BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 194461 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.

wojar

Mesa, AZ

#179247 Nov 13, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! I accomplished exactly what I set out to do! The Law of Nations (by Vattel) did have an input into our Constitution or was Ken a liar.
Sure loser, we had a two citizen parent rule but nobody knew it for over 200 years until Dufus came along.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179248 Nov 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
How can they pass laws giving you money? They gave most of it to Halliburton.
There you go again talking about something you know little about. I have worked for the DoD CO (Contracting Officer) and I know there is constant arbitration as things change in small unexpected reasons.
I remember when a civilian contracted Instructor pilot crashed an aircraft and was found to have a BAC of about 0.12 (he's drunk). The Army could not fire him and the contractor would not, so the Army did the next best thing and said he could not fly any Army aircraft. What good is an instructor pilot who was not allowed to get into a U.S. Army aircraft? The Army made their point!!!
WhiteCollarCrime

West Sayville, NY

#179250 Nov 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
This post is in serious contention for the "Stupid post of the year". Until now, LRS, Truth Detector (GB aka KFC), Rogue, American Putin Lady, Frank et al were in a dead head stupidity-wise for the top prize. But at the very last minute, you've snatched the trophy away, passed them all and, barring more stupidity from the aforementioned birthers, you are a cinch to win the grand buffoonery prize. Bravo.
Absolutely agree!

Fox News makes (Don't Snow Me) Stupid!

ROTFL

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179251 Nov 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
I know Jacqueau thinks Reuters is a neutral source that does not lean either right or left but they do lean a lot to the left so when they say Clinton "nudge"-ed the Democrats, it is a big understatement.
Without calling Obama a liar, Bill Clinton has called him a ... LIAR!
With a nudge from Bill Clinton, Democrats seek to tweak health law
Reuters By Roberta Rampton and Thomas Ferraro 12 hours ago
By Roberta Rampton and Thomas Ferraro
Related Stories
Bill Clinton Says Health Law May Need to Be Changed The Wall Street Journal
Obama gets earful from Senate Democrats about health law woes Reuters
Obama blames 'bad apple' insurers for canceled coverage Reuters
Obama apologizes to people losing health coverage Associated Press
How Democrats Are Trying to Fix, But Not Criticize, Obamacare The Atlantic Wire
WASHINGTON (Reuters)- The growing pressure on President Barack Obama to adjust his problem-plagued healthcare law seemed to boil over on Tuesday, as leaders of Obama's Democratic Party called on him to allow a change in the law so that Americans who are happy with their health plans could keep them.
In what became the clearest sign yet of Democrats' increasing anxiety over the troubled rollout of the healthcare law, former President Bill Clinton told the web magazine Ozymandias that Obama should support such a change to fulfill a promise he and his administration have made to Americans for years.
"I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got," Clinton told the magazine.
http://news.yahoo.com/nudge-bill-clinton-demo...
I reflected yesterday, and many times before, how you do not read, and when rarely you do, you do not comprehend what it is you read. And your post (above) is the perfect example of that. I've said at least 5 times that Reuters is Canadian-owned by the Thompson family, the richest in Canada and conservative. I've said that Reuters leans centre-right, NOT NEUTRAL as you maintain I said. I added that although centre-right, Reuters reports the news pretty much as is, though giving slightly greater prominence to centre-right successes.

As to Clinton and Feinstein, if I may add her, saying Obama should do the right thing, well, Rogue, you are so used to Republican party discipline (ALL repub congressmen AND senators UNANIMOUSLY voting against Obamacare...yeah, suuure, give us a break) that you think Clinton and Feinstein cannot admonish the president to do the "right thing" and still be in step with him on mostly everything else. Live and learn, Rogue.

BTW, this unfortunate 5% problem means Obama kept 95% of his promise - though he intended 100%. Know any president who delivered better than 95% of a promise?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179252 Nov 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
How can they pass laws giving you money? They gave most of it to Halliburton.
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again talking about something you know little about. I have worked for the DoD CO (Contracting Officer) and I know there is constant arbitration as things change in small unexpected reasons.
I remember when a civilian contracted Instructor pilot crashed an aircraft and was found to have a BAC of about 0.12 (he's drunk). The Army could not fire him and the contractor would not, so the Army did the next best thing and said he could not fly any Army aircraft. What good is an instructor pilot who was not allowed to get into a U.S. Army aircraft? The Army made their point!!!
My only response to the above irrelevant post/reply is :????????

