BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

There are 241531 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116364 Oct 11, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
Terri Tanna wrote:
"What is the best treatise on jurisdiction (of all types -- in the broadest use of that term) that you can recommend to those in the Class who wish to become as learned as you?"
====
<quoted text>
NOW YOU PROVE YOURSELF TO BE A COMPLETE AND UTTER UNEDUCATED SIMPLETON.
Please provide citations to at least three jurisdictional provisions in the Bible. Thank you.
BTW, to which edition of the Bible are you referring? Please provide the date of the translation, the publisher, and page citations.
You shall not, do you want all 10.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#116365 Oct 11, 2012
America Got Stupid wrote:
There is NO copy of Obama's long form birth certificate with a raised embossed State seal issued by Hawaii DOH.
There is NO proof that a mistake happened in regards to Obama's fraudulent SSN.
There is no copy of ANY AUTHORITY (Constitution, case law, statute, legal tradition, etc.) that even remotely suggests a state-issued birth document has ANY BEARING on presidential eligibility.
Was there "a raised embossed State seal issued by" Kentucky DOH on Abraham Lincoln's state-issued birth document?
Oh, that's correct, there were no state-issued birth documents then, and, indeed, the MAJORITY of this great nation's presidents have NOT had one.
====
How can the Class know if Obama's SSN is fraudulent when you have failed repeatedly to state what his number is?
====
On Sunday, January 20, 2013, when Chief Justice John Roberts intones,“Congratulations, Mr. President,” will YOU accept the “Will of ‘WE THE PEOPLE’” however that turns out? PLEASE ANSWER THAT QUESTION THIS EVENING. Thank you.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#116366 Oct 11, 2012
President Starky wrote:
"Then again, maybe the U.S. taxpayer bought it like we have everything else rouge and Frank owns."

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#116367 Oct 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
Illegal is illegal. Deport their azzes as soon as they're discovered. Patrol that damn fence with some military aircraft and live weapons. Strafe as necessary to stop the problem.
Therefore, you disagree fundamentally with the Romney-Ryan ticket's support of free market economic principles.
Are you are pinko socialist commie then?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116368 Oct 11, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
Terri Tanna wrote:
"Is a California resident subject to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts when visiting the Bay State?
"Is a California corporation subject to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts when doing business there?"
====
<quoted text>
How embarrassingly lame is your scholarship.
Concealed carry has absolutely nothing to do with jurisdiction. Please answer the two very straight-forward questions posed that any first month law student could answer with citation to specific cases. HOW PATHETIC THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS IMPORTANT SUBJECT THAT YOUR BROUGHT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Please name the most famous cases in our great 800-year tradition of Anglo-American jurisprudence that have established the parameters of jurisdiction. Thank you.
you try carrying a concealed weapon in a state that does not reciprocate and see who's jurisdiction wins.
Remainder of your post is irrelevant.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#116369 Oct 11, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and nations, a treaty is a good example.
A good start -- although your reference to treaties is off base.
BUT THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT YOU ARE AVOIDING:
Where is that "set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and nations" WRITTEN DOWN so they can be observed with precision.
==
The reason we have speed limit signs that state 20 miles per hour in a school zone is because it is INADEQUATE to state "don't drive too fast in school zones."
It goes back AT LEAST as early as Aristotle (whom you have never read in the original) that NOTICE must be given if a law is to have validity.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#116370 Oct 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
An alien does not pledge his allegiance to this country or any other country he may be visiting. His allegiance remains to his home country. I see you've thrown in the Court of Claims and temporary allegiance now. If you can't see this you're full shat.
Ooohhh! I've "thrown in" a federal court opinion and a definition from Black's Law Dictionary, unlike the birfoon who simply talks through his hat.

Wowee Zowee! An alien does not have to recite the pledge! That's news?

While in this country, the alien owes allegiance to this country.

"Temporary allegiance. The impermanent allegiance owed to a state by a resident alien during the period of residence." Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.

Grow up!
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Court of Claims was unaware of the pledge of allegiance?
What part of "ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES" does LRS not comprehend?
“... of the compact also redound to aliens residing within the territory of the United States, who are deemed to owe temporary ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES and thereby are entitled to the reciprocal protections of the Constitution. See United States v. Barona ....”
Ashkir v. U.S., 46 Fed.Cl. 438, 2000 WL 348805, Fed.Cl., April 04, 2000 (NO. 96-351L).(emphasis added)
No play on words there. It is a very direct statement of the court and it says LRS is full of it.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116371 Oct 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Non sequitur. A 90-year old citizen in a nursing home cannot be drafted either. Grow up!
The false premise that the military draft is a criterion of jurisdiction of the United States is imbecilic.
<quoted text>
How does that water taste as it gushes down your windpipe?

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#116373 Oct 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
The court is wrong. His allegiance is the same as his father's. Thus, he owes allegiance only to his father's homeland.
On this side is LRS, who cannot cite any case law, any treatise, any scholarly article to support his strained reading of the Constitution.
On the other side is the United States Supreme Court (and its many ultra-conservative, strict constructionist Justices) acting with LEGAL FINALITY in accord with its mandate under the United States Constitution, following our 224-year rule of The Law within our great 800-year tradition of Anglo-American jurisprudence.
NO WONDER YOU ARE EMBARRASSED TO ADMIT YOU HAVE NEVER READ A SINGLE SCHOLARLY WORK ABOUT OUR SACRED CONSTITUTION.
Instead, as is the case with all the really ignorant and uneducated "birther"-tea crumpets, you JUST MAKE THINGS UP.
HOW PATHETIC AND UNPATRIOTIC.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116374 Oct 11, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you agree that, if a minor (under 18-years of age) is born and raised in the United States of America, she comes under the jurisdiction of the Constitution and can, therefore, vote or be drafted while she is a child? You do agree, don't you?
Only if her father was a citizen of the US. Children born in the US of a visiting alien father are subject to the jurisdiction of the father's country of origin. Yes/No?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#116376 Oct 11, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text> Visiting aliens belong to a foreign power and do not come under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, if this were not so, a visiting alien could vote and be drafted into the US Military.
Visiting aliens are under the protection of the US while here, and reciprocally owe temporary allegiance to the US. According to OUR law, they cannot vote, and according to OUR law they are not eligible for the draft.

And if they violate OUR law, they are subject to the consequences.

Grow up!
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, our sovereign nation of we the people does not have jurisdiction within its dominions.
Idiotic.
jurisdiction, n.(14c) 1. A government's general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory;
Black's Law Dictionary, 9th edition.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#116377 Oct 11, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
"What is the best treatise on jurisdiction (of all types -- in the broadest use of that term) that you can recommend to those in the Class who wish to become as learned as you?"
====
"NOW YOU PROVE YOURSELF TO BE A COMPLETE AND UTTER UNEDUCATED SIMPLETON.
"Please provide citations to at least three jurisdictional provisions in the Bible. Thank you.
"BTW, to which edition of the Bible are you referring? Please provide the date of the translation, the publisher, and page citations."
====
Justice Dale wrote:
You shall not, do you want all 10.
Thus, the uneducated simpleton proves his ignorance. The Mosaic law has nothing (ZERO, NADA) to do with jurisdiction.
YES -- I challenge you to cite "all ten" "you shall nots."
DARE YOU to post TEN "you shall nots."
==
While you are citing the Bible (unidentified edition because you know absolutely nothing about sacred scripture), please tell the Class which of the Ten determines jurisdiction over a crash of a commercial airplane in Tennessee that took off from Laguardia with L.A. as the destination when the ticket was purchased by an Israeli national at ticket counter in New Jersey.
In identifying which of the Ten determines jurisdiction, you may use either Arabic or Roman numerals. Thank you.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#116378 Oct 11, 2012
America Got Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Try this on for size and point out the lie.
There is NO copy of Obama's long form birth certificate with a raised embossed State seal issued by Hawaii DOH.
There is NO proof that a mistake happened in regards to Obama's fraudulent SSN.
What you got Poopoo stain?
The embossed seal simply does not come out in a PDF scan.

How do we know that it exists? We know that Obama has a Hawaii birth certificate in several ways.

The first is the short-form birth certificate. It is generated by a clerk in the Hawaii DOH reading the information in the files and entering it in a computer form. For that to happen there has to be a document in the files. In Obama's case that happened back in 2007 (though it was not published until 2008) when Obama was only a candidate for president---long before he became the leading candidate, much less president. The clerk would have had to have been lying in 2007, and the confirmations by the Republican officials in 2008 would have to be lies as well.

Conclusion: There was certainly a Hawaii birth certificate in the files when Obama received his short form birth certificate in 2007 and when it was published in 2008 and when the officials confirmed it in 2008. They could of course all be lying, but why would they?

In addition, we know that Obama had a birth certificate in 1961 from the notices sent to the newspapers by the DOH in that year. We know that only the DOH could send those notices in three ways. First because the representative of the newspapers said so, second because the representative of the DOH said so and third because the section of the newspaper was called "Health Bureau Statistic"---which obviously meant that the facts in it came from the Health Bureau, the DOH. In 1961, the DOH was not allowed to issue birth certificates to children born outside of Hawaii, and it only sent birth notices to the papers for children born in Hawaii. Oh, and in the DOH was operating under Republican governor.

Some birthers claim that in 1961 Hawaii granted birth certificates to anyone whose relatives applied, but the officials in Hawaii have denied that was the case. They insist that the law in 1961 did not allow the DOH to issue a birth certificate that said "born in Honolulu (or any Hawaii location)" unless the child was actually born in that location and that there was evidence of it. And, you know, there are hundreds of thousands of people who were alive and living in Hawaii in 1961, and after that statement was made not one of them wrote to the newspapers or blogged that it was a lie.

So we know that Obama had a Hawaii birth certificate.

Your claim is that although this certificate exists and although the officials in Hawaii stated that they sent both the short form and the long form version of it to him, and despite a reporter having said that she felt the seal on it--that both the officials in Hawaii and the reporter are lying because the embossed seal does not show up on a PDF scan.

It should be obvious why an embossed seal does not show up on a scan. The light of the scanner is flat from the front and there is no light from the side that highlights the raised parts and lowered parts in the embossed seal. You claim that this is not so, that the scan would show it. Well, back up your claim with some evidence. Show a PDF scan of a Hawaii long form birth certificate that shows the raised seal.

Recently the Conservative secretary of state of Arizona asked Hawaii to confirm that Obama was born there and to confirm other facts on his published birth certificate. Hawaii did, and the Conservative secretary of state of Arizona accepted it as evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in Arizona in November.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#116379 Oct 11, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>you try carrying a concealed weapon in a state that does not reciprocate and see who's jurisdiction wins.
Is it your contention that reciprocity is an ESSENTIAL element of jurisdiction?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116380 Oct 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoop-dee-do!
That has nothing to do with the fantasy that ordinary aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the US while in this country.
You could just have well said "the rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain."
Grow up!
<quoted text>
They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. To be so, they would have all the rights an privileges as a citizen of the US.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#116381 Oct 11, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
"Do you agree that, if a minor (under 18-years of age) is born and raised in the United States of America, she comes under the jurisdiction of the Constitution and can, therefore, vote or be drafted while she is still a minor child? You do agree, don't you?"
====
Justice Dale wrote:
Only if her father was a citizen of the US.
The really stupid and uneducated birfoon argues that a six-year old child can vote and be drafted into the United States army "IF her father was[is] a citizen of the US."
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#116382 Oct 11, 2012
America Got Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you found a copy of Obama's long form birth certificate with a raised embossed State seal issued by Hawaii DOH???
You won't, because there isn't one.
Where is the proof that a mistake happened in regards to Obama's fraudulent SSN?
Your delusional fantasy is not proof.
I just answered your comments about the raised seal.

About the proof that there is a mistake. Well, time to think a little. It's up to you to prove that it wasn't a mistake. Since there are millions upon millions of mistakes in the files, and since no one on Congress has ever claimed that Obama "stole the number," there is obviously a good chance that it was a mistake. In any case, there is NO proof that it was stolen and not a mistake, and without such proof there can be no criminal charge.

The following is the LIKELY explanation:

The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.

Millions of people have multiple social security numbers caused mainly by data entry errors:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38678753/How_Many_Soci...

http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/2...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-200137...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116383 Oct 11, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny thing about that Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. It was passed by the House with a vote of 416-0, and also by the Senate with only two senators voting NO....and they were both Demoracts. But you go on believing that it was the Dems who lied....semms like ALL the repubs voted for the VietNam War.
Oh, so a unanimous vote makes something not a lie. There was no doubt about the attack on Pearl Harbor and at the time no one question the Gulf of Tonkin incident but that does not make it so either.
What is funny is that you seem to hate any war started by a Republican, but love any war done by a Democrat. Case in point, G. H.W. Bush had a majority approval of Congress to war against Saddamn Hussein but many of you claim he lied. Ergo the war was illegal. And then when G.W. Bush resumed the war you claimed he was illegal even though Congress had approved the war.
How long did the Barbary Pirate War last and were did the battles take us?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#116384 Oct 11, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
Dare you to tell the Class the name of any scholar with whom you have studied international law. Ha Ha Ha Ha
He studied at Tacky's play law sand box university.
Justice Dale wrote:
treaties are international law.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116385 Oct 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Illegal is illegal. Deport their azzes as soon as they're discovered. Patrol that damn fence with some military aircraft and live weapons. Strafe as necessary to stop the problem. No added cost to the US taxpayer as these planes are in the air anyway. Bet that would get their attention in short order and if not, then they would be the ones getting shorter! Those who help the illegals should be banned for life from entering the US again. If caught, life in prison. Life is tough. Life is tougher when you break laws.
It is a full-blown invasion!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min flack 1,547,605
Time to Fire Trump and Mulvaney 25 min Keres 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr HillaryFourty6 63,836
Illinois is in critical financial crisis. 3 hr Hank Johnson 6
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 7 hr SweLL GirL 10,829
Oui Vey 8 hr Democraps Fault 3
Chicago is a great city. 8 hr Is Mogadishu On Lake 8

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages