Dr. James David Manning expounds Harry Belafonte’s comment that Obama’s presidency has done nothing for Black people. Recorded on 11 January 2012.

By Anthony Tolda

On December 6th 2011, at the Riverhead Legislative Auditorium, Evans K. Griffing Building, 300 Center Drive in Riverhead, NY a bill to ban Chemtrails in Suffolk county made it through the next step to becoming a law.

Here is the link to a website that has covered this and provided the bill for public viewing.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27866&fb_source=message

Just about every seat was taken. The audience was very lively and cheering on all who spoke in support of I.R. 2029.

Many speakers brought evidence with them to submit to the legislators.

The people won a great victory, but there is still more work to be done, and not much time.

The bill now has to pass a Health Committee on December 15th at 2pm in order to make it to a complete vote on December 20th.

If you can’t attend in person, here is the contact info for email, please stick to facts, present evidence if you can, and remember to be polite! This bill was introduced by Ed Romaine a Republican Legislator, so if you want to leave any kind words for him, he deserves much praise in my opinion.

http://legis.suffolkcountyny.gov/legislators.html

If enough of us from all over the country, and world, can convince a small number of people to pass this bill,

it will be an epic win for freedom! A milestone in the process of returning America to all of the freedoms intended by the Founding Fathers. If Suffolk county legislature passes this bill, other counties in America, and other countries in the world will begin to ban chemtrails, and we can work at having a world without chemtrails.

Wouldn’t that be nice? A white Christmas in regards to snow on the ground only, and not the chemtrails in our air?

Please try to find time to help pass this bill I.R. 2029 however you can!

God bless you and Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and a Happy New Year!

Anthony Tolda

(R) Candidate for U.S. Congress for NY-2

Hon. James David Manning, PhD reads an prepared statement he posted in the ATLAH Times. Recorded on 21 November 2011.

http://atlah.org/amn2/amnATLAHTimes/MiddleEastRadio.mp3

FOR DUMMIES® is a registered trademark of Wiley Publishing, Inc.

This video explains everything you need to know about “natural born Citizen.” Through the research of Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio, we can conclude that there is Supreme Court precedent regarding the definition of “natural born Citizen” in Minor v. Happersett (1875). That precedent is NOT affected by the 14th Amendment or by any other case law, including U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Visit http://www.deanhaskins.wordpress.com

http://RTR.org | A SWAT team broke into a home at the request of the US Department of Education to arrest and collect on a defaulted student loan. Kenneth Wright was dragged from his Stockton California home in his underwear while his children were in held police custody for several hours as they searched for his estranged wife. We bring you coverage of the unfolding story with remarks from Sheriff Richard Mack on the increased use of SWAT teams nationwide and Congressman Ron Paul’s remarks on the Department of Education.

Read this following article here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=308173

Victoria/Ducky/Charles;

Since there has been so much discussion now concerning ‘Natural Born Citizen’ vs. ‘He’s a Citizen. Get over it !’, I thought you might like to have access to this short Executive Summary to explain it, especially the Wong Kim Ark citations.

The summary includes the SCOTUS decision on Ark, not to make Ark an NBC, but because it cites Minor vs. Happerset, proving that while Ark may have been deemed to be a ‘Citizen’, he definitely was not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’, as it required 2 Citizen parents.

Here it is below, and it can also be forwarded as a ScribD.com link found here:

http://www.scribd.com/word/document_edit/55105383?return_to_doc=true

Regards,

Neil Turner

P.S. This Executive Summary was prepared for submission to Donald Trump, but I do not know if he ever received or made note of it, since that effort was aborted. He did receive the www.CRS-Reports.org 12-page file (over 6,300 ‘reads’, with 200 reads in the days after I sent it), because I personally FedEX’d it to him the day after his appearance on ‘The View’.

Another short Executive Summary I prepared for him concerned the Pelosi/DNC election fraud OCON Documents, the most blatant and obvious act of Treason by them all (IMO), posted on ScribD.com here: 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54542898/Executive-Summary-Re-Election-Fraud-by-Pelosi-and-DNC-w-HI-and-49-Other-States-OCONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RE: ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States

Requires that only a ‘natural born Citizen’ be eligible for the Office of President (and Vice President)

I.  ‘Natural Born Citizenship’ as required and defined by the Constitution.

·         Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution says: No Person except a natural born Citizen, … shall be eligible to the Office of President;

·         The last sentence of the Twelfth (XII) Amendment (ratified in 1804) says: But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

‘Natural born Citizen’ is a condition at birth (jus soli and jus sanguinis).  It cannot be changed by new statutes and laws, nor by Senate Resolutions like SR511 for Senator John McCain (a Congressional act of Treason to the Constitution).

‘Natural born Citizen’-ship is specified and defined in the Constitution:

1.    Article II, Section 1:5 says that only a ‘natural born Citizen’ shall be eligible to the Office of President;

2.    Article I, Section 8 says that Congress (under the authority granted by the People) shall have the power to… define and punish… Offenses against the Law of Nations;

3.    The Law of Nations says that:

a.    ‘The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country (jus soli), of parents who are citizens’;

b.    ‘As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers (jus sanguinis), and succeed to all their rights’;

c.    ‘The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children’;

d.    ‘To be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.’

This requirement can only be changed by a Constitutional Amendment, which has yet to occur. The 14th Amendment does not mention ‘natural born Citizen’, and is therefore unrelated to and has no bearing on the Constitutional requirement for the Office of the President.

Since Obama has repeatedly identified his natural birth father as Barack Hussein Obama I of Kenya, who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, we do not need a Hawaiian birth certificate; we only need a leader who will insure enforcement of the supreme law of the land, The Constitution of the United States of America – NOW!

II. ‘Natural Born Citizenship’ as defined and adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States.

4 Supreme Court Cases define ‘natural born Citizen’:

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

Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition of Vattel:

“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)

Justice Story, who gave the ruling, cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

… 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.

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

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

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 childrenborn in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives ornatural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

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

In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment.  In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court.  On p. 168-9 of the record, he cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

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.

This (flawed, to many) decision extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies, etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’.

CONCLUSION

Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies.  In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly.  No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

This requirement can only be changed by a Constitutional Amendment, which has yet to occur. The 14th Amendment does not mention ‘natural born Citizen’, and is therefore unrelated to and has no bearing on the Constitutional requirement for the Office of the President.

Since Obama has repeatedly identified his natural birth father as Barack Hussein Obama I of Kenya, who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, we do not need a Hawaiian birth certificate; we only need a leader who will insure enforcement of the supreme law of the land, The Constitution of the United States of America – NOW!

Submitted by:

Neil B. Turner 
Citizens for the Constitution

Carlsbad, CA

NBTurner@Earthlink.net

To download documentation: 4 Supreme Court Cases Define Natural Born Citizen: 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52966220/4-Supreme-Court-Cases-Define-Natural-Born-Citizen

Hawaii detective charges: ‘Birth certificate’ a fraud
Claims phonies created by state in order to ‘screw with birthers’

Read more: Hawaii detective charges: ‘Birth certificate’ a fraud
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=295369#ixzz1Lqz2YEHc

Dr Manning,

I have taken what you said to heart (as I called in a few mins ago), and
though I don’t have much money, I don’t have much political pull, nor do
I have that long of a contact list, I do however have technical
knowledge and great people skills.

What I have done is setup a website, currently turning it into a
community and wanting your blessing and or some advertising help getting
people pushed to it.

the site is currently libertywriters.org — basically what it says, we
will watch these media outlets; not so we can buy the merchandise but so
we can post the brands/items in which everyone will collectively boycott
and log and boycotting; this way there is a list of accountability —
something this world is greatly lacking.

I plan to also allow people, like yourself, to post articles and write
news on holding our government accountable for infringing on our basic
constitutional rights and liberties (as the name says).  First step as
you said, take out mainstream conservative media.

I don’t believe this site can take off without either considerable
funding or advertising, so I did take the first step here, and doing
what I can to pitch in… From this I’m sure we can get not just 100
people to boycott but thousands per day.