BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 241540 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.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#159524 Jun 14, 2013
Barack Obama = War President

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#159525 Jun 14, 2013
You know Jacques, John McCain set a very poor example again when he entered Syria illegally and under the cloak of secrecy.
Length of his stay is irrelevant. He crossed the border illegally.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#159526 Jun 14, 2013
Jacques,
You do know that Syria is also known as the Levant, yes?
loose

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#159527 Jun 14, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
Re: "2] This issue has been addressed many times and even the Hawaiian government will not confirm whether or not the jpeg image is a copy of any State of Hawaii document! All they have commented on is the "information" which they say is correct. But they did not mention whether or not there was any deleted information. "
What they said was that the facts MATCH. That means that there cannot be any deleted information There can be no more facts or less facts on one than the other or they would not MATCH.
True, but the entire notion of "deleted information" is precluded because item 23 which would contain reference to evidence for an altered birth certificate or late registration cannot possibly pertain to a foreign birth listed as a local hospital birth registered within four days of the event. HDoH has confirmed that the information matches, and that means David A. Sinclair was the attending physician at Kapiolani in Honolulu, which we all know, is not in Kenya. Furthermore, if there were a late registration, it could not pertain to registration on August 8 for an August 4 birth, so late registration is precluded. Also, in the cased of an amended birth certificate, there would be an affidavit on file. There is no affidavit. Rogue is being dishonest with himself whenever he deludes himself into believing the fantasy that information could have been deleted from item 23 that would support foreign birth given the fact pattern of the case.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#159528 Jun 14, 2013
American Lady wrote:
There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.
To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
The words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not “a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” confers the coveted “natural born” status. If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”
Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring “natural born” status on anyone,... and bestows the coveted “natural born citizen” title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens. <<--<<<
As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor.
If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has.
But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred.
If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.
http://tinyurl.com/7rro6gj
Sorry, BirfoonLady, but an incoherent revisionist rant from a birfoon web site is not a credible authority.

The entire birfoon argument above is based upon fundamental failure to comprehend straightforward English grammar and straightforward logic.

If "persons born or naturalized ... are citizens" means they are exactly equivalent in every way, then the statement "persons who are natural born citizens or naturalized citizens are Citizens" would be equivalent in every way for the same reason, which cannot be true. Clearly the assertion that the conjunction 'or' imparts exact equivalence to the pair of terms according to this syntax, is FALSE.

Grow up. A middle school child could understand your folly.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#159529 Jun 14, 2013
Poppo wrote:
Oh this is funny!
Hannity Then and Now on NSA Surveillance
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
The man's just a plain hypocrite and fool. His birther followers are just plain fools, never mind hypocrites.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#159530 Jun 14, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
And many scientists are mad. This entire Universe was a mere accident, huh? There are no coincidences. You'd be wise to take that to heart. So where is the missing link? For all any of us know, evolution may be nothing more than part of the divine plan.
I'm sorry, but population bottleneck studies have nothing to do with theories of chance or purpose. Indeed, population bottleneck data pertaining to human history does not even require belief in evolution. It simply shows that the human population was never two.

Furthermore, the DNA which is in every cell of your body contains the evidence for human descent from a common ancestor of the chimp. That is the scientific conclusion. It is not a philosophical speculation on meaning or purpose in the universe.

The overwhelming evidence that has accumulated over the past few decades has relegated the literal Adam and Eve story to the metaphorical myth category. It is not factual. This means that the notion of the bible as literally inerrant is simply a FALSE and naive belief.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA analysis of genetic diversity in the human genome has disproved the idea of a single mating pair as founder population. Sorry. Meanwhile there are so many independent molecular genetic examples, for example the GULO pseudogene that establish a common ancestor of the human and chimp. Mutated alu elements in the GULO pseudogene are in the same positions in both species. Either God is a divine merry prankster or you believe a person can reasonably expect to win powerball 100 times in succession. The science is unequivocal.
<quoted text>

