Posted on 04/16/2010 4:26:38 AM PDT by BCW
WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA? D.C. court case demands Obama explain eligibility Contends president's allegiance is to Britain, Kenya, Indonesia Posted: January 29, 2010 12:20 am Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily A prominent attorney who has shepherded a number of high-profile legal cases challenging Barack Obama'seligibility to be president has brought a "Quo Warranto" case to district court in Washington, D.C., alleging his allegiances have included Britain, Kenya and Indonesia. A Quo Warranto action, first recorded some 800 years ago, essentially is a demand to know by what authority a public figure is acting. The case, brought by California attorney Orly Taitz on behalf of herself, was assigned to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth. Taitz told WND that in a separate action she has filed a notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the dismissal of a case she brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes and dozens of other individuals in California challenging Obama's eligibility. She previously attempted Quo Warranto cases on behalf of government officials, without response. This time she filed the action directly with the court on her own behalf. "The case revolves around the federal question of eligibility of the president under Quo Warranto," she wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“There has been no judicial decision regarding eligibility to the office of President...”
The US Supreme Court hasn’t issued a written ruling. Congress has weighed in several times, and done so again by certifying Obama. The courts would undoubtedly take that into account. There are a number of court decision, such as the Indiana one, that would need to be overturned by the US Supreme Court - and since they refused to touch it prior to Obama’s certification, there is no reason to think they will afterward.
Since 50 states & Congress consider Obama to be eligible - knowing full well about his father - and the Supreme Court has refused to touch it, no lower court will rule in opposition. If they did, THEY would be overturned on appeal.
You and I don’t get to decide the definition. There was no established definition, since the folks who wrote the Constitution used it to mean different things. And those with standing have accepted Obama.
It is over. Obama’s father is a moot point.
If Obama was born overseas, everything changes. Until that is demonstrated, there is no court anywhere that is going to decide that Obama isn’t the President.
Thus, our efforts need to be in changing Congress. Time and money spent in the courts is wasted.
“Can someone tell me why they spend so much time and energy trying to argue against something that they say they have no interest in and care so little about? It just doesn’t make any sense to me at all... “
It is a waste of time and money. Effort spent in the courts A) has zero chance of success, B) makes conservatives look like fringe weirdos, and C) dilutes the effort to get conservatives elected to stop Obama.
It costs me nothing to post. And the personal attacks against me within minutes of my first post motivated me to post more. Within an hour, I had folks claiming I was paid by Obama to post...and that is freak, fringe, weirdo black helicopter ranting that makes FR look stupid. I’ve donated thousands to keep FR going, and I don’t need weirdos making the site looks like the hangout of idiots.
It’s not over until the Constitution is amended, Mr. Rogers. Statutory law cannot and does not override the Constitution. Congress does not override the Constitution. State court don’t override it and refusal to enforce Constitutional provisions do not override it. The meaning resides within original intent.
You’re aware, I presume, of the many attempts to amend this very requirement, five of them since 2000 alone? Clair McCaskill was the most recent sponsor of such a bill for amendment, in 2008, but it’s been a bipartisan effort over time.
It isn’t a matter of OVERRIDING the Constitution. There is not definition found in the Constitution, and there were varying uses at the time. If the states, Congress and the courts all use the same definition, then no one else has standing to challenge it.
No it doesn’t make sense. There are people though who enjoy antagonizing others and creating conflict. Maybe it gives them a feeling of superiority.
As the kind of person you are defending an illegal alien and the usurper “Resident” in the White House, you obviously drinking tooooo much cool-aid from Factcheck.org by you true Goebbels style propaganda. I still feel very sorry for your hopefully patriotic kids in the military, because as BOR often, says you are a PINHEAD and your postings prove it!!!
Even SADO was probably a British citizen???:
skip to main | skip to sidebar
Lame Cherry
Monday, January 5, 2009
Obama’s British Nationality Act, 1948
In the continued exclusive nature of this blog in revealing the legal nationality of Barack Hussein Obama, the following is offered to explain why he is legally disqualified from being President of the United States.
