|
Post by DawnDay on Sept 27, 2008 3:31:23 GMT -5
HEY GRANDMOM,
I LIKE YOUR SPIRIT., I WAS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF SPEAKING MY PIECE. WHEN MY DAUGHTER GOT HOME WITH GROCERIES, THAT NEEDED TO BE PUT AWAY ETC., A WOMANS WORK IS NEVER DONE.
APPARENTLY I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS A MIND OF THEIR OWN, AND NOT AFRAID TO SPEAK IT.
I LIKE BARBARA, NO VAGINA NO VOTE. AMEN
IT'S TOO BAD MORE MEN DO NOT TAKE MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS, IT TOOK TWO TO TANGO, FOR THE WOMAN TO GET PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE. CONDOMS [HELLO] IT HAS BEEN A WHILE, SINCE SEX INTERESTED ME, BUT I REMEMBER. AND I DO NOT JUDGE, BUT I ALSO WISHED THE YOUNG, WOULD THINK BEFORE THEY ACT. HOW DOES THAT SAYING GO "GET DRUNK, GET STUPID, GET PREGNANT" OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY NEED FOR AN ABORTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE OUR POPULATION IN THE U.S. IS SOARING, AND IN CHINA WITH ONLY ONE CHILD ALLOWED PER FAMILY IS 1.3 BILLION AND AFRICA 900 MILLION AND IT IS ESTIMATED IN 20 YRS WORLD POPULATION WILL BE TRIPLED. WERE LIVING LONGER AND HAVING MORE CHILDREN. I'M JUST STATING FACTS.
THE WORLD POPULATION CANNOT CONTINUE AS IT IS GOING. SO SOME SORT OF CONTROL, HAS TO BE MET. I GUESS THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CHECKING OUT MARS.
NOW THAT I AM TOTALLY DEPRESSED, I'M GOING TO BED AND HOPE I CAN SLEEP.
DAWNDAY
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Sept 27, 2008 8:55:03 GMT -5
“For the first 130 years after the initial European contact (1492-1622) about 95% of ALL the people who populated the Americas died. The greatest killer was epidemic diseases especially as manifested in virgin soil epidemics.” Reference: Virgin Soil Epidemics as a Factor in the Aboriginal Depopulation in America, Alfred W. Crosby, “The William and Mary Quarterly,” 3rd Ser., Vol. 33, No. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 289-299, doi:10.2307/1922166
Why do you think that I am concerned about whether or not abortionists kill little babies? Where do you think the next generation is going to come from? The Wasicu is very busy killing his own and as a sidebar – us.
We have enough circumstances rallying against us from the moment the Wasicu landed through the killings in Minnesota, the forced removal, and the visitation of killing diseases on the Reservation. Yet we survived. Thanks to our Dads and Moms. We may have had it tough, looked death in the face, seen our share of scrapes, but we lived and (sadly) produced only 2 or 3 offspring.
Even if we (or our offspring) did produce prodigious families as our parents did (I am the 9th child of 11 children – 6 are surviving today) would we be able to restock the nation? I think not. Do you see the Dakota Nation surviving? I have my doubts because: 1 Dakota Man or Woman marries a Dakota Man or Woman. They produce 2 Full blood Dakota Sons. One son marries a NonDakota. One son is incarcerated. (late in life he is killed in a car accident – no issue)
The Son and his wife have a Son. They are divorced. She keeps the child and move to LA. Their son grows up and marries a Mexican. Circumstances do not intervene and their son grows up and marries a Mexican. What do you think their children are going to identify as?
Dakota people are identified, tracked, and each is numbered and everyone’s blood quantum is noted. The Wasicu is patient, he is playing the numbers game and knows he can produce more babies than us. The blood quantum numbers are finite and progressively declining: NDN + NDN = 4/4 NDN + NonNDN = 1/2 ½ NDN + NonNDN = 1/4 ¼ NDN + NonNDN = 1/8
The next generation and so on is: 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, 1/256…
More beautiful Dakota babies are needed!!!