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#159531 Jun 14, 2013
Nazrat wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the opposite sex!
Good one.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#159532 Jun 14, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only problem was that that law EXPIRED in 2011 and was replaced by a highly modified version by the same name which signed into law by ... Obama.
just because the new law has the same name as the old law, doesn't mean it is the same.
The gist of the law has remained the same : Surveillance.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#159533 Jun 14, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, this article quotes him he voted for a third party! He sounds like he maybe a Libertarian?
Rogue
Edward Snowden: I mistakenly believed in Obama’s promises
June 9, 2013
Edward Snowden, the self-revealed whistle-blower at the National Security Agency, explains that part of the reason he decided to come forward was because President Obama did not roll back the surveillance measures put into place by the Bush Administration.
“A lot of people in 2008 voted for Obama. I did not vote for him. I voted for a third party,” Snowden said in an interview with the Guardian.“But I believed in Obama’s promises. I was going to disclose it [but waited because of his election]. He continued with the policies of his predecessor.”
Snowden acknowledged that he watched Obama struggle as he attempted to justify the surveillance programs during his press conference on Friday.
“My immediate reaction was he was having difficulty in defending it himself,” Snowden said about Obama.“He was trying to defend the unjustifiable and he knew it.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/edward-snowden-...
You contradict your own self now? Why are there butterfly nets all over and yet, no butterflies?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#159534 Jun 14, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only problem was that that law EXPIRED in 2011 and was replaced by a highly modified version by the same name which signed into law by ... Obama.
just because the new law has the same name as the old law, doesn't mean it is the same.
Rouge is still avoiding his problem with item 23. Does he fancy that item 23 contains a statement that David A. Sinclair, M. D., was high on LSD and hallucinated the birth of BO on August 4, 1961, and that the child was really born in Kenya? And does Rouge believe the hospital clerk who typed in the information was on hallucinogens as well?

Rouge does not seem to comprehend that there are no possible comments that could have ever been in item 23 that would have invalidated items 7a, 7b, 7c,(place of birth) and the doctor's signature. "Oops it was all a joke and he was really born in Kenya" doesn't cut it in the real world. What world is Rouge from?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#159535 Jun 14, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a screwed up bunch of garbage.
How does that in any way, shape or form begin to answer the question?
Pdamerica org

Edison, NJ

#159536 Jun 14, 2013
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Jesus not write anything of his own? Of course he didn’t. What you post are quotes from the gospel according to John (whoever he was) which differs from that according to Matthew, Mark and Luke (whoever they were)
Jesus if he existed at all certainly had some nutty ideas and for that he was obviously crucified; and since no one has established the existence of any gods it would be a bit premature to commence burdening them with sacrificial sons already.
Surely you can understand why the primitive notion of human sacrifice would be totally repugnant to the enlightened mind can you not? Of course you can’t. Some would say, Lord help us if the Christians ever seize control. LOL………
Common sense tells me the 4 Gospels are not different.

Example 101: If you had 4 different people writing down what they observed and remembered it would be a little different.

All 4 Gospels have the same themes and interpretations and does not contradict each other.

==========

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#159537 Jun 14, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
And many scientists are mad. This entire Universe was a mere accident, huh? There are no coincidences. You'd be wise to take that to heart. So where is the missing link? For all any of us know, evolution may be nothing more than part of the divine plan.
So you've now switched from schoolyard bullying tactics and profanity to outlandish comments like "And many scientists are mad. This entire Universe was a mere accident, huh?" Well, speaking of mad, you believe in Adam and Eve, which means the universe and human beings are 6,500 years old. Rogue-type year accounting, LMAO (LRS tm reg'd). How "mad" is that? And speaking of accidents, the only accident I can detect here was made by your parents who conceived you in the first place.
Pdamerica org

Edison, NJ

#159538 Jun 14, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Population bottleneck analysis of the human genome has revealed that humans emerged as a group, thousands of them. There was never a population bottleneck as extreme as a single mating pair. The single mating pair story is exactly that, a story.
The DNA evidence from both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome unequivocally establishes that both species are descended from a common ancestor. The biblical account of first humans being immortal but who became mortal after 'sin' is simply busted. If there were a first human, whether you call that person Adam or Eve, all of their cousins, brothers, sisters, and clan members were non-human? And Adam's mother was not human? Nonsense. The data makes it a dead cinch conclusion. The born immortal Adam and Eve first human mating pair story is a myth.
wojar, Maybe, just maybe Adam and Eve were hairy apelike Humans?

You obviously are in the minority because there are Billions and Billions of people in other religions who all believe in GOD's creation.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#159539 Jun 14, 2013
Pdamerica org wrote:
<quoted text>
Common sense tells me the 4 Gospels are not different.
Example 101: If you had 4 different people writing down what they observed and remembered it would be a little different.
All 4 Gospels have the same themes and interpretations and does not contradict each other.
==========
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
If John 3 : 16 is true, we are talking human sacrifice here, prohibited by God Himself. Did He break his own rules? Is He above His own laws?
Nazrat

Mcdonough, GA

#159540 Jun 14, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, but population bottleneck studies have nothing to do with theories of chance or purpose. Indeed, population bottleneck data pertaining to human history does not even require belief in evolution. It simply shows that the human population was never two.
Furthermore, the DNA which is in every cell of your body contains the evidence for human descent from a common ancestor of the chimp. That is the scientific conclusion. It is not a philosophical speculation on meaning or purpose in the universe.
The overwhelming evidence that has accumulated over the past few decades has relegated the literal Adam and Eve story to the metaphorical myth category. It is not factual. This means that the notion of the bible as literally inerrant is simply a FALSE and naive belief.
<quoted text>
Now you're a chimp?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#159541 Jun 14, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Rouge is still avoiding his problem with item 23. Does he fancy that item 23 contains a statement that David A. Sinclair, M. D., was high on LSD and hallucinated the birth of BO on August 4, 1961, and that the child was really born in Kenya? And does Rouge believe the hospital clerk who typed in the information was on hallucinogens as well?
Rouge does not seem to comprehend that there are no possible comments that could have ever been in item 23 that would have invalidated items 7a, 7b, 7c,(place of birth) and the doctor's signature. "Oops it was all a joke and he was really born in Kenya" doesn't cut it in the real world. What world is Rouge from?
The point being, the jpg image Obama put on the internet in no way looks like any other copy of anyone elses CoLB!
Pdamerica org

Edison, NJ

#159542 Jun 14, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
2...
and God plays with the devil, that very devil that HE banished to hell after they revolted against HIM? Plays games and bets with him on Adam and Eve and Job? Are you serious? I thought Satan burned and suffered for eternity. Does he get a break when he gets together to play games with God?
The devil, and of course, these are fables, we have to take some nutty unknown prophet's word for it, was allowed to tempt Adam and Eve. Why am I writing this? It's all so Santa Claus-like.
Anyhow, a man , a woman who lead a good life, do good unto others, are children of God, believers or not. I'll take my chances, but I don't intend to reveal what I do or do not believe, except for religion, as I don't know of one good one. ALL religions have succeeded in disrespecting the very God or Jesus or Mohamad or Krishna or Jawheh that they say is their God.
You are quite right in believing in the GOOD.

JESUS will judge the hearts and minds of all humanity fairly because GOD is LOVE.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#159543 Jun 14, 2013
Nazrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're a chimp?
Some are evolved chimps, others not so much. Only if the shoe fits...

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) 5 min Cheech the Conser... 1,547,829
Time to Fire Trump and Mulvaney 1 hr Joey 2
The Official Vanessa Hudgens Chat Room (Aug '07) 2 hr King 3,792
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 4 hr They cannot kill ... 10,832
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 63,843
Chicago is a great city. 7 hr De Bow 9
Illinois is in critical financial crisis. 16 hr Hank Johnson 6

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages