US SUPREME COURT SCHEDULES FULL CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS NJ CITIZEN SUIT

greatest satisfaction to be proven wrong, I have no end of difficulty accepting the proposition that 4 or more members of a governmental body (those who have been assigned to issue the stamp of "Holy Writ" to the aggession of the State against the rights of individuals) would actually go so far as to even allow an officially sanctioned complete argument of the question, not to mention the even more remote possibility that 5 or more members would actually declare unConstitutional Obama's candidacy.

Federal judges are appointed to serve during terms of "good behavior" (for life if they choose) in order to, so the theory goes, place them outside the considerations of politics and the ballot box and thereby insure that the discharge of their duties is not affected by the machinations of the political arena. I think that, as a practical matter, such a theory is closer to fantasy than reality and the potential social and civil "bomb" that would be exploded, by ruling Obama is not constitutionally qualified, will be the primary guide that will govern any "ruling" that comes from this lawsuit, even a ruling that refuses to hear the case or to acknowledge the legal standing of the plantiff to even bring the suit or the court's legal standing to even hear it.

As I mentioned, I would enjoy being proven absolutely wrong, but I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

I also have to take note of the fact that, just because Souter was unwilling to issue the stay, the plantiff was free, under the rules, to take their request to another judge on the court. Indeed, that was done. Thomas could have issued the stay on his own, thereby allowing the full conference to either approve or overturn his issuance of such a stay. This has been done in the past, where the refusal of one judge to issue injunctive relief was simply replaced by another justice, on the same court, who decided to actually issue the injunctive relief sought by a petitioner. Rather than act on his own, Thomas has simply made copies of the petition and distributed them for a regular conference of the court members. It's hardly indicative that Thomas personally holds some judicial belief that his own issuance of a stay would be ratified by other members of the court.

_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."

Obama is related by blood to one US citizen, his mother. He is related by blood to one British citizen, his father. He was born with dual citizenship.

So he was half natural born, and half not. Since the Constitution does not provide a requirement of at least being half natural born, but rather it requires natural born, I don't see how Obama qualifies as natural born. It the old idea that you can't be half pregnant; you either are or are not.

He was born with an allegiance to Great Britain, and the purpose of the natural born provision was to exclude people with such allegiances at birth. It may be a technical requirement, but it applies.

So will the Supreme Court find Obama to be disqualified, or even accept the case? Probably not since they do not have a great history of upholding the Constitution, so while it is interesting to watch, I don't have much hope.

If Obama were to be disqualified, we still have a statist President in the form of Biden, but just think how much fun it would be to see large segments of the population go ballistic.

If the Supreme Court were actually the real deal, I don't see how they could avoid this issue or how they could do anything but rule in favor of Donofrio.

Here's the Supreme Court link: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

http://therightperspective.com/wordpress/?p=349

This blog post below contains the single most controlling legal precedent establishing Senator Barack Obama's ineligibility to be President under the Constitution. So I am leaving this blog post at the top of the blog for the next few days. Please study its simple premise.)

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.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens". Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

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;

That's it right there. (Emphasis added.)

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as "natural born Citizens", so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between "natural born Citizens" and all other "Citizens". And that's why it's important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of "Citizen", not "natural born Citizen". The Framers were Citizens, but they weren't natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.

Since the the Framers didn't consider themselves to have been "natural born Citizens" due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.

__________________________________________________________

Barack Obama's official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto:

FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen "at birth".

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship "at birth" and therefore split loyalties "at birth", he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States. A "natural born citizen" would have no other jurisdiction over him "at birth" other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words "natural born" and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, "natural born citizen", pertains to the status of the person's citizenship "at birth".

The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, "at birth", a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional "natural born citizen" status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President. Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen "at birth".

Obama has admitted to being a British subject "at birth". And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction "at birth" bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.

As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer "natural born citizen" status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a "Citizen", and only if he is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:

"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."

The most overlooked words in that section are: "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.

Stop and think about that.

The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves - persons born subject to British jurisdiction - and "natural born citizens" who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen... at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.

And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States "at birth". It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject "at birth". If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.

If you click through to Factcheck.org, a more detailed discussion as to why Obama was a British citizen at birth explains the relevant statutes:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.' "

The article goes on to state that Obama's British citizenship was transferred to Kenya as Kenya became independent from the UK and that Obama's Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 21 years old. But none of that is relevant since the Constitution requires that every President be a "natural born citizen". The word "born" is proof positive that the status must be present "at birth". If this were not the case, then, as stated above, the Framers would not have needed to put in a grandfather clause.

The Framers recognized that even they were not "natural born citizens" and so they wrote the grandfather clause in to allow any of them to become President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to those who were Citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption. And so, Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States and neither is John McCain who was born in Panama, and neither is Roger Calero who was born in Nicaragua.

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/article/29871.htm...

Here is the link to Leo C. Donofrio entire case....

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

this is not about Obama, McCain or anyone....
this is about Our Country...Our Constitution... Our Rule of Law...

It's not partisan in anyway...

. . . to attempt to re-establish its integrity. Don't get too excited.

________________________________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Don't think for a minute that Obama doesn't already know this, in fact I will bet he has already bought 5 of the best! If not him then the Democratic party has.

Any takers?