The American Ruling Class

[Core]

Ron Paul was loudly boo'ed tonight in the republican debate for his foreign policy. Ron Paul didnt like the fact that we assassinated terrorist leaders instead of capturing and interrogating them with due legal process.

That was the point that the crowd did not understand, it was simply above there intelligence level. When you capture a leading figure in any group you simply don't kill them, you interrogate first to get as much information as possible. Imagine being at war and you capture your opponents general. He would be full of good information and quickly killing him would be doing your opponent a favor.

Paul started making that point but then switched gears.

-Core

[dutchdivco]

Rick,

Not to 'nitpick', but I'm not sure 'scrutinisation' is a word. In any case, Presidents and Congress have been 'playing games' with this whole 'recess appoitments' thing for years; both parties are equally guilty.

The Constitution they both (Congress and presidents) swear to uphold they then make a mockery of. This whole thing where 3 or 4 Senators show up, they gavel in and out in a few minutes and leave, without doing anything, and say THAT means they are still 'in session', and therefore the Pres. can't make 'recess appointments' is a joke. Its the kind of 'gameplaying' you might expect of high schoolers.

Recess appoitments were originally intended to insure that important and neccesary appoitments didn't get delayed, while Congress was 'out of session', (which was originally intended to allow Congressmen to go back home to their REAL job, AND to get an earfull from their constituents).

The whole thing has 'morphed', and for those in D.C. its a big game. Its like 'signing statements'; "Yes, I SIGNED this bill, making it a Law, but I have no intention of enforcing certain provisions I don't agree with". What the F*ck is that?!!! The whole idea is the laws are written, and diseminated to the populace, so we all know what the law says.Now they put an addendum, that says "Oh, but the president may choose not to enforce parts he doesn't agree with"? Its but one form of selective enforcement, which is a bad road to go down.And again, they ALL play this game; both parties and all branches. Swear to uphold the Constitution, while trampling it at the same time! Flush twice, its a long way to D.C.!

Yes B.O. has to go! But Romney will be no better! Really curious what will happen when R.P shows up, with 'representative delegates', or if they will try to change the rules, in mid-stream. This is shaping up to be like in 1960, when Goldwater (by coincidence? a Libertarian) wrested the nomination from Rockefeller, an East coast 'moderate' $-man) because Goldwater had more delegates!

Is there any website where someone is keeping track of the # of delegates each Repub. candidate has, so far? Certainly don't hear that on the mainstream news, but THATS the # that counts, not 'who won the debate', or even 'poll #'s'; the question is how many delegates each candidate has, at the convention, and how many it takes to get the nomination.

I'm wondering A) How close is R.P. to Romney, and how many caucauses or primaries R.P would have to 'win' in order to have MORE delegates than Romney? Anyone know where to find this info? Jim

[Core]

Hmmm where's all the Rick Santorum supporters tonight that helped him beat out Ron Paul in Iowa? Makes you wonder how that could have been possible, doesn't it? Perhaps that was what resulted when the lights went out for one minute directly after the ballots were collected. No kidding, that really did happen.

That's not all. I was watching Fox News and Brett Bair announced (sometime around 9:30pm) that they are waiting for (quote) 'a guy in a pickup truck' to deliver ballot boxes. What is odd about this is the fact that the GOP, leading up to the caucus, was very concerned about vote rigging/tampering hence moving the counting to a much more secure location.

The announcement by Brett Bair was comical, he was reading from a paper and looked a bit nervous/in disbelief of what he was reading. After the comment Megan Kelly, the co-host, chimed in with her own look of dis-belief.

Good grief!

-Core

[aljhoa]

"Change in 150 Days"

The Eagle (slide show)
The Eagle

The Brain
Is Coconut Oil REALLY Healthy? - YouTube
Dr. Newport's effective work on memory loss and Alzheimer's with coconut oil- Part I - YouTube

Al

[Aaron]

vote no on sopa - tell your reps!

http://www.energeticforum.com/genera...ours-left.html

24 hours left!

[Aaron]

natural born

Rick,

On this page, Constitutional Topic: Citizenship - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net,
it states a natural born citizen is anyone that meets these criteria:

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?


The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.


Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

• Anyone born inside the United States *
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.


Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.


Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.


-------------------------


I highlighted the bullet points in blue up above relating to someone born outside of the US. Does that not make Romney an automatic Natural Born citizen eligible to be President? What is your take on that?

[Aaron]

natural born

Rick,

On this page, Constitutional Topic: Citizenship - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net,
it states a natural born citizen is anyone that meets these criteria:

------------------

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?


The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.


Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

• Anyone born inside the United States *
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.


Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.


Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.


-------------------------


It says that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen? Is that actually what the law says?

[dutchdivco]

Aaron

Good job of doing your 'homework'. Wouldn't this;

"•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)"

ALSO include B.O, even IF he was born outside the U.S., as his Mom was a U.S. citisen who lived in the U.S. for more than 5 years? Jim

[Aaron]

natural born qualification for potus

Good job of doing your 'homework'. Wouldn't this;

"•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)"

ALSO include B.O, even IF he was born outside the U.S., as his Mom was a U.S. citisen who lived in the U.S. for more than 5 years? Jim

With the BO issue, the birth certificate is fake but it will never see the light of day in a court room.

That isn't really a legal authority site so not sure what to make of it yet.

Rick probably posted these already but this is what I found:

Article 2 describes two types of citizens eligible to be president; the first clause describes those born to U.S. citizens, the other are native born British subjects naturalized as our first U.S. citizens at the time of adoption of the constitution.

As far as the natural born requirement in the Constitution, it is in Article 2 - The Executive Branch, Section 1 - The President.

There are nut job websites claiming "natural born" was never defined but this is a myth.

The chief framer of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, John A. Bingham, stated, “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.” Cf. Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), and U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

and...

The US Supreme Court did define the who were eligible to e POTUS under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

It clearly states - born in a country where the parents were also its citizens then became natural born citizens.

[aljhoa]

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

It clearly states - born in a country where the parents were also its citizens then became natural born citizens.

It was clearly stated until April 2010.

In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that "[t]here is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'".[20] In April 2010 Solum republished the same article as an online draft, in which he changed his opinion on the meaning of natural born citizen to include persons born in the United States of one American citizen parent. In a footnote he explained that "[b]ased on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a 'natural born citizen.'" He further extended natural born citizenship to all cases of jus soli as the "conventional view".

According to an April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, most constitutional scholars interpret Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the "natural born" requirement. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.

Barack Obama (born 1961), 44th president of the United States, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother ( see ‘60 US immigration requirements for parents under 19 ) and a British subject father (Stanley Ann Dunham was statutorily raped) from what was then the Kenya Colony of the United Kingdom (which became the independent country of Kenya in 1963).

Natural Born Citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al

[minoly]

We're all illegal aliens here - especially the European "forefathers" who raped and pillaged the people and the land centuries ago.

It would be interesting to see where many would stand if another life form showed up here on earth, wiped out 80% of the population and burned down our cities, wrote up a piece of paper declaring their own law, making it such that no "earth human" could ever take part in it.

What would we all do then?
Can't we all just choose to focus on the real problems at hand and what this thread is all about - the american ruling class

having served in the Army - it does not matter what you think, the president is the president period - like him or not, there are many we do not like and we solute them respectfully either way.

[Aaron]

natural born qualification for potus

Al,

That looks like it is simply the interpretation of a professor and some scholars.

There absolutely is a historical clear cut case of the supreme court stating both parents must be US Citizens. That means, they are simply ignoring the facts. It looks like nothing more than an attempt to legitimize Obama as President.

But the birth certificate is still fake - anyone case see the non-pixelation issue when the zoom in.

In any case, there is no justice in the USA.

[aljhoa]

We the People, Not We the Corporations
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule. We Move to Amend.
We the People, Not We the Corporations | Move to Amend

Al

[aljhoa]

Another "4th of July"

It would be interesting to see where many would stand if another life form showed up here on earth, wiped out 80% of the population and burned down our cities, wrote up a piece of paper declaring their own law, making it such that no "earth human" could ever take part in it.

UFO: Ronald Reagan's speech about UFO Alien at UN - YouTube

(Star Wars-Ronald Reagan ) Strategic Defense Initiative - SDI - YouTube


The giant mirage appeared across the skyline in East China earlier this month after heavy rainfall and humid conditions covered the Xin’an River.
Read more: 'Lost Civilization' Appears Above Chinese River | Fox News

In celebration of 10 years of digital innovation, RalphLauren.com presents the ultimate fusion of art, fashion & technology in a visual feast for the 5 senses.
The Official Ralph Lauren 4D Experience - London - YouTube




Problem-Reaction-Solution: Wars

The global elite have funded both sides of nearly every war of the last 200 years. Conflicts are deliberately created, and false-flag attacks used a pretext, by the elite. Wars generate vast profits for weapons manufacturers and other parts of the military-industrial complex, and serve as a pretext for increased and sustained military and security budgets and police state measures. Nothing centralizes power like war; having an "enemy image" is vital to those who wish to control society.

But most importantly of all, war creates chaos. A standard technique of the New World Order is to reshape the world by offering to restore order out of chaos. In this way, wars are the ultimate use of Problem-Reaction-Solution.
Wars

Al

[Aaron]

'Lost Civilization' Appears Above Chinese River

The giant mirage appeared across the skyline in East China earlier this month after heavy rainfall and humid conditions covered the Xin’an River.
Read more: 'Lost Civilization' Appears Above Chinese River | Fox News

Al, is there a video that works for this? I think I saw that when it came out but the youtube acct is now disabled.