Thread: BREAKING: Alan Keyes sues Obama over citizenship proof

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Sorry Sistah! That's cool

LOL......nothing to be sorry for. My fault for not wearing my lipstick that day

Originally Posted by Mayflowerchick

The Wells vs. Donofrio case will be the most damning.Two at SCOTUS.THey await a response.One case above may end up on Justice Thomas' desk..the one Justice OBAMBI was critical of at Saddleback Forum...ha!Read case at Natural Born Citizen.This guy lassoed for all three candidates sued the SOS of NJ but had good proof.Its a very tight one.Will OBAMBI be able to wiggle out?

Donofrio thought through his case very well to raise an area of unsettled law to the Supreme Court.

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-137238.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/po ... .html?_r=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright ... of_America

as stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country…since as before the Revolution." United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866).

Some would argue that American citizenship was intended to be a departure from the British idea of birthright citizenship, rooted in the feudal notion of being born on the soil owned by a Lord and subject (for life) to that Lord as part of his dominion.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Govern ... /wm925.cfm

[quote]The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had previously asserted that “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.â€

One must be very careful when looking at ammendments, and regulations. The use of the phrase, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States refers to the jurisdiction of the Federal Gov. This is where it gets a little sticky, since the Constitution clearly regulates where the "United States" has it's jurisdiction. Which is the District of Columbia, and any "U.S. Territory".

The United States of America is the Republic made up of the several states. Now anything other than Federal buildings, or military installations within the several states, are by law off limits to the jurisdiction of the "United States".

So Senator Jacob Howard in his use of the phrase, "Indians born within the limits of the United States" by definition is confusing at best, since Congress and the and the Supreme Court, and the President are supposed to operate under the rules of narrower meanings and definitions than standard common everyday english.

To try and intermingle the use of the two versions of english in such a way looks more like a nefarious ambition to advance jurisdiction through deception, and ultimately usurpation.

Obama produced forged documents to answer your queries as to who he really is. Well, he did all he could to comply. These forged documents tell you exactly who he is. There is no subterfuge or deceit in the reply. You now know exactly who he is.

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

One must be very careful when looking at ammendments, and regulations. The use of the phrase, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States refers to the jurisdiction of the Federal Gov. This is where it gets a little sticky, since the Constitution clearly regulates where the "United States" has it's jurisdiction. Which is the District of Columbia, and any "U.S. Territory".

The United States of America is the Republic made up of the several states. Now anything other than Federal buildings, or military installations within the several states, are by law off limits to the jurisdiction of the "United States".

So Senator Jacob Howard in his use of the phrase, "Indians born within the limits of the United States" by definition is confusing at best, since Congress and the and the Supreme Court, and the President are supposed to operate under the rules of narrower meanings and definitions than standard common everyday english.

To try and intermingle the use of the two versions of english in such a way looks more like a nefarious ambition to advance jurisdiction through deception, and ultimately usurpation.

I think that the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdication" clause does not refer to a physical place such as a "federal district" (like D.C.), but to a notion of being answerable to the laws of the United States and to have allegiance to the U.S. Everybody is subject to multiple layers of laws starting out at municipal, county, state and federal.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

I think that the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdication" clause does not refer to a physical place such as a "federal district" (like D.C.), but to a notion of being answerable to the laws of the United States and to have allegiance to the U.S. Everybody is subject to multiple layers of laws starting out at municipal, county, state and federal.

The thing I have a problem with, is that you and I as citizens already have alliegence to the state you inhabit. Therefore through the Union you already have an alliegence to the nation. The 14th Ammendment is one that I have always had a problem with, since it did more to enslave the entire population to the DC plantation, than it did to raise those who were held in bondage to level of the "freemen" we were as a nation. Just reading through the "legal jargon" of the 14th Ammendment, it is a sticky web of diabolical spiders to catch unwary flies.

The 13th Ammendment is very concise about the abolishon of slavery in the United States of America. And if it needed to be enhanced by a second following ammendment, the 14th would have been far more clear and liberating had it instead stated, Those who were held in a level of servitude with no free will for their future, by this ammendment are free and equal citizens in the United States of America, and that they shall enjoy the same liberties that are guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as enacted by Congress.

This would have far more benefited the nation than what we have at the present.

So what the 14th ammendent did was to give the District of Columbia total jurisdiction where it had been limited as it should be. Only through small and limited government will we the people finally get a reprieve from the invasive prying controlling aspects of omnipotent government that unlawfully invades our privacy daily, but itself operates under rules of secrecy. And I argue not for the betterment of the nation, or the people, but for self promotion and total abusive power.

That's just my take on it.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Obama had divided allegiance at birth, due to his father's U.K. citizenship through being born in colonial Kenya which was British soil, and set the stages for "birthright citizenship."

Huh? I thought this was about Nobama being born in Kenya, not about where his father was born. Nobama was born in Kenya, so he's not a natural citizen, so he can't be POTUS. Sounds pretty cut-and-dried to me.

BTW, what's the status of this suit?

Originally Posted by patbrunz

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Obama had divided allegiance at birth, due to his father's U.K. citizenship through being born in colonial Kenya which was British soil, and set the stages for "birthright citizenship."

Huh? I thought this was about Nobama being born in Kenya, not about where his father was born. Nobama was born in Kenya, so he's not a natural citizen, so he can't be POTUS. Sounds pretty cut-and-dried to me.

That's the Berg lawsuit; if Obama produces an original Hawaii birth certificate, then the Berg lawsuit flops onto its face and it's all over. Berg makes the mistake of "conceding" that a birth in Hawaii would make Obama a "natural born citizen".

The Donofrio lawsuit is different. It contends that Obama was born with "dual citizenship" and therefore doesn't allow him to be a "natural born citizen" of the U.S.

I'll do a lookup of another blog that runs through the logic and post it.

If Nobama can provide authentic proof he was born in Hawaii, I highly doubt any judge in the land is going to contest his qualification.

There's no way the judges are going to go against the idea that if a child is born in the USA, despite the citizenship of their parents, the child is a natural citizen. I don't agree with it, but realisitically, they aren't going to open that can of worms. We can wish all we want, but that just ain't gonna happen.