Curtis "MIKE" Kitto
|
|
|
Post by DawnDay on Sept 27, 2008 13:01:27 GMT -5
CURTIS "MIKE" KITTO,
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, NOT ONLY DID THEIR NASTY DISEASES KILL 9 OUT OF 10, BUT THE MEAGER AMOUNT OF US THAT WAS LEFT, THEY TRIED TO EXTERMINATE US AS A RACE.
GENERAL AMHERST IN 1763 DECIDED, GENOCIDE WAS THE ANSWER TO THE AMERICAN INDIANS. IT WAS THE FIRST GERM WARFARE USED IN HISTORY AND ON US. THEY USED BLANKETS IN 1763 WITH SMALLPOX VIRUS ALL OVER THEM, AND WITH A SMILE ON THEIR FACES USED THE BLANKETS AS A GIFT. AND WE WILLINGLY, TRUSTING TOOK THEM GRATEFUL FOR THE WARMTH WE THOUGHT THEY WOULD BRING US. WELL THEY ALMOST DID IT. BUT WE ARE BACK, 2.4 MILLION INCLUDING THE ALASKAN. BUT WE WERE ESTIMATED TO BE 75 MILLION STRONG I BELIEVE, BEFORE 1492. THIS REALLY RILES UP MY BLOOD WHEN I READ THESE THINGS THAT WERE DONE TO US.
OUR PROBLEM TO RE-POPULATE AGAIN, IS WE ARE ALL RELATED BY BLOOD. THERE AREN'T THAT MANY OF US LEFT. AND WHATS LEFT, ARE PICKLED WITH ALCOHOL. THAT WAS THE WORSE KILLER OF ALL. OF ALL THE TERRIBLE THINGS THEY INTRODUCED TO US THAT WAS THE FINAL GENOCIDE.
I FEEL SO SAD FOR US, WE WERE A MIGHTY RACE. STRONG, BRAVE AND FULL OF LIFE.
DAWNDAY : ( : (.
|
|
|
Post by jazzdog on Sept 29, 2008 3:40:47 GMT -5
I feel somewhat uncomfortable to respond to Mike's latest post, in light of the fact that I cannot speak of being a partner involved in the decision made by any mother or the father, in the terrible consequence that is abortion. I cannot speak from the point of view of a woman or a girl, that has had to make a decision of that magnitude, nor from the point of view of a man, a father, a husband, a brother, a son, a cousin, a grandfather, or a close male friend of the female that has had to come to terms with such a drastic decision.......whether that consequence be brought upon by an unplanned or unforeseen pregnancy......or that of an unperceived or suddenly critical pregnancy, such as in the instances of incest or rape..........I cannot, nor will I, as a fellow human being, try to imagine or judge, what the mother and the other principals, are or can experience in those moments of time when such a matter is even within perception..........this is a hard issue. But, I have always beleived in the sanctity of one's own body, and therefore, have believed that it is a matter of personal faith, personal decisionmaking, and personal grief and understanding......However, it is important to recognize our fellow humans that do believe what they believe, which may be different than what some others may believe....... I am human. Therefore, I am imperfect.......and in the eyes of God and the Great Spirit (which, I believe, to be one and the same), we are all capable of making mistakes and misjudgments in life and in our decisions in life. But something in our common beliefs and our structures of belief, guide us in how we can better our existence on Earth within her realm, and amongst our own at the same time. I had always hoped that the old adage that I was taught and had heard for so many years, still at least held some importance...........treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself.......... It seems simple enough. It seems rather elementary in the scheme of our very complicated world nowdays. But, again, as human beings, with individual thought and individual free will, we always find matters of controversy and dispute. We try to work them out normally, when they can be, or to debate and argue on issues when they are more than simple........but we most always can agree that the concepts of Individual reccognition and respect, with the concept that there are times when we must agree to disagree, we all can still be civil, yet understanding of the adverse position. I respect Mike's positon and those that agree with him, as it concerns the abortion issue. Supporters of the position of no abortions whatsoever, oftentimes, state the atrocities of what an abortion is all about. (even, sometimes, to the extent of unfortunate displays of the tradegy itself, to possibly promote the grotesce nature of the outcome). I think we can all agree that the process itself is not something that anyone human, would willingly want to participate in. This is the point. I, and I think I have many who agree, do not like abortion or its concept or its consequences. The abortion itself, is an end to a decision made by the mother, and the sometimes others beyond the mother, if she is so inclined or influenced. What is problematic, is when individuals try to explain tothose that stand up for a woman's right to choose to exercise control over her own body, that those people who support the woman's right, are somehow desirous of abortions. that is so far from the truth. The people that support the right to choose, do not condone abortions........do not like abortions........do not hope for abortions.......do not encourage abortions..........it seems as if the debate is focused upon a misunderstanding about pregnancy and unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. Isn't