BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

Old Goat wrote:

<quoted text>they were still aliens until they were citizens.

No sh!t Sherlock.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Infantile.
Sorry, the Naturalization Act of 1790 required aliens to have resided for two years within the limits and UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES prior to becoming a citizen. It should go without saying that the aliens so governed by the law had to be "under the jurisdiction of the Constitution" because to be under federal jurisdiction requires federal powers granted under the Constitution. And BTW, birfoon, treaties do not create federal powers under the Constitution. If aliens were not "under the jurisdiction of the Constitution" the federal government would lack the power to participate in a treaty creating such extra-constitutional jurisdiction.
Since the power of Congress to enact the Naturalization Act derived from the Constitution, it is preposterous to state that aliens were not "under the jurisdiction of the Constitution."
Grow up! Your house of cards fell a long time ago.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, UR screwed. You have no answer but an unsupported conclusory statement. With that and $1.25 you can ride on the bus.
The Fourteenth Amendment specified "ANY PERSON".
The Fifth Amendment specifies "NO PERSON" and "ANY PERSON," not only citizens.
Hee hee hee.
<quoted text>

Irrelevant! Aliens can't be taxed by the US Constitution.
Get use to the TRUTH.

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
You're pathetic. As someone said yesterday, yes, do some reading, and then write you own thoughts. Oops, on second thought, best not to, as you can't or it might come out AkNOTAPilot or GB.

I DO the "researching" to put iT on here.....
IF you can't READ iT after I do.....
WITHOUT me "dumbing iT down" for you.....

THAT sounds like YOUR problem....instead of MINE!....;-)

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
"chemtrails" What are you smoking? Why would anyone fly up to high altitudes to dump chemicals? The chemtrail story does not pass the Logic Test.(Twilight Zone music played by crickets)
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
<quoted text>
Ah, chemtrails are just contrails. You see for every thousand feet you go up you lose about three degrees F. Soooo, if it is 90 degrees F at sea level it is ZERO F at 30,000 feet.
One of the byproducts of combustion is water vapor but because of the extreme cold at altitude the water vapor turns into a cloud as soon as it leaves the tail pipe(s) of the aircraft.
Soooo, your "chemtrails" are just high altitude clouds!!! have you noticed that the chemtrail story has gone away just as fast as contrails disappear?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Rogue I have been reading your comments for a while now and you seem like a relatively intelligent person so my hope is that you comprehend what I tell you about my experience with chemtrails.

I live relatively close to the major airport in my area and I eat in a restaurant once or twice a week with these huge windows facing the airport. So while I am enjoying my meal I watch these jets come out of the airport which is at low altitude. What I see behind these jets are contrails which disappear rather quickly as the jet goes on it's way. But what I also see in a different part of the sky are these chemtrails that span all the way across the sky and then eventually thin out in the shape of an elongated cloud.

Your videos are just that with no backing. My videos contain professional people with reliable evidence that their is such a thing as chemtrails and that they are doing damage to the environment not to mention the health of the people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Chemtrails 101

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

I wonder if Jacques will find this a RACIST comment?
http://www.youtube.com/watch... #!
Catch it about 1:15 into the video when the LIBERAL calls him a "bow-tie and white boys".
You see, it is never a racist if a liberal says it!

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, he is certainly treating his family quite well-- at the tax payers expense!!

Wouldn't you? It's one of the perks of having been elected to the highest position of honor in the country.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
No sh!t Sherlock.
<quoted text>

why couldn't they vote, why couldn't they run for office, why couldn't they come and go as they pleased, why couldn't they have a government job, they were still under the jurisdiction of their country of origin.

All Jews :

Gerald Levin, CEO and Director of AOL Time Warner

Michael Eisner, Chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company

Edgar Bronfman, Sr., Chairman of Seagram Company Ltd

Edgar Bronfman, Jr, President and CEO of Seagram Company Ltd and head of Universal Studios

Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom, Inc

Dennis Dammerman, Vice Chairman of General Electric

Peter Chernin, President and Co-COO of News Corporation Limited

Why is there so much difference between Pew and Gallup polls?

....Wow! Two well established polling companies have talked to thousands of respondents and come up with a twenty point difference in what they see as the Catholic vote – but how can that be?
The 57/37 lead Pew found for Romney comes among white Catholics. The number Gallup got for white Catholics shows a statistically identical 38/55. Pew found that Hispanics support Obama 67/27. Gallup’s numbers were worse for Romney at 70/20 in Obama’s favor.
Now let’s peek under the numbers.
It is an established fact that Democrats are anywhere from 5 to 8 points less enthusiastic about voting in November. Nevertheless, compared to the average Democrat, Hispanics are even less enthused about voting for Obama again. The Census revealed some even more disheartening news about the possibilities of a big Hispanic turn-out for Democrats in November.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/why-hispanic...

American Lady

Danville, KY

Reply »
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38826
5 hrs ago


Judged:
[Brilliant]

3
[Helpful]

3
[Interesting]

2
The Biggest Cover-up in American History

In our previous article,“Exonerating President Obama,” we noted that the only Supreme
Court precedent for the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1
of the U.S. Constitution appears to be the Judge Harlan dissent in the United States v.
Wong Kim Ark case. In collaboration with a constitutional attorney, we have examined
the subject matter further.

We believe that to understand the complexity of this issue it will be essential to have an
understanding of the place that the concepts of “Natural Law” and the book titled Law of
Nations had obtained in the run up to the War of Independence with Great Britain. These
concepts of natural law were commonly used throughout the colonies to explain, defend
and justify the colonists’ contentions in our dispute with Great Britain.

Our investigation leaves no doubt that the Founding Fathers of our nation clearly understood the meaning
of the term “natural born Citizen” and its relation to Natural Law and Law of Nations.
When you have finished studying our research you will also understand that these terms
were used in the Declaration of Independence as well as in our Constitution and in the
constitutions of a large number of states written at the same time as the Constitutional
Convention was in session.

This background understanding will clarify why the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional
Convention elected to include “natural born Citizen” in the eligibility requirements for
the Office of the President of our nation and what it truly means.

In this article we will prove beyond all doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural
born Citizen and is thus ineligible to be President of the United States.

Citations following the textual part of this article are not simply to provide you the
references that support our assertions. They also provide you citations to reading material
that will help you understand the 1770 period in our History. To understand our
reasoning, it is important that the reader understands the Colonial people, and especially
the Founders with their educational backgrounds, their political fears and the nation’s
interrelationship with other nations at the time leading up to the War of Independence. In
this short article we could not provide all those dimensions, but we hope the reader will
study the references to fully understand the time period during which these things took
place. Unfortunately there are citations to books which are not available to download
online, so to get the whole picture, the reader will need to find a library to borrow the
needed materials.

2. Emer de Vattel, a Swiss scholar, published a now world famous work titled Law of
Nations in French in 1758. The Vattel work built upon the earlier philosophy of Natural
Law, especially that of de Wolf. But what made Vattel’s work so famous was his
adoption of a more modern and easier-to-understand format, which was written like a
scientific thesis. It started out with definitions that were worked into the initial textual
material in a manner very different from the heavy, incomprehensible writing style of the
earlier philosophers.

http://conservativenexus.com/article/the-bigg...

The thing about iT is.........
IT's NOT complicated.....

Two US citizen parents
whether 'naturalized'
OR natural born.......

IS the ONLY way to be a "natural born" citizen.....

What is so HARD about THAT to understand?

No 'statute NOR 'code' can CHANGE that!!!!!!

THIS, tho, will help EVEN the
dweebiest" obots to understand.....

IF they want to at ALL!

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
When Harry S. Truman left the White House he drove himself, with the former first lady, back to Missouri. It was only after that did Congress vote in a retirement system for the president.
IMHO NO elected official should have a tax payer provided retirement system. I do think they should be paid more when they are in office but when they leave, they should live off the 401K plans like everyone else.
<quoted text>
Even taking into account inflation, Obama has spent more in "official" travels than probably any previous president. On April 15, 2009 Obama jetted out of DC to give a pep talk to NASA employees at Kennedy Space Center. The plans were "last second" type. And it also happened when the TEA Partiers were in Lafayette Park across the Street from the WH!!!
It is so obvious that many of his trips have to do with politicing and not about official business.
Oh, last Christmas the First Family took Air Force 1F to Hawaii. Why didn't they wait for the president so they would not have two use additional aircraft?
I don't think Obama even remotely understands the cost of operating the presidential air fleet.

That's just pure speculation on your part....no data supports your statements.

Several times in the past, people have complained about the number of 'vacations' that President Obama has taken. When researched, the data showed that Obama took far fewer vacation days than Bush.

This is probably just another one of those situations.

Old Goat wrote:

<quoted text>Irrelevant! Aliens can't be taxed by the US Constitution.
Get use to the TRUTH.

Nonsense.

Many aliens under US jurisdiction, both resident and non-resident, are taxed by the federal government per federal law, the power of which derives from the Constitution. Get real.

Meanwhile:

The Fourteenth Amendment specified "ANY PERSON".
The Fifth Amendment specifies "NO PERSON" and "ANY PERSON," not only citizens.

Hee hee hee.

Your house of cards is in shambles.

Are visiting aliens exempt from federal taxes on gasoline while touring the US? UR so stupid it makes the skin crawl.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, UR screwed. You have no answer but an unsupported conclusory statement. With that and $1.25 you can ride on the bus.
The Fourteenth Amendment specified "ANY PERSON".
The Fifth Amendment specifies "NO PERSON" and "ANY PERSON," not only citizens.
Hee hee hee.

Terry Buckeye wrote:

<quoted text>
Wouldn't you? It's one of the perks of having been elected to the highest position of honor in the country.

No, it's not a perk, and it certainly wasn't meant to be. Our founders were humble, they worked for what they had. They didn't expect others to support them. They didn't have fancy government issued horses to get them from point a to point b, they didn't have fancy dinners funded by the tax payer, they didn't have chefs to cater their meals at tax payer expense, and on and on-- they understood that they were there to serve the people and the nation which they had founded, not fleece it!!

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
What about the biggest pardon of them all, Richard Nixon?
Corzine? I thought the AG's office looked after that? Do you think, with the eyes of the US and the world on him, that Obama would bar any investigation? And just before the election? He may be a lot of things, but stupid he is not.

November 21, 2011 | May 20, 2011 | December 3, 2010
November 21, 2011

NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
Lesley Claywood Berry, Jr. D. Minn. 1988

Conspiracy to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C.§§ 841 and 846
Dennis George Bulin M. D. Ala. 1987 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1,000 pounds of marijuana, 21 U.S.C.§§ 841(a)(1) and 846 and 18 U.S.C.§ 2

Ricky Dale Collett
E. D. Ky. 2002 Aiding and abetting in the manufacture of 61 marijuana plants, 21 U.S.C.§ 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C.§ 2
Martin Kaprelian N. D. Ill. 1984 Conspiracy to transport stolen property in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C.§ 371; transporting stolen property in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C.§ 2314; concealing stolen property that was transported in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C.§ 2315
Thomas Paul Ledford E. D. Tenn. 1995 Conducting and directing an illegal gambling business, 18 U.S.C.§ 1955

Return to Top
May 20, 2011

NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
Randy Eugene Dyer W. D. Wash. 1975

Conspiracy to import marijuana (hashish); conspiracy to remove baggage from the custody and control of the U.S. Customs Service and convey false information concerning an attempt to damage a civil aircraft, 21 U.S.C.§ 963 and 18 U.S.C.§ 371
Danny Alonzo Levitz N. D. Ind. 1980 Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C.§ 371

Michael Ray Neal
E. D. Va. 1991 Manufacture, assembly, modification and distribution of equipment for unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming, 47 U.S.C.§ 605(e)(4)

Edwin Alan North N. D. Ind. 1980 Transfer of a firearm without payment of transfer tax, 26 U.S.C.§ 5861(e)
Allen Edward Peratt, Sr. D. S.D. 1990 Conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C.§§ 841(a)(1) and 846

Christine Marie Rossiter D. Neb. 1992 Conspiracy to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C.§§ 841(a)(1) and 846

Patricia Ann Weinzatl W. D. Wis. 2001 Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, 31 U.S.C.§ 5324(a)(3)

Bobby Gerald Wilson S. D. Ga. 1985 Aiding and abetting the possession and sale of illegal American alligator hides (Lacey Act), 16 U.S.C.§ 3373(d)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C.§ 2

December 3, 2010

NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
James Bernard Banks D. Utah 1972 Illegal possession of government property (misdemeanor), 18 U.S.C.§ 641

Russell James Dixon N. D. Ga. 1960 Felony liquor law violation, 26 U.S.C.§ 5604(a)(1)

Laurens Dorsey D. N. J. 1998 Conspiracy to defraud the United States by making false statements to the FDA, 18 U.S.C.§§ 371 and 1001

Ronald Lee Foster E. D. N. C. 1963 Mutilation of coins, 18 U.S.C.§ 331

Timothy James Gallagher D. Ariz. 1982 Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C.§ 846

Roxane Kay Hettinger N. D. Iowa 1986 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C.§§ 841(a)(1) and 846

Edgar Leopold Kranz, Jr. U.S. Air Force general court-martial 1994 Wrongful use of cocaine, adultery, and writing three insufficient fund checks, Articles 112a and 134, U.C.M.J.

Floretta Leavy D. Kan. 1984 Distribution of cocaine, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C.§§ 841(a)(1),(a)(2) and 846, 18 U.S.C.§ 2

Scoey Lathaniel Morris W. D. Tex. 1999 Passing counterfeit obligations or securities, 18 U.S.C.§§ 472 and 2

http://www.justice.gov/pardon/obamapardon-gra...


Clinton's....too NUMEROUS to paste.....
http://www.justice.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_g...

SUBJECT:_____ It needs ANSWERS OF valid and good evidential facts presentation to the PUBLIC because BIN Laden is specifically RELATED TO SPECIFIC 9-11 as a special and specific case, AND not the other terrorists.

This Bin Laden is unlike most other terrorists, because he claimed on video he had done the biggest event of 9-11 inside the soil of US.

How could Obama be a commander-in-chief JUST LOOKING AT dealing with Bin Laden case?

Listen = until you ever become mature, get to know the big difference of this special one --Bin Laden said he MASTERMINDED “”THE INVASION OF HITTING US FOR 9-11“”???---in comparison to HUGE difference with others called combatants because those were the ones who fought against “”US INVASION”” of Afghanistan.

So Bin Laden, was unlike other terrorist, as he was the special one terrorist that any commander-in-chief would have to develop the plan to get him alive WHENEVER POSSIBLE WITH SPECIAL FORCE and catch him only shot dead if it takes no other choice in case of the real occurrence.

Because this Bin laden captured the psychic of many public as public would want full facts and answers, any mature able commander HAD BETTER had to make sure he would show evidences of caught Bin Laden, that photos of Laden must show him alive being handcuffed even he was locked in prison in Cuba or going for trial in US or anywhere.

And if Laden was armed and resisted heavily in a fight , then it led to the happening that he was shot, evidences and true facts of his dead body must be shown and demonstrated to the pubic.

There is not a reason whatsoever with wrong answers by Obama since US had been engaging in a war in Afghanistan (which is of a much bigger weight ) for some time and not any violences in other parts of the world have erupted as a result of that war aganst Talibans (or Al Qaeda).

If they are still there fighting Talibans and Al Qaeda in AFGHANISTAN and in the region, why would not the Al Qaeda and Muslims elsewhere rage violence in the discontentment of Afghanistan since it is a very bigger thing --as Obama says violence would be there?

It does not make sense since they told Bin Laden was not close to, being viewed as great chief for Al Qaeda in his later period, how would Obama say by releasing evidences of dead Bin Laden would erupt violence since Al Qaeda would not care about Laden?

How does Obama's saying, by this time, STILL distorts AND FABRICATES FALSEHOOD again that he said he instructed the Seals to fight against Pakistani soldiers ( WITH NO NEED TO ) since the Pakistan intelligence gave CIA information Of Bin Laden, and that means Pakistan accommodated and welcomed and let Seals in to get Bin Laden and Pakistan IS supposed to collect the reward MONEY sums (for informAtion and helping ) from USA, on --dead or alive business REWARD, placed in by Bush a long time ago?

There needs concerning THIS SPECIAL terrorist BIN LADEN requiring release of CRUCIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL evidences and true facts BECAUSE HE was the one CONFESSING AND TALKING A LOT, related to the particular 9-11.

THE TREATMENT OF 9-11 MATTER IS A SPECIAL MATTER, FOR SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCES OF Bin LADEN (DEAD OR ALIVE) must be warranted AS FULL ANSWERS TO THE PUBLIC , UNLIKE THOSE COMBATANTS OR TERRORISTS THERE, BECAUSE us INVADED THEM IN AFGHANISTAN--- but (UNLIKE Bin LADEN) THEY DID NOT DO 9-11 , unless they had committed crimes against US.

LurkerLooky wrote:

American Lady
Danville, KY
Reply »
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38826
5 hrs ago
Judged:
[Brilliant]
3
[Helpful]
3
[Interesting]
2
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
In our previous article,“Exonerating President Obama,” we noted that the only Supreme
Court precedent for the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1
of the U.S. Constitution appears to be the Judge Harlan dissent in the United States v.
Wong Kim Ark case. In collaboration with a constitutional attorney, we have examined
the subject matter further.
We believe that to understand the complexity of this issue it will be essential to have an
understanding of the place that the concepts of “Natural Law” and the book titled Law of
Nations had obtained in the run up to the War of Independence with Great Britain. These
concepts of natural law were commonly used throughout the colonies to explain, defend
and justify the colonists’ contentions in our dispute with Great Britain.
Our investigation leaves no doubt that the Founding Fathers of our nation clearly understood the meaning
of the term “natural born Citizen” and its relation to Natural Law and Law of Nations.
When you have finished studying our research you will also understand that these terms
were used in the Declaration of Independence as well as in our Constitution and in the
constitutions of a large number of states written at the same time as the Constitutional
Convention was in session.
This background understanding will clarify why the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional
Convention elected to include “natural born Citizen” in the eligibility requirements for
the Office of the President of our nation and what it truly means.
In this article we will prove beyond all doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural
born Citizen and is thus ineligible to be President of the United States.
Citations following the textual part of this article are not simply to provide you the
references that support our assertions. They also provide you citations to reading material
that will help you understand the 1770 period in our History. To understand our
reasoning, it is important that the reader understands the Colonial people, and especially
the Founders with their educational backgrounds, their political fears and the nation’s
interrelationship with other nations at the time leading up to the War of Independence. In
this short article we could not provide all those dimensions, but we hope the reader will
study the references to fully understand the time period during which these things took
place. Unfortunately there are citations to books which are not available to download
online, so to get the whole picture, the reader will need to find a library to borrow the
needed materials.
2. Emer de Vattel, a Swiss scholar, published a now world famous work titled Law of
Nations in French in 1758. The Vattel work built upon the earlier philosophy of Natural
Law, especially that of de Wolf. But what made Vattel’s work so famous was his
adoption of a more modern and easier-to-understand format, which was written like a
scientific thesis. It started out with definitions that were worked into the initial textual
material in a manner very different from the heavy, incomprehensible writing style of the
earlier philosophers.
http://conservativenexus.com/article/the-bigg...
The thing about iT is.........
IT's NOT complicated.....
Two US citizen parents
whether 'naturalized'
OR natural born.......
IS the ONLY way to be a "natural born" citizen.....
What is so HARD about THAT to understand?
No 'statute NOR 'code' can CHANGE that!!!!!!
THIS, tho, will help EVEN the
dweebiest" obots to understand.....
IF they want to at ALL!

What's so hard about writing a straightforward paragraph in the English language IN YOUR OWN WORDS summarizing your obtuse position?

What's your problem?

Navy Seals tonight on Huckabee @ 8:00PM

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Barack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen of The untied States of America.
Terry Buckeye wrote:
I don't CARE! He is the president of the United. States of America. And if my vote is the deciding one, he'll be our president for another four years.
<quoted text>
Well Terri Tunna, you cut up peoples posts all the time.
Now, Terry Buckeye was replying to Franks post and Frank wrote: "Barack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen of The untied States of America." And Terry Buckeye replied; "I don't CARE!"
<quoted text>
No wonder you flunked out of MIT!

Again, yawn.

Why can't you focus on the fact that the only people who have demonstrably broken the law are birfoons.

Stop adding your own wishful thinking to other's words and focus, Rogue Moron.

Birfoons are lawbreakers.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it's not a perk, and it certainly wasn't meant to be. Our founders were humble, they worked for what they had. They didn't expect others to support them. They didn't have fancy government issued horses to get them from point a to point b, they didn't have fancy dinners funded by the tax payer, they didn't have chefs to cater their meals at tax payer expense, and on and on-- they understood that they were there to serve the people and the nation which they had founded, not fleece it!!

"He was one of the first great chefs of Philadelphia — in fact, of the young nation. The master cook who prepared elaborate banquets in President George Washington’s home on Market Street had only one name: Hercules."

He was a SLAVE.

Terry Buckeye wrote:

<quoted text>
Wouldn't you? It's one of the perks of having been elected to the highest position of honor in the country.

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

<quoted text>
So Tootsie? If you can not make an intellectually honest reply, butt out.

Just answer the SIMPLE question, Rogue Moron.

What is the significance of the rain in England?

I keep things simple for you because you're slow and you think that's not "intellectually honest?"

Here's a little "intellectual tip:" good professors will challenge their students to make their theses stronger by asking the simple question--so what?

The student has formed an inkling of an idea and needs the extra push to make their little idea a big idea.

So, so what?