The American Ruling Class

[Mozaar]

Your right. That's how "toxic securities" got passed around. That went well, didn't it!

What is a toxic security? And why would one buy it?

I am really not interested in government and I know this plan will fail based on the weakness of men, period. But we will see. I will pray it works without bloodshed.

[Mozaar]

[QUOTE=rickoff;81435]Your above statement leads me to believe that you either did not actually read about the Precinct Strategy, or that you did not correctly comprehend what it is all about. This is a current and ongoing strategy. The representatives in Washington were placed in office by the 2008 and earlier elections, whereas the ones who find their way to Washington because of Precinct Strategy efforts will be elected in the 2010 and 2012 elections. They aren't there yet, but we can make it happen if we get involved in the strategy. Please take a few minutes to watch this video about the Precinct Strategy, and then tell me if you think it is a worthy plan that you would be willing to get involved in. Remember - in 2010 we have the opportunity to replace 435 Congressmen, and about 1/3 of our 100 senators. Replacing them with anybody new would be better than keeping the ones we have now, but replacing them with people of integrity could accomplish all of the government reform that we so desperately need in order to set things straight. So think about it - do you really want positive change? If so, please get involved. 2010 is already here, and time is ticking.[QUOTE]

I do not understand how you think I do not "get it". Its a brilliant strategy but its a short term solution. Thats how all revolutions miss the mark. First off, you assume people have no ego going into something like this. That they are incorruptable. Thats all. Secondly, there is a dissatisfaction with government period. Maybe people dont care about having the constitution as the gold standard. Maybe they want something else.
Thousands of people can have thousands of opinions, needs and wants. I believe the trust in other people for your own happiness is wasted energy. Good luck in spreading the message and reaching out. Its a good idea.

[Aaron]

ban electronic voting

I don't know about other states, but Washington state is Initiative crazy.
But I like it that way.

X signatures and something is on the ballot, then people have to vote, etc...

So, an initiative banning electronic vote counting is a reality through a
process that has been used successfully to make things happen...
The Initiative process at the state level.

[aljhoa]

01/17/2010 109 Notice Of Appeal

The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010!

Great day in America for the U.S. Constitution! The truth about Barack Obama's eligibility will be known fairly soon - Judge Carter practically guaranteed it!

Keyes v Obama (Docs) « Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored (Re-opened for limited business)


KEYES|BARNETT v OBAMA (APPEAL) - 109 - NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by plaintiffs

Important! Motion for reconsideration in Barnett v Obama filed. Hearing on Motion for reconsideration has been requested for November 20th. : Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

Al

[ANTIQUER]

Toxic Securities

Hi Mozaar;

I have worked in the financial industry long enough to know that there is a market for everything.

That's why I was surprised you did not know about "toxic securities", they were all over the media starting about 3 years ago as they were a major part of the financial collapse. Anyhow, here is a start of an explanation from Wiki;

Toxic security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and here is one example;

UBS 'dumped' toxic securities on bank - Business News, Business - The Independent

You are not alone if you don't understand them as no one does except the greedy bankers who created them in order to rip off other greedy bankers who were not smart enough to figure out they were about to be scammed.

Even Warren Buffet said he only understood them enough to avoid them as he considered them a time bomb that could explode and destroy the financial system. Boy, was he right!

Al

[Mozaar]

That's why I was surprised you did not know about "toxic securities", they were all over the media starting about 3 years ago as they were a major part of the financial collapse.

Sorry I was being cynical again. They are called derivatives basically securites whose value "derives" from other securites or its underlying security. So I assume you are talking about the recent financial bust, quite frankly, the underlying assets people are not talking about is that the underlying in this case was actually people, or their future income. See, speculative investors really do not know what asset to hold. Many assume real estate would always be a good bet, back then everybody did. But as you may well know people just ran out of money, banks got greedy, etc. Basically, you do not make big bets on other peoples future income, much less your own.
I just do not like the word toxic security because no one buys a toxic security. Its like going to the store to buy rotten apples. You do not buy an investment, lose money and then call it toxic. You just made a bad or stupid decision. Thats all.

[Mozaar]

Keyes v Obama (Docs) « Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored (Re-opened for limited business)


KEYES|BARNETT v OBAMA (APPEAL) - 109 - NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by plaintiffs

Important! Motion for reconsideration in Barnett v Obama filed. Hearing on Motion for reconsideration has been requested for November 20th. : Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

Al

Good luck with that! You want to know the real twist on that?

Answer this: When do you become an American under the constitution, before you are born or after?

[Aaron]

citizenship

Good luck with that! You want to know the real twist on that?

Answer this: When do you become an American under the constitution, before you are born or after?

People can be naturalized - if they immigrate to the states under work
visa, join military and naturalize automatically to US citizenship. That of
course happens for many people after they are born. There are other ways
to naturalize.

Even if born in the country, as a logical answer to a possibly technical
question, everyone is only a citizen after they are born and if in the US,
they are a natural born citizen. Nobody can get a birth certificate stating
any kind of status until after they're born - if it was a trick question.

For presidency, it must be a natural born citizen. I don't know if
Obama was born in the US or not, there are Kenyan papers from when
he became senator describing "Kenyan born Obama" word for word, etc...
Suspicious, he went to Pakistan when it was illegal for US citizens to
go there - so he couldn't have gone there with a US passport. There is
more suspicious evidence against him being a natural born citizen than
there is evidence to show he is one.

But, if he is honest, which that track records is lacking so far, but if
he is, why spend 7 figures to hide his records. If he is a natural born
citizen and is eligible for presidency, he should just whip them out and
show the world to see that but he has certainly given every indication
by lack of evidence and spending a fortune to hide his records kind of
weighs towards the deceptive side of things.

It should be decided in a court of law and hopefully as in a small chance
of cases that justice is truly blind.

[aljhoa]

People can be naturalized - if they immigrate to the states under work
visa, join military and naturalize automatically to US citizenship. That of
course happens for many people after they are born. There are other ways
to naturalize.

Even if born in the country, as a logical answer to a possibly technical
question, everyone is only a citizen after they are born and if in the US,
they are a natural born citizen. Nobody can get a birth certificate stating
any kind of status until after they're born - if it was a trick question.

For presidency, it must be a natural born citizen. I don't know if
Obama was born in the US or not, there are Kenyan papers from when
he became senator describing "Kenyan born Obama" word for word, etc...
Suspicious, he went to Pakistan when it was illegal for US citizens to
go there - so he couldn't have gone there with a US passport. There is
more suspicious evidence against him being a natural born citizen than
there is evidence to show he is one.

But, if he is honest, which that track records is lacking so far, but if
he is, why spend 7 figures to hide his records. If he is a natural born
citizen and is eligible for presidency, he should just whip them out and
show the world to see that but he has certainly given every indication
by lack of evidence and spending a fortune to hide his records kind of
weighs towards the deceptive side of things.

It should be decided in a court of law and hopefully as in a small chance
of cases that justice is truly blind.

US Constitutions for “Layers’” Commune is unenforceable contract the proof is in the subject lawsuit.
Provided certain criteria are met anyone can become a member of US Corporation and theoretically 50 States President, the precedent was set.

Al

[Mozaar]

To be clear I meant natural born citizen.
The powers that be are not stupid they do have their head in the game.
The answer is BEFORE YOU ARE BORN.
This is how its going to go down, lets say it does go all the way to the Supreme Court. After all the arguing and blah blah blah.......
The Court will rule that the child in the womb of an American woman is in fact a natural born citizen.
But wait....the child is not born yet?
As the child is born it could only have one definate identity, that being the son/daughter of the mother giving birth to him/her. Thus baby Obama was American before anything else even if this took place on Pluto.
So there you go!
The ruling class knows you will go there. That way to go about it is futile. Again wasted energy. Plus if Obama goes, would the country be a lot better with Biden?
Focusing on policies and constructing frameworks for a better society is a far better road to travel. You can also bless your path with positive thinking, love and all that good stuff you know we all need.
It begins with you

[Aaron]

US Citizenship

Mozaar,

That is not really how it is.