the goal to avoid unwanted pregnancies? To stop the need for the decision to have an abortion in the first place? Abstinence teaching is a pristine manner of trying to avoid pregnancy, and in a roundabout fashion, unwanted pregnancies, and ultimately, unnecessary abortions........however, isn't the reality of the present human condition in society more close to the notion that education about sexual activity to all, especially the newly capable sexually active citizens, would be more effective as to how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy, than to just say "don't do it"?. Isn't the source of the problem easier to address with the most vulnerable age group or groups, more effective to avoid pregnancies in the first place, than dealing with the inevitable experimental conduct's results later? This is where I differ with Mike and the likemind thinkers that join him, in believing that a presidential election could be based or should be based upon a one issue............I know fully welll that certain groups of the American electorate does vote on one issue and one issue only.......be it abortion, be it "tax cuts", be it social security, be it immigration, be it gay marriage.........be it........race......... For too many elections for too many years, have the divisiveness of the Republicans, yes, the republicans, forced Americans to dwell upon single issues to decide for the totality of the spectrum of all the important issues that need be addressed by this country in order to help the totality of the country's needs.........that political strategy has lulled us all into a sense that no one person or idea, can ever help us all......all of us.......out of adversity, if we differ on one of these divisive cultural issues. Therefore you find people voting for or against one divisive cultural issue, and voting against, .....their own interests in all other issues that frankly, mean more to the progress of the country and society as a whole......((i.e. economy, civil rights, suprme court, equal pay, labor rights, the environment, Mother Earth, etc. etc., etc.,)........... To blame Obama or the Democrats for the failings of this country because they support a woman's rught to choose, seems somewhat shortsighted........it is even dishonest and disengeuous to the extent that any political party or individual actually supports or condones any form of abortion......nobody is actually in favor of abortion......in fact, if no future abortion was ever needed or desired, the process would be unnecessary in and of itself........but that is not the reality, at this point in time. It is how our society approaches........pregnancy.....and irresponsable parental planning, that may be at the root of thes societal problem. I know, that by these words, I will likely not sway Mike and others to understand this stance......nor do I expect that you will gracefully agree with me at this time on this point.......at this time......but, it is important to start to talk real talk, and intelligently deal with these issues that are thrust upon us in these election seasons everytime........they will continue to thrust them out there to demonize politicians such as the dems and Obama, because that they can......... Again, I apologize for going on and on, but I hope I at least can spark some debate and potential counterthinking to the ordinary divisivlness.........but, think for a moment why the so called conservative mindset keeps harping on abortion as a major wedge issue to bring forth at every election time......... what are their real principles? when a politician says they are "pro life" what does that mean? Do they care about all life? Do they care about the beasts on Mother Earth, beyond the humans? Do they care for the "born" child, more than the they say they care for the unborn fetus? What are their policies for the born children's right to education or child health care? What are their policies for the protection of the environment for the born children? What are their policies for the proteciton of the WORLD'S born children? Are the other colored and ethnically diverse children's lives any less valuable than the unborn fetuses of American citizens, when they so aggressively want to bomb and invade other countries where other born children are needlessly killed and maimed? Are the poor born children in this country, any less precious and valuable, as an unborn fetus? Are the cutting and rutting of the social programs designed to help and assist the born children of this country less important than the lives of unborn fetuses? This is the grand devisiness of which they create. This is the trap of which they lay, when they prey upon caring and spiritual individuals to make decisions upon such important ones of reproductive and women's rights........... Just please look through the whole spectrum before you judge any one candidate or any one individual. Thanks for reading.....think about the future when you vote. Humanity is at the root of what our needs may address.
