 persons (state electors and secretaries of state, members of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court) has any right to sue for redress of grievances in case of an unlawful usurpation of federal office; and
from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's eight months of stalling, ignoring, and otherwise obstructing progress of quo warranto suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where lawsuits about usurpation of federal office may be brought by the United States, by third parties with a direct injury, or if neither the U.S. nor injured parties bring a plaint, by interested persons without any of the connections specified here;
it has been demonstrated many times over that the courts are no longer free and independent to hear cases against Mr. Obama, whether as a result of coercion, corruption, or intimidation.
The state electors, the U.S. Congress, and the federal courts are all derelict of duty in not disqualifying an Art. II, § 1, Constitutionally ineligible candidate for the office of President. I hereby propose that the U.S. military has the duty and the responsibility to act to overturn the unlawful and unconstitutional coup d'état executed in 2008 by the Democratic Party leadership and a candidate for President who was known to be Constitutionally disqualifed as far back as 2004.
Good ad. _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 622 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:08 am Post subject:
MinutemanCDC_SC wrote:
All of these lawsuits depend upon an independent judiciary which is neither corrupt, intimidated, nor coerced by organized crime, Is|amist terrorists, communist/globalist influences, or a usurpation government.
....
The state electors, the U.S. Congress, and the federal courts are all derelict of duty in not disqualifying an Art. II, § 1, Constitutionally ineligible candidate for the office of President. I hereby propose that the U.S. military has the duty and the responsibility to act to overturn the unlawful and unconstitutional coup d'état executed in 2008 by the Democratic Party leadership and a candidate for President who was known to be Constitutionally disqualifed as far back as 2004.
If General Casey is an example of how the military views Obama and his administration (kiss-up mentality), we may have little or no chance in this area.
Having said that, it would similarly be unreasonable for us to expect the military to openly advertise its plans for restoration of the Constitution in light of the complete conspiracy involvement within the rest of the federal government.
I just watched 'The Rock' last night - not a good example of how the military can cause change. _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement.
You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage.
You’re the runner-in-chief.
Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us.
You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it.
Your weak-willed responses to the U.S.S. Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers.
Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.
John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute.
You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam.
Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact.
You’ve accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq.
You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam.
You’re a fake.
You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese.
Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.
John Murtha, you said our military was broken.
You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq.
You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa.
Okinawa, John?
And the Democrats call you their military expert!
Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume?
You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician.
You’re not a Marine, sir.
You wouldn’t amount to a good pimple on a real Marine’s butt.
You’re a phony and a disgrace.
Run away, John.
Dick Durbin, you accused our soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists.
Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate.
History was not a good teacher for you, was it?
Lord help us!
See Dick run.
Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera.
Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi’s torture chambers were open under new management.
Did you see the news, Teddy?
The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you.
If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it.
Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there.
You’re a bloated, drunken fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs.
To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam:
Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American soldiers - cause to think that we’ll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.
It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists.
Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.
American news media and the New York Times particularly:
Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies ofAmerican soldiers.
You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country.
Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is.
I am happy that your company is sinking like a greased cinder block and will probably be bankrupt by the middle of 2009.
I’m not surprised, as no one wants to read the trash you publish.
Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.
You are America ’s ‘AXIS OF IDIOTS.’
Your collective stupidity will destroy us.
Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and soldiers.
It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing.
There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam.
If you want our soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.
Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing.
You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country.
Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.
Our country has two enemies.
Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.
Semper Fi,
J. D. Pendry - Sergeant Major, USMC, Retired
++++++++++
J.D. Pendry is a retired Marine Sergeant Major who writes for Random House.
He is eloquent, and as taught by the Marines, seldom beats around the bush! _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
The following is a quick cut-and-paste which I use to reply to blogs, etc., about Mr. Obama's Constitutional ineligibility for the Presidency.
_______________________________________________
In "Dreams From My Father," Mr. Obama stated that he was the son of Barack Obama, Sr., a Kenyan, who was in 1961 a British Protected Subject. (Kenya was a British Protectorate until her independence on Dec. 12, 1963.) He further stated that his birth was "governed by British law," which made him a British Protected Subject at birth.
How can a British Protected Subject at birth, whose birth was governed by British law, be a natural born citizen of the United States? He was at best a dual citizen of the U.S. and subject of the U.K..
For a person born outside U.S. jurisdiction to be a citizen, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, according to the text in effect in 1961, required that a parent have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years and resident in the U.S. for 5 years after age 14. If he was born in Kenya - "IF", whether you believe that or not - his 18-year-old mother was too young at the time to confer U.S. citizenship upon him. That made him an illegal alien upon returning from Kenya to the U.S. by way of Canada, which could be done in 1961 without a passport.
Mr. Obama preaches transparency in government. If he has nothing to hide, why has he paid attorneys millions of dollars to hide it? He paid $1.4 million between Oct. 1, 2008, and Mar. 31, 2009, and probably as much more since then, to the Perkins Coie law firm, which has represented him in gaining dismissal of lawsuits seeking to verify his Constitutional eligibility for office - dismissals all based on plaintiff standing, never on the merits of the case. _________________ One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow we may wake up as illegals.
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 622 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:27 pm Post subject:
MinutemanCDC_SC wrote:
The state electors, the U.S. Congress, and the federal courts are all derelict of duty in not disqualifying an Art. II, § 1, Constitutionally ineligible candidate for the office of President. I hereby propose that the U.S. military has the duty and the responsibility to act to overturn the unlawful and unconstitutional coup d'état executed in 2008 by the Democratic Party leadership and a candidate for President who was known to be Constitutionally disqualifed as far back as 2004.[/size]
Down at the troop level, the military is a bit unsettled about this administration. Below are a sampling of soldier comments from this military.com article I thought you might enjoy reading.
"What a crazy mess. I can see running due course to see who you have.
We didn't put everybody in Gitmo. These people had a reason for going there. Special knowledge, locations, or positions. Hold them till they rot.
About the NY trials, they were announced days ago. How many terrorist are in place to attack the courthouse or detention center to free their troops? Freedom of information is one thing. Stupidity is another. The way it is worded,this article drips of Liberalism."
"What kind of morons have we got running our country and our courts? Time to vote them all out. Do I hear a second revolution coming?, this time against our own government. We are now living under the same kind of government our forefathers fled from Europe."
"Those 526 others weren't on vacation and got lost. It was that many more not firing on our troops. One of our soldiers lives is worth thousands being locked up. Da*n the money. As for them being tortured, they look pretty healthy to me. We let them pray to their mongrel god that spews hate for us. "
"I'll take Military decisions every time versus Civilian Judges. The article seems to assume that Civilian Judges' claims about "hearsay" are correct and that claims of torture are correct. Since the Civilians took charge of War after WWII, we haven't won one War, we've engaged in three major widespread operations that we either stalemated in or lost (Vietnam, Korea, the modern Terrorist and Pro-Terrorist nation Wars). Even the claim that we won the Cold War has proven wrong - Russia and China and their allies are stronger and more united and more influential and more anti-USA than ever.
Civilian Presidents display incredible lack of Strategic ability and New Ideas (Carter, Clinton, G. W. Bush although he was way better than Obama, Obama himself)."
"If one person is injured or, God forbid, is killed as a result of this idiotic decision, mr. present obama and his brother henchman holder, will have the blood of that person on their heads forever and let us never let them forget it. There will be demonstrations and other actions that will eventually lead to injury and or death not to mention lawsuits. The 5 will have more freedom than those of us that will be affected by the security around the courthouse. Let's face it, they have won. They have fundamentally changed our way of life."
"First it was England who release the Islamic Fascist Lockerbie bomber for Oil and now it's our own corrupt Administration bring the GITMOs Islamic Fascist POWs to United States where they will receive the same rights as a U.S. Citizen in our court of law!!
You stupid Democrats have sown the seeds of your political party DESTRUCTION! When the vast Independent voters who voted you fools in will now turned on you in 2010! And when this happen your corrupt political party will go into the ash heap of other U.S. political parties that stopped listening to the vast majority of U.S. Citizens.
May God have mercy on your souls for this stupid colossal mistake!!!"