I have brothers born to a woman that is American and both
were born on US Air Force bases overseas and having an American
mother and even being on US territory did NOT make them US Citizens.

In no way shape or form has this ever happened in history.

It was REQUIRED to visit the American Consulate General in the country
and fill out a form, pay fees and then are considered "US Citizen Born Abroad"
but NOT before applying for it.

THEN, the consulate general issues a US birth certificate.

If that process was not done, when coming back to the states, there
is an option to fill out paperwork for "Declaration of US Citizenship",
which was not necessary for my brothers since the "US Citizen Born
Abroad" status was already filed.

You can ask any one of the hundreds of thousands or millions of military
families that had dependents born outside of the United States and they
can tell you that this in fact is the exact process and no dependent/child
can be considered US citizens until AFTER they are born and AFTER
the paperwork is filled out.

This is an absolute fact of how it has always been.

And most certainly - being born outside of the US like this will NOT
ever be given "Natural Born" status.

[rickoff]

To be clear I meant natural born citizen.
This is how its going to go down, lets say it does go all the way to the Supreme Court. After all the arguing and blah blah blah.......
The Court will rule that the child in the womb of an American woman is in fact a natural born citizen.

You are wrong in your assumptions, Mozaar, and here's why:

US Constitution, Atricle II, Section 1, Clause 5 states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
Even assuming that Barack Obama jr was born in Hawaii as claimed (but as yet unproven) he is not legally considered a "Natural Born Citizen," and is therefore ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States.

People are confused because they don't understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms. The chart below shows the elements for each of the Constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in case law by the Supreme Court.

For each presidential candidate, you can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. under the Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and the 14th Amendment, Section 1, and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). As you can clearly see, Obama could be a citizen of the United States, but he's not a "natural born citizen" of the United States, and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was not a U. S. citizen.



Obama's own website refers to him as a "native born" citizen and even has a statement describing his dual "at birth" citizenship. It's right there -- look!
See: Right there where it says, "The Truth About Barack's Birth Certificate" -- "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a "native citizen of the United States of America."

[rickoff]

I do not understand how you think I do not "get it".

It was obvious that you did not understand what the Precinct Strategy was, or what it had accomplished so far, because you stated,

Please share what these representatives chosen via the Precint Strategy have done now that they are voted in.

The point being that our preferred Congressional and Senatorial Representative candidates have neither been chosen nor elected through the Precinct Strategy that we are suggesting as a means of installing representatives who will defend our constitution and thwart those who would subvert it. They are not there in Washington yet, and they won't be there later either unless the Precinct Strategy is carried out successfully. And that is up to us. Note that the Precinct Strategy has been used by some groups to advance their causes, though, and Obama supporters used it quite well with the help of "community organizers and ACORN." We need to do even better in 2010 and 2012 than they did in 2008.

Its a brilliant strategy but its a short term solution. Thats how all revolutions miss the mark.

It is only short term if we don't care enough to continue it and safeguard it. Don't you think it is worthy of continuing and safeguarding? After all, it is the only short term peaceful strategy available to us that is guaranteed to work if we use it as intended.

First off, you assume people have no ego going into something like this. That they are incorruptable. Thats all.

You are wrong. You are the one who is assuming to understand how I think and act. I assume nothing. The Precinct Strategy accomplishes something that has never been done before in US elections, at least not during my lifetime, and I am 64. It allows ordinary people, rather than corrupt special interest groups, to nominate candidates for office. True, nearly any person can become corrupted to some degree even if they set out for Washington with the best of intentions. Two things will work for us to prevent that, though. First, the corrupt career Representatives will not be there in Washington to entice the newcomers, because we will have kicked them all out. All of the Congressional Representatives would be newcomers, with high ideals, and so would 1/3 of the Senators. Secondly, we will ensure that no representative serves more than one term before we replace them and send them home.

Secondly, there is a dissatisfaction with government period. Maybe people dont care about having the constitution as the gold standard. Maybe they want something else.

Yes, there is an enormous groundswell of dissatisfaction with government, but only with government as it is - not as it is supposed to be under the Constitution. There is great interest now by people nation wide in understanding the Constitution and how it can protect us from a government that is out of control and wanting to trash our freedom and liberties. What is it that you think people want? Socialism? Communism?

We just witnessed Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, inarguably the most liberal state in the US. He won because of massive voter dissatisfaction with those who currently represent us in Washington. In his victory speech, he made it quite clear that it was the independent thinking voters in Massachusetts who made his election possible. In answer to those who said that this was a Democrat seat, or Ted Kennedy's seat, Scott reminded everyone that, "this senate seat belongs to no one person, no political party. This is the people's seat." Scott understands, unlike the career politicians in Washington, that he has been elected to represent the people, rather than a political party, lobbyists, or special interest groups. As Scott also said, "what happened here in Massachusetts can happen all over America," and I believe that is true if we will rise to the occasion and implement the Precinct Strategy everywhere.

Scott's victory speech: YouTube - Scott Brown's Victory Speech

[ANTIQUER]

"Natural Born Citizen"

Rick;

As usual you are correct. Here is a good discussion which explains it.

The Federalist Blog
Defining Natural-Born Citizen
By P.A. Madison on November 18, 2008

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason


What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.

What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean

Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?

Unlikely in the strict sense because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were generally referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was part of the “ordinary course of affairs” of the States that only local laws could affect. Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State. Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.” These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.

Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance and citizenship. After independence each State was free to establish their own maxims on the subject. James Madison’s own State of Virginia adopted a birthright law authored by Thomas Jefferson in 1779 that recognized parentage (citizenship of father) in determining citizenship of the child:

[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

Some States made citizenship conditional on either parent in terms of their citizenship, such as Kentucky: “[E]very child, wherever born, whose father or mother was or shall be a citizen of Kentucky at the birth of such child, shall be deemed citizens of that State.” One common law found in a number of States that defined those born as citizens read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc.”

The State of Connecticut adopted a law that read, “All persons born in this State … except aliens, paupers, and fugitives from justice or service, are and shall be deemed to be citizens of this State, owing it allegiance and entitled to receive its protection, until they shall have voluntarily withdrawn from its limits and become incorporated into some other State or sovereignty as members thereof.” States that were slow in enacting laws over acquiring citizenship through birth forced courts to adjudicate citizenship disputes under common law rules.

Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?

It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen.

Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.” House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.

Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.

Fourteenth Amendment

Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States - a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.

The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said 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, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power 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.”

United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.”

Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes a great deal of sense for the time because there was a great deal of controversy over conflicts arising from double allegiances.

Just as a person cannot be naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while owing allegiance to another nation - neither can anyone born. Why would “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be any different with persons born since this jurisdiction equally applies to persons born or naturalized? If allegiance simply meant location on American soil, then what was the purpose of having aliens renounce their allegiance to other countries and pledge their allegiance to this one for purposes of becoming naturalized? Perhaps because locality itself was never enough to confer allegiance and citizenship?

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”
xcluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father might be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law (if there was one) but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.

The rest of the article is here:
Defining Natural-Born Citizen - The Federalist Blog

Further, some reports say Obama was born in a military hospital on a U.S. submarine base, in which case Aaron's info. would apply. It will be interesting to see what legal maneuvers Obama's lawyers come up with to delay the decision or implementaton of it.

Al

[Mozaar]

Obama is natural born citizen

I am not stating that it is legit. Who knows really?

I am just saying how it is likely to go down if this case go on to be presented. Obama will at least finish his one term unharmed. He should be voted out unless the Republicans pull out a Dole-like candidate. No one is going to take the streets in fustration because the Court is bogus. Not a significant crowd anyways. You guys know that.
Anyhow, I thought I read somewhere that Clarence Thomas actually showed his collegues about this whole affair. I think they shrugged it off or something. Has anyone heard similiar? If true I do not think they will ever hear the case.