I doubt Phil Berg nor anyone preening over the Obama status in the courts has ever heard of the British Nationality Act of 1948, but it is the act of Empire under which Barack Obama Sr. was born and it was the act of Empire under which Barack Obama Jr. was legally bound as the British Nationality Act of 1965 had not yet been written.
For those who are unfamiliar with the 1965 Act, one can simplify it by stating that it simply mandated it being a British subject under stronger ties.
No one has in logic presented a more complete picture of the actions of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama in 1961 than this blog. Logic dictates a caring mother to be would not endanger her child, but have that child in Canada. Logic dictates if the mother is an obsessed female with a compulsive sexual fetish based in 3rd world dark skinned “pristine” peoples that she would subvert United States safeguards and enter into Canada, inform the British authorities she is the wife of a British subject of Kenya, therefore a British subject herself, and she will be flown home to Kenya to give birth to a British subject she is carrying.
The fact is plain under British Law. Birdie Obama is from conception a British subject. His father is a British subject and therefore forever according to British Covenant which can not ever be broken nor dissolved, a British subject.
The mandates of the Act of 1948 are clear, and, once an underage, then married wife of a British subject entered Canada to gain entranced to another colonial state in Kenya, flying through London of Britain, Stanley Ann Obama was a British wife, carrying a British child within her with full benefits and legal rights and responsibilities forever upon her and Barack jr.
The following Articles and subsections of the Act are specific and supersede American law due to the fact of the Act speaks of colonies. America was a colony of the British and although she gained independence, she is still if her Citizens marry a British subject mandated by British Law has no longer an American citizen alone, but a citizen and subject by consent of that marriage contract.
No one has bothered to ascertain that in legal British Law, Barack Sr. and Stanley Ann Obama, are both British subjects by legal definition. Barack Obama was born to two British subjects in August of 1961, in literal law no matter where he was born in Hawaii nor affirmed deliberately in Canada nor Kenya.
Section 13 of the 1948 Act are quite thorough and posted here with comment to reveal that this Act reaches to even non citizens, as once you drank British tea, you were British.
1. The law in force before the commencement of this Act relating to British nationality shall continue to apply to a person while he remains a British subject without citizenship by virtue of section thirteen of this Act as if this Act had not been passed:
Provided that—
(a) if that person is a male, nothing in this paragraph shall confer British nationality on any woman whom he marries during the period that he is a British subject without citizenship, or on any child born to him during that period;
(b) he shall not, by becoming naturalised in a foreign state, be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject by virtue of section thirteen of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914;
(c) so long as a woman remains a British subject without citizenship as aforesaid she shall not on marriage to an alien cease to be a British subject.
Section 13 shows in part A that a non subject can not transfer citizenship, but Barack Sr. was a citizen, so therefore his entire power within the Empire was transferred upon Barack Jr. and his wife.
Part B, is the all inclusive forever and ever British mandate in even if a subject becomes a citizen of another nation, they are still British. Hence, Birdie Obama, no matter what he states on his website, he was born under 1948 mandate and is a British subject no matter if he was registered Hawaiian, Indonesian or the king of cheese of the moon. British Law defines him forever as a British subject who is regulated by the Laws of Great Britain.
Part C explains Stanley Ann upon being married to a British subject, no matter if she married an Indonesian after divorcing the British Obama, is forever a British subject.
Do not miss in this the terms subject, they fully mean subject as in subject to the Queen, Parliament and all British Mandate forever and never a Citizen again.
In Part 2 of Section 16 there is revealed in the Act the one thing Barack Obama should be required to produce before Congress and the United States Supreme Court and that is what should be the issue of all these lawsuits.
Section 16 explains:
(a) ceased to be a British subject under the provisions of subsection (1) of section twelve of the
4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 17.
British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 (which provided, subject to certain exceptions, that where a person being a British subject ceased to be such, whether by declaration of alienage or otherwise, every child of that person being a minor should thereupon cease to be a British subject),
Stanley Ann Obama as a minor, upon marrying Barack Hussein Obama Sr. of Kenya, a British subject, was British. She confirmed this by entering Canada and by going to Kenya on the testimony of British subject which is legal recorded confirmation by Birdie’s African Grandmother.
