BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 237263 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#126421 Nov 13, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
Now Sheriff Joe is law enforcement, but not the members of the Arizona Cartoon Posse. The Cartoon Posse included retired law enforcement, self-anointed document 'experts', nut cases from Birtherville, and a variety of Obama haters.
IF there was any real fraud in the document and a crime was committed, real law enforcement would have sent the results to the District Attorney who might file charges.
That didn't happen in this case as the Arizona Cartoon Posse has no legal standing.
Ol' Joe just supported the publicity stunt to get the heat off himself because he was being investigated.
Who said he did not send it to the DA? You can not make a DA do anything!
Oh, the investigation did not stop because of Sheriff Joe's investigation.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#126422 Nov 13, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the short verson.
The southern racists dems of the 1860's have transformed into and become the southern racists repubs of the 2000's.
I can provide more detail and examples if needed.
Or so you say. It is you Dems who have put the blacks in the ghettos and you keep them stupid by sending them to ghetto schools.
Fact, only 63% of all Democrats in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 compared to 80% of all Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#126423 Nov 13, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the short verson.
The southern racists dems of the 1860's have transformed into and become the southern racists repubs of the 2000's.
I can provide more detail and examples if needed.
Please do give examples?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#126425 Nov 13, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
Justice Scalia has already drafted the official response to the "petitions":
“I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.(Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance,“one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.”
And your link? The USSC does not publish "drafts"!!!
Lacey

UK

#126426 Nov 13, 2012
http://adf.ly/EfbCH do u beleive the obama romney conspricy its all to do with bush
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#126427 Nov 13, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
No, so-called patriot warrior, it's not me. I have ONE moniker, unlike you. And I told you, he/she writes better than me.
LMAO at this silly fool.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#126428 Nov 13, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said he did not send it to the DA? You can not make a DA do anything!
Oh, the investigation did not stop because of Sheriff Joe's investigation.
So did the Cartoon Posse sent the results to the DA or not?

Why didn't the DA file charges?

It's all a publicity stunt.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#126429 Nov 13, 2012
The Truth wrote:
Sad America-loving conservatives already demanding secession
Aw, the party of 'Merika has an enormous post-election sad:
In the aftermath of last week's presidential election, residents in at least nineteen states have put up petitions on the government's "We the People" petitioning website seeking the right to secede from the rest of the country.[…]
Petitions for secession filed from Louisiana and Texas have already received well over 10,000 signatures. Per the website's own rules, petitions that garner 25,000 signatures or more within 30 days require a response from the Obama administration.
Apparently this is the part of the conservative realization that (1) yes, the president is still a scary black man, and (2) nobody in America but them has a problem with that. There's also been some premise going around that Obama's moderateness and centrism the last four years only goes to prove how much he's going to be a crazy secret-Muslim radical during the next four years, and if you can unpack that logic, you've got me beat. I have no idea what they're going on about. Oh, and the Texas version has already topped the 25K threshold, so congratulations, Texas conservatives! You'll be getting a special note from the Obama administration suggesting where you can go!
This doesn't seem to be a purely regional thing, since even folks in Oregon and New York are piping up with their own petitions (and really, if you're an Oregon or New York conservative, I feel a good amount of pity for you, I really do). But I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This notion of conservative secession has its merits. Of course, as "True America" we'd want to attach some constraints to the separatists: no nuclear weapons, get your own damn military, and we'll be carving out territory for you that consists entirely of places close to sea level, so that you can ignore climate change from the best possible vantage point. But this sounds pretty doable, once the logistics get worked out. So what are you going to call yourselves? United Galts of America? New Jesusland? That's great, we'll send you a card.
You are a certifiable nutcase. What poor azz third world country did you sneak in from? Pure trash.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#126430 Nov 13, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Or so you say. It is you Dems who have put the blacks in the ghettos and you keep them stupid by sending them to ghetto schools.
Fact, only 63% of all Democrats in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 compared to 80% of all Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act...
It's not a dem vs repub thing....it's a conservative racists vs a liberal thing. I don't care what they call themselves. The fact remains that the conservative racist southern democrat has evolved into the conservative racist southern republican.

If Abe Lincoln were alive today he'd be a dem and not a repub.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#126431 Nov 13, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and like a pit bull, stupid.
The irrelevant and insignificant queer from canada speaks! LMAO

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#126433 Nov 13, 2012
Therealnews com wrote:
<quoted text>
The President’s Opening Bid on a Grand Bargain: Aim High
By Robert Reich / November 12, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/aevft55
I hope the President starts negotiations over a “grand bargain” for deficit reduction by aiming high. After all, he won the election. And if the past four years has proven anything it’s that the White House should not begin with a compromise.
Assuming the goal is $4 trillion of deficit reduction over the next decade (that’s the consensus of the Simpson-Bowles commission, the Congressional Budget Office, and most independent analysts), here’s what the President should propose:
First, raise taxes on the rich – and by more than the highest marginal rate under Bill Clinton or even a 30 percent (so-called Buffett Rule) minimum rate on millionaires. Remember: America’s top earners are now wealthier than they’ve ever been, and they’re taking home a larger share of total income and wealth than top earners have received in over 80 years.
Why not go back sixty years when Americans earning over $1 million in today’s dollars paid 55.2 percent of it in income taxes, after taking all deductions and credits? If they were taxed at that rate now, they’d pay at least $80 billion more annually — which would reduce the budget deficit by about $1 trillion over the next decade. That’s a quarter of the $4 trillion in deficit reduction right there.
A 2% surtax on the wealth of the richest one-half of 1 percent would bring in another $750 billion over the decade. A one-half of 1 percent tax on financial transactions would bring in an additional $250 billion.
Add this up and we get $2 trillion over ten years — half of the deficit-reduction goal.
Raise the capital gains rate to match the rate on ordinary income and cap the mortgage interest deduction at $12,000 a year, and that’s another $1 trillion over ten years. So now we’re up to $3 trillion in additional revenue.
Eliminate special tax preferences for oil and gas, price supports for big agriculture, tax breaks and research subsidies for Big Pharma, unnecessary weapons systems for military contractors, and indirect subsidies to the biggest banks on Wall Street, and we’re nearly there.
End the Bush tax cuts on incomes between $250,000 and $1 million, and — bingo — we made it:$4 trillion over 10 years.
And we haven’t had to raise taxes on America’s beleaguered middle class, cut Social Security or Medicare and Medicaid, reduce spending on education or infrastructure, or cut programs for the poor.
Mr. President, I’d recommend this as your opening bid. With enough luck and pluck, maybe even your closing bid. And if enough Americans are behind you, it could even be the final deal./ http://robertreich.org/post/35591032374
Sanders: Going Over 'Fiscal Cliff' Better than Bad Tax Deal
Senator says new Congress could recover 'in the first month or two'
November 12, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/a4vxhsj
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said Monday that if the lame-duck Congress can't agree on a tax deal by the end of the year, briefly going over the "fiscal cliff" is preferable to accepting a bad deal.
“Is it better to deal with this issue in the next session rather than accept a bad agreement in this session?” Sanders said during a press conference at his Burlington office. "Yes, it is.”/ http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/...
Why don't you tax everyone who makes over $250K a year 100% for income over $250? Woodn't you end the deficit in just one year?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#126434 Nov 13, 2012
Therealnews com wrote:
<quoted text>
The President’s Opening Bid on a Grand Bargain: Aim High
By Robert Reich / November 12, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/aevft55
I hope the President starts negotiations over a “grand bargain” for deficit reduction by aiming high. After all, he won the election. And if the past four years has proven anything it’s that the White House should not begin with a compromise.
Assuming the goal is $4 trillion of deficit reduction over the next decade (that’s the consensus of the Simpson-Bowles commission, the Congressional Budget Office, and most independent analysts), here’s what the President should propose:
First, raise taxes on the rich – and by more than the highest marginal rate under Bill Clinton or even a 30 percent (so-called Buffett Rule) minimum rate on millionaires. Remember: America’s top earners are now wealthier than they’ve ever been, and they’re taking home a larger share of total income and wealth than top earners have received in over 80 years.
Why not go back sixty years when Americans earning over $1 million in today’s dollars paid 55.2 percent of it in income taxes, after taking all deductions and credits? If they were taxed at that rate now, they’d pay at least $80 billion more annually — which would reduce the budget deficit by about $1 trillion over the next decade. That’s a quarter of the $4 trillion in deficit reduction right there.
A 2% surtax on the wealth of the richest one-half of 1 percent would bring in another $750 billion over the decade. A one-half of 1 percent tax on financial transactions would bring in an additional $250 billion.
Add this up and we get $2 trillion over ten years — half of the deficit-reduction goal.
Raise the capital gains rate to match the rate on ordinary income and cap the mortgage interest deduction at $12,000 a year, and that’s another $1 trillion over ten years. So now we’re up to $3 trillion in additional revenue.
Eliminate special tax preferences for oil and gas, price supports for big agriculture, tax breaks and research subsidies for Big Pharma, unnecessary weapons systems for military contractors, and indirect subsidies to the biggest banks on Wall Street, and we’re nearly there.
End the Bush tax cuts on incomes between $250,000 and $1 million, and — bingo — we made it:$4 trillion over 10 years.
And we haven’t had to raise taxes on America’s beleaguered middle class, cut Social Security or Medicare and Medicaid, reduce spending on education or infrastructure, or cut programs for the poor.
Mr. President, I’d recommend this as your opening bid. With enough luck and pluck, maybe even your closing bid. And if enough Americans are behind you, it could even be the final deal./ http://robertreich.org/post/35591032374
Sanders: Going Over 'Fiscal Cliff' Better than Bad Tax Deal
Senator says new Congress could recover 'in the first month or two'
November 12, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/a4vxhsj
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said Monday that if the lame-duck Congress can't agree on a tax deal by the end of the year, briefly going over the "fiscal cliff" is preferable to accepting a bad deal.
“Is it better to deal with this issue in the next session rather than accept a bad agreement in this session?” Sanders said during a press conference at his Burlington office. "Yes, it is.”/ http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/...
Tell us brainless one, what exactly will raising taxes on the rich do for the counrty? The difference in taxes collected will be marginal. Then the wealthy will lose confidence in the economy and not invest. We'll be right where we are now. Do you think the wealthy owe you something?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#126435 Nov 13, 2012
Silly Libtards, the One Percenters of Greece and France are moving to more friendly countries. They can do that as they are rich.
Just look at the State of New York who's Democrat governor, Andrew Cuomo, is trying to cut taxes for the rich so they will move back to NY and pay some taxes.
Why do you think John Kerry kept his $4M yacht in Rhode Island instead of Mass.? To avoid paying $750K in taxes to Mass. What he was doing was not illegal and the only reason why he did relocate his yacht and pay those taxes was so he did not look like a hypocrite. Not that he is not a hypocrite, he just did not want to look like one.
Learn to Read

United States

#126436 Nov 13, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>And your link? The USSC does not publish "drafts"!!!
Judge Scalia answered a letter you moron.

USSC does not entertain fantasies!!!!
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#126437 Nov 13, 2012
Goat Boy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, that is certainly a fairy-tale.
Tell us, what party did those who created the Black Codes and the Jim Crow laws represent?
No fantasy allowed for this answer.
Can you name any Democrats besides Strom Thurmond who became a Republican back then?
Do you deny that Robert Byrd was a leader of the KKK and a DemoKKKrat?
Not sure I can get thru due to your closed mind.

It's obvious that you are lacking in any knowledge of history.
Learn to Read

United States

#126438 Nov 13, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>It's not a dem vs repub thing....it's a conservative racists vs a liberal thing. I don't care what they call themselves. The fact remains that the conservative racist southern democrat has evolved into the conservative racist southern republican.

If Abe Lincoln were alive today he'd be a dem and not a repub.
If Ronald Reagan were alive today we'd hear how he's a RINO.
Jacques Ottawa

Oshawa, Canada

#126440 Nov 13, 2012
America Got Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't know you believed that.
You said nothing when that teacher chastised a student for supporting Mitt Romney.
I'm curious. What kind of chastising? Do you know or is it once m more invention and wishful thinking on your birther part?
Jacques Ottawa

Oshawa, Canada

#126441 Nov 13, 2012
America Got Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder if Sheriff Joe, and the people of the State of Arizona, know he is not Law Enforcement?
The illegal aliens housed in pink underwear sure know that he is Law Enforcement.
What segment of society do Sheriff's represent in your deluded mind?
"The illegal aliens housed in pink underwear " you write. Ha ha. I've seen Rogue parading around in tight Pink Panther underwear if that's any help.
Jacques Ottawa

Oshawa, Canada

#126442 Nov 13, 2012
America Got Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Uda better get a brain!
Since then, the indications of electoral criminality have been overwhelming. First there are the anecdotes, such as the court-appointed Republican poll watchers illegally expelled from 13 Philadelphia polling places in wards that, in most cases, went 99 percent for Obama; the poll observers who noted what they considered vote fraud but were powerless to stop; and the Democrats who actually bragged about voting more than once.
Then there are the statistics, such as this staggering fact: in 59 Philadelphia districts, Romney failed to get even one vote. Final Obama-Romney tally: 19,605 to 0.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/was_th...
" Final Obama-Romney tally: 19,605 to 0.." Hmm, sounds like the 168-0 BC court cases . Ha ha. A winning score for Taitz and the sheriff and his stick horses posse. Guffawing. Sheriff Joe goes for his gun, and this little red flag comes out of the barrel, written on it is "Bang". The Sheriff's mamma comes out, bawls him out for being so noisy and drags him into the house by the ear. Where are those aisles to roll in when you need 'em?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#126443 Nov 13, 2012
Tell us flappers, why should the wealthy be expected to pay anymore than anyone else towards our national debt? A debt which the dumbazz Omammie has more than doubled. The wealthy owe no more than anyone else.

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) 22 min Yeah 1,496,771
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr _Zoey_ 10,335
will chicago have a march 2 hr Happy Buyer 2
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Well Well 63,270
IT'S Really really true, nancy pelosi............ 9 hr HasALargePenis 10
The Mexicans stay home 9 hr More-Truth NoLies 24
Review: Skydiving In Chicago 12 hr Bjohns 1

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages