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

[LRS]

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly the way I said it. Asked for proof, you said to look for it myself, and let me say, hard to find something that does not exist. You can't get out of this one, or all the other ones.

I already did, a long time back. Actually, you proved me to be correct. Next contestant!

[Terri Tanna]

SHEEPLE Buster wrote:

10 Added to Those Not in Labor Force...

If they are already NOT in the labor force, how can they be "added to those not in the labor force?"

[LRS]

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
TERRIBLY LAME REPLY for a convicted LIAR. You have proven yourself repeatedly to be uneducated without any COLLEGE and intellectually dishonest. You must hate Obama.

Found that debt-based business model yet? LMAO pigeon

[Terri Tanna]

Why can't our "birther"-tea crumpet friends respond to this simple question? They must be acknowledging it is TRUE.
Is there anyone on this thread who can provide any HARD ECONOMIC DATA to disprove the statement that in this current tax year United States citizens enjoy the LOWEST marginal federal income tax rates (across the board) than at ANY TIME since the implementation of Amendment XVI?

[President Starky]

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
TERRIBLY LAME REPLY for a convicted LIAR. You have proven yourself repeatedly to be uneducated without any COLLEGE and intellectually dishonest. You must hate Obama.

Yet your IQ is so low I just step all over it every time you post.
Oops!

P.S
Its my GOD GIVEN RIGHT to hate Obama.:)

"Stuff's gettin better"
2012

[ENOCHS JUSTICE]

LRS wrote:

<quoted text>
Found that debt-based business model yet? LMAO pigeon

Obamanomics?

[Terri Tanna]

LRS wrote:

Found that debt-based business model yet?

Apparently, you failed to note this EARLIER post:
#117,723

Terri Tanna wrote:

Microsoft, Apple, McDonald's any corporation that issues bonds.
NOW you tell the Class which corporations are sovereign nations that can print money.
HOW PATHETIC that you are so stupid, ignorant, and uneducated to think there is any parallel between a corporation and a sovereign nation.
In what COLLEGE COURSE did you learn something so asinine?

BTW, why do you think the course is called corporate FINANCE -- that means borrowing money and issuing debt. How sad that you couldn't make it into junior college.

[SHEEPLE Buster]

DEMOCRATIC SKANK Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
If they are already NOT in the labor force, how can they be "added to those not in the labor force?"

You still support our man Mitt, don't ya?
Oh that is right, you're not a Republican and you won't vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket, because you LIED about being a Romney delegate and Obama is your ZERO who is about to be FIRED!

[SHEEPLE Buster]

DEMOCRATIC SKANK Terri Tanna wrote:

disprove

Obama promised the US fundamental change, and this is the change that he has delivered.

America's AAA credit rating has been downgraded not once, but TWICE!

Instead of cutting the deficit by half, which during Bush's Presidency averaged roughly 500 Billion a year over the course of 8 years, for a grand total of 4 Trillion dollars during the course of his Presidency, Obama has increased the deficit by some 6 Trillion dollars in only one term of 4 years, with nothing but increased deficits already forecast for the foreseeable future.

23 million people unemployed and can't find work.

15 million more on food stamps.

Increased costs for fuel, food, and energy.
Then we have the ubiquitous ObamaPhone.

Obama is turning this nation into a Socialist nation.
We are on a road that has been traveled many times before, and has ended badly every time it has been tried.
There are no success stories to talk about in regards to Socialist nations.

I told you SHEEPLE that Obama's election would increase the cost of living for every American, while simultaneously lowering the standard of living for every American.

That is why I have now become a Republican and will vote for Romney, because this country will not survive as a Republic after 4 more years of increased Socialism.
This is the 2nd most important election in my voting lifetime, considering that I also voted for Reagan as a Democrat to get rid of Jimmy Carter.
It seems to be a bit of Deja Vu for me.

[LRS]

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently, you failed to note this EARLIER post:
#117,723
<quoted text>
BTW, why do you think the course is called corporate FINANCE -- that means borrowing money and issuing debt. How sad that you couldn't make it into junior college.

So post one or shhhhhh.

[wojar]

LRS wrote:

<quoted text>
One reason for the absence of an early-defined national birthright rule is that States had decided for themselves who were its citizens by virtue of being born within the limits of the State. Prior to the 14th amendment citizens of the United States were strictly defined as citizens of the States. Hmm, a citizen of the State.

Is that what your plagiarized birfoon blog passage says?

Got Alzheimer's? According to you there was never "ANY MENTION of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution."

Julia Lynch was RULED to be a citizen of the United States per national law:

"The right of citizenship, as distinguished from
alienage, is a national right or condition. It pertains
to the confederated sovereignty, the United States;
and not to the individual states." Lynch v. Clarke,
3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).

"That all children, born within the dominion of
the United States, of foreign parents holding no
diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of
their birth, does not appear to have been contested
or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption
of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately
argued in the court of chancery of New
York, and decided upon full consideration by
Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship.
Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583." US v Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649, 664, 18 S.Ct. 456, 462-63 (1898).

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Birfoon: "or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution"
See Lynch v. Clarke, which, incidentally was cited favorably by several federal courts, including the USSC.
“And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President.‘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,’ &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.” Lynch v. Clarke, 3 NY Leg. Obs. 236, 246 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).

[Rush]

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently, you failed to note this EARLIER post:
#117,723
<quoted text>
BTW, why do you think the course is called corporate FINANCE -- that means borrowing money and issuing debt. How sad that you couldn't make it into junior college.

Didn't I see on twitter where you posted "If Romney wins ima gonna riot" shouldn't you be more concerned with the score of da bears game than sticking your tits into grownups business?

LOL

[Terri Tanna]

downhill246 wrote:

Okay, let's assume Obama was born in Hawaii which makes him a US citizen. He is adopted by his step father and goes to school in Indonesia. Indonesia required you to be a citizen of that nation to go to school there which he did, so he gave up his citizenship as a child but US law says he doesn't lose his US citizenship if he was a minor when this occurred so he is still a US citizen.

AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT by it action in Kerchner v. Obama (cert. denied 2010) upheld the decision with LEGAL FINALITY that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States and fully eligible to be president.
Unless you can cite a Supreme Court decision specifically with respect to Barack HUSSEIN Obama to the contrary all of your strained and uneducated legal "reasoning" carries no weight -- NONE, NADA, NOTHING.
=
Post #116,272
THE BIGGEST ISSUE IN THIS ELECTION
On Sunday, January 20, 2013, when Chief Justice John Roberts intones,“Congratulations, Mr. President,” will the strident and uneducated minorities on each side of the spectrum be able to accept the “Will of ‘WE THE PEOPLE’” however that turns out?
=
Can you assure the Class TONIGHT that YOU will accept the “Will of ‘WE THE PEOPLE’” however that turns out?

[LRS]

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Is that what your plagiarized birfoon blog passage says?
Got Alzheimer's? According to you there was never "ANY MENTION of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution."
Julia Lynch was RULED to be a citizen of the United States per national law:
"The right of citizenship, as distinguished from
alienage, is a national right or condition. It pertains
to the confederated sovereignty, the United States;
and not to the individual states." Lynch v. Clarke,
3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).
"That all children, born within the dominion of
the United States, of foreign parents holding no
diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of
their birth, does not appear to have been contested
or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption
of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately
argued in the court of chancery of New
York, and decided upon full consideration by
Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship.
Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583." US v Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649, 664, 18 S.Ct. 456, 462-63 (1898).
<quoted text>

The civil rights act of 1866 is all I need. Next contestant!

[President Starky]

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently, you failed to note this EARLIER post:
#117,723
<quoted text>
BTW, why do you think the course is called corporate FINANCE -- that means borrowing money and issuing debt. How sad that you couldn't make it into junior college.

Easy bake.
You forget to mention that when a business borrows money, they don't get to send the bill to the business down the street and expect them to pay that debt.
Your degree in google didn't teach you that?
The class has been dismissed.
Now clean of the blackboard and write 100 times, "I will stop pretending to be more intelligent than a rock"

"Stuff's gettin better"
2012

[wojar]

Strictly defined?

"The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in
the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr.
Marcy, secretary of state, in 1854 (2 Whart. Int.
Dig.[2d Ed.] p. 394); by Attorney General Black in
1859 (9 Ops. Attys. Gen. 373); and by Attorney
General Bates in 1862 (10 Ops. Attys. Gen. 328,
382, 394, 396)."
Id.

[Terri Tanna]

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

Terri Tanna wrote:
You continue to expose your total lack of ANY knowledge about Economics.
Do you have any idea what the cause of inflation is? Obviously, you don't. Do you understand that inflation can only occur under certain conditions precedent? Obviously, you are completely ignorant about this.
====
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
"You are a bore."
====
Just curious, Rogue, as an onlooker. Read Terri's post (above yours), then re-read your response. Unless I'm missing something, is there any relevance to her post in your response?
You see, that's the kind of answer we now expect from birthers and tea partyers. You stump 'em, they reply with irrelevant nonsense, very often sexual or coarse.

RELEVANCE -- YES, the rube admits he is so far over his head that he cannot say anything intelligent on this subject (or any subject).

[wojar]

Strictly defined?

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking
of the ‘general division of the inhabitants of
every country, under the comprehensive title of
‘Aliens' and ‘Natives,” says:‘Natives are all persons
born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of
the United States. This is the rule of the common
law, without any regard or reference to the political
condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception
of the children of ambassadors, who are, in
theory, born within the allegiance of the foreign
power they represent.’
Id.

[wojar]

LRS wrote:

<quoted text>
The civil rights act of 1866 is all I need. Next contestant!

Says the birfoon wiping egg off his face.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 does not help the birfoon cause, unless you believe passages from birfoon blogs are citations to authority. According to the CR Act of 1866, UR full of it.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Is that what your plagiarized birfoon blog passage says?
Got Alzheimer's? According to you there was never "ANY MENTION of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution."
Julia Lynch was RULED to be a citizen of the United States per national law:
"The right of citizenship, as distinguished from
alienage, is a national right or condition. It pertains
to the confederated sovereignty, the United States;
and not to the individual states." Lynch v. Clarke,
3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).
"That all children, born within the dominion of
the United States, of foreign parents holding no
diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of
their birth, does not appear to have been contested
or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption
of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately
argued in the court of chancery of New
York, and decided upon full consideration by
Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship.
Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583." US v Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649, 664, 18 S.Ct. 456, 462-63 (1898).

[LRS]

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
RELEVANCE -- YES, the rube admits he is so far over his head that he cannot say anything intelligent on this subject (or any subject).

Do you have an anonymous P.O.Box? I want to send you a buttplug for x-mas. Maybe you'll shhhh then!