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
155,521 - 155,540 of 176,789 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176247
Oct 24, 2013
 
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
The point I have made here is not only how quick those of you on the left are to defend Barry no matter what, but that the way the left manipulates words and uses half truths in their lying is what makes their lying so powerful. Like Congressman Grayson from Florida, who is just one example of the lying left and how outrageous they are, and mostly get a pass from the media.
"In January, CNN reported that allegations that Obama was educated in a madrassa were inaccurate, after Insight Magazine had first spread the rumors. Weeks ago, the Washington Post resurfaced the story in a front page article that painted the madrassa rumors as part of a greater smear campaign against Obama. The paper was widely criticized for failing to point out that the allegations were proven false.
In a technical sense, Kerrey's words were not entirely untrue. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the term madrassa means a "Muslim school, college or university that is often part of a mosque." And Obama has acknowleged that as a child in Indonesia he did attend a "Muslim school."
However, madrassa is a charged word because of the schools' connections to radical Islam. Obama has consistently denied that he was educated in this type of system."
You are so sold out to the right wing alliances and anti-Obama and Murdoch factions that you believe anything they say and publish. It's well-known what schools Obama frequented whilst in Indonesia and none were Moslem. And what if they were? But they were not. Also, you said earlier he had been in Indonesia for almost 10 years. Why? 4 years max is the period he spent there.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176248
Oct 24, 2013
 
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so sold out to the right wing alliances and anti-Obama and Murdoch factions that you believe anything they say and publish. It's well-known what schools Obama frequented whilst in Indonesia and none were Moslem. And what if they were? But they were not. Also, you said earlier he had been in Indonesia for almost 10 years. Why? 4 years max is the period he spent there.
I apologize. I should not have written "You are so sold out to the right wing alliances". I should have written something like "why do you believe right wing media... as long as they rail against Obama? " or something to that effect?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176249
Oct 24, 2013
 
Ellen1 wrote:
Re: "And Obama has acknowleged that as a child in Indonesia he did attend a "Muslim school."
Please provide words in which he "acknowledged." He acknowledged that he attended school in Indonesia, for sure, and Indonesia is a Muslim country. But where did he say that he attended a "Muslim school"? A Catholic school is not a Muslim school, so that cannot be it, and a public school is not a "Muslim school" either. So, where did Obama say it. Articles claiming that "Obama acknowledged it" are not proof. They can claim that he "acknowledged" all that they want to. Unless there are words "I attended a Muslim school"--he DIDN'T "acknowledge," and more importantly, he didn't attend.
You wrote : ""And Obama has acknowleged that as a child in Indonesia he did attend a "Muslim school."

Please provide words in which he "acknowledged"

I'm also very curious. But don't hold your breath. They hear it, they like it, and they make it come true. That is why the score is now 0-210
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176250
Oct 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Learn to Read wrote:
Looks like Romper is having a bad day - even by Birfoon standards
You should stop trying to think.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176252
Oct 24, 2013
 
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Let us not forget that young Barry, from age 3 I think until 10, was officially an adopted citizen of Indonesia....
How does go about becoming an "officially an adopted citizen of Indonesia back in the 1960s?

Let's find out by actually reading the applicable Indoonesian statutes governing adoptions and citizenships during that time period.

Adoption:

The law in question is Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, 62/1958 for short. Assuming an adoption took place, it would fall under Article 2 of this law.
"Article 2.

(1)A foreign child of less THAN 5 YEARS AGE who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child." (emphasis added)

Note the age limit there - less than 5 years of age. Lolo Soetoro married Stanley Ann Dunham in either 1966 or 1967. This would have made Obama either five or six - over the age limit according to Indonesian law. Furthermore, they didn't move to Indonesia until 1967, when Obama was six years old.

Therefore, under Indonesian law, there was no way via adoption that Indonesian citizenship could have been granted to Barack Obama.

Indonesian citizenship:

In order to apply for an Indonesian citizenship, a foreigner must have lived in the country for a consecutive period of at least five years, or 10 years not consecutively. Law No. 62/1958

As such, Obama, being a foreigner in Indonesia, in order to obtain an Indonesian passport would have to live in Indonesia for at least five years or ten years not consecutively. Clearly, by only being in Indonesia for THREE years as a minor, he couldn't have obtained an Indonesian passport.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176253
Oct 24, 2013
 
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
What? We can't hear you, Mr. 6 Year Old!
"We"?

Now which cases have the Justices of the Play Court remanded lately? And who is listening?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The barely literate Play Justice will "review" issues in his Play High Court if they are "worthy".
How sad.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176254
Oct 24, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
"We"?
Now which cases have the Justices of the Play Court remanded lately? And who is listening?
<quoted text>
Yes Mr. 6 Year Old, "we"! LMAO! Watch your back.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176255
Oct 24, 2013
 
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Mr. 6 Year Old, "we"! LMAO! Watch your back.
"We"?

Sorry, Mr. Nobody, no one cares about your delusions.

Now which precedential opinions have issued from the High Play Court? And which courts are bound by Play Court precedent?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
"We"?
Now which cases have the Justices of the Play Court remanded lately? And who is listening?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176256
Oct 24, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
"We"?
Sorry, Mr. Nobody, no one cares about your delusions.
Now which precedential opinions have issued from the High Play Court? And which courts are bound by Play Court precedent?
<quoted text>
We? R U hard of hearing, HUH? Please say you think someone on here actually cares what you have to say. LMAO! That is what you call a delusion, Mr. 6 Year Old in a wet diaper. LMAO! loser scumbag you reek badly

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176257
Oct 24, 2013
 
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
We? R U hard of hearing, HUH? Please say you think someone on here actually cares what you have to say. LMAO! That is what you call a delusion, Mr. 6 Year Old in a wet diaper. LMAO! loser scumbag you reek badly
I'm not the pathetic delusional paranoid loser issuing laughable "watch your back" fatwas.

"We"? You and the voices in your head cannot get permission to go outside and play.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
"We"?
Sorry, Mr. Nobody, no one cares about your delusions.
Now which precedential opinions have issued from the High Play Court? And which courts are bound by Play Court precedent?
<quoted text>

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176258
Oct 24, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
"We"?
Sorry, Mr. Nobody, no one cares about your delusions.
Now which precedential opinions have issued from the High Play Court? And which courts are bound by Play Court precedent?
<quoted text>
LMAO (LRS-Dale tm reg'd). We? Who is we? How about Siamese twins LRS and Dale, with two imaginary beautiful nurse girl friends along with the girl friends' equally imaginary Nobel medicine prize winning brother, real but suffering step mother in constant fear of hearing "kerplunk", with, for added fun, Rogue, Frank, American er hmm Lady, Rush whom I suspect makes up the Dale/LRS/Rush trinity, GB KFC and some other assorted unfunny boorish characters.
Grand Bither

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176259
Oct 24, 2013
 

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176260
Oct 24, 2013
 
Er, Justice ha ha LMAO (LRS-Dale tm reg'd) LRS , still working on that confession draft I prepared for you? I'm willing to go over it with you.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176261
Oct 24, 2013
 
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>You should stop trying to think.
Poor Romper. Why does it feel like everyone is laughing at you?

Oh - that's right - we are
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176262
Oct 24, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>"We"?

Sorry, Mr. Nobody, no one cares about your delusions.

Now which precedential opinions have issued from the High Play Court? And which courts are bound by Play Court precedent?

wojar wrote, "
<quoted text>
"We"?
Now which cases have the Justices of the Play Court remanded lately? And who is listening?"
You forget. Romper and his 27 cousins live in a gas station. They do EVERYTHING together

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176264
Oct 24, 2013
 
Naw, the Fed ain't worried. Why would they want the banks to have more cash on hand? For the very same reason why FDR caused a double-dip depression, Obama will cause a double-dip recession. And who will he blame? Bush? It's been five years now and Obama owns this economy which ever way it goes and right now it looks baaaddddddd!

Fed Proposes Big Banks Hold More Cash, Assets
WASHINGTON October 24, 2013 (AP)
By MARCY GORDON AP Business Writer
Associated Press

The Federal Reserve on Thursday proposed that big banks keep enough cash, government bonds and other high-quality assets on hand to survive during a severe downturn on par with the 2008 financial crisis.

The proposal subjects U.S. banks for the first time to so-called "liquidity" requirements. Liquidity is the ability to access cash quickly.

The largest banks those with more than $250 billion in assets would be required to hold enough cash and securities to fund their operations for 30 days during a time of market stress. Smaller banks those with more than $50 billion and less than $250 billion would have to keep enough to cover 21 days.

Fed officials said the rules are stronger than new international standards for banks. Combined, the largest banks would have to hold an estimated $2 trillion in high-quality assets to meet the requirement. The banks already hold roughly 90 percent of that amount, according to the Fed.

The public has 90 days to comment on the proposal, which was approved unanimously by the Fed's 6-member board of governors. After that the rules would be phased in beginning January 2015.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/fed-...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176265
Oct 24, 2013
 
Grand Bither wrote:
https://twitter.com/arimelber/ status/393514920081244160
Do you know why "only 6% of Americans knows it"? Because it ain't true! Keep gulping that Red Koolaide and you will never see the bus run over you!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176266
Oct 24, 2013
 
Grand Bither wrote:
https://twitter.com/arimelber/ status/393514920081244160
How do they know what will happen in 2014?
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176267
Oct 24, 2013
 
Calderon wrote:
pobama25@yahoo. com is the best, i ordered a Brazilian Passport from Him Last week Friday and got It today Thursday, I'm so Happy.
Oh look - the brightest bulb in the bin

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176268
Oct 24, 2013
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Naw, the Fed ain't worried. Why would they want the banks to have more cash on hand? For the very same reason why FDR caused a double-dip depression, Obama will cause a double-dip recession. And who will he blame? Bush? It's been five years now and Obama owns this economy which ever way it goes and right now it looks baaaddddddd!
Fed Proposes Big Banks Hold More Cash, Assets
WASHINGTON October 24, 2013 (AP)
By MARCY GORDON AP Business Writer
Associated Press
The Federal Reserve on Thursday proposed that big banks keep enough cash, government bonds and other high-quality assets on hand to survive during a severe downturn on par with the 2008 financial crisis.
The proposal subjects U.S. banks for the first time to so-called "liquidity" requirements. Liquidity is the ability to access cash quickly.
The largest banks those with more than $250 billion in assets would be required to hold enough cash and securities to fund their operations for 30 days during a time of market stress. Smaller banks those with more than $50 billion and less than $250 billion would have to keep enough to cover 21 days.
Fed officials said the rules are stronger than new international standards for banks. Combined, the largest banks would have to hold an estimated $2 trillion in high-quality assets to meet the requirement. The banks already hold roughly 90 percent of that amount, according to the Fed.
The public has 90 days to comment on the proposal, which was approved unanimously by the Fed's 6-member board of governors. After that the rules would be phased in beginning January 2015.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/fed-...
Perhaps if GWB had done that (increase cash holdings), perhaps he wouldn't have had to bail out the big banks. It's called liquidity or cash on the barrelhead, Rogue.

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.

Other Recent Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min John Galt 1,096,022
Amy 8-21 5 min PEllen 14
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 15 min KiMare 49,263
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr truth-facts 46,238
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 hr Ratloder 68,294
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr Toj 97,823
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 5 hr Doug77 4,636

Search the Chicago Forum:
•••
•••

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 ]
•••