Operation Choke Point created by Obama to shut down legal businesses

[genuineoriginal]

Obama's Operation Choke Point finally unmasked ... Operation Choke Point was a plot by President Obama’s Department of Justice, the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and other government agencies to cut off banking and financial services for small businesses and industries that they deemed to be political enemies or otherwise undesirable. Some of these businesses included gun stores, ammunition shops, fireworks stores, small dollar lenders, and home-based charities. ...

​

UNSEALED GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS PROVE FEDERAL COVER-UP IN OPERATION CHOKEPOINT Newly-unsealed court documents released today show evidence of the federal government’s illegal Operation Choke Point program in which top government officials and federal agencies pressured banks to cut all ties with lawful businesses. More than 100 records expose depositions and damaging emails of government officials, most notably at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), who executed a secretive campaign against lawful businesses it disfavored while ignoring due process and subverting the legal and regulatory process. This illegal campaign included threats from senior government officials that agency staff would be fired and bank officials could be subject to criminal prosecution. The key findings disclosed in the filing indicate that this campaign was instituted at the very highest levels of the FDIC and has been ruthlessly and enthusiastically implemented in the field ...

​

The United States Government has implemented a devastating assault against lawful businesses and individuals that are considered politically incorrect.

Operation Choke Point has been used by the US Government to force Patreon, PayPal, MasterCard, VISA, and banks to deny services to lawful businesses that have been relying on them for their business operations.

Lawful businesses blacklisted by Operation Choke Point have no legal way to buy and sell because they can no longer use any banking services.

Is this the end of freedom in the US?

This thread is for discussing political implication of Operation Choke Point.
For the religious discussion see: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?131645-The-Mark-of-the-Beast-has-been-implemented-in-the-United-States

 

[ok doser]

Is this the end of freedom in the US?

i believe that happened january 20, 2009, when a foreign national was sworn in as president

 

[The Horn]

i believe that happened january 20, 2009, when a foreign national was sworn in as president

Obama is a US citizen born in Hawaii, and his mother was American . How can anyone still be dumb enough to believe the whole "Birther " farce ?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Obama's Operation Choke Point finally unmasked
...

It appears that the Republicrats have done away with the program, but more work needs to be done so that it doesn't happen in another administration.

In August 2017, following diligent investigatory work by the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, chaired by Rep. Blain Luetkemeyer (R-MO), the Trump Justice Department announced that Operation Choke Point “is no longer in effect and will not be undertaken again.” But to really ensure something like Choke Point isn’t taken up by future administrations or rogue regulators, the U.S. Senate must follow the House and pass the bipartisan H.R. 2706, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act. This bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly in late 2017 by 395-2, states that a financial regulatory agency “may not formally or informally request or order” a bank to terminate a relationship with a customer unless “the agency has a valid reason for such request or order, and such reason is not based solely on reputation risk.”
https://cei.org/blog/year-review-2018-operation-choke-point

 

[ok doser]

Obama is a US citizen born in Hawaii, and his mother was American . How can anyone still be dumb enough to believe the whole "Birther " farce ?

bammy was born to a british father and was automatically a british citizen on birth

 

[The Horn]

Obama's father was a Kenyan . So what ? Big deal . Who cares ? The Constitution does not say that you have to have two parents who were US born citizens in order to be eligible to be president . The whole birther farce was created because of a few bigoted right-wing extremist idiots who were outraged by a liberal black man running for president and later being elected .
And millions of idiot American fell for it h look,line and sinker .
Trump's mother was born in Scotland, and ironically she was an illegal alien . But there hasn't been a drop of outrage among conservatives . His current wife Melania appears to have been an illegal alien too . Zero complaints .

 

[genuineoriginal]

Obama's father was a Kenyan . So what ? Big deal . Who cares ? The Constitution does not say that you have to have two parents who were US born citizens in order to be eligible to be president .

The Constitution says that the President must be a natural born citizen.

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;

​

The purpose of the clause was expounded upon by Justice Joseph L. Story.

