Tuesday, March 24, 2009

All together now – say OMG!!

See the revised and updated version here:

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
Posted by at

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Pay attention to this next quoted paragraph:

"Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President." Leo C. Donofrio

This is what we should be focused and educate ourselves what "natural Born Citizen" really means.

Is it anyone born on American soil regardless of where the Parents are from?

Or is it what the Founders understood and intended,

A person born of Parents, both of which were American Citizens themselves?

So what if AKA was born in Hawaii? Is father was a Foreign National.

That means, at best, AKA is "naturalized Citizen" and if one is 'Naturalized" its because they were not 'Natural Born into Citizenship".

March 25, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...

Isn't there some way to go through a back door to determine if AKA was receiving student aid for a foreign student? Investigate every aid source....aren't they government sources? I believe those should be a matter of public record, shouldn't they?

March 25, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Sam and Bunny Sewell said...

Tucker,

You are right. Court cases are subject to corruption and are tedious.

The other methods are being looked into by these people:
http://dewdropwarriors.blogspot.com/

March 25, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Leo the Lawyer said...

THE POWER OF A PATRIOT

by EA_LEO

People tend to either credit lawyers and judges far too much or discredit them to the extreme. The truth is lawyers and judges are greatly restricted by the privilege of license or of office. The people who are patriots have far more freedom of action and far less restrictions in our society.

Did you know that any citizen patriot can bring a criminal case against Barrack Hussein Obama in the County in which they reside? You do not have to be an Attorney General to indict a ham sandwich or a Barrack Obama. If a patriot had evidence of a crime committed by the 2008 BO campaign and that patriot presented said evidence to a sympathetic Grand Jury with a charge of conspiracy to commit said crime against Barrack Obama, that patriot could get BO indicted like that proverbial ham sandwich.

You might wonder how you get evidence against BO and members of his 2008 campaign? There were many newspaper, internet blog and TV reports of crimes committed by BO’s campaign workers all across the USA in 2007 and 2008. All you have to do is perform a google search to begin to write your presentation of criminal information for the indictment of BO and his co-conspirators in your County.

You might also give your friendly Sheriff or Police Chief a call and see if you can get some assistance from local law enforcement personnel in gathering evidence against the BO campaign.

To find standing, SCOTUS need look no further than the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” Thus, “we the people,” individually, are established as one party among many to a contract binding upon the executors of this contract, our Constitution.

Who then are the executors of this contract with the people?

An executor of the Constitutional Contract is anyone and everyone who takes Oath to be bound by our Constitution becomes a party to this agreement.

Foremost among the parties counterbalanced upon this executory contract is the President of the United States, the Chief Executive or Executor of the Constitutional Contract.

When is the President bound to this contract, our Constitution, immediately, upon the taking of the Oath? In the instant case, Barack Hussein Obama became bound to our Constitutional Contract on January 20, 2009.

As succinctly stated by Chief Justice Marshall in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, “If a persons duty is backed by law and not by political in nature, then he becomes subject of the law and is examinable by the court.” Thus, Barack Hussein Obama having bound himself contractually by law to our Constitutional Contract is subject to the jurisdiction of the law.

Furthermore from Marbury, “Specific duty is assigned by law and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear, that the individual who considers himself injured, has the right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy. The question whether a right has vested or not, in its nature, judicial and must be tried by the judicial authority.” This means that anyone that can show that they were injured by BO’s actions has a right to sue him for said injury.

Most of the eligibility cases have focused on the “individual injured” theory which is an inherently weak legal argument in terms of present day law and a case involving the President of the United States, particularly in terms of getting standing.

Consequently, most of the cases previously filed have been dismissed for lack of standing. Simply stated, the lawyers did not include Plaintiffs who had a present contractual right or detriment recognized by law; or, the lawyers did not include Defendants who owed a present duty to the Plaintiffs or had somehow injured the Plaintiffs.

As you might have concluded, a Marbury argument overcomes the standing problem in that, all citizens got standing by the contractual commitment that Barrack Hussein Obama made to us all on January 20, 2009.

When the right case with the right Plaintiffs (with standing) and the right Defendants (with a duty owed to Plaintiffs) is brought in a Court with jurisdiction, then the case will be heard.

In SCOTUS, I dare say there is already a majority theoretically inclined to rule for the proper Plaintiffs. It is, after all, the Constitution which the Supremes are all sworn to uphold. Moreover, the Supreme Court Justices are all “just” citizens of this Great Nation, and it is arguable the BO is not even a citizen and it is certain that BO is not Natural Born in the USA.

For those of you interested in reading more about standing or contract theory under Marbury, please see the following sites:

Steven Winter’s Landmark Essay on Standing

http://www.constitution.org/duepr/standing/winter_standing.htm

Essays on Chief Justice Marshall

http://www.history1700s.com/page1760.shtml

March 26, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Leo the Lawyer said...

Found some interesting Forums for discussion of these issues:

http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=148

http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/02/few- … a-leo.html

http://msplaceddemocrat.com/


But always come back here:

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/ … y-omg.html

March 27, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)