Your friend
Jazzdog
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Sept 29, 2008 10:50:51 GMT -5
Once again I am impressed by your thought process and your ability to express it with out being inflammatory. Thank you for your post Jazzdog.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 8, 2008 9:16:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 18, 2008 17:29:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jazzdog on Nov 19, 2008 0:53:59 GMT -5
Mike the election is over and the majority of the American people that voted have rejected the rightwing agenda and direction that has engulfed this country for far too long........in overwhelming numbers in both electoral landslide and with at least 6 or 7 million votes in the popular tally.....(at least, since we know that probably between 5 to 7 million voters were potentially disenfranchised by the Republican voter suppression tactics). The country is ready for change. Your reference to the old retread of argument which challenges Barack Obama's birth and birthplace, has long been debunked by all credible and reliable sources, except those rightwing blogs and the neocon talking heads, who will spout falsities and hate at every turn because they can. It is a time for moving forward with a courageous and youthful new direction for this country, that is nutured by the immediate turn in world opinion in favor of the US for a change, after the disasterous last eight years of flawed and destructive policies that the American people have grown tired of and fed up with. With all due respect, we need to move toward hope and reestablishment of the human qualities of life in our country and respect for our neighbors and for the Mother Earth. However........since you bring up the false notion concerning the president-elect, and concerning the issue of a person becoming president of the US if they are not a natural born US citizen..........I offer the following: johnharding.com/After all, we cannot let a false allegation or innuendo go unchallenged.......... thanks. keep up the good work on this site, Mike. your friend Jazzdog
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 19, 2008 16:28:46 GMT -5
I always enjoy reading your posts. You make me smile.
The case now in front of the Supreme Court is officially named, “Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey”.
The issue is: "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."
Respectfully,
Curtis "MIKE"
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 19, 2008 23:24:58 GMT -5
Jazz Dog, Check this out. The question before the Supreme Court is "Barry a Natural-Born Citizen?" (this is just one of many suits filed) Obama Presidency Challenged By New Jersey Voter - Before US Supreme Court Posted on November 11th, 2008 by admin Obama presidency challenged by New Jersey voter re: “natural born citizen” now before US Supreme Court. Standing not an issue-Birth Certificate not main point of suit. Action was originally filed against both Obama and McCain alleging ineligibility. PRLog (Press Release) – Nov 10, 2008 – 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. Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain and Obama removed for the same reason. (Later, Plaintiff also sought the removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail on the grounds of “standing”, but Donofrio v. Wells, having come directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity. While raising it as an ancillary issue, Plaintiff in this case didn’t rely upon questioning Obama‘s birth certificate as the core Constitutional issue. Rather, he alleges that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born to a Kenyan national father and is therefore not eligible to be President due to having dual loyalties at birth and split jurisdiction at the time of his birth. The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey. The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22. The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election. The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President. These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd. Plaintiff-Appellant then initiated the litigation process on Monday, October 27th. Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test. The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President. The action was brought as a “Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs” (aka writ of mandamus) directly to the Appellate Division in NJ. An arduous four day litigation ended with Judge Sabatino denying plaintiff emergency relief. Plaintiff then submitted the matter to the New Jersey Supreme Court the next morning, and after an emergency review by multiple Supreme Court Justices, the application for emergency relief was denied. However, in an incredible turn of events, the NJ Supreme Court specifically ignored the lower court’s five page opinion – such opinion having avoided the Constitutional question presented – and relied upon “Movant’s Papers” which did discuss and employ Constitutional issues. This then opened a door to US Supreme Court review. Since “Movant’s papers” are based on a Constitutional issue, it is proper for the US Supreme Court to review the case. Plaintiff-appellant prepared the US Supreme Court emergency stay application over the weekend and then rushed off to Washington D.C. on November 3rd where he filed an Application For Emergency Stay of New Jersey ballots, and/or a stay of the “national election”. Plaintiff’s terminology is of vital importance here. Plaintiff’s use of the term “national election” includes all aspects thereof, including the popular vote, full election results, and the Electoral College process. Justice Souter, facing a tough decision in the wake of Obama’s landslide victory, took four days to examine the extensive lower court paper trail and legal precedents pertaining thereto, but he eventually denied the application on Nov. 6th, 2008. However, the case is still live, but not for the reason erroneously listed on the SCOTUS Docket. It appears Justice Souter was misinformed by the US Supreme Court Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickle. A full Petition for Writ of Certiorari is listed as “pending” on the Supreme Court docket, and such Petition having not been dismissed by Justice Souter indicates the serious merits of the case, but plaintiff-appellant did not make a full Petition, and so its existence is a procedural fiction. But the case is still live and pending as an Emergency Stay Application. Due to the emergent nature of Stay proceedings, plaintiff is entitled - by law - under US Supreme Court Rule 22 to resubmit the Application for an Emergency Stay to another Justice of his choice along with a supplemental letter to accompany the original Stay application. Justice Souter had right of first review because he is charged with review of 3rd Circuit actions, and New Jersey is in the 3rd Circuit. But now that Justice Souter has denied the emergency stay with prejudice, Plaintiff may resubmit the Application For An Emergency Stay of the national election results and Electoral College meeting to the Honorable US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Furthermore, all nine Justices will be served on this round, according to Rule 22 which requires Appellant to submit 10 copies of the original Stay application for the entire Supreme Court. A supplemental letter detailing the unorthodox procedural history involved with this case is being prepared for Justice Thomas to review along with the prior Stay application. Submitted to the SCOTUS. Instead of making a full Petition for Certiorari, plaintiff-appellant, as to his Emergency Stay Application, relied on the procedural history in Bush v. Gore, wherein Bush also chose to forego a full Petition for Cert., and instead relied exclusively on an emergency Stay application handed to one Justice who then empaneled the entire court. The Supreme Court then granted the Stay, treated the Stay application as a full Petition for Certiorari and granted that Petition despite the fact that Bush only submitted the one Application for Emergency Stay. That was done because the urgency of the situation begged resolve of the national Presidential election. The same conditions apply here as the clock is ticking down to December 15th, the day for the Electoral College to meet. The bi-partisan case progressed quietly through the lower courts with no publicity as the plaintiff-appellant sought to respect court authority seeking only to have the “natural born issue” determined once and for all. He didn’t create a web site or request donations. The suit is self financed. However, due to some very unorthodox treatment of the case in the NJ Appellate Division, and also by the US Supreme Court Clerk’s office, a press conference is now being prepared to coincide with the resubmission of the Stay application to Justice Clarence Thomas. To view the official court documents, pleadings and orders, please see www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen# # # (See next post)
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 19, 2008 23:32:11 GMT -5
Leo Donofrio is a citizen rights advocate. He is a retired attorney who now uses his legal background to identify Government abuse of citizen rights in order to educate the public, “We The People”.
Additional:
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.
STANDING
As a New Jersey citizen, I have proper standing. In fact, my standing wasn’t challenged by the NJ Attorney General’s office in their reply brief in defense of the Secretary of State, nor was my standing challenged by Judge Sabatino in his five page opinion from the NJ Appellate Division. Despite there having been no challenges to my standing raised below, out of respect for the United States Supreme Court, I did address the issue in my application for an emergency stay as follows:
Appellant’s standing was not challenged in Respondent’s reply brief, nor was it challenged in his Honorable Sabatino’s order and decision. However, Appellant discusses the issue below in respect to this most Honorable Court’s superior jurisdiction. In Ridgewood Education Association v Ridgewood Board Of Education, 284 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. (1995)), the Court stated, “We see no reason why this State’s historic liberal approaches to the issue of standing in general….should not apply to taxpayer suits challenging the quasi-legislative actions of local boards of education.” Silverman v. Board of Ed., Tp. of Millburn, 134 N.J. Super. 253, 257-58 (Law Div.), aff’d o.b. 131 N.J. Super. 435 (App. Div. 1975).
The policies of justice regarding the sanctity of voting rights were also stated in New Jersey Democratic Party v. Samson, 175 N.J. 178, 814 A.2d 1028 (October 2, 2002). Although the petitioner bringing suit in that case was a political party, the voting rights discussed and protected were those of individuals. Therefore, the reasoning of that case should apply when the petitioner is an individual voter.
Appellant’s fundamental right to vote for a candidate who will not be disqualified after the election is now threatened by the inclusion on New Jersey ballots of three ineligible candidates.
“When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S 5, 6 (2000)
And finally, Appellant’s fundamental right to live in the United States governed by a President and Commander In Chief who is Constitutionally eligible to the office of President is also threatened. Since this action is so very grounded in the interests of justice, and supported by all of the above, Appellant respectfully requests that this court recognize his standing.
While Mr. Berg, who has made a valiant effort, does not have legal standing, I do have a right of review by the US Supreme Court since New Jersey recognizes my standing and also because I have exhausted all of my state court options and there is nowhere else for me to go for justice.
Due to the impending Electoral College meeting, a genuine emergency exists and the case must be resolved by the US Supreme Court, and it will be resolved by the Supreme Court unless the SCOTUS Clerk’s office interferes once again with the next phase of this litigation, that being my letter to Justice Clarence Thomas which is attached to my renewed application for an Emergency Stay of the 2008 national election.
Later today, I will release my letter to Justice Thomas as a sworn certification detailing the various unorthodox judicial activity my case has suffered. The case is officially named, “Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey”.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 19, 2008 23:43:59 GMT -5
Quoting Peacekeeper, "Let the fireworks begin!"
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Nov 20, 2008 1:01:41 GMT -5
The issue is: "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." Are you using the above argument to defend McCain's citizenship? If so, wouldn't it also apply to Obama? If you say that McCain doesn't have to be a natural born citizen, only born a citizen, wouldn't the same also hold for Obama? Because his mother was a citizen and he was born on U.S. soil, that makes him not only a citizen, but a natural born citizen. No where in the Constitution does it say that both parents of a presidential candidate must also be citizens. That being said, I don't deny McCain's eligibility. I think there should be certain dispensation for cases like this. If you are born to a citizen in the military stationed overseas, then that person should be considered a natural born citizen. That's my opinion anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 20, 2008 6:38:24 GMT -5
Jimmy,
No I am not.
I am just reporting on "OBAMA." Here is a list of his names:
Barack Hussein Obama, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama, a/k/a Barry Obama, a/k/a Barry Dunham, a/k/a Barry Soetoro [herein after Obama]
Right at this moment, I am unsure who will be President if OBAMA is forced to concede, I think BIDEN but I could be wrong.
In reality, I just am having trouble adjusting to a KENYAN National as our president-elect, while I marvel at the machinery that put him into place.
From WIKIPEDIA:
The constitutional provisions The special term "Natural-Born Citizen" is used in particular as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President or Vice President of the United States. Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:
“ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”
Additionally, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides an additional source of constitutional doctrine stating that birth "in the United States" and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of birth, entitles one to citizenship:
“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. . . ”
However, the full text of the fourteenth amendment does not mention the phrase "natural-born citizen," nor does it address Presidential qualifications. The phrase "natural born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution.
Section 8 of Article I confers on Congress the power "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization..." This power has been construed to include defining the characteristics of a "natural born citizen", as well as the conditions of "naturalization".
The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "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." In addition George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If Washington disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill.
It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay (who was born in New York City) to George Washington (who was born in Virginia), presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.
The 2003 Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, a proposed amendment to the US Constitution, would, if adopted, have removed the prohibition against naturalized citizens holding the office of the President."
MIKE
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Nov 20, 2008 9:13:22 GMT -5
Mike, I just don't understand the argument. He was born in the United States to a United States citizen, therefore, he is a natural born citizen. That's it, there is no further argument. It does not matter that one of his parents was not a citizen at the time of his birth. Being born in the United States and having one parent be a citizen at the time makes him a natural born citizen. Like I said before, there is no place in the Constitution that demands that the president have both parents be citizens of the United States at the time of birth.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 20, 2008 16:28:35 GMT -5
"...even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born to a Kenyan national father and is therefore not eligible to be President due to having dual loyalties at birth and split jurisdiction at the time of his birth."
This is the reason why he is not a Natural Born Citizen. FYI His grandmother and 2 priests state that he (BARRY) was born in Mombasa, KENYA, Africa.
|
|
|
Post by antap2 on Nov 20, 2008 19:11:18 GMT -5
Well people, if we haven't learned from the past 8 years -- we are a hurtin' unit! My dad always said "republicans - the rich gte richer and the poor get poorer!" He lived to 84 years old. At least he is trying to do something for the people! Either we get in the boat and row together or we sink. It is our choice! Now here's the word on Obama -- from reliable sources! Obama appoints Native officials to transition team - Thursday, Nov. 20, 2008 By JODI RAVE of the Missoulian As President-elect Barack Obama appoints a new team of cabinet members and fills other key federal work posts, he's named six Native people to his transition team - half of them assigned to assist in Interior Department policy, budget and personnel changes. "We're lucky to have such stellar representatives with people with whom Indian Country has really good relationships," said Jacqueline Johnson-Pata, executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, a nonprofit organization that represents more than 250 tribes. So far, Mary Smith, Mary McNeil and Yvette Robideaux have been assigned to work on justice, agriculture and health issues, while three current and former attorneys with the Native American Rights Fund - John Echohawk, Keith Harper and Robert Anderson - will advise Obama on changes proposed within the Interior Department. As advisers to the Interior transition team, the Indian law experts could inspire a significant transformation within the department's Indian trust fund system, an organizational debacle that has been subject to 12 years of litigation during the Cobell vs. Kempthorne suit. "This is our last big chance to get a lot of things done," said Elouise Cobell, the lead plaintiff from Montana's Blackfeet Nation in the class action lawsuit. "It's like a broken record every time we have a hearing. Nothing really happens. Maybe if we get the right people in these positions, we can all work together: the tribes, Congress and the administration." The Native American Rights Fund, a tribal justice and legal rights organization based in Boulder, Colo., has helped represent a half- million Native landowners in the Cobell suit. Landowners claim Interior Department agency officials - including the Office of Special Trustee, Bureau of Land Management, Minerals Management Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs - have mismanaged billions of dollars of their income earned from sales of timber, oil and gas, and grazing leases. Echohawk, NARF's executive director of more than 30 years, also served as a transition adviser for former President Bill Clinton. Harper was the lead NARF attorney in the Cobell case. He remains the only Native representative assigned to the highest ranks of the Obama transition, where he has been named a "team lead" for the Interior Department. Harper also served as the Native policy adviser during the Obama campaign. He currently heads up Native affairs for the Washington, D.C., law firm Kilpatrick Stockton. He was named as one of the 50 "Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America" by the 2008 National Law Journal. And he is a lead attorney in the Cobell suit. Rounding out the Interior advisers to the Obama transition team, Anderson worked 12 years as a senior staff attorney for NARF, where he litigated state, tribal and federal jurisdiction cases, including water, hunting and fishing rights cases. Transition team updates are being made at www.change.gov. "President-elect Obama has set a high bar for the transition team to execute the most efficient, organized and transparent transfer of power in American history," said John Podesta, co-chairman of the presidential transition team, in a news release. "First, we adopted the strictest ethics guidelines ever applied to any transition team. President-elect Obama pledged to change the way Washington works, and that begins with shifting influence away from special interests and restoring it to the everyday Americans who are passionate about fixing the problems facing our country." Job seekers are being encouraged to submit their resumes, and many Native people have already done so. "The team expands constantly as they look for gaps and bring in other people, said Johnson-Pata. "Every time I look at the list, I see new names on it. We're lucky. We have several Native Americans in a variety of different places." You may agree with him or not, but he is trying! Go Obama!
|
|
|
Post by sara on Nov 20, 2008 20:43:15 GMT -5
As one of the founders of this website, I am voting that this thread be deleted.
There are hundreds of chat rooms for these topics.
This is a dakota history site.
Thank-you, Sara
|
|
dknme
Junior Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by dknme on Nov 20, 2008 21:37:59 GMT -5
Sara, You totally underestimate this site. It is far more than a "dakota history site." Foremost it is a vital genealogy research site. It also provides enjoyment and information, too. Just because you are not interested in this topic, I suggest that you are free to not read it. My vote (if necessary) KEEP THIS THREAD! This thread is interesting, informative, and most of all ALIVE. You may wish not to be informed, but to me infomation is the light, to battle the darkness. It is important that we continue to be informed. (And I enjoy providing the information!)
Barry Obama's days as the president elect may be limited. "Today, the United States Supreme Court scheduled the case - Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 - for a conference of the nine Justices.
If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full review, oral argument may be ordered. The conference is scheduled for December 5, 2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College.
The case originally sought, pre-election, to have the names of Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero removed from New Jersey ballots, and for a stay of the "national election" pending Supreme Court review of whether those candidates were eligible under the Constitution as natural born Citizens, as is required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.
Leo Donofrio brought his case from a lower New Jersey court to the NJ Supreme Court - was denied - and then he filed an emergency stay application in the United States Supreme Court on Nov. 3, 2008, before the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter. Justice Souter denied the emergency stay application on Nov. 6.
Leo Donofrio renewed the application, as per Supreme Court Rule 22.4, to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by way of Express mail on Nov. 14. The application arrived at the Supreme Court on Nov. 17 and was submitted directly to Justice Thomas."
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Nov 20, 2008 23:13:56 GMT -5
"...even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born to a Kenyan national father and is therefore not eligible to be President due to having dual loyalties at birth and split jurisdiction at the time of his birth." This is the reason why he is not a Natural Born Citizen. FYI His grandmother and 2 priests state that he (BARRY) was born in Mombasa, KENYA, Africa. The above statement is just opinion, it is not law. It is up to the court to decide if the above is true or not. That being said, I think it is crap. Why would it matter where his father was born and if he was a citizen? Do we even know that Obama would be considered a citizen of Kenya by their laws? Even if he was, he does not have citizenship in Kenya now, nor has he ever given up his citizenship with the U.S. Obama has produced his birth certificate, which shows his birth in Hawaii, also, 2 officials with the Vital Records office of Hawaii swore that the records are legit, and the original exists in their office.
|
|