in addition, an indiana court just tried to rule on what "natural born citizen" is. this will come back to bit them.

ruling is here:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

they've done a pretty poor job with the conclusions, which are easily torn apart and a clear effort to somehow diffuse the situation. attorney leo donofrio has provided an excellent commentary on his blog. commentary:

[i]edit (donofrio): Also, the Chester Arthur analysis in Footnote 16 reeks. This Indiana decision is pure evil. They have rewritten history to make it appear as if the whole world knew Chester Arthur was a British citizen at birth while history records this blog discovered that fact and first published it to the world in December 2008. Before that time, it was not known. The propaganda has spread from the press to the courts.]


The Indiana Court of Appeals in the Arkeny and Kruse case has just issued a lame judicial attempt at defining the

..tomorrow now lol. need sleep, crashed out of tournies :(

this has to be one of the most insane threads i've ever seen on a politics forum, care in the community ISN'T working!

I was thinking about this thread whilst listening to the radio this morning.

Don, why do you keep banging on about this? Are you American? What does it matter anyway? Personally I would be happier were an American NOT president.

thx charlatan, just noticed.

How's all this going, Don? The boot must be imminent now...

PMSL, poor old DonWarro.

dont worry DonWarro will be along soon with sources revealing who forged it.

Resurrected because Obama accepted the Democrat nomination and so now is officially running again. I thought the lads might like to comment, but I fear they may have legged it.

Hello.  Hope you're all well.  I'm back for one post only for the time being - feel free to throw insults, i won't be replying, but before doing so perhaps consider the many other things i said on this forum that have since come to fruition (and yes i've no doubt that idea will be rejected too but i care not :) i cannot help if people do not pay attention, i can only try )

For info, this is still going on. All cases to date have still been rejected on standing; merits of issue remain undiscussed.

Long form birth certificate was released by Obama April last year.  Strange how when the certificate of live birth was issued earlier everyone claimed that is all there is, yet this seems to have been forgotten by all when a new one appeared, and stranger still is that the most recently issued document is full of holes and glitches and is likely a forgery (opinion).  Regardsless though, as has been maintained throughout, a natural born citizen requires to citizen parents at the time of the childs birth. I know most disagree with this, but:

A natural born citizen is one whom naturally is born a citizen, via location of birth and citizenship of parents, i.e. there is no question with regard to citizenship status and no foreign country may lay claim to the person and similarly there is no choice to be made by the person or their parents.  If one or more parents are not a citizen, their offspring are entitled to inherit their political rights, i.e. a choice is required, or split allegiance, and an act of law (statute) is required to affirm citizenship status. 
Alternatively one can be a citizen at birth via statute (i.e. naturalised and therefore not naturally in the language of the law), for example the 14th amendment, effectively giving one naturalised status at birth.  This is the case where there may be split allegiance or a choice to be made, but more importantly a manmade law is required to grant citizenship, hence people in this camp are not considered natural born citizens under the law. "Citizen at birth" does not equal "natural born citizen".

So all natural born citizens are citizens at birth, but not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens.  The word naturally in this instance means automatically and as a result of the nature of nations themselves whereby all citizens pass on their political rights to their offspring, hence citizenship of the parents at the time of birth is relevant when establishing who is natural born and who is not.  If citizenship relies on a statute, one is not natural born.

1862 Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment (Cong. Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639):

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 failed to pass in the Senate until Lyman Trumbull proposed an amendment to the bill adding the words “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
The bill then went to the House where Representative John Bingham (author of the “future” 14th amendment), confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866, in regards to Trumbull’s amendment to the bill:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is,
in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

The 14th amendment was introduced to render the Civil Rights act constitutional and amend it to the Constitution. It passed in the House, but failed in the Senate until Senator Jacob Howard’s amendment to the bill (the citizenship clause) was introduced. In 1866 while while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law. The LAW he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had just recently passed and again states:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which is why the law/amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records, while they were debating the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and see the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!
What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause amendment to the bill, so I think he knew what HE meant::
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

So this proves that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same exact thing as “not subject to any foreign power”.  in common language it would read "subject only to the jurisdiction thereof" however it is not common language that is being discussed, it is the language of the law, legalese, which remains static in meaning.  hence people throw the argument of the 14th amendment into the works, yet it does not mention the term natural born citizen at all, and it is often misread because people do not understand the above.

Senator Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16

1814 Supreme Court Case, The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel in saying:
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writerson that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside. Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

Supreme Court Minor V. Happerset:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
_____________________________

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
http://books.google.com/books?id=Dm0FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq;=“hereafter+be+born+a+Citizen+of+the+United+States”++Hamilton&source=bl&ots=s6a4fGDolB&sig=K063NZIEWeaqsInb-bnTgoE6orQ&hl=en&ei=q610SsWEIY7mMdiJnLEM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q&f;=false
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “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.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr00379)):
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts.
Madison’s notes of the Convention.
http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt

So the natural born citizen clause was added in order to ensure unquestioned allegiance.  any child born of a foreigner is of questionable allegiance in the eyes of many, particularly given the us' history with the british.  and let's not forget obama himself said the british nationality act of 1948 also goverened him at birth... ie he admits it!

You see, words mean something.  If natural born citizen just means citizen, then the words "natural born" would never have been added at all.  Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)

And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:

“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).

The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).

i could add a load more stuff but can't be bothered.  since the democrats made 8 or more attempts over the decade before obama was elected to change the term nbc, perhaps people should consider why they were doing that.  each attempt failed btw. and don't take my word for it, look it up.

also look up hr 511 where congress in a non-binding resolution (ie not law and can be overturned) declared mccain an nbc, and obama signed this, yet the words state mccain was an nbc due to his citizen parents.  fyi, i disagree that mccain is an nbc, the americans were fed two ineligible candidates.

the question is whether the constitution is in force at all.  and people can site english common law as being the basis of the constitution all they like, but this is not the same as common law itself which is based on natural law and self-revelatory and it is common law that was used.  america did not respect the laws of the king of england, so is it likely they would use his language?  unlikely imo.

there are more cases in court later this month, and kansas state is currently investigating whether to remove obama from the ballot now he has formally accepted the democratic nomination.  kansas will prob reject the idea but there is hope later in september in the courts.

some of you may remember i stated that the left/right paradigm is an illusion.  it does not matter which party wins the election as the strings of both are pulled from above those institutions in the global power structure.  same in this country, except it's even more obvious given there is now a "Coaltion".   this all remains true now; differences are superficial and it is clear from recent interviews that both romney and obama share the same views when it comes to policy on many fronts.. so during this year's election it is even clearer that the choice presented is a false choice and an illusion.  will anyone notice? :)   obama could still lose the 2008 election lol,in which case chuck baldiwin would retroactively be declared president and pitched as a saviour, however he has a lot of stuff right but ultimately he will not last as it has been established that tptb planned all this- for obama to be found ineligible etc to divide and conquer, and in order to give baldwin control, and since it is a plot, this will eventually be revealed, as all things eventually are.

have a good day.  ill pop back when i win this thing :) lol

Don Worro

everything you have said about this issue has been proven to be complete b0llox.

it is quite clear that your problem is that you just cannot bear the thought that the yanks have elected a black president; so you and a few other right wing jerkoffs are whining on about the president's eligibility.

Hitler lost - get over it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOmzTLdr_m4

cry of truth;  is that all you have?  put your race card away please.  my godchildren are black as are many of my friends.  my best friends are of mixed heritage; half chinese, half italian, half spanish. none of them think it's racist to question obama's eligibilty given the facts, and of course i realise that you do not know me but casting aspersions of racism like you have done would be found offensive by some.  fortunately i don't care what you think :)

what has been proven exactly?  the american public do not have standing to question whether their president is eligible, that is all that has been proven to date.

and besides, obama is more white than black if you would like to check his family history(assuming it is as he says it is), and in fact he is more arabic than black too.  1/8 black.

regardless though, he is a pawn in this play. being "black" was a useful tool for his handlers who can throw the race card at anyone who disagrees or questions in the same manner that you have just done.  this is simply more marginalisation... nice try.

perhaps try a constructive argument of facts rather than resulting to insults, which are usually the resort of someone on the losing side of a debate.  this is a matter of law not prejudice.  people like you are part of the current problem.  you swallow and tout the "it must be racism" line; think what you are doing.  you are buying into the standard "divide and conquer" methodology, and if he is found ineligible and his supports kick off, you may even end up with blood on your hands.  so perhaps try being a little more objective next time you comment.

"condemnation without investigation is the peak of ignorance" - albert einstein.

and as for the "hitler lost" comment; i could list dozens of documented similarities between obama, his views, his policies, and his rise to power, and hitler.  right now the racism is coming from the whitehouse, not being directed towards it, but then again i wouldnt expected you to know of accept any of that becuase you likely only read what one or two newspapers tell you rather than listening to all sides. wake up ffs. obama behaves like a dictator; several attempted whistleblowers are now dead and there are few that are not scared of taking him on - why do you think so many of his staff have left?  his foreign policy is clearly disastrous, and his management of the economy pathetic.. yes the market is up, which means what exactly for the little guy? sweet fa, but it does get him more donations from big pharma etc. like the health bill, which big pharma themselves wrote lol. did he close guantanamo btw?  i told you all he would not and was belittled, but dont worry, i dont expect an apology. and his economic team - the same people as were involved in the melt down lol. i did highlight this in 2009 and it was ignored.  done a good job has he? and you still think he supports the little people when clearly he supports the elite. 

the wealth gap continues to get larger.  "increase taxes" you all say - makes no difference because the real wealth will never be taxed by anyone... this is not the answe.  yes it will make some wealthier people less wealthy, but the elite will remain above.  he is aiming for two classes:  the elite and everyone else.  perhaps consider raising people up ot the same level of others is more beneficial than battering everyone else down in the name of your skewed vision of equality.  equally wealthy is better than equally poor.  and "bush caued the economy trouble" - obama played his part in this two, voted for all the spending, even represented 90 african americans as a lawyer and sued citibank to get them all mortgages that they could not afford lol.. fact and a massive clue has to his political perspective!  figure it out - they are in it together.. obama, bush, clinton, romney - not much difference between them, they all want bigger governement, more control over everyone's lives so they and their buddies can mop up all the wealth.

i tried to warn you years ago this economic shtstorm was coming.  i was laughed at.  i told you it was a consolidation of wealth exercise by the elite who OWN governments and central banks, again i was laughed at.  what do you think quantitative easing is ffs? they say they have no choice, but steered themselves here intentionally lol.  central banks are purchasing assets to prop up markets.  this means they are printing money, exchanging it for real property, and then eventually when the currency becomes worthless, they own everything of worth.  textbook stuff, outlined by myself on here 4 years ago and not a word of acknowledgement by any one lol.  jeez some people have their heads in the sand..

anyway, the jig is up.  they can't win and im about to save the world :) lol.

you want "the economy" fixed?  i want to change human nature and to do so i will fix the economy first.  the economy will be fixed very shortly, it will be badged as a fluke by the media.  they have several options right now: carry on present course and make things worse which will result in the call for the gold standard from people who see their money depreciating in value - this is stupid, as that will result in scarcity for the little people and hinder trade.  fiat currencies are necessary even if they are illusions :)  certain countries are presently undervalued and when this changes many debts will be cleared.. this is an option.  another is to do away with taxes completely but continue to pay benefits using the promissory note system (that is already used, your taxes go to your owners, not on your services like you think).  i think temporarily with basel 3 coming in, the world economy will move to asset backed currencies - this will cause turmoil but it will crush certain parties and remove control from them, and after a short period we will return to fiat currencies again, but with a more level playing field as briics and other countries become more industrialised, commercialised, and therefore have a higher valued currency.  with the main players' debts wiped by the increase in value of their holding in present lower-worth countries, and taxes then removed as above but services and benefits still provided, we will have our period of abundance, and only then, like children, will mankind return to a state of "not knowing the value of money" and finally share naturally with the fear of scarcity gone.  when everyone has the basics, but can earn untaxed money on their labour, then there will be an incentive to work and do things.  who will clean the toilets etc when everyone is rich people say?  well that is the beauty of true capitalism (which we have never seen ever!  the system is being used incorrectly) - someone will do it if u pay them enough.  the true system works as a constant elevator, the people at the top pull the people at the bottom up the chain for their mutual benefit.  it only fails when interest is being charged on created money, taxes are being charged unnecessarily and being stolen without people knowing, and the people at the top of the chain have a selfish or misguided nature.  well, change is afoot (and its not obama's version).  there will soon be some new players taking over the top with a more beneficial attitude to mankind.

either way, a period of abundance is what is required for mankind to change its nature, and that is what will occur.. likely just when it seems the world is about to collapse (prob about now! lol).  obama et al are going about changing the world in the complete wrong way, and are instead pushing us towards the end and war (or havent u noticed). "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"...   this will not happen dont worry.  i've already won and he knows it.


tyia.


paradox;  he could be a natural born citizen if his father is not who he says he is, and since i have identified numerous lies that he has told, that is more than possible.

thank you wurzel for highlighting the "division" part of the divide and conquer strategy.  the left/right illusion is about to be shattered, it is time to unite... we are one, only divided due to lack of understanding as to true facts, misdirection and manipulation.. and of course propaganda. 

and thank you for your wise and full of reason comment too :)

100% correct sib

any news?