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

[Justice Dale]

The 14th amendment’s citizenship clause “the phrase,‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

The citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power, thus without any foreign influence, a "Natural Born Citizen".

The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them (U.S. Constitution) direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (U.S. Constitution) at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation of origin, since his father was not a citizen of the US nor any state of the US, "and not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" (US Constitution).

[Jacques Ottawa]

LRS wrote:

<quoted text>
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E Your behavior on here doesn't deserve a respectful response. You have to remember what I told you Lunatic; "I'll give it back to you ten fold". Don't like it? Then carry your azz. You made the choice long ago to continue acting like an azz, not I. But I will do what I said I would. Ten fold!

I'll try again. Here is what I wrote. Tell me how it merits the first reply and then the above. Show me the hypocrisy, what there is to give back ten fold and how the following is acting like and azz :
"Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You deserve plenty of credit for having achieved much success by taking a trucking job instead of piloting commercial aircraft. Both are valuable to the country and honourable. I've always said there is no such thing as a bad job if it's honest.
However, you solely blame Hostess and Eastern Airline workers for those companies' demise. Are you a huge shareholder, or the CEO of a huge conglomerate. Reason I ask is you speak like one. When things go wrong, it invariably the workers' fault. NEVER is it bad policy, bad admnistration, incompetence, fraud, etc on the company's part. Oh no, it's all about the ungrateful overpaid workers. Don't you think it's time you started to study the ENTIRE, COMPLETE, TOTAL reasons why companies go belly-up, Rogue? Do it in an impartial manner, and if you do, you'll find there is plenty of fault to go around, ON BOTH THE EMPLOYERS' AND THE EMPLOYEES'. However, and in the final analysis, does the buck not stop at the CEO's and board of directors' desks?"

[Ellen1]

Justice Dale wrote:

The 14th amendment’s citizenship clause “the phrase,‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
The citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power, thus without any foreign influence, a "Natural Born Citizen".
The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them (U.S. Constitution) direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (U.S. Constitution) at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation of origin, since his father was not a citizen of the US nor any state of the US, "and not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" (US Constitution).

The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth without regard to the citizenship of a parent or even both parents:

http://www.fr edthompsonsameric...

http://www.economist.com/blogs ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N ...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh ...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh ...

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org ...

[Rogue Scholar 05]

And here is a typical case of Loony-Lefty hate of Halliburton.

Halliburton Watch
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

You do know that Bill Clinton awarded no bid contracts to Halliburton, don't you? It was not until Dick Cheney became the VeeP nominee in 2000 that the hate speech from the left started.
Tell me, why is there nothing new on Halliburton these days? Because Dick Cheney is no longer the VeeP!!!

[Rogue Scholar 05]

Did you know the Gore family also owns an open-pit zinc mine?

Al Gore Was Big Oil Before Being Big Green
The BP oil spill in the Gulf is an unfortunate accident and it needs to be cleaned up. Granted. President Obama is responding with all the swiftness of a one-winged albatross in a wind storm. So be it. He will suffer a green voter backlash when the time comes. Nut the question that popped into my mind is what does Al Gore have to say about this oil spill? No really. Where is the bombastic tirade? You know if this had happened on President Bush's watch Al Gore's head would have exploded with seething rage. Why hasn't he been on every network lambasting Democrat inaction? Besides the politically inconvenient truth, maybe Al Gore is rich enough already.
A few days ago Al Gore in light of the BP oil spill, not surprisingly, did speak out. He continued his impassioned plea for the destruction of the oil industry:
http://www.nonsensibleshoes.com/2010/05/al-go...

[LRS]

Learn to Read wrote:

<quoted text>
Substance? In response to the schoolyard wannabe? Why waste perfectly good English on you.(And RomperStomper proves my point again as he can't live without "getting the last word")

You can't quit posting to me, why? Get lost tumbleweed.

[Rogue Scholar 05]

Liberal politicians are frigging hypocrites!

Michael Moore Owned Halliburton, Defense Stocks
Jim Meyers; Friday, Nov. 4, 2005

Filmmaker Michael Moore has made a career out of trashing corporations and said he doesn't own any stocks due to moral principle.

How then did author Peter Schweizer uncover IRS documents showing that Moore's very own foundation has bought stocks in some of America's largest corporations – including Halliburton, other defense contractors and some of the same companies he has attacked?

In his blockbuster new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," Hoover Fellow Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/...

[Rogue Scholar 05]

And then there is San Fran Nan Pelosi and Star-Kist tuna. Sure Snoopes tap dances around the issue but Snoops had to address the issue. "Naw, we see no problem here. Ignore to woman behind the curtain!"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/america...
You Libtards are soooo pathetic!

[LRS]

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll try again. Here is what I wrote. Tell me how it merits the first reply and then the above. Show me the hypocrisy, what there is to give back ten fold and how the following is acting like and azz :
"Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You deserve plenty of credit for having achieved much success by taking a trucking job instead of piloting commercial aircraft. Both are valuable to the country and honourable. I've always said there is no such thing as a bad job if it's honest.
However, you solely blame Hostess and Eastern Airline workers for those companies' demise. Are you a huge shareholder, or the CEO of a huge conglomerate. Reason I ask is you speak like one. When things go wrong, it invariably the workers' fault. NEVER is it bad policy, bad admnistration, incompetence, fraud, etc on the company's part. Oh no, it's all about the ungrateful overpaid workers. Don't you think it's time you started to study the ENTIRE, COMPLETE, TOTAL reasons why companies go belly-up, Rogue? Do it in an impartial manner, and if you do, you'll find there is plenty of fault to go around, ON BOTH THE EMPLOYERS' AND THE EMPLOYEES'. However, and in the final analysis, does the buck not stop at the CEO's and board of directors' desks?"

Your hypocritic nature is all throughout this forum. You chose to act like an azz and I've been giving it back to you ten fold. Now, you're whining and bellyaching. Because of name calling no less! Like I said, you're a hypocrite. Ten fold pal, ten fold. LMAO squid

[Rogue Scholar 05]

Hefty salaries, perks for union leaders raise eyebrows; Stay Connected

By Judy L. Thomas | McClatchy Newspapers
KANSAS CITY, Mo.— First-class travel. Six-figure salaries for half the 132 officers and staffers. Plenty of plum jobs for family members.

Life is good at the top of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers.

The union, with its headquarters in Kansas City, Kan., represents about 59,000 workers in the U.S. and Canada who make and repair boilers, fit pipes and work on ships and power plants. The recession has hit their trade hard, reducing union membership.

At the same time, the president’s salary has surged 67 percent in the past six years, not counting a recent raise. Add in travel and some other expenses, and Newton B. Jones received more than $600,000 last year, putting him at the absolute top of the presidents of the dozen biggest unions in the country.

presidents of the dozen biggest unions in the country.

Many relatives of union officers also ride the payroll.

Totaling the pay to just the families of Jones and two other executives, the union and its affiliates gave them more than $2 million in annual salary, according to the most recent financial reports filed by the organizations.

“This is one of the more egregious examples of money flowing like crazy that I’ve ever seen,” said Nathan Mehrens, a former U.S. Labor Department lawyer and now general counsel for Americans for Limited Government, a conservative watchdog group.

In an interview, two union spokesmen defended the spending and hiring practices before requesting other questions in writing. Although they did not respond to every question, Michael Stapp, the union’s general counsel, provided a written response that included praise for the Boilermakers.

“The Boilermaker family of organizations, together valued at over $10 billion, has proudly represented the interests of hundreds of thousands of working men and women for over 130 years,” Stapp wrote.

“The history of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers clearly demonstrates that they operate in strict accordance with all applicable laws and governing documents. They operate in much the same manner as most other labor organizations.”

Attempts to reach rank-and-file union members for comment were unsuccessful. But rumbles of discontent are sometimes felt.

In April, an anonymous letter, mailed purportedly by Boilermakers members and obtained by The Kansas City Star, sharply criticized union leaders.

“While members and their families struggle to make it through this recession, our IBB (International Brotherhood of Boilermakers) leaders have been living high off the hog at members’ expense,” the letter said.

“We regret that we have to be anonymous at this time because we fear retribution from a leadership that regrettably values its own personal and financial interests above the rank and file’s.”

In membership, the Boilermakers are a mere 5 percent the size of the Teamsters union. Yet which president received more in total disbursements from their unions last year — Teamsters President James P. Hoffa or the lesser-known Newton B. Jones?

Jones by more than $200,000.

Jones received $607,022 in total disbursements, compared with $372,489 for Hoffa.

Total disbursements include salary and business expenses, especially travel, which a union spokesman said made up most of Jones’ expenses.

Jones’ salary in the last fiscal year, which ended June 30, 2011, was $307,134 — also more than Hoffa. The figures come from annual reports the unions file with the Labor Department.

Jones’ total disbursements also are more than double those of Richard Trumka, head of the powerful AFL-CIO, a federation of national and international unions with 11.6 million members. Trumka received total disbursements of $293,750.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/13/148607/...

[Justice Dale]

Ellen1 wrote:

<quoted text>
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth without regard to the citizenship of a parent or even both parents:
http://www.fr edthompsonsameric...
http://www.economist.com/blogs ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N ...
http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh ...
http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh ...
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org ...

No, it now comes from the 14th amendment, as ratified in 1868. This can't be changed unless the Constitution is amended.
As plainly stated, "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", meaning not subject to any foreign power.
Sorry, Obama was born a subject of a foreign power, since his father was not "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" (US Constitution).

[LRS]

Hey Lunasquid, I'm going to pick up another 200 rounds of ammo today. Do you think that is wrong?

[Learn to Read]

Justice Dale wrote:

<quoted text>No, it now comes from the 14th amendment, as ratified in 1868. This can't be changed unless the Constitution is amended.
As plainly stated, "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", meaning not subject to any foreign power.
Sorry, Obama was born a subject of a foreign power, since his father was not "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" (US Constitution).

Still clinging to that fable Dufus? Must be awful lonely in your closet

[wojar]

Justice Dale wrote:

<quoted text>Why waste ammo on the innocent?
The Union suits have shown their propensity for violence. What next, maybe shooting the Fox contributors.

While you were mumbling about the upcoming armed conflict some of your drool messed up the bar.

[Justice Dale]

The 14th amendment's Citizenship Clause is very complimentary to Art. 2, Section 1, para 5, and John Jay's description of a Natural Born Citizen, you know, "no foreign influence".

[Ellen1]

Justice Dale wrote:

<quoted text>No, it now comes from the 14th amendment, as ratified in 1868. This can't be changed unless the Constitution is amended.
As plainly stated, "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", meaning not subject to any foreign power.
Sorry, Obama was born a subject of a foreign power, since his father was not "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" (US Constitution).

NO, the words "Natural Born" are not mentioned in the 14th Amendment. The phrase comes from the common law.

[Ellen1]

Justice Dale wrote:

The 14th amendment's Citizenship Clause is very complimentary to Art. 2, Section 1, para 5, and John Jay's description of a Natural Born Citizen, you know, "no foreign influence".

Re: ""no foreign influence".

There is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution thought that the US-born children of foreigners would have any more foreign influence than the US-born children of US citizens. If they had thought so, they would have said it. Instead, they wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

So, if they had really thought that the US-born children of foreigners should not be treated equally to the US-born children of US citizens, they would have said so instead of using the term Natural Born, which had applied to ALL children born in the country for three hundred years.

[Justice Dale]

Ellen1 wrote:

<quoted text>
NO, the words "Natural Born" are not mentioned in the 14th Amendment. The phrase comes from the common law.

By operation of the 14th is prevents anything but Natural Born and Naturalized Citizens, no one being subject to a foreign power will be granted citizenship.
As described by John Jay, a Natural Born Citizen is one with out foreign influence.

[American Lady]

Good Morning Guys :)

[American Lady]

Yeah ... jock itch !!!
Our Father !!!... ;0)