++++++++++++++++++++
Not much contentment in that high testosterone crowd.
Maybe the military can help... _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
Portions of the article are posted below. The terrible shame of our last election, and with all of the ACORN exposure, is that we may still have missed the shear illegality of the election.
================
One of the most interesting facets of the Election of 2008 is that the Obama Commerce Department won't release the factual numeric data on how many eligible Americans were actually registered to vote in that election, even though they claim 56.8% of those eligible to vote, voted. According to the Bureau of Statistics, 132,618,580 votes were cast in 2008. The problem with those statistics is this: in 2008, there were 169 million registered voters in the United States. Eighty-six million of them were registered Democrats, 55 million were registered Republicans and 28 million were registered as independents. If 56.8% of them voted, a lot of people cast multiple votes, because 56.8% of 169 million is 96,992,000 voters. The simple math says there were 35,626,580 too many votes in the ballot boxes.
Not only do we have someone residing in the White House who is unwilling to supply proof that he is an Article II citizen of the United States, we now learn that the raw election numbers suggest we didn't elect him after all, and my estimates about the number of votes stolen by ACORN may have been just a little bit understated. My calculations, computed from news reports since before the election suggested that ACORN and MoveOn.org may have stolen some 15.1 million votes. My estimate may have been off by about 20 million votes.
The Election of 2010 is now about eleven months away. If the Lesser-of-two Evils GOP does not take back both Houses of Congress, there will be no United States for third party candidates to fight over in 2012. With Obama controlling the census and with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as the congressional oversight watchdogs, Obama can adjust those numbers any way he wants. That will make the Election of 2012 a communist slam-dunk even if every Independent and every Republican votes because Obama will have had the ability to actually create real people out of the 35,626,580 million make believe voters that voted in 2008.
On the voting rosters of the 50 States, there will be 121,500,000 registered Democrats, 55 million (or less) registered Republicans and 28 million or less independents. Remember this in 2010. We're not voting our "integrity" next year, we're voting our survival as a nation.. When the Congressional and Senatorial primaries come up in the next few months, dump the corrupt Republicans (the Democrats won't dump their's. They like the status quo how it is.) Replace the institutionalized Republicans with candidates you would otherwise put on the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party tickets, and replace the corrupt polticians with fresh, constitutional faces—and then for God's sake, get off your fat cans and get out and support them. Knock on doors, hold tea party rallies for them, and get them elected. Then get down to the business of taking back your country. If you do that, then you can honestly claim you are standing on your integrity, and Harry Houdini can't come back from the grave and tell you that the two party system is the only thing he couldn't escape. _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 622 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:53 am Post subject:
Good table of Obama cases listed by Jack Ryan:
List- containing:
--Case Caption (and plaintiff's full name)
--Court, Case Number, with Justia Docket link (or other, where available)
--Dismissal Order, with link to Order where available
--Appeal Dismissal Order, with link when available
--Supreme Court Docket showing application/writ denied, with link
--Whether Obama's Attorneys defended the case
please, feel free to send corrections and/or additions.
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4437 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:15 am Post subject:
I have never heard of this man, and I am not really fond of the way he has chosen to speak, however, if what he says in this video is true, this could be huge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EgrTq3zqfE&videos=seM7Bz4lFjo _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Joined: May 16, 2006 Posts: 1940 Location: Getyourassoutahere, Texas
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:26 am Post subject:
cayla99 wrote:
I have never heard of this man, and I am not really fond of the way he has chosen to speak, however, if what he says in this video is true, this could be huge.
Cayla, I like the man. I really do believe that he is sincere and unafraid. His methods might rub some people the wrong way but his message is clear. Yes, if he is arrested it will be a big story! However, the backlash will be even bigger and a huge mistake on the part of our outlaw government. _________________ ...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...
William Barret Travis
Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836
Joined: May 16, 2006 Posts: 1940 Location: Getyourassoutahere, Texas
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:56 pm Post subject:
VERY interesting article below. Something is going on....
WASHINGTON PROWLER SPECULATES THAT OBAMA IS RUNNING SCARED
by John Charlton
(Nov. 17, 2009) — Yesterday, The Post & Email reported that Mr. Paul Tsukiyama, Director of the Office of Information Practices — the very office overseeing public complaints regarding the Hawaii Department of Health’s refusal to release public documents or information regarding Obama’s alleged vital records kept by that department — resigned quietly on Nov. 6th, and that no one knew where he went.
Yesterday, The American Spectator also spoke about resignations, and speculated about their motives, but these regarding a place on the opposite site of the country: Washington, D.C..
In an editorial by The Washington Prowler, “Obama goes to the Matresses”, we are told that Cassandra Butts, “a Harvard classmate of Obama’s and one of the administration’s highest-ranking African Americans . . . quietly resigned on Friday, November 6 . . .” .
This resignation preceded that of her immediate superior, Gregory Craig, who left the position of White House Counsel only days ago.
However, what The Washington Prowler writes is more telling in the intrigue and politics behind the Craig resignation and the ascendency of Robert Bauer, whose appointment to Craig’s old position was made last Friday:
“[Bauer] knows where all the bodies are buried, and this indicates that there is something amiss with this White House, or at least someone is nervous about what is going on,” says a former Obama transition team adviser. “You don’t just make these kinds of changes for the sake of rearranging the deck chairs, and not at this time with at least three legislative and policy decisions looming that the Counsel’s office would have been deeply involved in.”
“This doesn’t come close to the ‘Saturday Night Massacre’ in the Nixon days, but it’s pretty damn weird,” says Washington, D.C.-based Democrat lawyer, who has held counsel positions both in the Senate and in previous presidential administrations. “I’m surprised not only that the press seems to be ignoring the fact that two presidential lawyers have left at about the same time, but that no one seems to care that for the first time, I think ever, we have a President’s personal attorney also serving as White House counsel. I don’t care if Bob [Bauer] recuses himself from future personal legal business, this should be troubling to anyone who cares about the Executive Office of the President.”
The coincidence of all these resignations appears to be part of a grand strategy of Obama to tie up loose ends and prevent the imminent breaking of a dyke of facts and evidence which will indict his claims of transparency, openness and change.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/ _________________ ...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...
William Barret Travis
Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836
Cayla, I like the man. I really do believe that he is sincere and unafraid. His methods might rub some people the wrong way but his message is clear. Yes, if he is arrested it will be a big story! However, the backlash will be even bigger and a huge mistake on the part of our outlaw government.
I like Pastor David Manning a lot. He has the courage (and the voice) of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. He preaches to Harlem and denies Mr. Obama that turf.
DHS doesn't dare arrest him. I wish they would! Then he becomes a defendant in court, Constitutionally guaranteed a speedy trial by a jury of his peers. He can't be delayed; he can't be dismissed; he can't be denied. I don't know how the evidential rules differ, but I'm sure that, more so than a plaintiff, a defendant has every right to see all evidence that determines his innocence or guilt.
Then, in order to prove that Pastor Manning's free speech is slander, the plaintiff must prove that it is false (!), which means full discovery. Certainly the DoJ will try to restrict the attention of the court to the defendant's "fighting words," so-called. The U.S. Attorney will object to discovery or admission of any evidence about the "long-legged mack daddy."
Speaking as a layman, that is my humble opinion. Would you honorable barristers please correct my grievous errors and amplify on the implications of having, for the first time in this case, a defendant in court. _________________ One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow we may wake up as illegals.
Cayla, I like the man. I really do believe that he is sincere and unafraid. His methods might rub some people the wrong way but his message is clear. Yes, if he is arrested it will be a big story! However, the backlash will be even bigger and a huge mistake on the part of our outlaw government.
I like Pastor David Manning a lot. He has the courage (and the voice) of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. He preaches to Harlem and denies Mr. Obama that turf.
DHS doesn't dare arrest him. I wish they would! Then he becomes a defendant in court, Constitutionally guaranteed a speedy trial by a jury of his peers. He can't be delayed; he can't be dismissed; he can't be denied. I don't know how the evidential rules differ, but I'm sure that, more so than a plaintiff, a defendant has every right to see all evidence that determines his innocence or guilt.
Then, in order to prove that Pastor Manning's free speech is slander, the plaintiff must prove that it is false (!), which means full discovery. Certainly the DoJ will try to restrict the attention of the court to the defendant's "fighting words," so-called. The U.S. Attorney will object to discovery or admission of any evidence about the "long-legged mack daddy."
Speaking as a layman, that is my humble opinion. Would you honorable barristers please correct my grievous errors and amplify on the implications of having, for the first time in this case, a defendant in court.
Minuteman, agree, they wouldn't arrest Manning on a charge that would allow discovery to prove his innocence. They could drum up other charges, totally different, that would preclude the discovery of Obama's vital records. We all know that Obama DOESN'T want someone like Manning on the stand. _________________ ...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...
William Barret Travis
Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836
Cayla, I like the man. I really do believe that he is sincere and unafraid. His methods might rub some people the wrong way but his message is clear. Yes, if he is arrested it will be a big story! However, the backlash will be even bigger and a huge mistake on the part of our outlaw government.
I like Pastor David Manning a lot. He has the courage (and the voice) of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. He preaches to Harlem and denies Mr. Obama that turf.
DHS doesn't dare arrest him. I wish they would! Then he becomes a defendant in court, Constitutionally guaranteed a speedy trial by a jury of his peers. He can't be delayed; he can't be dismissed; he can't be denied. I don't know how the evidential rules differ, but I'm sure that, more so than a plaintiff, a defendant has every right to see all evidence that determines his innocence or guilt.
Then, in order to prove that Pastor Manning's free speech is slander, the plaintiff must prove that it is false (!), which means full discovery. Certainly the DoJ will try to restrict the attention of the court to the defendant's "fighting words," so-called. The U.S. Attorney will object to discovery or admission of any evidence about the "long-legged mack daddy."
Speaking as a layman, that is my humble opinion. Would you honorable barristers please correct my grievous errors and amplify on the implications of having, for the first time in this case, a defendant in court.
Minuteman, agree, they wouldn't arrest Manning on a charge that would allow discovery to prove his innocence. They could drum up other charges, totally different, that would preclude the discovery of Obama's vital records. We all know that Obama DOESN'T want someone like Manning on the stand.
He anticipates being charged with "The threat against the life of a US president". I think they will forbid a defense based on the fact that he is not a legitimate president. They will not allow him to defend himself and will twist his words so they can lock him up, thereby shutting him up. _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Cayla, I like the man. I really do believe that he is sincere and unafraid. His methods might rub some people the wrong way but his message is clear. Yes, if he is arrested it will be a big story! However, the backlash will be even bigger and a huge mistake on the part of our outlaw government.
I like Pastor David Manning a lot. He has the courage (and the voice) of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. He preaches to Harlem and denies Mr. Obama that turf.
DHS doesn't dare arrest him. I wish they would! Then he becomes a defendant in court, Constitutionally guaranteed a speedy trial by a jury of his peers. He can't be delayed; he can't be dismissed; he can't be denied. I don't know how the evidential rules differ, but I'm sure that, more so than a plaintiff, a defendant has every right to see all evidence that determines his innocence or guilt.
Then, in order to prove that Pastor Manning's free speech is slander, the plaintiff must prove that it is false (!), which means full discovery. Certainly the DoJ will try to restrict the attention of the court to the defendant's "fighting words," so-called. The U.S. Attorney will object to discovery or admission of any evidence about the "long-legged mack daddy."
Speaking as a layman, that is my humble opinion. Would you honorable barristers please correct my grievous errors and amplify on the implications of having, for the first time in this case, a defendant in court.
Minuteman, agree, they wouldn't arrest Manning on a charge that would allow discovery to prove his innocence. They could drum up other charges, totally different, that would preclude the discovery of Obama's vital records. We all know that Obama DOESN'T want someone like Manning on the stand.
He anticipates being charged with "The threat against the life of a US president". I think they will forbid a defense based on the fact that he is not a legitimate president. They will not allow him to defend himself and will twist his words so they can lock him up, thereby shutting him up.
If he is locked up it will still send a clear message that he was onto something. He will become a living martyr. Honestly, I think he is prepared to do this. _________________ ...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...
William Barret Travis
Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836
Joined: Apr 11, 2008 Posts: 2856 Location: You want some of this?
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:00 pm Post subject:
So does this mean that anyone could do anything that would be against the law toward the president, and they could not charge them over the fear of discovery? Because if they do arrest the pastor or anyone else they could probably be charged without discovery right. _________________ Work Harder Millions on Welfare Depend on You!
Joined: May 16, 2006 Posts: 1940 Location: Getyourassoutahere, Texas
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:58 pm Post subject:
Here is the video that may get Manning into trouble. I've heard it though and can find nothing against the law. Manning is right, we can Tea Party all day long and it still won't make a difference to get this usurper out of office. The illegitimacy issue needs to go viral and gather an unstoppable base to force a hearing to bring this nightmare to a close.
http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=1193 _________________ ...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...
William Barret Travis
Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836
Here is a direct link to Pastor Manning's video, in case you want to download it, or in case the Atlah page doesn't play the video in your browser. If your video player won't play the .flv file, download FLV Player, or better yet, download the K-Lite video codec pack, which covers most video types.
Pastor Manning begins by telling about two Secret Service agents and two DHS law enforcement agents visiting him on Monday, 11/16/09. Their concern was with earlier events or videos, not about his remarks in this video.
Pastor Manning's statements here (from 4:31 through 5:00) would not be chargeable as "a threat against the life of a U.S. President" under normal circumstances, in the America we once knew and loved. But we're not in a Constitutional republic any more, dodo... er, Toto. A totalitarian state is taking shape, in which the Constitution no longer has the force of law. Many government executives, legislators, judges, bureaucrats, and even some military personnel, already operate according to laws and procedures which they anticipate becoming the rule some day under global governance.
The U.S. Constitution, Art. III § 3 wrote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
18 USC 2381 wrote:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Do you remember how the possibility of Saddam Hussein returning to power intimidated the Iraqis, which made it difficult to try and to convict him?
__________________________________________________________
Pastor Manning hammered on the "birth certificate" issue. He didn't mention "Constitutional ineligibility, not being a natural born citizen," which includes Barack Obama II's status at birth as a British Protected Subject through his father, as well as the birth certificate. When we rally support, the real issue suffers from its complexity. It doesn't play well in a 30-second sound bite. The three-letter acronym, "NBC", is already taken. It lacks a five-word statement, such as:
"Taxation without representation is tyranny," or
"Christ died for our sins," or
"America - land of the free," or
"Abortion stops a beating heart," or
"Be all you can be," or
"Repent - Jesus is coming soon," or
"West Virginia is for lovers."
OK, the last one was supposed to be, "Virginia is for lovers," but that needed an extra word.
But it only takes 40 words to place ius sanguinis into public discourse.
Quote:
Barack Obama was the son of a British Protected Subject, which made him also
a British Protected Subject at his birth. How can a British Protected Subject,
whose birth was governed by British law, be a natural born U.S. citizen?
_________________ One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow we may wake up as illegals.
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 622 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:43 pm Post subject:
I've recently come across articles by Jon Christian Ryter, a journalist who works at The Washington Times as an advertising executive, but who has written some interesting articles, including this one in January 2008, dubbed "Obama's Muslim Connection."
In 1991 a young Muslim Harvard Law College graduate named Barack Hussein Obama (who has denied his Islamic past and Muslim roots for as long as he has been a public figure) became a civil rights community activist working out of the Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama worked as a community organizer for Trinity in poor black neighborhoods. Trinity's senior pastor Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, a black racist who preaches radical Afrocentric theology and doesn't mind delivering profanity-spiked sermons found a congregation-builder in Obama. Because of what Wright called Obama's multiple-faith background and his Harvard education, he was a natural community-builder.
When Obama broke onto the national political scene in 2004, not only did he attempt to erase all traces his Islamic childhood, but he also tried to erase the nature of his relationship with Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ. (When your country is at war with Islamic extremists being a Muslim is not the shortest route to the White House.) Obama has told the media his reason for shielding his pastor was because "...he respected Mr. Wright's work for the poor and his fight against injustice." In reality Dr. Wright's work appears to be to denounce the United States as a white racist nation. That's not good press for an African American candidate who needs to win a majority of the white vote to win the office of President.
It would have been not only natural, but expected, for Barack Obama—when he decided to run for the presidency—to make the announcement from the pulpit of the 8,500 member Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama would later state he did not in order to shield his pastor from the spotlight of the media. Dr. Wright has never shunned positive publicity. It was obvious to the media—in particular the New York Times which noted in an April 20, 2007 article that Obama was very deliberately distancing himself from Jeremiah Wright. Instead, Obama announced his candidacy on the steps of the old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois—where Abraham Lincoln announced his candidacy—on Feb. 10, 2007. Obama sees himself as an archtype of Lincoln who will "free his people from the tyranny of the oppressor." What people are those? The inner city people of color whom Dr. Wright believes are part of the Black Value System? Or does he see himself as the man who will free the Muslim world from the Great Satan since his first action, he says, as President of the United States will be to pull all Americans troops out of the Middle East? The voters need to figure out exactly who Barack Obama's constituents really are because when I add 2 + 2 + Obama, it doesn't come out four.
When Obama's early history and his Islamic upbringing was first reported, Obama's website posted a statement dated Nov. 12, 2007 with the headline: "Barack Obama is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim." The statement reiterated that Obama was not a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian. It's time to peel back the layers of history and look at Obama's family, beginning with his atheist mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.
Jon Christian Ryter's web page is here:
http://www.jonchristianryter.com/Root/index.html _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
Because I do not have a Pacer account, I was unable to access other Appeal Court docs directly (a frustration to say the least). 'Jack Ryan' does a pretty good job at keeping track of the various cases and court docs on Scribd.
But I do have a question. Now that Hollister is represented by Hemenway, a D.C. attorney, why is there no quo warranto action in the works from Hollister? Or is there? _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
To be "in the works" a fairly "regular" plaintiff would have to prove he'd gone to the U.S. Attorney for D.C., asked for quo warranto, had the QW declined, and THEN pursue the matter himself. (Since DOJ has now entered appearances in court cases to defend Obama's side, the DOJ has conflicted itself out of QW most likely. If a government QW is ever brought, a special prosecutor will be needed.)
A not-so-regular prospective plaintiff might be someone who has an "interested third party" interest (strong and "unique" individual injury) in the matter and could file for QW in his own right, from the very start.
People claiming wrongful job termination, provably instigated by a President whom they contend is without rightful claim to the office (ineligibility), would have that kind of "interested party" status to bring a QW. High-profile terminated people like this guy ...
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 622 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:43 am Post subject:
From Leo, we have this recent post:
======================
Indiana Court Of Appeals Trips Over Natural Born Citizen Issue.
Posted in Uncategorized on November 13, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
[Ed. UPDATE 6:48 PM. Advanced Indiana broke this story first yesterday.
Also, the Chester Arthur analysis in Footnote 16 reeks. This Indiana decision is pure evil. They have rewritten history to make it appear as if the whole world knew Chester Arthur was a British citizen at birth while history records this blog discovered that fact and first published it to the world in December 2008. Before that time, it was not known. The propaganda has spread from the press to the courts.]
The Indiana Court of Appeals in the Arkeny and Kruse case ( http://tinyurl.com/yd6jzd6 ) has just issued a lame judicial attempt at defining the “natural born citizen” clause. The errors of fact and law incorporated into the decision serve as a beacon outlining the desperation certain government factions now face. Obviously, the British birth issue is getting on their nerves and this was clearly an attempt to derail further national discussion on this issue.
The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs did not state a claim upon which relief might be granted, but then they went ahead and visited some of the underlying merits of the case in a rather cavalier manner. Since any appeal of this decision will be dismissed on other procedural grounds, no appellate court will ever review them on this issue. The upper courts will simply deny the appeal without reaching this aspect. So they took a crack at stopping this in its tracks.
And they failed miserably. And it’s very encouraging. The arguments presented by the Indiana Court of Appeals are weak. The facts used by them are also a fantastic attempt at propaganda. For example:
With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News…
That’s interesting. Later in the decision they reject this fact. Amazing. It appears that the Indiana Appellate Court was not willing to accept that Barack Obama Sr. was the President’s father. That alone tells you something was rotten in Denmark. But the legal arguments they proceed upon, particularly their selective quotations from the Minor and Wong Kim Ark cases illustrate a wonderful example of a court acting as one of the advocates.
Their main argument is to state that citizens are only born or naturalized. That fails to take into account the framers (and other original citizens) who themselves were neither born citizens nor were they naturalized. So the Court proves itself a bit wonky on that point. Still, I certainly do not dispute that today all US citizens are either born or naturalized. But that’s not the point. The necessary evaluation requires consideration of the various types of born citizenship. And on this important issue, the Indiana Court of Appeals has failed.
Born citizens can be broken up into three groups:
1. natural born
2. citizens by statute
3. 14th amendment citizens
- All three classes were born as US citizens, but not all three are the same. Persons born abroad are citizens by federal statute.
- A person born on US soil to alien parents who were domiciled here, according to Wong Kim Ark, is a 14th Amendment citizen.
- Natural born citizens are born on US soil to parents who are citizens.
All of the above are citizens, but each reaches their citizenship through different circumstances.
To be “natural born” is a circumstance of citizenship. It is not a separate level of citizenship. All citizens have equal rights. But naturalized citizens aren’t eligible for the office of President. This is because the natural born citizen clause is a national security measure, not a right of citizenship. The Indiana Court conveniently ignores this point.
Born citizens are not necessarily bestowed with citizenship in the same way. Some require a statute. Some require the 14th Amendment. Some were natural born and their citizenship was self-evident.
The Indiana court also pointed to dicta in a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case ( http://tinyurl.com/yeuvg79 ) which labeled two children of an illegal alien as natural born. That case stated:
The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
But nothing about the issue was discussed. The children were mentioned in passing dicta. Whether the children were natural born was not an issue in that case. And it was a mistake for the court to say they were natural born.
The Indiana Court of Appeals acknowledges that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark did not hold that the man was a natural born citizen. Essentially, the Indiana court acknowledges that the US Supreme Court exercised judicial restraint, but the Indiana Court of Appeals here doesn’t feel that they are restrained in that regard. How brave of them.
Furthermore, the Indiana Court chose to ignore the most relevant aspect of Wong Kim Ark ( http://tinyurl.com/yatrbl9 ) where the SCOTUS clearly indicated that Wong Kim Ark was not natural born:
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
That tells you right there that the child of the citizen and the child of the alien are not both natural born.
“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
The Indiana Court conveniently ignored this analysis. And that comes as no surprise to me. They had to ignore it because there was no possible way for them to distinguish it.
Leo C. Donofrio
======================
and this post
======================
Dear Indiana Court of Appeals:
- Thank you for bestowing my work with meaning. I have been feeling that the efforts I put into this blog had become meaningless. But since your propaganda filled decision in the Arkeny and Ruse case ( http://tinyurl.com/yd6jzd6 ) came down, I know my readers are more than prepared to see your ruse for the deception it is. They are educated and well versed in the law and facts and prepared for this moment.
- Thank you for ignoring the important fact of American history unearthed by this blog in December 2008 when we exposed that Chester Arthur lied about his parents heritage and that his lie kept the nation from knowing that he was a British subject at the time of his birth. Your mention of him in Footnote 16 makes it appear as if the nation was aware of Chester Arthur’s dual nationality, but there was not one single reference to this fact in all of American recorded history until that news was broken here ( http://tinyurl.com/635dl7 ). Your decision gives our work true meaning and depth. For anyone who has come into contact with our reporting thereto knows – whether they support Obama or not – that you have disgraced your robes and oaths by playing fanciful with the facts and portraying that which was hidden from the voters, the media and American history – until we discovered it last year – as if it were known to the public at large the whole time. Your disgrace is my potential realized.
- Thank you for the motivation you have recharged my soul with. The issue is not going away. Instead, it’s destiny awaits in the DC District Court.
Very Truly Yours,
Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Contribute/Join
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