As a matter of fact, and if you read Time Magazine, Vanity Fair exposés and many others, you will see, as if you didn't know, that Halliburton got most of its contract for U.S. military in Iraq untendered, that its former CEO, president Dick Cheney, still had sizeable holding of stock in Halliburton, and that said company got the bulk through untendered contracts, of the New Orleans reconstruction projects, of which over $1.3 billion is still unaccounted for.
WhiteCollarCrime

West Sayville, NY

#179253 Nov 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Another empty threat. Took Obama to carry it out for him.
Very true, General Tommy Franks wanted to finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and then invade Somalia and Yemen two other al Qaeda strongholds.

President Halliburton Cheney, Vice President Rummy and the Dummy Bush wanted Iraq which had no al Qaeda and ZERO threat to anyone except Saddam's own people.

==========

It's still about oil in Iraq /http://tinyurl.com/y28lea December 8, 2006
A centerpiece of the Iraq Study Group's report is its advocacy for securing foreign companies' long-term access to Iraqi oil fields.
WHILE THE Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence.

Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.

The report makes visible to everyone the elephant in the room: that we are fighting, killing and dying in a war for oil. It states in plain language that the U.S. government should use every tool at its disposal to ensure that American oil interests and those of its corporations are met.
It's spelled out in Recommendation No. 63, which calls on the U.S. to "assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise" and to "encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies." This recommendation would turn Iraq's nationalized oil industry into a commercial entity that could be partly or fully privatized by foreign firms.

This is an echo of calls made before and immediately after the invasion of Iraq.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-juh...

-------

Australian Nelson: Oil a factor in Iraq deployment
July 5, 2007 / http://tinyurl.com/ywcn24
The Howard Government has today admitted that securing oil supplies is a factor in Australia's continued military involvement in Iraq.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said today oil was a factor in Australia's contribution to the unpopular war, as "energy security" and stability in the Middle East would be crucial to the nation's future.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/howard...

------

U.S. General Abizaid Says 'Of Course It's About Oil'
Oct 16 2007 http://tinyurl.com/8euvsca
Retired General John Abizaid, the former CENTCOM Commander, said on Saturday about the Iraq war that, "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that." More from Matt at Think Progress:
Abizaid has previously argued that the U.S. would need "to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq" in order to protect "the free flow of goods and resources" such as oil, but his Stanford comments go much further in pinning oil as a prime motivator for the war.
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/16/headli...

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#179254 Nov 13, 2013
Jacqves,
I take no delight in the death of any man.
However, in the Inhofe the Younger's case I will not lose a wink of sleep.
He had no business flying that jet. The man was incompetent and he proved it in flying colors.
loose
WhiteCollarCrime

West Sayville, NY

#179255 Nov 13, 2013
dont snow me wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't mean that, except the part about the crooked, dishonest,criminal, lying dirtbag dems in the government.
Funneled what money from the poor? They don't pay any money.
Me thinks you're seen too many Oliver Stone movies.
8 years of Bush/Cheney crimes were swept under the rug by Obama who continued most of them.

You should love Obama for protecting Bush/Cheney and Wall Street.

Sad, but true!

Did America win the war on poverty?

Did America win the war on alcohol?

Did America win the war on drugs?

Did America win the war on gambling?

Did America win the war on prostitution?

Did America win the war on crime?

Did America win the war on evil?

Did America win the war on terrorism?

I THINK NOT! SMARTEN UP!

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#179256 Nov 13, 2013
Jacques,
I will not grieve for the Inhofe's of the world no matter what, when or how.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#179257 Nov 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, only because Russia pulled the carpet from under Obama's feet!!!
Bwahahahahahahahaha! It is called diplomacy. I realize that you never worked on station but getting others to do your heavy lifting is exactly what that entails.
Blame who? The Insurance companies? WHY, because nuns do not need pregnancy care or child dental care?
ObamaCare is a bad law!!!
Not according to those who had none and can now obtain it.

Nuns? Fine, if you want to discuss people who comprise a sliver of the nation's population, go for it. I can counter with millions who were precluded from healthcare coverage due to genetic predisposition or a pre-existing condition. You choose to protect nuns and I demand that those with cancer, cardiac issues, hereditary diseases and anomalies have health care coverage.

I had a relative who was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. MS is a brutal disease - it wastes the body and resources. When her husband's health care limits were reached, she was cast aside - her family forced to pay for the next eight years of her life. The couple were forced to sell their home and move in with one of their children because they could not pay mortgage and tax bills. She died and left him broke and broken hearted.

Your answer is to whine. I choose to care.

For the record, I have not yet seen a credible news story involving nuns being forced to accept such coverage. Still, my insurance plan covers eye care even though I have 20/15 vision. Just because it is there doesn't mean I am required to use it.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179258 Nov 13, 2013
loose cannon wrote:
Jacques,
I will not grieve for the Inhofe's of the world no matter what, when or how.
Nobody's asking you to grieve, but why are you dancing on his grave? Was he a criminal?

As to feathering the prop, you're right, you don't know aviation. Maybe Rogue can answer you, I can't. But the guy was not only a licenced twin-engine pilot, he was a flight instructor. Do you know for a fact that he did not effect feathering, or that he tried and failed as the engine spooled or something, maybe?

The way you talk about this guy getting his "just desserts", one would think he was Hitler's son or something. And you're an ER doctor? I guess, if he had lived and brought to your ER, you would've skirted your Hippocratic Oath and refused to tend to him. Bravo.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Mesa, AZ

#179259 Nov 13, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.
Except for the US which is not an independent nation because, according to Dufus, US citizenship law is subservient to British citizenship law.

Moronic.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#179260 Nov 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again talking about something you know little about. I have worked for the DoD CO (Contracting Officer) and I know there is constant arbitration as things change in small unexpected reasons.
As a nephew, I can attest to tremendous waste during the most recent conflicts. One that grated on all of us involved MWRs and the many variations of same. To the uninitiated, these are places where we could go to get a meal, take a decent shower, contact loved ones, watch TV or a movie, play a game or just get away from the chaos that controlled our lives. When personnel entered the facility, the vendor was supposed to charge one fee. Instead, they charged multiple fees for the same personnel. Say Corporal Smith wanted some chow, cha-ching. He left that unit and decided to call home, cha ching. A friend told him that he could find a couple Lazy Boys and a movie in the next unit so he heads there, cha ching. What should have been one fee becomes three. Halibiurton owned these vendors. The GAO finally uncovered the theft years and billions later.
I remember when a civilian contracted Instructor pilot crashed an aircraft and was found to have a BAC of about 0.12 (he's drunk). The Army could not fire him and the contractor would not, so the Army did the next best thing and said he could not fly any Army aircraft. What good is an instructor pilot who was not allowed to get into a U.S. Army aircraft? The Army made their point!!!
You just confounded your argument. The contractor was not allowed to work but was paid - sadly, that happens every day in America. From sports stars to teachers, being stupid is often ignored due to the law. With your example, he was prevented from costing the nation more. His salary is a rule of law though.

The Green Zone in Iraq was the wild west. Contractors acted like they were above reproach and often were. A guy would be fired from Acme and turn up at Wiley soon after. The contracts agreed to were pretty iron clad. Pay or we go away was the mantra. It took Nisour Square to get Congress to wake up. Morality clauses now exist in every agreement.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#179262 Nov 13, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! I accomplished exactly what I set out to do! The Law of Nations (by Vattel) did have an input into our Constitution or was Ken a liar.
Maybe, but there is no evidence that it affected the Natural Born Citizen clause. If the writers of the US Constitution had used Vattel and not the common law (which, duh, was common, well known) for the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO---and they didn't (and, in fact, they did not mention Vattel in the Federalist Papers at all).

And we have the examples of Tucker and Rawle who knew the members of the Constitutional convention and who used Natural Born Citizen the way that it was used in the common law:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#179263 Nov 13, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Irrelevant!!! The Constitution says who will be citizens of the US, those that are only subject to the jurisdiction, thereof.
Every person in the USA except for foreign diplomats and their families is subject to the USA. Every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders is a Natural Born US Citizen.

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.”— Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)

"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other.“Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297... )

"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

More reading on the subject:

http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/3...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obama...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-cit...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179264 Nov 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 95 wrote:
I remember when a civilian contracted Instructor pilot crashed an aircraft and was found to have a BAC of about 0.12 (he's drunk). The Army could not fire him and the contractor would not, so the Army did the next best thing and said he could not fly any Army aircraft. What good is an instructor pilot who was not allowed to get into a U.S. Army aircraft? The Army made their point!!!
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You just confounded your argument. The contractor was not allowed to work but was paid - sadly, that happens every day in America. From sports stars to teachers, being stupid is often ignored due to the law. With your example, he was prevented from costing the nation more. His salary is a rule of law though.
The Green Zone in Iraq was the wild west. Contractors acted like they were above reproach and often were. A guy would be fired from Acme and turn up at Wiley soon after. The contracts agreed to were pretty iron clad. Pay or we go away was the mantra. It took Nisour Square to get Congress to wake up. Morality clauses now exist in every agreement.
No I did not! The contractor had to hire anther Instructor pilot and terminate the one who could not get into an Army aircraft.
And YOU have personal information on military contracts? Or is it what information you have received came from George Soros approved sources?
And from what I understand about Nisour Square is typical Muslim tactics, They surround themselves with innocent people when they attack hoping some innocent people will be killed.
Why do you think Muslims bomb each others mosques? Do Christians bomb each other's churches? Not to the extent that Muslims do.
Muslim's believe that innocent people who are caught up in a fight will go to heaven so they do not see it as a bad thing. They value system is not the same as ours.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179265 Nov 13, 2013
How many bad guys were involved in the ambush? We don't know but we do know that three were killed. It was the bad guys who put innocent people in harms way and the prosecution of the Blackwater people was based solely on POLITICS!!!
Just like the Geo. Zimmerman case. Politic and not law.

Blackwater Baghdad shootings
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The FBI investigation found that, of the 17 Iraqis killed by the guards, at least 14 were without cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghd...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179266 Nov 13, 2013
Oh, do you know that during WWII we bombed an orphanage in Germany? It was right next to a military target but back them we did not have munitions that were as accurate as they are today.
By the way, the 1957 movie 'Battle Hymn' was based on that incident in which 37 orphans were killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Hymn_%28f...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#179267 Nov 13, 2013
Re: "Muslim's believe that innocent people who are caught up in a fight will go to heaven so they do not see it as a bad thing. They value system is not the same as ours. "

Answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaud_Amalric

Re: "Do Christians bomb each other's churches?"

Answer: Yes, in the 30-years war---and, of course, in the US South during the Civil Rights Movement.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179268 Nov 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I reflected yesterday, and many times before, how you do not read, and when rarely you do, you do not comprehend what it is you read. And your post (above) is the perfect example of that. I've said at least 5 times that Reuters is Canadian-owned by the Thompson family, the richest in Canada and conservative. I've said that Reuters leans centre-right, NOT NEUTRAL as you maintain I said. I added that although centre-right, Reuters reports the news pretty much as is, though giving slightly greater prominence to centre-right successes.
As to Clinton and Feinstein, if I may add her, saying Obama should do the right thing, well, Rogue, you are so used to Republican party discipline (ALL repub congressmen AND senators UNANIMOUSLY voting against Obamacare...yeah, suuure, give us a break) that you think Clinton and Feinstein cannot admonish the president to do the "right thing" and still be in step with him on mostly everything else. Live and learn, Rogue.
BTW, this unfortunate 5% problem means Obama kept 95% of his promise - though he intended 100%. Know any president who delivered better than 95% of a promise?
I don't care who owns Reuters or how Conservative or Liberal the owner is. Reuters leans left and the only reason why you do not accept that is because you are further left than they are so to you they appear to conservative.
I am only Conservative on the size of government and fiscal issues but I am a moderate on religious and social issues but to you I am a loony-righty!
Libertarians are ultra-fiscal conservatives and ultra-small government but extremely Liberal on social and religious issues.

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) 6 min Yeah 1,263,144
Opportunity knocks at the door only once. 21 min Q372725176 degree 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Mothra 54,345
Cheap Kitchen Cabinets Door For Sale UK 1 hr drisa22 1
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 hr TRD 70,142
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr Rose of Tralee 100,287
abby7-30-15 4 hr mrs gladys kravitz 6
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages