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

Full story: Chicago Tribune

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 ...
Comments
155,341 - 155,360 of 176,908 Comments Last updated 6 min ago
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176051
Oct 22, 2013
 
coreylane wrote:
enough with this birth certificate thing
Corey with 3 posts? Is that you, Corey? LMAO!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176052
Oct 22, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Huh? "A child born of citizen parents"?
Sorry, loser, no such thing in de Vatell's tome.
De Vattel spoke of children born of citizen parents, NEVER a child born of citizen parents.
In the former case, children are referred to collectively, in the latter, individually. Please, loser, go to college, but learn how to read first.
LMAO!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176053
Oct 22, 2013
 
TaDa!

Another indication to the meaning of the term may be found in the Supreme Court's definition of "natural born citizen" as "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 1875).
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176054
Oct 22, 2013
 
The last part is also this nation's biggest problem.

The Constitution clearly and explicitly excludes ordinary citizenship for presidency: ordinary citizenship was reserved only for the presidential candidates - contemporaries of the Framers (referred as the grandfather clause). Definitely the "Natural born citizenship" is not the same as ordinary citizenship, but something stronger. By not explicitly quoting the Vattel's definition, the Constitution therefore leaves some room for confusions.(Many such confusions resulted of deliberate efforts of "progressives" to erode the basic constitutional concepts inconvenient for them).
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176055
Oct 22, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Justice LRS wrote, "<quoted text>
A child born of citizen parentS. Thank you. Second generation at least! LMAO! moronic twit"

Huh? "A child born of citizen parents"?

Sorry, loser, no such thing in de Vatell's tome.

De Vattel spoke of children born of citizen parents, NEVER a child born of citizen parents.

In the former case, children are referred to collectively, in the latter, individually. Please, loser, go to college, but learn how to read first.

Expecting Romper to know that 5 is greater than 1? You obviously have a much higher opinion of Romper than his mom does
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176056
Oct 22, 2013
 
Justice LRS wrote:
TaDa!

Another indication to the meaning of the term may be found in the Supreme Court's definition of "natural born citizen" as "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 1875).
And Romper clings to the same tired fableS.

Sorry Romper - "you're" misunderstanding of Minor v Happersett is consistent. But wrong
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176057
Oct 22, 2013
 
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Expecting Romper to know that 5 is greater than 1? You obviously have a much higher opinion of Romper than his mom does
Truly riveting material, fluffybritches!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176058
Oct 22, 2013
 
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
And Romper clings to the same tired fableS.
Sorry Romper - "you're" misunderstanding of Minor v Happersett is consistent. But wrong
Your interpretation is incorrect. Convenient but incorrect just the same. LMAO!

Bye now Fluffy! LMAO

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176059
Oct 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
That's really too bad fer ya, kid. Guess you should carry your commie azz to another country, huh? Or, maybe you could return to your grass hut mansion! Tip: when rebuilding, start with the ground floor! LMAO!
It's too bad for Louisiana Loser.

His Play Law was never the law in this country. It's a little late to carry all those alleged commie asses from the first half of the 19th century to communist countries that did not even exist at the time.

Sorry.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad BirfoonBoy has no rebuttal?
Yup, too bad, loser.
If Vattel's rules were the law, there would have been MILLIONS of persons ineligible to vote, ineligible for intestate inheritance. Pray tell Vattel's rule was law and nobody ever followed it and NOBODY EVER NOTICED? Is that the ticket?
Eh, sonny?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176060
Oct 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Expecting Romper to know that 5 is greater than 1? You obviously have a much higher opinion of Romper than his mom does
I'm expecting he doesn't even know what "greater than" means.

And I think his mom has the same expectation.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176061
Oct 22, 2013
 
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>Your interpretation is incorrect. Convenient but incorrect just the same. LMAO!

Bye now Fluffy! LMAO
Sure - every court and legal scholar agrees with me, but Romper's magic 8 ball says otherwise ....

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176062
Oct 22, 2013
 
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for the honest answer. So, in a normal day you understand nothing anyone says to you. I'm not surprised. LMAO!
I understand your failure to comprehend English, PERFECTLY.

Hey loser, did you score in the top 5% of college graduates in the GRE verbal test?

The birfoon's problem is that no sane person "understands" birfoon reasoning to be sane.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that birfoon does not understand what he is saying.
If a group children, each with one of their parents parents, were in separate rooms, and then got together for dinner, one may ask, are the children and their parents assembled yet in the dining room? Using birfoons logic, the answer could never be “yes” because "both parentS [hee hee]" of each child were not present. That is simply irrational and illustrates a certain degree of cognitive dysfunction in birfoons.
BirfoonBoy needs psychiatric help.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176063
Oct 22, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>I understand your failure to comprehend English, PERFECTLY.

Hey loser, did you score in the top 5% of college graduates in the GRE verbal test?

The birfoon's problem is that no sane person "understands" birfoon reasoning to be sane.

wojar wrote, "
<quoted text>
The problem is that birfoon does not understand what he is saying.
If a group children, each with one of their parents parents, were in separate rooms, and then got together for dinner, one may ask, are the children and their parents assembled yet in the dining room? Using birfoons logic, the answer could never be “yes” because "both parentS [hee hee]" of each child were not present. That is simply irrational and illustrates a certain degree of cognitive dysfunction in birfoons.
BirfoonBoy needs psychiatric help."
Romper did get a "check minus" on staying within the lines while using crayons ....

Please try to control your envy

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176064
Oct 22, 2013
 
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you make excuse after excuse for ObobbleHead? 45 minutes, my azz! LMAO! Good one.
Maybe less than 45 minutes. But a poor reader and writer the likes of you would never believe that. It's okay, you don't count.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176065
Oct 22, 2013
 
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Thank you, it's French, and anglicised.

Can we get back to being civil again?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176066
Oct 22, 2013
 
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO! Oops is right, nitwit! LMAO! Pizz poor job of altering! But then again, you are only 6. LMAO!
Loser caught in flagrante delicto.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Oops!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176067
Oct 22, 2013
 
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Not your strong suit, analogies, are they? When I say he would not give them the time of day, or would not talk to these right wing birfoon buffoons, I meant he would not associate with them. However, you bet your bottom dollar he'd associate with the likes of JFK, Carter, Clinton, Gore, Biden, Obama, Hillary Clinton etc. Never mind their politics, not important. They are intelligent and interesting and often witty. Most Repubs don't offer any of that. Well, with Reagan, yes. He WAS funny, witty, best speaker but a mediocre president. Still, interesting to hang around with, I guess. Also Einsenhower.

Question for you. You're on a deserted island, stuck there for life . You have the following choice of people who would share this atoll with you . Never mind their politics :

Romney or Obama
Biden or Ryan
Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin (hard choice, yes , true)
Nixon or Carter
GWB or Gore (hard one too, both funny at times)
Gingrich and Harry Reid
Limbaugh and Jon Stewart
O'reilly and Colbert
Trump and Bill Gates

Remember, no politics
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176068
Oct 22, 2013
 
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>Not your strong suit, analogies, are they? When I say he would not give them the time of day, or would not talk to these right wing birfoon buffoons, I meant he would not associate with them. However, you bet your bottom dollar he'd associate with the likes of JFK, Carter, Clinton, Gore, Biden, Obama, Hillary Clinton etc. Never mind their politics, not important. They are intelligent and interesting and often witty. Most Repubs don't offer any of that. Well, with Reagan, yes. He WAS funny, witty, best speaker but a mediocre president. Still, interesting to hang around with, I guess. Also Einsenhower.

Question for you. You're on a deserted island, stuck there for life . You have the following choice of people who would share this atoll with you . Never mind their politics :

Romney or Obama
Biden or Ryan
Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin (hard choice, yes , true)
Nixon or Carter
GWB or Gore (hard one too, both funny at times)
Gingrich and Harry Reid
Limbaugh and Jon Stewart
O'reilly and Colbert
Trump and Bill Gates

Remember, no politics
Dear Jercque. Please employ your favorite phrase. "Your" whining is far too boring

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176069
Oct 22, 2013
 
Joe OBiden wrote:
<quoted text>
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?!?
Reagan was smart, had to be to achieve the presidency. That goes for pretty much any president. Wise? Not really. Compassionate? Not really. Witty, humourous, pleasant? YES

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176070
Oct 22, 2013
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
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.
You wrote, incredibly so : "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."

You really really think that Snopes would censor you? LMAO (LRS tm reg'd). You flatter yourself, and immensely at that. Do you think they'd take the time to even LOOK at your missives? They don't look at mine, they don't look at yours.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••

Flood Warning for Cook County was issued at August 22 at 8:29PM CDT

•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••