According to Part 2, Section 16, Part A, Stanley Ann Obama was required to declare she was an alien. Until any written or recorded information in her own hand or voice states plainly, “I renounce citizenship in the British Commonwealth”, Stanley Ann Obama IS a British subject under legal definition as a dual citizen and subject, exactly as her son, Birdie, and he is disqualified from being President, exactly as Stanley Ann would be under dual citizenship if she attempted to be elected to the Presidency.
None of this can be more legally clear. I have informed the people driving these cases they are backwards in thought and process. I will not reveal the correct lawsuit to file concerning Barack Obama, but I will state here that a lawsuit filed on another Obama, Stanley Ann Obama, demanding records of her renunciation of British subject and citizenship be produced, along with her entire passport manifest would be thee opening link to prove Barack Obama jr. is the offspring of two British subjects, and, according to perpetual British law affirmed by the Obama’s, he is to this day a British subject as he is of dual citizenship which disqualifies him and has on his site stated his British citizenship expired. There is according to the Law he was born under in the British Nationality Act of 1948, never an expiration on British citizenship.
Once a British subject, forever a British subject as the mandate above confirms.
Enough said.
agtG 275
British Nationality Act of 1948
British Nationality Act of 1965
Posted by Lame Cherry at 7:11 PM
Newer Post Older Post Home
The Lame Cherry
The Lame Cherry
the always expert is the expert always
Blog Archive
About Me
Lame Cherry
The lame cherry, the mystery of life’s experts coupled in the mind of ignorance too much the enigma to understand.
View my complete profile
“The following Articles and subsections of the Act are specific and supersede American law due to the fact of the Act speaks of colonies. “
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have the brains of a doorknob. Maybe. On your really good days...
That being said, it puts a new twist on things if the information is correct and his mother had dual citizen status.
I haven’t weaseled on anything. The Supreme Court has effectively ruled by refusing to hear a case of great national importance.
They didn’t refuse because it was trivial. They didn’t refuse because of procedural problems. That leaves refusing because either A) they believe Congress alone could make that determination, or B) because they believe Obama’s birth in Hawaii is adequate for him to be a natural born citizen.
They didn’t have to issue an analysis. By refusing to hear the case, they made their position clear - they are NOT going to decide the election based off of birther concerns about Obama being British...
>> It is ironic that you should use a word like shill to describe people on a thread like this.
Ironic - my thought as well.
I’m not a birther, nor am I an anti-birther. I do know, however, there is much that remains unknown.
So is a shiller a pursuer of knowledge, or one who is more likely to ridicule the pursuit of knowledge?
Your card house is falling down.
Believe anything you want - but you will not win in court. Nor has any birther anywhere - you have a perfect record of losing.
By refusing to hear the case PRIOR to Obama becoming President, the Court spoke volumes - to those with ears to hear.
But you go on waiting for one of the birther nutcases to win in court...
As noted in the article, and tying in with the article you previously ridiculed so loudly...
Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.
Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects.
There is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. No matter what, with Obama’s father not being an American, he is not a natural born citizen and is ineligible for the position he currently holds. Also, as allegations have come up with him possibly being born in Kenya, doesn’t matter if his mother is a citizen or not.
This is all spelled out very clearly in the Constitution, at least 5 seperate SCOTUS cases, and supporting documentation going back over 200 years. Obama is NOT eligible to hold the office he currently holds. IF he was, why can’t he really prove it?
Nor has any birther anywhere - you have a perfect record of losing.
I have no record of losing anything as I've brought forth no case to lose.
By refusing to hear the case PRIOR to Obama becoming President, the Court spoke volumes - to those with ears to hear.
You can't hear anything because you've got your fingers stuck in your ears and you're loudly repeating LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA.
But you go on waiting for one of the birther nutcases to win in court...
And you just keep up your silly antics. It so reminiscent of the POTUS. Lies, distractions, vilifying and obfuscation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.