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) BY JOSEPH L. STORY Sec. 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.

​

Anyone with a father who is not a citizen of the United States will bring in the foreign influence that the phrase "natural born citizen" was designed to prevent.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Anyone with a father who is not a citizen of the United States will bring in the foreign influence that the phrase "natural born citizen" was designed to prevent.

You might want to reconsider after reading this article.

Looking to the Founders: Determining Citizenship

It did, however, take a moment to define citizenship for those entering after the ratification of the Constitution. It also gave citizen status to those born overseas — to a father who was a citizen...

This principle is a bit murky, since law of this time saw a married couple as one legal unit, not two separate individuals.
https://ivn.us/2015/01/13/looking-founders-determining-citizenship/

As much as you hate Ted Cruz, he is still eligible to run for POTUS.

 

[ok doser]

Obama's father was a Kenyan .

and a british national, by virtue of the fact that kenya was a british colony

So what ? Big deal . Who cares ?

as GO showed you, the writers of the "natural born citizen" clause of the constitution cared

The Constitution does not say that you have to have two parents who were US born citizens in order to be eligible to be president .

no, it says you have to be a "natural born citizen", with the intent that as such you would be free from foreign influence

The whole birther farce was created because of a few bigoted right-wing extremist idiots who were outraged by a liberal black man running for president and later being elected .
And millions of idiot American fell for it h look,line and sinker .

cool story bro

Trump's mother was born in Scotland, and ironically she was an illegal alien .

snopes sez yer wrong

His current wife Melania appears to have been an illegal alien too .

snopes sez yer wrong on that one too

 

[genuineoriginal]

You might want to reconsider after reading this article.

Looking to the Founders: Determining Citizenship

It did, however, take a moment to define citizenship for those entering after the ratification of the Constitution. It also gave citizen status to those born overseas — to a father who was a citizen...

This principle is a bit murky, since law of this time saw a married couple as one legal unit, not two separate individuals.
https://ivn.us/2015/01/13/looking-founders-determining-citizenship/

As much as you hate Ted Cruz, he is still eligible to run for POTUS.

Are you a liberal?
You seem to have the same propensity for falsely accusing people of hate as any SJW does.

 

[ok doser]

Are you a liberal?
You seem to have the same propensity for falsely accusing people of hate as any SJW does.

i was going to shoo him back to his homo-haven, but decided it would be best just to ignore the troll

 

[Kit the Coyote]

The Constitution says that the President must be a natural born citizen.

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;

​

The purpose of the clause was expounded upon by Justice Joseph L. Story.

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) BY JOSEPH L. STORY Sec. 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.

​

Anyone with a father who is not a citizen of the United States will bring in the foreign influence that the phrase "natural born citizen" was designed to prevent.

You are correct as to the purpose of including the clause but the Constitution nor its writers bother to actually define the term. That was because the term was already defined in the British Common Law and the US Common Law that evolved from it. The term goes all the way back in Common Law case history to Calvin's Case in 1608. The meaning was anyone born "within the jurisdiction of the sovereignty of the King" Under the US Constitution the Supreme Court determined that to mean anyone born subject to the jurisdiction of US laws.

This definition applies to anyone born on US soil unless their parents are subject to diplomatic immunity. This is the basis of the court's definition of birthright citizenship. This also allows for the natural born citizenship of persons born outside the US of US citizens since their parents are still subject to US law even outside the country.

 

[ok doser]

You are correct as to the purpose of including the clause but the Constitution nor its writers bother to actually define the term. That was because the term was already defined in the British Common Law and the US Common Law that evolved from it. The term goes all the way back in Common Law case history to Calvin's Case in 1608. The meaning was anyone born "within the jurisdiction of the sovereignty of the King" Under the US Constitution the Supreme Court determined that to mean anyone born subject to the jurisdiction of US laws.

This definition applies to anyone born on US soil unless their parents are subject to diplomatic immunity. This is the basis of the court's definition of birthright citizenship. This also allows for the natural born citizenship of persons born outside the US of US citizens since their parents are still subject to US law even outside the country.

the definition of the phrase "natural born citizen" is dependent on case law, and case law is all over the place

at one extreme, there exists precedent that would define bammy as a "natural born citizen" by virtue of his mother's citizenship, regardless of where he was born

at the other extreme, there exists precedent that would deny bammy "natural born" citizenship based on his father's citizenship, regardless of where he was born


"natural born citizen" has always been a non-starter for denying bammy's legitimacy as a presidential candidate

 

[Kit the Coyote]

the definition of the phrase "natural born citizen" is dependent on case law, and case law is all over the place

at one extreme, there exists precedent that would define bammy as a "natural born citizen" by virtue of his mother's citizenship, regardless of where he was born

at the other extreme, there exists precedent that would deny bammy "natural born" citizenship based on his father's citizenship, regardless of where he was born


"natural born citizen" has always been a non-starter for denying bammy's legitimacy as a presidential candidate

Both arguments have been made but the Supreme Court ruled out the latter. Lynch v Clarke ruled that a person born in the US is a citizen regardless of parental citizenship. This was reinforced in US v Wong Kim Ark which said a child born in the US is a US citizen even if BOTH parents are foreign nationals. The case of Perkins v Elg said that a child born in the US but then raised in another country was STILL a natural born US citizen and was eligible to run for President.

Children born outside the US to parents of mixed citizenship varies depending on the naturalization laws in effect at the time.

 

[ok doser]

... is a citizen ...

"citizen" =/= "natural born citizen"

nobody denies that bammy was/is a US citizen

 

[ok doser]

nobody denies that bammy was/is a US citizen

except......


there's still uncertainty around whether little bammy automatically relinquished his US citizenship when he was adopted by Sotero and became an indonesian citizen

 

[Kit the Coyote]

"citizen" =/= "natural born citizen"

nobody denies that bammy was/is a US citizen

All of these cases were discussing who is a natural born citizen which the courts define as someone who is a citizen at birth regardless of location opposed to a naturalized citizen who is someone who obtains citizenship later.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

except......


there's still uncertainty around whether little bammy automatically relinquished his US citizenship when he was adopted by Sotero and became an indonesian citizen

There is no uncertainty, it was addressed in Perkins vs Elg which said that a child born in the US but then raised in another country was STILL a natural born US citizen and was eligible to run for President. And US law which forbids a minor from renouncing their citizenship until they are 16 even if their parents may wish otherwise. From the Department of State on the subject:

"Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who lack sufficient capacity to do so. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily, without undue influence from parent(s), and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship. Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent to relinquish citizenship; children under 18 are provided additional safeguards during the renunciation process, and their cases are afforded very careful consideration by post and the Department to assess their voluntariness and informed intent. Unless there are emergent circumstances, minors may wish to wait until age 18 to renounce citizenship. "
The relevant law is Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5))

Obama returned from Indonesia when he was 11 years old, he could not legally have renounced his citizenship.

 

[binyamin7]

Obama is a US citizen born in Hawaii, and his mother was American . How can anyone still be dumb enough to believe the whole "Birther " farce ?

He very well could have been born in Hawaii, but he has family members that said he wasn't including his half brother.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You are correct as to the purpose of including the clause but the Constitution nor its writers bother to actually define the term. That was because the term was already defined in the British Common Law and the US Common Law that evolved from it. The term goes all the way back in Common Law case history to Calvin's Case in 1608. The meaning was anyone born "within the jurisdiction of the sovereignty of the King" Under the US Constitution the Supreme Court determined that to mean anyone born subject to the jurisdiction of US laws.

This definition applies to anyone born on US soil unless their parents are subject to diplomatic immunity. This is the basis of the court's definition of birthright citizenship. This also allows for the natural born citizenship of persons born outside the US of US citizens since their parents are still subject to US law even outside the country.

British common law defines "natural born subjects", not "natural born citizens".