Sunday, February 26, 2012

Re: Another day. Another apology.

Hard to believe that this article was written in the Ottowa Sun....Thanks for sharing Bear;
 


 
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Bear Bear <thatbearguy@gmail.com> wrote:
From the Ottawa Sun:


Qur'an burning contradictions


John-Robson
By John Robson ,Parliamentary Bureau


On hearing that American soldiers had burned some Korans, Afghans
erupted into randomly murderous rage. In the ensuing stone-throwing,
tire- and flag-burning and infidel-denouncing some 14 people have been
killed so far, mostly Muslim Afghans. What's that about?

It's hard to sympathize with whoever was charged with disposing of
Qur'ans at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan and decided a public
bonfire would be nicely inconspicuous. And yes, it feeds into the
stereotype of Americans oblivious to other cultures. But that said,
let me pose a few questions to the kinder, gentler multiculturalists
out there.

Barack Obama predictably groveled in a three-page written apology to
Afghan President Hamid Karzai because some idiots burned Qur'ans
thought to have been used by Taliban prisoners to exchange messages.
So will Karzai send Obama a written apology because an Afghan soldier
shot two American soldiers who weren't involved in the incident?

Or for Taliban desecrating Qur'ans by writing murder plots in them? Or
for his countrymen killing nearly 2,000 Americans and more than 150
Canadians because we came to save them from the Taliban we armed to
save them from Communism, then tried to insist that girls should go to
school without being murdered, raped or disfigured with acid?

Why do we act as if we agreed that it was worse to destroy a book than
a person? If an Afghan burned a Bible in America, or Afghanistan, how
many people would die in the ensuing riots? None, obviously.

If most Afghans found a Bible and recognized it they almost certainly
would destroy it. Quite possibly along with its owner. We don't hear
about that stuff, though, do we?

Has the President of Iraq apologized because Christians are being
murdered, terrorized and driven out of that country? Has the Saudi
King to whom Obama infamously bowed apologized because it's illegal to
build a church in his country or conduct a public Christian worship
service? Or because his predecessor King Faisal told anyone who'd
listen that Jews murdered gentiles to consume their blood on Passover?

Or, if kings are off limits, how about the Saudi imam who, in a
government mosque, reproached Palestinians for failing to enslave
Jewish women? Still waiting for that apology too. A Saudi who burned a
Bible would be lucky if they only went to jail ... for having had a
Bible.

As founding king Ibn Saud's grandfather once explained, he would
haggle over politics. "But when the question is one of religion, we
kill everybody." In Afghanistan that apparently includes not only
innocent non-Muslims, but innocent Muslims as well.

If it were an isolated incident ... I'd still be shaking my head. But
of course it isn't. Last year at least 24 Afghans were killed after an
American preacher burned a Qur'an in Florida. After. But not because.
As newspapers casually noted Friday, terrorists in Iraq killed dozens
of their fellow Muslims on Thursday alone, without a desecrated Qur'an
or any other excuse.

Then there were the infamous Danish cartoons, taken on a provocative
tour of the Middle East by Danish imams complete with added
inflammatory bogus images. In the ensuing riots dozens who were
neither Danish, nor cartoonists, nor Christians, Jews, atheists,
Buddhists, Hindus, or any other form of stinking infidel were killed
because ... uh ... why were they killed?

At the risk of ruffling Justin Trudeau's hair, I find this response
barbaric. By all means be offended if someone clumsily insults your
religion. But exhibit some self-control. Express dismay; request an
apology; ostracize the offender. But don't try to kill him, let alone
get so crazy you kill someone who is not only innocent of the original
offense but shares your outrage.

If you do, don't expect me to pretend it's not disgusting.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: [New post] How The Gas Prices Are Manipulated By The Koch Brothers And Other Wall Street Players



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Addicting Info
Date: Sunday, February 26, 2012
Subject: [New post] How The Gas Prices Are Manipulated By The Koch Brothers And Other Wall Street Players
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


New post on Addicting Info

<http://s.wordpress.com/i/emails/blavatar-default.png>
<http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/8384695ca1f34d0e851ddcc32bdf0327?s=50&d=identicon&r=G>

How The Gas Prices Are Manipulated By The Koch Brothers And Other Wall Street Players

by Emine Dilek

<http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/3756875258_koch_industries_xlarge.png>

Why are gas prices surging to levels unseen since the 2008 oil spike while the oil companies reporting record profits? Much of the problem is actually created by Wall Street traders here in the USA who gamble on oil prices and powerful multinational companies that manipulate the supply and demand by stockpiling oil when the price is low and expected to rise in the near future. And yes, so far this practice is perfectly legal.

Bart Chilton, a commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC),  the federal agency that regulates commodity futures and option trading in the United States, says a very few number of players control too much of the market, allowing them to push the price of gas higher and higher. The American public knows very little about the oil speculation industry because a conservative majority on the CFTC has refused to implement the mandates from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to curb abuses and provide transparency.

//
//

One of those players is the petrochemical multinational Koch Industries. Although oil extraction is a small part of the Koch's oil business the company has major control over  every other part of the market as its core venture is shipping crude oil, refining it, distributing it to retailers, then speculating on the future price.  The company actively trades about 50 types of crude oil around the world and has trading operations in London, Geneva, Singapore, Houston, New York, Wichita, Rotterdam, and Mumbai.

When future oil prices are expected to rise--which means when demand is expected to exceed supply--big banks and companies like Koch start buying up oil and storing it in massive containers both on land and offshore to lock in the oil for sale later at a set price.

In 2008, Fortune magazine reported that Koch Supply & Trading leased the 2-million-barrel-capacity Dubai Titan that year, the third supertanker the company has leased, because the demand for oil storage was so high that Koch and other big investors who could not secure storage on land have resorted to leasing supertankers and using them as floating oil tanks.

Koch was one of the companies that lobbied aggressively against President's financial reform bill-–mentioned above--particularly on provisions related to transparency in the energy trading market. Representatives from the company's lobbying firm even argued that moderate levels of the toxic chemical dioxin should not be designated as a cancer risk for humans at an EPA hearing last summer.

When we look at the money Koch has spent on lobbying to influence laws and regulations in Washington in recent years--from $857,000 in 2004 to $20 million in 2008--it is not surprising that Koch's lobbyists and officials have successfully fought to preserve the industry's tax breaks and credits, and defeated all attempts by Congress to regulate environmental hazards and transparency requirements.

At the beginning of February 2012, Koch and about 300 other-–invitation only--individuals pledged approximately $100 million to defeat President Obama in the 2012 elections at a private meeting in California.  And now at the end of February 2012 we are seeing a distinctive rise in the oil prices at the pump.  I will not speculate any further as I have the utmost trust in the intelligence of our readers to connect the dots and fill in the blanks.

Emine Dilek | February 26, 2012 at 8:51 am | Tags: CFTC, Commodity Futures Trading Commissio, Dodd-Frank, gas and oil prices, Koch brothers, Koch Industries, Obama, oil speculators | Categories: Barack Obama, Current Issues, Election 2012, Information and Resources | URL: http://wp.me/p1w9KV-9P6

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/26/how-the-gas-prices-are-manipulated-by-the-koch-brothers-and-other-wall-street-players/

<http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=jetpack.wordpress.com&blog=22440337&post=37764&subd=www.addictinginfo.org&ref=&email=1&email_o=jetpack>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Another day. Another apology.

From the Ottawa Sun:


Qur'an burning contradictions


John-Robson
By John Robson ,Parliamentary Bureau


On hearing that American soldiers had burned some Korans, Afghans
erupted into randomly murderous rage. In the ensuing stone-throwing,
tire- and flag-burning and infidel-denouncing some 14 people have been
killed so far, mostly Muslim Afghans. What's that about?

It's hard to sympathize with whoever was charged with disposing of
Qur'ans at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan and decided a public
bonfire would be nicely inconspicuous. And yes, it feeds into the
stereotype of Americans oblivious to other cultures. But that said,
let me pose a few questions to the kinder, gentler multiculturalists
out there.

Barack Obama predictably groveled in a three-page written apology to
Afghan President Hamid Karzai because some idiots burned Qur'ans
thought to have been used by Taliban prisoners to exchange messages.
So will Karzai send Obama a written apology because an Afghan soldier
shot two American soldiers who weren't involved in the incident?

Or for Taliban desecrating Qur'ans by writing murder plots in them? Or
for his countrymen killing nearly 2,000 Americans and more than 150
Canadians because we came to save them from the Taliban we armed to
save them from Communism, then tried to insist that girls should go to
school without being murdered, raped or disfigured with acid?

Why do we act as if we agreed that it was worse to destroy a book than
a person? If an Afghan burned a Bible in America, or Afghanistan, how
many people would die in the ensuing riots? None, obviously.

If most Afghans found a Bible and recognized it they almost certainly
would destroy it. Quite possibly along with its owner. We don't hear
about that stuff, though, do we?

Has the President of Iraq apologized because Christians are being
murdered, terrorized and driven out of that country? Has the Saudi
King to whom Obama infamously bowed apologized because it's illegal to
build a church in his country or conduct a public Christian worship
service? Or because his predecessor King Faisal told anyone who'd
listen that Jews murdered gentiles to consume their blood on Passover?

Or, if kings are off limits, how about the Saudi imam who, in a
government mosque, reproached Palestinians for failing to enslave
Jewish women? Still waiting for that apology too. A Saudi who burned a
Bible would be lucky if they only went to jail ... for having had a
Bible.

As founding king Ibn Saud's grandfather once explained, he would
haggle over politics. "But when the question is one of religion, we
kill everybody." In Afghanistan that apparently includes not only
innocent non-Muslims, but innocent Muslims as well.

If it were an isolated incident ... I'd still be shaking my head. But
of course it isn't. Last year at least 24 Afghans were killed after an
American preacher burned a Qur'an in Florida. After. But not because.
As newspapers casually noted Friday, terrorists in Iraq killed dozens
of their fellow Muslims on Thursday alone, without a desecrated Qur'an
or any other excuse.

Then there were the infamous Danish cartoons, taken on a provocative
tour of the Middle East by Danish imams complete with added
inflammatory bogus images. In the ensuing riots dozens who were
neither Danish, nor cartoonists, nor Christians, Jews, atheists,
Buddhists, Hindus, or any other form of stinking infidel were killed
because ... uh ... why were they killed?

At the risk of ruffling Justin Trudeau's hair, I find this response
barbaric. By all means be offended if someone clumsily insults your
religion. But exhibit some self-control. Express dismay; request an
apology; ostracize the offender. But don't try to kill him, let alone
get so crazy you kill someone who is not only innocent of the original
offense but shares your outrage.

If you do, don't expect me to pretend it's not disgusting.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** Missing Identy cards

Dear Friends,

LOST AND FOUND


Four identity cards of University of Karachi department of Microbiology were stolen with a pouch at Paposh nagar Karachi by name of Ammara Usman daughter of Muhammad Usman, if anyone could find it please call on the following number for I will be very thankfull.

if found please Contact number: 0333-2339792


Many thanks

**JP** Check the reply of German new muslim about terrorism

I liked the answer of this German Muslim scholar when he was asked about terrorism and Islam:
He said:
Who started the First World War?   Muslims ?
Who started the Second World War?      Muslims ?
Who killed about 20 millions of Aborigines in Australia? Muslims?
Who sent the nuclear bombs to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Muslims?
Who killed more than 100 millions of Indians in North America? Muslims?
Who killed more than 50 millions of Indians in South America? Muslims?
Who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88% of them died and were thrown in Atlantic Ocean? Muslims?
No, they weren't Muslims!!!
First of all, You have to define terrorism properly...
If a non-Muslim do something bad..it is crime.
But if a Muslim commit same..he is terrorist...
So first remove this double standard...then come to the point!!! , . . . . .
SPREAD THIS MSG AS MUCH AS YOU CAN. DON'T BREAK THE CHAIN.
Mohammad Bilal afzal
Alkhobar Saudi Arabia.
 

Pics and toons 2/26/12 (4)





 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 2/26/12 (3)





 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 2/26/12 (2)




 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 2/26/12 (1)




 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** Pakistani Marketers



I am looking for Pakistnai Internet marketers who have some channel in their possession.
03328188099

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Re: Fifteen Reasons Why I Voted Republican -by a Proud Republican



On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
Fifteen Reasons Why I Voted Republican

-by a Proud Republican

1. I voted Republican because you can blame problems on poor people
instead of the rich ones who actually run things.

2. I voted Republican because firefighters and teachers are
scum-sucking leaches, but the oil companies raking in record profits
NEED those hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies.

3. I voted Republican because I believe companies like my cable TV
provider, insurance company and credit card company could do a better
job running the country than the government, no matter how much they
screw me over.

4. I voted Republican because I don't trust the government, although
I favored the government spying on my health/financial records and
tapping my phone when Bush was in office to keep us safe from 'trrists.

5. I voted Republican because I don't really care whether terrorists,
murderers and drug dealers own guns or not.

6. I voted Republican because I believe climate change doesn't
exist; if I can't see it with my own two eyes, it doesn't exist. Like
gravity.

7. I voted Republican because I hate women having abortions, but
once the baby is born and dies from a preventable illness that' okay.

8. I voted Republican because I believe in laying off workers to
boost profits; then I get to complain about lazy unemployed people.

9. I voted Republican because I understand capitalism. Demand
doesn't increase jobs…ensuring corporations pay no taxes and cutting
healthcare and education does.

10. I voted Republican because I care about the deficit and support
cutting services that I really need. But extra tax cuts for the super
rich that actually caused the deficit should be extended indefinitely.

11. I voted Republican because I believe in never having to solve
any problems in the government because I insist government is the
problem anyway.

12. I voted Republican because I hate activist judges, unless they
are conservative (Yes, corporations should get to spend unlimited money
in elections).

13. I voted Republican because spite and fear is better than hope and change.

14. I voted Republican because I agree that life begins at the moment
of conception and ends at  birth, and women are incapable of making
thier own reproductive choices.

15. I voted Republican because B. Hussein Obama is a secret Kenyan
born Muslim negro far left wing extremist liberal socialist with a
dark evil secret agenda to destroy America, take my guns, ammunition
and freedom, and turn them all over to Islamic extremists and
homosexuals who will rob, rape and murder me, my wife, my girlfriends,
and my children, and force the abortion of my unborn children.

The GOP Platform 2012:

Gingrich-Palin or Santorum-Bachmann for President! Or Both!

Drill, Baby Drill!

Bomb Bomb Iran!

Corporations are people, too!

Let the poor get jobs instead of welfare!

Homosexuals can and should choose to become normal!

Send ALL foriegners back to thier own countries permanently!

Born in the USA Only!

-a Proud Republican


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy



--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fifteen Reasons Why I Voted Republican -by a Proud Republican

Fifteen Reasons Why I Voted Republican

-by a Proud Republican

1. I voted Republican because you can blame problems on poor people
instead of the rich ones who actually run things.

2. I voted Republican because firefighters and teachers are
scum-sucking leaches, but the oil companies raking in record profits
NEED those hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies.

3. I voted Republican because I believe companies like my cable TV
provider, insurance company and credit card company could do a better
job running the country than the government, no matter how much they
screw me over.

4. I voted Republican because I don't trust the government, although
I favored the government spying on my health/financial records and
tapping my phone when Bush was in office to keep us safe from 'trrists.

5. I voted Republican because I don't really care whether terrorists,
murderers and drug dealers own guns or not.

6. I voted Republican because I believe climate change doesn't
exist; if I can't see it with my own two eyes, it doesn't exist. Like
gravity.

7. I voted Republican because I hate women having abortions, but
once the baby is born and dies from a preventable illness that' okay.

8. I voted Republican because I believe in laying off workers to
boost profits; then I get to complain about lazy unemployed people.

9. I voted Republican because I understand capitalism. Demand
doesn't increase jobs…ensuring corporations pay no taxes and cutting
healthcare and education does.

10. I voted Republican because I care about the deficit and support
cutting services that I really need. But extra tax cuts for the super
rich that actually caused the deficit should be extended indefinitely.

11. I voted Republican because I believe in never having to solve
any problems in the government because I insist government is the
problem anyway.

12. I voted Republican because I hate activist judges, unless they
are conservative (Yes, corporations should get to spend unlimited money
in elections).

13. I voted Republican because spite and fear is better than hope and change.

14. I voted Republican because I agree that life begins at the moment
of conception and ends at birth, and women are incapable of making
thier own reproductive choices.

15. I voted Republican because B. Hussein Obama is a secret Kenyan
born Muslim negro far left wing extremist liberal socialist with a
dark evil secret agenda to destroy America, take my guns, ammunition
and freedom, and turn them all over to Islamic extremists and
homosexuals who will rob, rape and murder me, my wife, my girlfriends,
and my children, and force the abortion of my unborn children.

The GOP Platform 2012:

Gingrich-Palin or Santorum-Bachmann for President! Or Both!

Drill, Baby Drill!

Bomb Bomb Iran!

Corporations are people, too!

Let the poor get jobs instead of welfare!

Homosexuals can and should choose to become normal!

Send ALL foriegners back to thier own countries permanently!

Born in the USA Only!

-a Proud Republican


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Men Behind Obama



New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

The Men Behind Obama

by Scotty Starnes

Who you surround yourself with says a lot about your character...

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/the-men-behind-obama/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

U.S. Supreme Court Has Ruled on Obama’s Eligibility!!








http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/u-s-supreme-court-has-ruled-on-obamas-eligability/

 

U.S. Supreme Court Has Ruled on Obama's Eligibility!!

By Craig Andresen on November 13, 2011 at 5:23 pm

According to the United States Supreme Court, Obama is ineligible to be the President. That's right, you read that correctly. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Obama is ineligible to serve as President.

It's not that you haven't been paying attention lately and yes, you can be excused for missing the ruling as it came down, not in the last few days but back in 1875.

This is the argument currently being made by the Liberty Legal Foundation.

The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed not 1 but 2 lawsuits, one in Arizona and the other in Tennessee neither of which have one single thing to do with Obama's birth certificate OR challenging whether or not Obama was born in the United States.

There is no need for either in regard to these lawsuits.

At the core of this action is a simple request that Federal courts uphold the Supreme Court ruling. Both lawsuits, and the Liberty Legal Foundation promises there will be more, would render it impossible for the Democratic National Committee to place Obama's name on the 2012 ballot.

Here's the crux of it.

Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:

"Natural Born Citizen" was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: "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."

Obama's problem, by his own admission and records of the State Department is this:

Obama's father was not a United States citizen.

Therefore, via Minor v, Happersett and the United States Supreme Court in 1875, Obama is ineligible because, since his father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

For a person to run, as his or her party's nominee for President, the party must issue certification that the person named is eligible under the United States Constitution to become President.

Because the Constitution does not specify the definition of "Natural born citizen" it was left to the United States Supreme Court which, in 1875, defined it as a person born in a country of parents who were its citizens and, Obama's father was NOT a U.S. citizen.

Bring this up to your liberal friends and they will laugh at you and call you a right wing nut job for saying Obama is ineligible but the quick and accurate response is clear. YOU are not saying this, and neither is the Liberty Legal Foundation. Obama is ineligible so sayeth the United States Supreme Court and if they care to attempt to label the United States Supreme Court of 1875 as right wing nut jobs…so be it and good luck with that.

If the Democratic Party should certify Obama, in the face of this ruling, they would be acting in a fraudulent manner and according to the actions being brought by the Liberty Legal Foundation, it is the political parties which are solely responsible for that certification and the Liberty Legal Foundation intends to hold BOTH parties accountable.

To be specific, the case of Minor v. Happersett was not intended as to solve the question of Presidential eligibility at all. That case was in regard to a woman's right to vote and while the case itself didn't draw this specific issue into question, the Chief Justice, Morrison Waite, did, in fact address it in the issuing of the Supreme Court's decision.

"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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."

No doubt, liberals will attempt to cling to this line:

"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents."

Note that the Chief Justice Waite follows that with:

"As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

In this, the Chief Justice, and therefore, the Supreme Court makes clear that the one definition to which there is no doubt is:

"…that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

Indeed, there are 4 cases in which the United States Supreme Court has addressed "Natural Born Citizen.

1) The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

"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."

2) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

"Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast."

3) Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

"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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

4) United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

"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."

Clearly, by any of the 4 cases in which the United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of "Natural Born Citizen" Obama, by the opinions rendered, is not one.

If Obama is not a natural born citizen, he is therefore ineligible to run for or to serve as, the President.

Section 1 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

As the Constitution offers no definition of "Natural Born Citizen" it falls to the United States Supreme Court and the 4 cases in which the Supreme Court provides such a definition appear above.

Forget the birth certificate or swirling questions as to his place of birth, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear.

Obama is not eligible to serve as President and should his name appear on ballots in 2012, it will appear there fraudulently.

 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.