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

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 ... Full Story
Obskeptic

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#176010 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, and this is also for Obskeptic : Speaking of Republicans and Abraham Lincoln, do you really think that the great Lincoln would ever stoop to give the time of day to people like Goldwater, Nixon, GWB, Cheney, Grove, Rumsfeld, Romney, Rush, Gingrich, Pat Robertson, Trump, Taitz, Cruz, et al? Do you really think he would?
No, I don't. I also don't think he would consider any of the modern democrats worth a grain of salt either. Both are selling out the republic, and your list is conspicuously absent of any objectivity.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176011 Oct 22, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't. I also don't think he would consider any of the modern democrats worth a grain of salt either. Both are selling out the republic, and your list is conspicuously absent of any objectivity.
Objectivity, you say? I suggest you re-read some of your posts, like "the Muslim Obama". Want to take that back? Oh, you have not commented on my stating that the Constitution guarantees religious freedom. Obama is assuredly NOT Muslim. But, for the sake of argument, if he was,(he's not) would that bar him or any other from the presidency?

Your lack of objectivity is coming out your barn door.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176012 Oct 22, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't. I also don't think he would consider any of the modern democrats worth a grain of salt either. Both are selling out the republic, and your list is conspicuously absent of any objectivity.
Off topic again, irrelevant once more. I was talking about Lincoln and today's Republicans. Not the democrats. Lincoln was Republican, no? Today, for sure, and with the list of Republicans I supplied you with, rest assured he would not belong to that party today.

Do you reflect much before posting? Or do you always let your pre-conceived and heavily-biased opinions carry the day? I've noticed how you get progressively enervated every time you're dumbfounded or flummoxed. That's when little remarks like my posting so much and needing fresh air spurt out, not to mention "ignorant". Too bad. But relax, I don't do that. I don't have to.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#176013 Oct 22, 2013
New Report: UK Crime Statistics Fudged to Justify Gun Ban
Posted By Philip Hodges on Oct 22, 2013

How many times have we heard Piers Morgan rant and rave about crime rates in his home country? He claims gun violence is virtually nonexistent thanks to the Brits doing the “responsible” thing and taking everyone’s guns away in 1997. Sure, there was an acknowledged, initial spike in crime shortly thereafter, but then it began to fall and has since plummeted. Or so they say.
It turns out that they have an entire bureaucracy over there devoted not to fighting crime, but fighting crime statistics. Their job is to determine which crimes get recorded as crimes and which get categorized as something else, which ends up not affecting the overall crime rate.
In other words, if there is an attempted burglary, it might get reported initially by a victim or a witness, but it also might end up being categorized as “criminal damage” instead of burglary. Or if there’s an instance of what they call “Grievous Bodily Harm,” it might get categorized as “common assault.” When they downgrade the category, it affects how crime statistics are eventually reported in the media, and those numbers are the ones that find their way to Piers Morgan, who then trumpets them from his TV show so that everyone knows how effective gun control is.

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/3441/new-report-uk-...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#176014 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Off topic again, irrelevant once more. I was talking about Lincoln and today's Republicans. Not the democrats. Lincoln was Republican, no? Today, for sure, and with the list of Republicans I supplied you with, rest assured he would not belong to that party today.
Do you reflect much before posting? Or do you always let your pre-conceived and heavily-biased opinions carry the day? I've noticed how you get progressively enervated every time you're dumbfounded or flummoxed. That's when little remarks like my posting so much and needing fresh air spurt out, not to mention "ignorant". Too bad. But relax, I don't do that. I don't have to.
How do you know what people who lived over a hundred years ago would think or do anything? Did you channel Lincoln?!? You Libtards think you know everything!
Obskeptic

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#176015 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Objectivity, you say? I suggest you re-read some of your posts, like "the Muslim Obama". Want to take that back? Oh, you have not commented on my stating that the Constitution guarantees religious freedom. Obama is assuredly NOT Muslim. But, for the sake of argument, if he was,(he's not) would that bar him or any other from the presidency?
Your lack of objectivity is coming out your barn door.
If you re-read my post, I said that Madonna was the person that says he is a muslim. I simply quoted her, since she is such a highly respected entertainer on the left side of politics. As for religious freedom, the constitution does guarantee that. It also guarantees that enemies of the document have the freedom to destroy the country using its freedoms. As for what I think of muslims? If they were not such a murderous bunch of hypocrites, I wouldn't have any issue with them at all, but the evidence points to them as being violent and intolerant, especially to women and infidels, and that I do have a problem with. Don't you?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#176016 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
LIFETIME job, eh? You must've been on unemployment if you thought them the save values you espouse here on Topix. Are your kids communist tots?
Hey Jacqueau, you still have not explained what Ted Cruz did to shut down the government. His, so called, filibustered ended almost a week before the shut down and Dirty Hairy Reid would not allow the Senate to vote on the issue.
If it was anyone who shut down the government it was Dirty Hairy?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#176017 Oct 22, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
See if you can wrap your little 6 year old mind around this. Plain, simple and true! LMAO! Will it ever dawn on the 6 year old that he has soiled himself? How's that grass hut condo doing? Still standing? Got your "seed" money saved up? LMAO!
http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitiz...
That's so pathetic. BirfoonBoy thinks a birfoon web site is an authority on US law. Alexander Gofen is a birfoon who spouts Vattel as US law but doesn't even understand Vattel. Does BirfoonBoy believe a birfoon website's declarations constitute binding authority?

Clue: Nowhere does Vattel claim that natural born citizens must have two citizen parents. Indeed, Vattel claims the citizenship of the children follow that of the father, a rule that was never practiced in the United States.

If Vattel's rule had been the law in the US, children of e.g., French or German immigrants would have been ALIENS. Obviously not the rule that was followed in this country. Why cannot the birfoon cite ONE CASE where a person born in the US after ratification of the Constitution was denied intestate inheritance on the basis of alienage per Vattel?

Never happened.

Sorry Mr. Play Justice.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike the status of children born in the US who are natural born citizens per binding precedent (even if born of alien parents), there is no binding precedent governing putative natural born citizen status of children born beyond US jurisdiction.

The Play Justice seems to believe that the court by not addressing the status of children of citizens born beyond jurisdiction of the US somehow negated it's clear declaration,“we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Will it ever dawn on the practitioners of Play Law? I doubt it.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176018 Oct 22, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know what people who lived over a hundred years ago would think or do anything? Did you channel Lincoln?!? You Libtards think you know everything!
No, I don't channel, but I do know, we ALL of us know, that Lincoln was smart, wise and compassionate. Is that a Republican quality? I think not. And that list I posted...you really think he'd talk to those people? NOT
Obskeptic

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#176019 Oct 22, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know what people who lived over a hundred years ago would think or do anything? Did you channel Lincoln?!? You Libtards think you know everything!
They do know everything Rogue, just disagree with one of them. We know that Barry is the leading expert in the country on Healthcare. He is also the leading expert on "green energy". He is also the leading expert on immigration. He is also the leading expert on education. He is also the worlds most brilliant economist. He is also the worlds leading expert on foreign policy. He is also the worlds leading expert on human rights. He is also an expert at creating jobs. He is the countries leading expert on arbitrating "fairness". He is also a leading expert on military strategy. He is also a christian, because he tells us he is, although his thin skin demeanor and inability to take responsibility for anything would cause one to question his sincerity. His experience as a community organizer, a TelePrompTer reader, and a constitutional "professor" is how he gained all that experience to make him all these things. If only George W. Bush and those pesky republicans had not made such a complicated mess of things, he would have been able to fix it all. Maybe if he turned to the private sector to help him solve some of these problems, like he has had to do with the healthcare website, rather then take it all on by his lonesome, we would be improving rather then continuing to stagnate. At least he has been able to work on his golf game extensively, since he doesn't have anything more important to do.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176020 Oct 22, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
If you re-read my post, I said that Madonna was the person that says he is a muslim. I simply quoted her, since she is such a highly respected entertainer on the left side of politics. As for religious freedom, the constitution does guarantee that. It also guarantees that enemies of the document have the freedom to destroy the country using its freedoms. As for what I think of muslims? If they were not such a murderous bunch of hypocrites, I wouldn't have any issue with them at all, but the evidence points to them as being violent and intolerant, especially to women and infidels, and that I do have a problem with. Don't you?
I don't remember so will take your word for it, as I don't feel like scrolling - you write that this was a Madonna quote. Did you add her name to the Muslim remark? And, what if she is on the left? Does that make her an expert on Obama's religious adherence? Did she say it tongue in cheek? Do you mind if I look it up?

There are apparently 1.5 billion Moslems now on this earth. All a murderous bunch of hypocrites, violent and intolerant to wineb abd infidels, right? All 1.5 billion. Do you remember the word "hyperbolic" and did you reflect on it before making that statement?
Joe OBiden

Jacksonville, FL

#176021 Oct 22, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
If you re-read my post, I said that Madonna was the person that says he is a muslim. I simply quoted her, since she is such a highly respected entertainer on the left side of politics. As for religious freedom, the constitution does guarantee that. It also guarantees that enemies of the document have the freedom to destroy the country using its freedoms. As for what I think of muslims? If they were not such a murderous bunch of hypocrites, I wouldn't have any issue with them at all, but the evidence points to them as being violent and intolerant, especially to women and infidels, and that I do have a problem with. Don't you?
But, but, but those evil Wepublicans made her say those things.
Madonna calls Obama a Prophet & Black MUSLIM President During....
Obskeptic

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#176022 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Off topic again, irrelevant once more. I was talking about Lincoln and today's Republicans. Not the democrats. Lincoln was Republican, no? Today, for sure, and with the list of Republicans I supplied you with, rest assured he would not belong to that party today.
Do you reflect much before posting? Or do you always let your pre-conceived and heavily-biased opinions carry the day? I've noticed how you get progressively enervated every time you're dumbfounded or flummoxed. That's when little remarks like my posting so much and needing fresh air spurt out, not to mention "ignorant". Too bad. But relax, I don't do that. I don't have to.
Thats because you don't seem to think the democrats deserve any criticism. What's your opinion of the Saul Alynsky's book Jacque? Many of the tactics employed by the administration and the main stream media come from that text. By the way, I love that word enervated. Excellent choice.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176023 Oct 22, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Jacqueau, you still have not explained what Ted Cruz did to shut down the government. His, so called, filibustered ended almost a week before the shut down and Dirty Hairy Reid would not allow the Senate to vote on the issue.
If it was anyone who shut down the government it was Dirty Hairy?
I did explain it. Read it for heaven's sake. I've asked you to explain at least 5 things last few days . Still waiting.

Sigh. Cruz is the birfoon buffoon tea party leader. He influenced the congressmen with his rhetoric, his filibuster particularly. He read Dr Seuss, which amazed the tea partyers and birthers as it lulled them to sleep and cost over $24 billion, interruptions in services and ill will both from within and without.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#176024 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>No, I don't channel, but I do know, we ALL of us know, that Lincoln was smart, wise and compassionate. Is that a Republican quality? I think not. And that list I posted...you really think he'd talk to those people? NOT
Of course he would talk to them. He might not (would not) agree with them on every issue but Lincoln wasn't a closed minded, myopic "us v them" moron
Joe OBiden

Jacksonville, FL

#176025 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't channel, but I do know, we ALL of us know, that Lincoln was smart, wise and compassionate. Is that a Republican quality? I think not. And that list I posted...you really think he'd talk to those people? NOT
And Ronald Reagan was NOT smart, wise nor compassionate? You seem to think giving people Obama phones actually does something to help improve their lives? Oh, now than can order a home delivery pizza?!?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#176026 Oct 22, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
New Report: UK Crime Statistics Fudged to Justify Gun Ban
Posted By Philip Hodges on Oct 22, 2013
How many times have we heard Piers Morgan rant and rave about crime rates in his home country? He claims gun violence is virtually nonexistent thanks to the Brits doing the “responsible” thing and taking everyone’s guns away in 1997. Sure, there was an acknowledged, initial spike in crime shortly thereafter, but then it began to fall and has since plummeted. Or so they say.
It turns out that they have an entire bureaucracy over there devoted not to fighting crime, but fighting crime statistics. Their job is to determine which crimes get recorded as crimes and which get categorized as something else, which ends up not affecting the overall crime rate.
In other words, if there is an attempted burglary, it might get reported initially by a victim or a witness, but it also might end up being categorized as “criminal damage” instead of burglary. Or if there’s an instance of what they call “Grievous Bodily Harm,” it might get categorized as “common assault.” When they downgrade the category, it affects how crime statistics are eventually reported in the media, and those numbers are the ones that find their way to Piers Morgan, who then trumpets them from his TV show so that everyone knows how effective gun control is.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/3441/new-report-uk-...
Whether the crime of an assailant who inflicts grievous bodily harm with a baseball bat is classified as "grievous bodily harm" or "common assault" has not a friggin' thing to do with the rate of gun violence. similarly, if the crime of a burglar sans firearm is classified as "criminal damage" it has no effect on the calculated rate of GUN VIOLENCE. Rouge does not seem to understand that his examples are NOT CONNECTED TO MISREPRESENTATION OF INSTANCES OF GUN VIOLENCE.

Rougie needs to take a course in LOGIC.

"He claims gun violence is virtually nonexistent ..."

So Rougie, please explain how classification of a common burglary as criminal damage misrepresents GUN VIOLENCE.

Got a clue yet?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#176027 Oct 22, 2013
Jon Stewart rips into Obamacare, Obama’s approval rating continues to slide, and oh yeah, Canada has death panels… but it’s a good thing
Tuesday, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM EDT

In the wake of President Obama’s Obamacare pep rally in the Rose Garden yesterday, it does not appear as though anyone is buying the ‘don’t worry, our product is great’ message the President was trying to sell. Glenn opened the radio program this morning playing the nearly 10 minute scathing Obamacare critique that came courtesy of Jon Stewart last night on The Daily Show.

“You know what feels really good,” Glenn asked.“Just a moment of Jon Stewart seeing sanity. Here he is last night basically saying,‘Really, Obamacare? Bring it on.’”

According to Stewart, after the Republicans disastrous handling of the debt ceiling deal, all Democrats needed to do in order to secure a political advantage was execute the implementation of Obamacare in a “mildly competent” fashion. But, as Stewart openly admits, that certainly did not happen.

Watch Stewart’s Obamacare takedown via Comedy Central (Warning: Some strong language):

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176028 Oct 22, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
They do know everything Rogue, just disagree with one of them. We know that Barry is the leading expert in the country on Healthcare. He is also the leading expert on "green energy". He is also the leading expert on immigration. He is also the leading expert on education. He is also the worlds most brilliant economist. He is also the worlds leading expert on foreign policy. He is also the worlds leading expert on human rights. He is also an expert at creating jobs. He is the countries leading expert on arbitrating "fairness". He is also a leading expert on military strategy. He is also a christian, because he tells us he is, although his thin skin demeanor and inability to take responsibility for anything would cause one to question his sincerity. His experience as a community organizer, a TelePrompTer reader, and a constitutional "professor" is how he gained all that experience to make him all these things. If only George W. Bush and those pesky republicans had not made such a complicated mess of things, he would have been able to fix it all. Maybe if he turned to the private sector to help him solve some of these problems, like he has had to do with the healthcare website, rather then take it all on by his lonesome, we would be improving rather then continuing to stagnate. At least he has been able to work on his golf game extensively, since he doesn't have anything more important to do.
Well, Obama may not be the world's leading health care expert,but he has given the country a start.Which is more than any other administration can say.Your calling him "Barry" is a total sign of disrespect,btw;

Leading expert on "green energy"? Maybe not,but he's initiated it to a point.Green energy as opposed to fossil fuel is like the first cars were to the horse and buggy.You gotta go for it even though it is costing more than what we are using now.And remember, gas and maintenance of autos was much more expensive than hay and the occasional visit to the blacksmith;

On education,he may not be making it better,but it was not exactly world class when he got there.Let's hope he moves on that;

World's leading economist?He never claimed that title.That belonged to GWB and the wonderful legacy he left in 2008;

Foreign affairs?I find he has pretty good relations with rest of the world,much improved since he took office compared to the disastrous relations of the period 2000-2008.The two unfunded and unwarranted wars were no help;

Creating jobs?In December 2009, unemployment was over 10%.It's 7.2 as we speak. Yes,the numbers juggled.They've always been,why blame him?.It's probably more like 10,as the over 10%, GWB's legacy, was probably 15%;

Fairness?Do you find it fair that 50 million U.S. citizens have no health coverage,that over 100 million are expensively and badly covered?You like the status quo?;

Christian?What business is that of yours?If you want my opinion, he is a token Christian,too intelligent to believe in a so-called religion that teaches the opposite of what Christ taught us.Like all presidents except Carter,he goes to Church now and then to garner votes.All presidents did that,including the atheist or close-to-atheist Lincoln.What disturbs me most though,is that you wrote:" skin demeanor ".. that somehow affects his sincerity?;

What's wrong with being a community organiser?And he was more than that,having contacts and working amongst the poor.Harvard law review president.That doesn't count?Envy showing much?;

Golf game?Which president has taken the most annual leave? Hmmm, GWB?;

Turn to private corporations?The same ones that don't pay taxes and ship jobs and precious dollars offshore? Suuuuuure.The ones that are best places to "police" themselves?LMAO (LRs tm reg'd).

Now tell me I'm too often on Topix. Oh I checked, counted my posts for that last 24 hours. Added time spent reading others' and writing : About 45 minutes in all of 24 hrs.I don't spend one hr writing a post.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#176029 Oct 22, 2013
Here is something to chew on. Now we have the Supreme Court in it also!!!

SNOPES NO MORE!

Many of the emails that I have sent or forwarded that had any anti Obama in it were negated by Snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out.

Snopes, Soros, and the Supreme Court's Kagan. Well now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! Ya' don't suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do ya'?

We've known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn't known it to be financed by Soros!

Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a big time supporter of Obama and many other left wing organizations! In our Search for the truth department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions.

I went to Snopes to check something about the dockets of the new Supreme Court Justice. Elena Kagan, who Obama appointed, and Snopes said the email was false and there were no such dockets.
So I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what?

Yep, you got it; Snopes Lied! Everyone of those dockets are there.

So Here is what I wrote to Snopes:

Referencing the article about Elana Kagan and Barak Obama dockets:

The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false.

I went directly to the Supreme Courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to.

I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking.

Thank You. I hope you will be much more truthful in the future, but I doubt it.

That being said, Ill bet you didn't know this.

Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them.

Folks, this is really ugly. Chicago Politics at its best and the beat goes on and on and on.

Once again the US Senate sold us out!

Now we know why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama.

She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course.

They were never heard.

It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it?
The American people mean nothing any longer. It's all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone who really has no true right to even be there.

Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket:

You can look up some of these hearings and guess what? Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!
Check out these examples:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx...

If you are not interested in justice or in truth, simply delete.

However, if you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by the U.S. Constitution, by all means, PASS it ON!

There truly is tyranny afoot.

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
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 min Earthling-1 49,334
For a meat-centric dinner, meet at Skrine Chops (Jan '08) 1 hr Reddog 6
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr UnderstandPeople 1,156,051
delhi female 4 hr yatharth 1
Fight at Navy Pier 4 hr joey 1
abby 12-26 4 hr Mister Tonka 4
amy 12-26 5 hr Mister Tonka 4
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Colts' Complete Week 17 Preview vs. Titans
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
Bears vs. Vikings: What Experts Are Saying About Chicago
NBC Sports 6:03 AM
Jim Caldwell: No concerns about starting a rookie center
Bleacher Report 8:46 AM
What Are Experts Saying About Vikings?
NBC Sports11:28 AM
Bears extend Roberto Garza through 2015