OBAMA BIRTH-CERTIFICATE DOUBTS HEAD TO CAPITOL

wnd ^ | 06/03/2013

[FreeAtlanta]

Audible gasps, shock, outrage and support for a congressional investigation were the responses by law-enforcement officers, elected officials and attorneys to a presentation by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse of evidence that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent.

Arpaio’s lead investigator, Mike Zullo, made a public presentation Saturday at the annual convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association in St. Charles, Mo., then held a closed-door session for police officers, elected officials and others.

“Sheriff Arpaio wants this in Congress. That’s where we intend to take it,” Zullo said in an interview with Carl Gallups of PPSimmons Radio.

Zullo said he was amazed by the number of law-enforcement personnel and others at the conference who were not aware of the evidence that Obama’s birth documentation is fake.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/obama-birth-certificate-doubts-head-to-capitol/#CTYFpoHwwvrDiTyj.99

[bluecat6]

You mean unilateral military action against a Russian ally without Congressional approval or even a UN resolution could be a problem?

[PhiloBedo]

You’d think the NSA would have all the information on Barry.

[FreeAtlanta]

At one time I thought that our military would refuse an insane order... like launching nuclear missiles in weird circumstances.

17 Air Force officers stripped of authority to launch nuclear missiles

Hagel demands answers on 'rot' at Air Force nuclear missile base Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/hagel-demands-answers-on-rot-at-nuke-missile-base/#ixzz2WFUHL1Aq

Maybe, Barry got rid of those officers who - in a test drill - would not launch against his designated targets?

With all the things that have happened with this administration, I don't think this is paranoia. I don't care what everyone says.

Another thing I am questioning is the embarrassing Secret Service scandal in South America. Maybe, those guys were innocent and Barry and gang just needed to get rid of the most honest and high integrity guys by railroading them? Hillary did something similar with the Travel office.

[FreeAtlanta]

yeah, you would think... but they might be too busy watching dangerous TEA Party types.

[Graewoulf]

BUMP!

[GBA]

Yes, he as been very systematic and fairly thorough. Not bad for someone his critics would like to believe is stupid.

However, consider what might be Ed Snowden's Revere-like act of defiance and the public's generally favorable reaction.

Perhaps those two factors together, call it the "Snowden effect", become that unforeseen force that derails their best laid plans, when those who can Just say NO to power.

Perhaps there will be no My Lais in America from the Army of the One, and they and we water the Liberty tree instead.

[little jeremiah]

Even the excerpt said that the audible gasps etc were at the meeting with sheriffs, elected officials and attorneys - the private meeting that is not the video at WND.

[little jeremiah]

Until the truth of where he was born and to what mother and father, it’s all important. Assuming the mythology as presented in his fake autobiography and the public fake persona, it is a mistake to make any assumptions.

[Mortrey]

More like blow...(more expensive, too.)

[FreeAtlanta]

I go back and forth on the stupid thing. Is it him, or is it Valery Jarrett or someone else that is manipulating the strings?

Honestly, with the verbal gaffs and stupid things he does when he is off teleprompter, he is either a brilliant actor or an actor that is just living it up.

I can't help but think of the dufuss actor that "played the villain" in Iron Man 3.

the Manchurian!!!!

(replace Drama with Obama) (Ben Kingsley)

For the television, he was the evil mastermind, but when Ironman finds him he discovers he is just a drunk actor who is a frontman for the real villian)

yeah, life imitates fiction or is it the other way ?

[phockthis]

“Subject to the Jurisdiction”: You Can’t Have It Both Ways

Since the SD legislature has refused to address the birthright citizernship issue, I decided to give it another go with Sen. Thune on a national level. As that “IS” the level of government in which it rightly should be addressed.
In my call to his office today I inquired:

Can the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” mean one thing for persons born and another for persons naturalized without it specifically separating the two in the initial language of the bill? If it does not, then that would mean that either there is no constitutional provision for anchor babies aka birthright citizenship for children born to parents in which one or more is an alien or that the oaths that immigrants must take renouncing any and all foreign allegiances is wholly unconstitutional and the US State Dept must immediately cease and desist in requiring it. If it is as some claim, that mere birth alone creates citizens, then it would also leave the Expatriation Act of 1868 formally known as “An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States” completely unconstitutional and thereby creating complete chaos of the laws of nations not to mention the treaties signed by our government from its founding. The Expatriation Act of 1868, known as the sister act to the 14th Amendment, is still in force today as part of Title 8, while some parts of it were transferred under Foreign Affairs. This law is the basis for the renunciation oath that all immigrants must take and is the law which gives Congress the right & authority to rebuke a naturalized citizen’s US citizenship status & have that person deported for “bad behavior”. It is also the law that states that dual allegiance is not now nor ever has been part of our legal system. The Act states: “whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed” and then goes on to declare ” is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government”.

From all the research into the congressional archives & past legislation that I have done from our founding to the present, and all the historical evidence that I have acquired, it is my conclusion that “subject to the jurisdiction” as it is written into the law can not suppose to repudiate itself nor are laws to be made that create redundancy. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 (1995). I would like to hear how Sen. Thune, being a lawyer & writer/author of our laws can suppose a phrase mean two different things in the same law without specifically addressing them separately?

The 1995 Supreme Court case of Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 concluded that:
[562] The Act’s structure and § 12’s language reinforce this view. In addition, since the primary innovation of the Act was the creation of federal duties-for the most part registration and disclosure obligations-in connection with public offerings, it is reasonable to conclude that the liability provisions were designed primarily to provide remedies for violations of these obligations rather than to conclude that § 12(2) creates vast additional liabilities that are quite independent of them. Congress would have been specific had it intended “prospectus” to have a different meaning in § 12. Pp. 570-573 . . . [563] The Act’s legislative history clearly indicates that Congress contemplated that § 12(2) would apply only to public offerings by an issuer or controlling shareholder, and nothing in that history suggests that Congress intended to create a formal prospectus required to comply with both §§ 10 and 12, and a second, less formal prospectus, to which only § 12 would be applicable. Pp. 578-584.

In other words, when a “term” or “phrase” of the law pertains to two different subject matter, unless otherwise stated in the statute by congress, the “term” or “phrase” shall be interpreted as to not repudiate itself.

The 14th Amendment is a prime example of this rule of law, i. e. birth & naturalization. According to Justice Kennedy, who delivered the opinion of the court in Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. and the rules pertaining to interpretation of laws, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction”, unless otherwise stated specifically by Congress in subsequent legislation or in the definitions of the “terms” & “phrases” of that law that is written in the US code, shall have the exact same meaning for the one as it does for the other.

Furthermore, according to Justice Kennedy the corresponding legislation to the 14th, the Expatriation Act of 1868 being subsequent legislation to the 14th, shall also have no affect to redundancy or repudiation of the 14th & the 1866 Civil Rights Act which held the verbiage of the codified law until it was changed in 1940 when the 14th & the 1866 Acts were consolidated into one.

Constitutional & legislative interpretation was written centuries ago and after the revolution there was but a couple of law schools in the US. It wasn’t until 1833 that Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, also founder of Harvard Law school, wrote his commentaries about constitutional interpretation that is still cited to this day. Chapter 5 titled “Rules of Interpretation”, Section 188 & 194 of his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States states:

Finish here:
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/

[Mortrey]

Valerie Jarrett—”Iranian of the Day!”

(that site has recently been scrubbed. Wish I had gotten a screen shot of it.)

Benghazi Barry is so limp wristed, you KNOW the womyn around him make the important decisions.

(If he’s so damned smart, how come Oprah never had his professors on to gain noteriety for their instruction for their former student? Unseal the records of his “accomplishments” in academia.)

[phockthis]

Natural Born Citizen Definition

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2925347/posts -—post 31

Mi>I have already stated my posititon which is supported by Mark Levin and Fred Thompson, both of whom are lawyers.
You keep your lawyers and I’ll raise you the author of the 14th!

John Bingham, “father of the 14th Amendment”, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.
The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

“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.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!
“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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.

Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

The take away from this is that, while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people’s house regarding “citizenship” and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect’s multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution. The United States House was in complete agreement at the time. NBC = born in sovereign U.S. territory, to 2 citizen parentS who owe allegiance to no other country.

[Right Wing Assault]

Who put the nice clothes on that homeless guy in post # 43?

[Bronzewound]

Here's ta hopin' yore britches will be pee soaked and drippin' puddles. : )

But I fear you are right.

[353FMG]

I will go as far as pee into the wind if anything will be done about it.

Don’t forget we have a gutless group of people who call themselves, congressmen.

[hoosiermama]

Remember at first they said he was asleep. I’ve said from the beginning he was passed out. Around here if you’re passed out, nice folks will say: “xxxxx went to sleep early “

[charlie72]

The NSA does have all the info on Barry, but they also have the info on any congressperson who would try to get an investigation of Barry. I still think that Sen. Coburn’s failure to vet Obama in 2008 is why we have him as President.

[greeneyes]

History channel had an interesting story the other night about the paranoia of the Russians during the late 1980’s, shortly after the downing of the Korean plane after it entered Russian air territory. The Russian Premeir was convince that Reagan was going to attack Russia. Paranoid old man!

Nato was having their annual war games meeting and the Russians thought this would be a good cover for a sneak attack. When the Russian satellites sounded an alarm that the USA had launched a missle toward Russia, This happened around 4 more times, that same evening, it’s a miracle that they didn’t retaliate.

Protocol required retaliation. The soldier who was on duty did not know for sure what was happening, but his military training had always been that if the USA launched an attack it would be massive designed to obliterate the USSR.

Instead of following protocol, he refused to retaliate which would have started WWIII, because he thought there must be an error. He was right, but I think he was releived of his command.

It wasn’t until the mole in Soviet Union advised his British handlers that we became aware of how close we came to Russia launching an all out nuclear retaliation on the USA.

Closer than anything since the Cuban Missle Crisis. Didn’t come to light until years later. Declassified now, but I don’t think it was ever widely reported.

[cherry]

imagine everyone will be anxious to encourage their sons or grandsons to join up to fight WW3....