|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 21, 2008 6:35:49 GMT -5
Jimmy, Watch the video. www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=248Barry has a nice Kenyan Grandmother, it is too bad that Grandmother Dunham died, she too, knew where Barry was born. I will answer the rest of your post tonight after I return home from work. MIKE
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 21, 2008 21:49:53 GMT -5
Barack Obama AKA Barack Dunham AKA Barack Soetoro AKA Barry Obama AKA Barry Soetoro AKA Barry Dunham.
Jimmy,
I got into a PM contest tonight, so I will not be able to provide an answer to your post.
I will reply on Sunday. We are going to Hagerstown tomorrow so I will not be on the computer.
It appears that OBAMA has most of the legal community running scared. I hope the Supreme Court does not acquiesce to him. Only time will tell.
The Hawaii lawsuit was dismissed for "lack of standing." So Barry is safe for another day. He does not have to produce his Kenyan Birth Certificate.
Oh well.
Rest well tonight and have a good day.
MIKE
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Nov 21, 2008 22:03:50 GMT -5
Uncle Mike,
Have a good weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 23, 2008 16:32:39 GMT -5
Nephew Jimmy, et al., If Obama is elegible to run for the Office of the President, then the TERMINATOR should have run for President on the Republican ticket. I am certain he would have beaten any democrat. Then we would really have had some fun saying, I will be BACH, in 4 years!” Unfortunately, for the Republicans, The TERMINATOR, truthfully said, “I was born in Austria, so I am NOT eligible to run for the Presidency.” Now Obama has run for and been elected President. Little is known about BARRY. I imagine he was vetted by the Chicago Democratic Party to run for State Senator and probably carried those same credentials into the United States (U.S.) Senate. (I am unsure Article 1 Section 2, of the Constitution, addresses U.S. Senators - however, that is not relevant in this discussion.) You would think that if someone was running for president, all of his background would be checked over and over. Unfortunately, I tend to think it was not, and by the time he decided to run for President, it was too late and WAY too much had been invested in him. So now he refuses to release his Birth Certificate and has hired 3 high powered law firms to resist turning it over and will fight until he is sworn in then he will really be able to quash any more investigations into his background. THIS IS KAYAPI: (I heard it on a radio broadcast.) Barry’s birth certificate is a HAND WRITTEN DOCUMENT, signed by his mother. It states that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya. (KAYAPI) However, I tend to agree with Mr. Leo Donofrio, in his assertion: "Obama’s father was a Kenyan national and so, regardless of where Obama was born, he was “at birth” subject to the laws of both the United States and of Kenya and as such he is not a natural born citizen of the United States and cannot hold the office of President. It’s really that simple." (I excerpted the rest of this post from: www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=320#more-320)Obama Presidency Challenged By New Jersey Voter - Before US Supreme Court Posted on November 11th, 2008 by admin. ” PRESS RELEASE (In part): Obama Presidency Challenged By New Jersey Voter - Before US Supreme Court Posted on November 11th, 2008 by admin www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=320#more-320“On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.” Quoting from the same press release above: NATURAL BORN CITIZEN “AT BIRTH”? Throughout the Berg vs Obama ordeal the issue of “standing” was always going to stop Mr. Berg’s case, a case which has consistently failed to zero in on the main issue, whether Mr. Obama was a natural born citizen “at birth”, which Obama was not, since he had dual nationality at birth and was therefore subject to the jurisdiction of Kenya as well as the USA. If Mr. Obama wasn’t a natural born citizen “at birth” he can never satisfy the requirement. Mr. Berg’s case touches on everything but the main issue and as such it has no chance of succeeding even if he did have standing, which he most certainly does not. To be a naturally born citizen, this is the issue. You are either “born” one or you are not, and if not, you can’t be President. The 14th Amendment can make one a “citizen” but not a “natural born citizen”. This is the backbone of my case. Had the US legislature, and the States who ratified the 14th Amendment, sought to bestow “natural born citizen” status, then the 14th Amendment would say so, but it does not. It confers “citizen” status, and only if the person is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. While issues concerning Obama’s birth certificate and his time spent in Indonesia might effect his actual “citizenship”, the case I have made does not rely in any way upon those questions. My argument is much more simple to prove and understand. Obama’s father was a Kenyan national and so, regardless of where Obama was born, he was “at birth” subject to the laws of both the United States and of Kenya and as such he is not a natural born citizen of the United States and cannot hold the office of President. It’s really that simple. The nature of the issue flows from the word, “born”. The status required by Article 2, Section 1, must be present “at birth”. To be a “natural born citizen” there must be nothing unnatural about your citizenship “at birth”. Natural, in this context, means to be unencumbered by the laws of any other nation. Regardless of the fact that Obama came to reside in the United States, at the time of his birth another country could also claim him as its own and vice versa. That is the essence of my case as to Obama, and it was the same argument I made as to McCain who was also not eligible to be President. While this might seem unfair, such unfairness must be respected as the guardian to the slippery slope inherent in making exceptions to the rule. The final conclusion in my SCOTUS stay application was as follows: Appellant respectfully submits to this Honorable Court that while the limitations of our Constitution may at times appear unfair, it is important to remember that it is the restrictions which hold us to the Document, as much as it is the freedoms that bind us together as a nation." Uncle MIKE
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Nov 23, 2008 23:44:42 GMT -5
What I don't like about this argument is that it adds another requirement for being President that is NOT in the Constitution.
By this argument, not only must you be born in the United States to a U.S. citizen (which in my opinion is all that is required by the Constitution, other than being 35), but it also says that BOTH of your parents MUST also be citizens at the time of your birth. In my mind, this argument is trying to add another requirement that does not exist in the Constitution.
I believe that being born in the U.S., and the child of at least one U.S. citizen, makes you a natural born citizen, no matter the nationality or citizenship status of the other parent.
I think the only way Obama will be kicked out of office will be to prove that he was born outside the U.S., which I don't think they can do. If he was, there would have to be paperwork about it somewhere, such as a birth certificate, or Visa or passport to get into the country, or somekind of manifest with U.S. customs when he would have come to the U.S. for the first time. So far, absolutely no documentation of this sort has come to light, only the statement from his grandmother. However, there is documentation of his birth in the U.S.
I don't think either argument against Obama's qualifications as President hold water, and I expect the case will be thrown out.
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Nov 24, 2008 0:02:29 GMT -5
Another thing I don't understand - John McCain was born outside of the United States, in Panama (not the Canal Zone, which was U.S. territory), yet he is considered a natural born citizen because he was born to U.S. citizens abroad. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, wouldn't the same rules apply? He was also born to a U.S. citizen.
Even though McCain was not born on U.S. soil, in April, the Senate affirmed his status as a natural born citizen. A Federal District Judge stated that McCain was a natural born citizen because of the citizenship laws that exist at this time. If this legislation supports McCain as a natural born citizen, wouldn't it also support Obama as one also (assuming he was actually born in Kenya)? If he was born overseas, I don't see how his citizenship status would be in any way different from that of McCain.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 states: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." This act passed the 1790 Congress, and was not vetoed by President Washington. It even mentions the term "natural born citizens" for those born overseas.
Some people interpret the term "natural born citizen" to mean born on U.S. soil, but I don't believe there is any statute in U.S. law or the Constitution that actually says that a natural born citizen is one born on U.S. soil. Nor is there any statute mentioning citizenship status of the parents as a requirement to hold public office, only the citizenship status of the politician in question.
|
|
|
Post by BIG JON on Nov 26, 2008 17:45:01 GMT -5
|
|
dknme
Junior Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by dknme on Nov 26, 2008 21:16:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DawnDay on Nov 27, 2008 0:54:05 GMT -5
Letter: Obama-bashing letter sad, funny
Published: Nov 15, 2008 - Page: 7B - UPDATED: 12:05 a.m.
Sad and funny that the retired professor from Vidalia thinks the majority of Americans voted for a radical socialist in electing President-elect Barack Obama.
There seems to be a campaign hangover among those who wanted to “fight, fight, fight,” and now their momentum carries them on beyond the actual contest.
It’s interesting that, considering the total control of the federal government for six of the past eight years, the “conservatives” didn’t have enough time to succeed. They needed four more years?
So addicted to the fear factor, what the campaign boiled down to was “be very afraid of our opponent!”
Obama has never been a radical or a socialist. When Illinois found it needed to reform capital punishment, Obama was in the middle of revising the law so that the death penalty was not abolished. Obama supported the Adam Walsh Act, and his record is more Clinton than Carter.
The constant screeching about socialism and radicalism is campaign rhetoric, and blaming the media sounds like commie-socialist whining they use in Russia to control what people think.
Then again, since Obama got the most electoral votes since President Ronald Reagan, and a clear majority of the popular vote, maybe it’s the narrow, radical right that is actually to be feared. Maybe that is the radical fringe that the voters have rejected.
Whatever, the election is done, Obama won and if he can get us back to a surplus and a 70 percent approval rating by the end of his term, we will be back in the shape President Bill Clinton left us.
By that time, maybe the banks will be privately owned again, and maybe most people will have health care, too. Not miserable, or angry, but Americans.
G. Paul Marx lawyer Lafayette
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 27, 2008 10:02:42 GMT -5
One thing is for sure. This OYATE will be one of the most informed groups regarding the political machinations of the rich and powerful.
I continue to trust that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will do their job and defend the Constitution. Admittedly the SCOTUS exhibited poor judgement and blew some calls, for example: Roe V. Wade and (insert an opinion here that you do not agree with.) In this case the winner of the election to become the President of the United States is an alleged "foreigner." Two cases are before the court, the BERG v. OBAMA, Writ of Certiorari, No. 08-570 Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama, et al. Docketed: October 31, 2008
and the United States Supreme Court docket no. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells, is now distributed for Conference on Dec. 5th, 2008 to the full Court meeting in private on that date.
My best Thanksgiving Day wishes to ALL the OYATE!!!! Even though there are some negative connotations attached to the beginning of the celebration of THANKSGIVING Day, it is good to give THANKS each day to our GOD.
MIKE
We will survive, as our ancestors did, who survived the concentration camps at Fort Snelling, Minnesota, Crow Creek, South Dakota, and Davenport, Iowa.
MIKE
|
|
dknme
Junior Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by dknme on Nov 27, 2008 13:40:49 GMT -5
Here is the Letter containing the "Natural Born Citizen" caution from John Jay to George Washington. www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_joj4101&person=jojNew-York, 25th July, 1787. Dear Sir, Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen. I remain, dear sir, Your faithful friend and servant, John Jay. Author: John Jay Source: The Life John Jay With Selections from His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers. by His Son, William Jay in Two Volumes. Vol. II., 1833.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 27, 2008 18:03:29 GMT -5
Relatives, et al., The football game was a blowout, the movie "Casino Royal" made me like the James Bond hero again, and I spent way too much time on the computer! That said, I am adding this bit of information in reference to cousin Jimmy's post (Reply #46) above. The salient fact I wish to emphasize is: "A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father." MIKE countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/foia-request-response-from-va-document-from-va-sos-signed-by-nancy-pelosi-stating-that-pelosi-certified-obamas-qualifications/dnc-certification_of_nomination-082908-2/(See Post #10) "A natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father." Please visit federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html# more for further information.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 28, 2008 9:35:52 GMT -5
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, as well [**18] as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent, Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583. www.lanlamphere.com/public/2008/11/24/home-run-the-scotus-case-that-defines-a-naturla-born-citizen/
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 28, 2008 10:33:19 GMT -5
From: Legal Memorandum - Talking Points, “From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship,” by John C. Eastman, Ph.D., Page 7, No. 18, March 30, 2006. "Such a claim of birthright citizenship traces its roots not to the republicanism of the American Founding, grounded as it was in the consent of the governed, but to the feudalism of medieval England, grounded in the notion that a subject owed perpetual allegiance and fealty to his sovereign. 33 A necessary corollary of the feudal notion of citizenship was the ban on expatriation, embraced by England and described by Blackstone as follows: Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection…. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance…. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other, and cannot be divested without the concurrence act of that prince to whom it was first due.34" www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/upload/95590_1.pdf"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17. Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832) MIKE
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 28, 2008 10:37:16 GMT -5
And that is it for this day. Now I plan to listen to NEBRASKA CORNHUSKER FOOTBALL as the BIG RED soundly trounces the Colorado Buffalos.
I hope everyone had a wonderful time with family and friends yesterday.
MIKE
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 29, 2008 0:17:47 GMT -5
Nebraska 40 - Colorado 31
What an astonishing ending to an EXCITING game!!!
MIKE
|
|
|
Post by DawnDay on Nov 30, 2008 4:21:49 GMT -5
TO ALL: Can you guys recall the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter Administration? No? I couldn't, but the Bottom line . . we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember.
Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT, HUH?
AND NOW IT'S 2008, 31 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!
THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY 'WHAT WAS WE THINKING?' Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy. And now we are going to turn the Banking system and the Healthcare system to who??? Lets hope they have better wisdom, than the former powers in charge. God Help us.
I KNOW, I KNOW- CARTER/DEMOCRAT BUT IT IS SOMETHING TO REALLY THINK ABOUT. DAWNDAY
|
|
Mathew503
Full Member
Hogantankakastaka
Posts: 98
|
Post by Mathew503 on Nov 30, 2008 8:56:57 GMT -5
It just seems to fit into the 20th century american way of fouling things up, we allow too many people do too many harmful things.! And say wow...
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Dec 9, 2008 9:04:19 GMT -5
The Supreme Court turned down the lawsuit, Obama will become President.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Dec 9, 2008 11:00:26 GMT -5
Not so fast. 2 more are currently in front of the court. 39 others are on the way, most notable is the Alan Keys suit, filed in California...
|
|