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

There are 20 comments on the Jan 8, 2009, Chicago Tribune story 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

#148983 Mar 27, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
Re: "Obama can not be BLACK if half of his heritage is WHITE! "
Okay. Half of his heritage is white. He is of mixed race. People who say that he is Black, including him, are referring to old legal and cultural definitions that defined a person as black "if they had one drop of black blood" as one popular quotation had it (see the 1927 musical Showboat).
He certainly has more than one drop of black blood.
And his birth certificate is accurate, as the officials in Hawaii of both parties have repeatedly stated.
Well, what did Obama check off for the Census? If he checked black, he lied!
Oh, if you tear off the corner of a dollar bill, so long as you have at least 75% of the bill remaining, it is still worth it's face value. If you have 75% or less, it is worth less than it's face value. As far as movies go, I take them with a gain of salt.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#148984 Mar 27, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, what did Obama check off for the Census? If he checked black, he lied!
Oh, if you tear off the corner of a dollar bill, so long as you have at least 75% of the bill remaining, it is still worth it's face value. If you have 75% or less, it is worth less than it's face value. As far as movies go, I take them with a gain of salt.
Re: "Well, what did Obama check off for the Census? If he checked black, he lied!"

Yes, he did, but then we do not know how he filled out the census form, nor do we know how Romney or Ryan or Bush filled it out---and we don't care, and I don't care how Obama filled out the census form, but you do (which says something about you).

Here, btw, is the census form, and as you can see it allows someone to check off multiple races or to write in the name of "some other race."

http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d61a.pdf

But, getting back to the birth certificate: Obama's published birth certificate is still accurate, as the officials in Hawaii of BOTH parties have confirmed.

“Reduce immigration levels”

Since: Dec 06

Kings Mountain, NC

#148985 Mar 27, 2013
Obama Used Social Security Number Assigned To Dead Woman
&fe ature=em-uploademail

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

#148986 Mar 27, 2013
Fed Up wrote:
Obama Used Social Security Number Assigned To Dead Woman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ncXjrirkQM4XX&feature=em- uploademail
Not another one of those video's again the thing that posted the video is another whacked out birther nut case.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#148987 Mar 27, 2013
Poor Lil Romper Stomper. Looks like getting exposed as the pathetic empty blowhard we all knew him to be was too much for him.

Talk about turning tail and running. What a puss
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#148988 Mar 27, 2013
Fed Up wrote:
Obama Used Social Security Number Assigned To Dead Woman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ncXjrirkQM4XX&feature=em- uploademail
Millions of people have errors in their Social Security numbers and/or multiple SS numbers, and the cause was MAINLY data entry errors by SS Administration clerks.

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...
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#148989 Mar 27, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>Millions of people have errors in their Social Security numbers and/or multiple SS numbers, and the cause was MAINLY data entry errors by SS Administration clerks.

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...
You and your silly facts. You sure know how to ruin a good rant!
Grand Birther

United States

#148990 Mar 27, 2013
Looks like not a single birfoon was able to write these simple word, and they thus confirm their deep hatred and bigotry.

"I fully support the right for gay people to be married, and their right to all the benefits associated with married status.

Gender is an infintesimal fraction of what makes a person a person, and I do not care what gender anyone identifies as."

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

#148991 Mar 27, 2013
Nuclear weapons cuts will make the United States safer
By Kingston Reif | 6 March 2013

Nuclear arms control is back in the news. After paying little public attention to the issue over the long course of his reelection campaign, President Obama said in his February State of the Union address that the United States "will engage Russia to seek further reductions in our nuclear arsenals." A recent report by the Center for Public Integrity revealed that senior Obama administration officials believe the United States can reduce its arsenal of deployed strategic warheads to between 1,000 and 1,100 without harming national security. Those numbers would put the total below levels called for by New START, the treaty that limits the United States and Russia to 1,550 deployed warheads apiece. Meanwhile, numerous high-ranking administration officials have met with their Russian counterparts this year. Further arms control measures were likely on the agenda.

Not surprisingly, many congressional Republicans have expressed opposition to further nuclear reductions. They argue that additional cuts would undermine US security and worry that the Obama administration could reduce the national arsenal outside the auspices of a formal treaty approved by the US Senate

These concerns are misplaced: Further nuclear weapons reductions are squarely in the national interest.

First, as President Obama said in March 2012, "we have more nuclear weapons than we need." Even after New START, he pointed out, the United States would have more than 1,500 deployed nuclear weapons and some 5,000 warheads. Such a large arsenal greatly exceeds any conceivable deterrence requirement and provides Russia with an incentive to maintain a similarly bloated force.

Bilateral reductions below the New START levels would reduce the number of Russian nuclear weapons pointed at the United States. Reductions could also strengthen stability by providing Russian defense planners with less reason to engage in costly worst-case estimates about force requirements. For example, lower US deployed force levels could dissuade Moscow from moving forward with destabilizing nuclear modernization programs -- such as the development of a new heavy intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Verifiable limits on reserve warheads and nonstrategic arms would further enhance stability by addressing Russia's large stockpile of such weapons and ensuring that nuclear warheads are actually eliminated as opposed to merely placed in storage.

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

#148992 Mar 27, 2013
part 2
Maintaining a nuclear posture and force levels that are still largely based on Cold War-era conditions has many costs. As nuclear security and non-proliferation specialist James Doyle has written, "Given the generally positive nature of the US-Russian relationship, the continued competitive mutual nuclear entanglement hinders the development of truly normalised relations." Keeping an excessive arsenal also costs money; $31 billion per year according to a 2012 study by the Stimson Center. The Pentagon and Energy Department are planning to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade to build new nuclear delivery systems and warhead-production facilities. Reductions would stem the need for a significant amount of this spending.

Some of those opposed to US nuclear weapons cuts argue that they are irresponsible in light of North Korea's recent missile and nuclear tests and Iran's continued enrichment of uranium. But reducing its number of deployed strategic warheads to 1,000 would leave the United States with far more than enough weapons to deter North Korea, which is believed to possess a total of about 10 nuclear weapons, and Iran, which doesn't have any.

One of the most-repeated arguments against a new round of cuts involves the US nuclear umbrella: Some fear that reducing the American arsenal could cause allies to doubt the US commitment to their defense, thereby tempting them to acquire their own nuclear weapons. However, the continued US maintenance of thousands of nuclear weapons is not necessary to deter the nuclear threats our allies face today. Moreover, further arms control could actually benefit US partners: A US-Russia arms control process that addresses Russian nonstrategic nuclear weapons could reduce the threat posed by these weapons to America's Central European and Baltic allies. Likewise, further reductions in the number of US and Russian nuclear weapons could pave the way for future Chinese participation in the arms control process, which in turn would reduce the Chinese nuclear threat to America's East Asian allies.

Another criticism of further arms control contends that it is dangerous, because Russia likely will not come along unless the United States agrees to limitations on missile defense. It is true that Russia has not yet showed much interest in further nuclear weapons reductions, and that, at least publicly, it has linked further cuts to resolution of its concerns about US missile defenses and high-precision conventional strike capabilities.

But Moscow may still have good reasons to engage. As Brookings Institution arms control experts Steve Pifer and Michael O'Hanlon point out, "The US military can with its current force structure easily stay at the New START limits, while the Russian military must build new missiles to do so. Lowering the limits would offer Moscow a chance to save money. Also of interest to the Russians: Putting all weapons on the table would mean constraining reserve strategic warheads, where the U.S. military has a significant numerical advantage

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

#148993 Mar 27, 2013
part 3

In an ideal world, the United States and Russia would pursue a new round of nuclear reductions via a treaty that limits not only deployed strategic forces, but also non-deployed and nonstrategic nuclear warheads, which aren't currently limited by any accord. However, the negotiation of such a treaty will be far more time-consuming and complex than the New START negotiations, which lasted about a year. In the meantime, Russia could deploy a new heavy ICBM, the momentum for further cuts could stall, and the two sides could make down payments on modernization plans that lock in excessively high force levels for decades to come.

To avoid these outcomes, the United States could jump start the process by declaring itself willing to reduce its deployed arsenal below the levels in New START if Moscow is willing to reciprocate. It's a step that could save money, reduce Russia's incentive to build a heavy ICBM, and pave the way for formal negotiations on a new treaty that limits all nuclear warheads. Non-treaty-based reductions have been a long-standing feature of US defense policy under both Republican and Democratic presidents.

As they pursue further weapons reductions, the United States and Russia should also pursue confidence-building and transparency measures that establish mutual trust and could be incorporated in future negotiations. Of particular importance are initiatives that address US concerns about Russia's large stockpile of non-strategic weapons and Russia's concerns about US missile defense and high-precision conventional weapons. Projects that might have that effect would include information sharing, joint experiments and studies, and enhanced dialogue.

The pursuit of further nuclear reductions will not be without significant challenges. Russia's willingness to participate remains uncertain and Republican opposition is congealing. Nonetheless, President Obama should make the push he promised in the State of the Union. If he doesn't, he'll pass up a chance to significantly enhance US security

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#148994 Mar 27, 2013
Ah, this is a lie, there is NO bullet (ammo) shortage. We have enough ammo to engage in an all out war for at least SIX months. But we will have a shortage of "training ammo" a few months from now. This is no real big deal.
On Aug 30, 1981 I blew out an engine on a Chinook helicopter in S. Korea. It was the only total engine failure I had in my 21 years of flying helicopter. It was a T-55 ASA engine but it was also the second failure in eight days in my unit. As a result they inspected all the other engines in my unit and condemned six more engines.
Now those six engines would be returned to depot for overhaul but the engine on my aircraft and the week prior where trash. So there we had four of out 16 Chinooks without engines. But there were engines available in WAR reserve status. In other words we needed special permission to get those engines shipped and they would not release them. Sooo, for two months we waited for eight engines to be shipped through normal channels.
They have ammo, tires, medicine, MRE's, etc. all in storage but they will not release them as they are WAR reserves. And they will have enough ammo to train with, just not as much as they would like.

U.S. Marines Rattled by Bullet Shortage
27 March 2013

At least one branch of the U.S. military is scrimping and saving every bullet it can while the Department of Homeland Security is on a bullet-buying spree.

Marine Corps Commandant James F. Amos blames sequester budget cuts.

In a video to Marines, he says,“I ask you to save every round, every gallon of gas, that you take every single aspect, or opportunity, in training to get the most bang for the buck.”

Amos said it’s “no time to do business as usual.”

Things have changed. The landscape has changed,” he said.“I need you to be conservative in the way we do business.”

Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2013/03/u-s-marines-...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#148995 Mar 27, 2013
Oh, bask in the early 1980's they were converting A, B and C-model Chinooks to D-models. New rotor blades, new transmissions, new everything including uprated engines.
Soooo, they started with the A and B-model Chinooks with the 2,60 and 2,850 hp engines and they were sold as surplus. And the people who race unlimited hydroplanes bought them up to replace the WWII piston engines like the Merlin V-12's that flew in P-51 Mustangs.
And then someone told the hydroplane people at they could get 3,750 hp engines from the C-model Chinooks but they could not sell them but they could be "leased". So the hydroplane people leased them and at the end of the year they turned them in and leased newer engines.
They Army units started to get engines from depot, opened up the crates ...... and found highly corroded rebuilt engines!!!! Yep, they DoD civilians had been illegally renting out our engines. They FBI moved in and sent them to prison!!!
Real story!!!

Starting in 1980, they have increasingly used Vietnam War-era turboshaft engines from helicopters (in 1973–1974, one hydroplane, U-95, used turbine engines in races to test the technology). The most commonly used turbine is the Lycoming T55, used in the CH-47 Chinook.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroplane_ (boat)#Unlimited_hydroplane_en gines

Here is the link from the stolen engines. It would not let me copy though.
http://news.google.com/newspapers...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#148996 Mar 27, 2013
nebka wrote:
Nuclear weapons cuts will make the United States safer
By Kingston Reif | 6 March 2013
Nuclear arms control is back in the news. After paying little public attention to the issue over the long course of his reelection campaign, President Obama said in his February State of the Union address that the United States "will engage Russia to seek further reductions in our nuclear arsenals." A recent report by the Center for Public Integrity revealed that senior Obama administration officials believe the United States can reduce its arsenal of deployed strategic warheads to between 1,000 and 1,100 without harming national security..........
-- such as the development of a new heavy intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Verifiable limits on reserve warheads and nonstrategic arms would further enhance stability by addressing Russia's large stockpile of such weapons and ensuring that nuclear warheads are actually eliminated as opposed to merely placed in storage.
Hey nebka, that is one opinion but here is another;
Cutting Nuclear Weapons Funding Invites Insecurity, 12 Mar 2013
By David Yonkman, Washington Correspondent

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/nuclear-weap...
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Now, we have Iran on the edge of deploying their nukes as is North Korea and you think that we can reduce ours and we will be safer? Yes, you and Obama believe that but there are many who think you are foolish.
In the Mid-1930's when German, Italy and Japan were building up their militaries, FDR has his thumb up his azz. And on Dec. 7, 1941 Japan caught us unprepared for war. Japan thought they could bloody our nose and then we would seek peace, but they were wrong. But until we rebuilt our military, we got our azz kicked for about six months. We can not afford to do that in the nuclear age as the next war maybe LOST in 72 hours!
You see, even the Romans two thousand years ago knew that strong military deterred war. Sure, it might not happen next year or the year after, and it may not happen before Obama leaves office, but sooner or later we will pay for not maintaining a DETERRENT!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#148997 Mar 27, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>Millions of people have errors in their Social Security numbers and/or multiple SS numbers, and the cause was MAINLY data entry errors by SS Administration clerks.

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 ...
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
You and your silly facts. You sure know how to ruin a good rant!
Yep, it is all the SS's fault. Or is it 20 million illegal aliens who are using borrowed SS#'s. Isn't it funny that the 20 million that share duplicate numbers while at the same time we have 20 million illegal aliens in our country?
Heck, I've heard that Obama has used over a dozen SS#'s over the years! Do you really think the SS Administration issued him all of those???

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#148998 Mar 27, 2013
Oh, who is assign the SS prefix of "999"? Because their are no SS#'s with that prefix. Te military use them for foreign military students in the U.S. Yep, every Vietnamese, German, Dane, Saudi Arabian, Iranian (yes, we use to train them), etc were issue "999" student ID numbers!!!
In the seven years I was a Flight Evaluation pilot at Fort Rucker, AL I flew with about a thousand different students. Sometimes 14 different ones in the same week.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#148999 Mar 27, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Heck, I've heard that Obama has used over a dozen SS#'s over the years! Do you really think the SS Administration issued him all of those???
You've heard that? Was that when Romper was whispering in your ear?

Sorry Rouge - your pathetic fables may get Romper all wet but stack them up against facts and their as empty and impotent as Francis

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149000 Mar 27, 2013
Liberals like to UNDER estimate the illegal alien problem. Yep, when the truth hurts, they cover it up the best they can!!!

Illegal immigration to the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007. Other estimates range from 7 to 20 million........

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#149001 Mar 27, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey nebka, that is one opinion but here is another;
Cutting Nuclear Weapons Funding Invites Insecurity, 12 Mar 2013
By David Yonkman, Washington Correspondent
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/nuclear-weap...
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Now, we have Iran on the edge of deploying their nukes as is North Korea and you think that we can reduce ours and we will be safer? Yes, you and Obama believe that but there are many who think you are foolish.
In the Mid-1930's when German, Italy and Japan were building up their militaries, FDR has his thumb up his azz. And on Dec. 7, 1941 Japan caught us unprepared for war. Japan thought they could bloody our nose and then we would seek peace, but they were wrong. But until we rebuilt our military, we got our azz kicked for about six months. We can not afford to do that in the nuclear age as the next war maybe LOST in 72 hours!
You see, even the Romans two thousand years ago knew that strong military deterred war. Sure, it might not happen next year or the year after, and it may not happen before Obama leaves office, but sooner or later we will pay for not maintaining a DETERRENT!
OMG, only 1,100 ICBs left to defend the US. At an average of 6 nuclear warheads per ICBM, that comes to 6,600 nuclear bombs. And Rogue and those smart Republicans think that is too high a reduction in warheads. We must of course assume that the Russians have an equal number of ICBMs, so that makes 13,200 warheads. China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, France, the UK also have multiple warhead missiles, and I have no idea how many, but for the hell of it, let's say a combined 2,000 missiles x 6 = 12,000 more nuclear warheads. Total : 15,200. Hmmmm, do you think , Rogue, that maybe, just maybe, we should all start reducing those stockpiles a teeny weeny bit? It's like your 10,000 rounds of ammo hidden under your bed, how many bullets do you need?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#149002 Mar 27, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Heck, I've heard that Obama has used over a dozen SS#'s over the years! Do you really think the SS Administration issued him all of those???
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
You've heard that? Was that when Romper was whispering in your ear?
Sorry Rouge - your pathetic fables may get Romper all wet but stack them up against facts and their as empty and impotent as Francis
Would Rogue mind giving his sources or is LRS?

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 Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 6 min TRD 69,705
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min say what 1,220,494
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 56 min Hey now 52,864
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr Whiny1 5,913
Dear Abby 4-25-15 2 hr mrs gladys kravitz 3
Windy Chicago beckons 2 hr Chicago 1
Adult video stores 5 hr Denny 1
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]