BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 216905 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.

Frank

Spokane, WA

#187755 Apr 1, 2014
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree. Blindly following anyone is for idiots. So is blindly hating
Isn't hating our country,hating? Isn't hating Republicans,hating? Isn't hating the American work ethic,hating? Isn't hating our prosperity,hating? Isn't hating our Constitution,hating? Isn't hating the free market,hating? Isn't hating liberty,hating? Obama is a hater.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#187756 Apr 1, 2014
Grand Birther wrote:
Ronald "Hollywood" Reagan spent his second term in diapers drooling on a bib.
Ronald Reagan was five hundred thousand times better than Obama. Any one on the first fifty pages of any telephone book would be better than Obama.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#187758 Apr 2, 2014
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't hating our country,hating? Isn't hating Republicans,hating? Isn't hating the American work ethic,hating? Isn't hating our prosperity,hating? Isn't hating our Constitution,hating? Isn't hating the free market,hating? Isn't hating liberty,hating? Obama is a hater.
Frank just projected all his own attributes on to Obama. Poor pathetic Frank
Linktv org

New Brunswick, NJ

#187759 Apr 2, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm, count on good ole reliable Adam to either ignore your post and links or change the subject. It's what birthers do. And birthers applaud, lol, give high ratings.
They are fixated with all corporate Svengali rightwing talking air heads.
Linktv org

New Brunswick, NJ

#187760 Apr 2, 2014
Adam 36 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know the 911 Commission did not know the FBI had a mole inside al qaeda close to bin laden?
The 911 Commission report is worthless...
FBI failed to disclose its Al-Qaeda mole to 9/11 Commission
http://rt.com/usa/fbi-informant-knew-bin-lade...
I agree the 911 commission was not allowed to dig deeper because the Bush administration did not allow them to.

----------

‘He Kept Us Safe’: Bush Ignored Repeated Warnings Of Terrorist Attack
September 11, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/9fwn5gl
During the festival of falsehood held by Republicans in Tampa two weeks ago, perhaps the very biggest lie emanated from the mouth of Jeb Bush, the Florida politician, entrepreneur, and potential heir to the GOP presidential dynasty.
“My brother, well” began Jeb, referring to former president George W. Bush,“I love my brother”— and then went on to add, more arguably:” He is a man of integrity, courage and honor. And during incredibly challenging times, he kept us safe.”
That those words –“he kept us safe”– could be uttered in public about that leader is a testament to our national affliction of historical amnesia. The harsher truth, long known but now reiterated in a startling report on the New York Times op-ed page, is that the Bush administration’s “negligence” left us undefended against the disaster whose anniversary we will mark again today.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/he-kept-us-safe-b...

----------

Revealed: How George W. Bush was given SEVEN warnings about threat from Bin Laden in months before 9/11
11 September 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/ceff5vt
White House given series of briefings about an Al Qaeda attack between May and August 2001 - but failed to take any significant action
Lengthy briefs included interviews with Bin Laden aides admitting an attack with multiple casualties was 'imminent'
Bush asked for more evidence - frustrating the CIA
Highlights startling negligence of U.S. government before 9/11
George Pataki, New York state governor during 9/11, lambasted claims as 'unfair and a disservice to history' and praised Bush's leadership
Former President George Bush was given a series of direct warnings throughout 2001 about the possibility of a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda - but failed to take them seriously, it was claimed today.
On the eleventh anniversary of the atrocity, it has been reported that the White House received multiple briefs between May and August that year about an attack with explosives and numerous casualties.
But the president continually failed to take any significant action and questioned the thoroughness of the briefings - leading to huge frustrations within the CIA.
The retrospective report was lambasted as 'unfair' and a 'disservice to history' by George Pataki, the New York state governor during 9/11 who praised Bush's leadership in the months after the attacks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22013...

----------
Linktv org

New Brunswick, NJ

#187761 Apr 2, 2014
Adam 36 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know the 911 Commission did not know the FBI had a mole inside al qaeda close to bin laden?
The 911 Commission report is worthless...
FBI failed to disclose its Al-Qaeda mole to 9/11 Commission
http://rt.com/usa/fbi-informant-knew-bin-lade...
Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice
October 1, 2006 / http://tinyurl.com/grrre
On July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately.
Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, from the car and said he needed to see her right away. There was no practical way she could refuse such a request from the CIA director.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

----------

The Deafness Before the Storm
September 10, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/d5mapox
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief”— the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading:“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the...

----------

Clinton Warned Bush of bin Laden Threat
Clinton Says He Warned Bush of bin Laden Threat
Reuters / 16 October 2003 / http://tinyurl.com/p3dfdj4
NEW YORK - Former President Bill Clinton warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced, Clinton said on Wednesday.
Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his "exit interview," a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect.
"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defense," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."
The U.S. government has blamed bin Laden's Al Qaeda network for the Sept. 11 attacks.
http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/45910:c...
Linktv org

New Brunswick, NJ

#187762 Apr 2, 2014
Clinton Aides Plan to Tell Panel Of Warning Bush Team on Qaeda
March 20, 2004 / http://tinyurl.com/onooz38
Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation -- and how the new administration was slow to act.
They said the warnings were delivered in urgent post-election intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 for Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush's national security adviser; Stephen Hadley, now Ms. Rice's deputy; and Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Bush transition team, among others.
One official scheduled to testify, Richard A. Clarke, who was President Bill Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, said in an interview that the warning about the Qaeda threat could not have been made more bluntly to the incoming Bush officials in intelligence briefings that he led.
At the time of the briefings, there was extensive evidence tying Al Qaeda to the bombing in Yemen two months earlier of an American warship, the Cole, in which 17 sailors were killed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/20/us/clinton-...

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#187763 Apr 2, 2014
The airlines were neglligent too in the happenings of 9/11.
It is not like they had never been hijacked prior to that date.
Obskeptic

Rochester, MI

#187764 Apr 2, 2014
Linktv org wrote:
Republican Congressman brags about cutting Benghazi security funding on CNN / May 9, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/km59eoa
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) joyfully takes credit for supporting legislation that cut funding for embassy security, leading to the death of three Americans from an attack against an under-staffed outpost in Benghazi, Libya.
Paul Ryan, Darrel Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions./ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ofXKLWW3SyIXX
-
------
The GOP’s embassy security problem
10/10/12 / http://tinyurl.com/obrns38
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has scheduled a fairly high-profile hearing today on security lapses at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. There’s one nagging problem, however, that might cause Republicans some trouble.
For example, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a member of Issa’s committee, told Soledad O’Brien this morning that he expects to hear testimony about security that “didn’t meet the basic, minimum standards required for a facility such as the one we had in Benghazi.” Chaffetz added that policymakers have to “make sure it doesn’t happen in other places around the world.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-g...
---------
GOP Rep: I ‘Absolutely’ Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security
October 10, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/8dtbwbd
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said today that he voted to cut funding for U.S. embassy security amid political attacks from Republicans that the Obama administration did not do enough to secure the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya that was attacked last month.
Republicans and their allies have been trying to politicize the attack — which killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya — suggesting, without evidence, the Obama administration may have ignored intelligence that the attack was imminent, didn’t properly secure the Benghazi compound and is now trying to cover it up.
But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said,“Absolutely“:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/10/...
----------
GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats
09/18/12 / http://tinyurl.com/9ajgehg
Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011.
Democrats are scrutinizing the GOP proposals in the wake of attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates in the Middle East, one of which saw Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans murdered.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/250237-gop-...
If you were able to understand how the base line budgeting process works in Washington you would know that what our politicians refer to as a "cut" is simply a reduction in the scheduled and automatic increase in the spending levels of every department. So to clarify for you, this is how they can call an actual increase in spending and budgets a cut without cutting anything more then the INCREASE. Trying to shift the blame away from those who were actually responsible for the safety of those employees in Libya is disgusting, dishonest and despicable.
Linktv org

New Brunswick, NJ

#187765 Apr 2, 2014
loose cannon wrote:
The airlines were neglligent too in the happenings of 9/11.
It is not like they had never been hijacked prior to that date.
I agree, When golfer Payne Stewart's plane went off course immediately NORAD went up to investigate.

Where was NORAD on September 11, 2001?

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#187766 Apr 2, 2014
You people are doomed until you divorce yourselves from your love affair with air travel.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#187767 Apr 2, 2014
loose cannon wrote:
The airlines were neglligent too in the happenings of 9/11.
It is not like they had never been hijacked prior to that date.
You're right, but it's not just the airlines. There HAD to be something suspicious going on at airports' security screening. 18, EIGHTEEN terrorists are able to pass security with "cutters"? C'mon. Alll 18, at 2 different airports?, I recall being drawn over by security personnel at JFK in late 90s because I had a Swiss army knife in my pocket.18 cutters, yet all of them pass. Something to think about.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#187768 Apr 2, 2014
loose cannon wrote:
You people are doomed until you divorce yourselves from your love affair with air travel.
Quit it already. The only way to travel medium to long distance is by air. You know it, I know it, we all know it. How'd you get to French Polynesia anyhow? You swam?

And it's a fact, not a myth, that air travel is faster, with less death per capita than automobile travel, and I don't know, but probably safer than by bus.
Linktv org

New Brunswick, NJ

#187769 Apr 2, 2014
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were able to understand how the base line budgeting process works in Washington you would know that what our politicians refer to as a "cut" is simply a reduction in the scheduled and automatic increase in the spending levels of every department. So to clarify for you, this is how they can call an actual increase in spending and budgets a cut without cutting anything more then the INCREASE. Trying to shift the blame away from those who were actually responsible for the safety of those employees in Libya is disgusting, dishonest and despicable.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!

Republicans are gangsters and Democrats are racketeers loyal to Wall Street and themselves.

You and I are not represented in Congress.

However I do agree with you about cutting only the increase.

How is this for disgusting, dishonest, and despicable: Bush and Cheney gave tax cuts mostly to the wealthiest in a time of two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and after September 11, 2001.

Bush and Cheney did not pay for their wars.

That too me is Shameful, Disgraceful, and Morally Wrong!
Linktv org

New Brunswick, NJ

#187770 Apr 2, 2014
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were able to understand how the base line budgeting process works in Washington you would know that what our politicians refer to as a "cut" is simply a reduction in the scheduled and automatic increase in the spending levels of every department. So to clarify for you, this is how they can call an actual increase in spending and budgets a cut without cutting anything more then the INCREASE. Trying to shift the blame away from those who were actually responsible for the safety of those employees in Libya is disgusting, dishonest and despicable.
EXCLUSIVE–The Three Trillion Dollar War: Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Economist Linda Bilmes on the True Cost of the US Invasion and Occupation of Iraq / February 29, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/2on4jv
One week after President Bush rejected charges the war in Iraq has hurt the US economy, a new book puts a conservative estimate of the war’s cost at $3 trillion so far. In their first national broadcast interview upon their book’s publication, Nobel laureate and former chief World Bank economist, Joseph Stiglitz, and co-author Linda Bilmes of Harvard University say the Bush administration has repeatedly low-balled the cost of the war—and even kept a second set of records hidden from the American public
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/exclusi...

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#187771 Apr 2, 2014
Jacques,
When I look into the sky I see everyday jet cotrails which stretch and linger from horizon to horizon, North to South, East to West, North by Northwest, South by Southwest, East by Southeast, West by Southwest and every other direction you can name by name.
It looks like they're playing a game of cheesy tic-tac-toe up there all day long, every day, naght and day.
loose
Linktv org

New Brunswick, NJ

#187772 Apr 2, 2014
loose cannon wrote:
Jacques,
When I look into the sky I see everyday jet cotrails which stretch and linger from horizon to horizon, North to South, East to West, North by Northwest, South by Southwest, East by Southeast, West by Southwest and every other direction you can name by name.
It looks like they're playing a game of cheesy tic-tac-toe up there all day long, every day, naght and day.
loose
You need too move back here in the States because that NEVER EVER happens here.

ROTFL

LOL

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#187773 Apr 2, 2014
Linktv org wrote:
<quoted text>
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!
Republicans are gangsters and Democrats are racketeers loyal to Wall Street and themselves.
You and I are not represented in Congress.
However I do agree with you about cutting only the increase.
How is this for disgusting, dishonest, and despicable: Bush and Cheney gave tax cuts mostly to the wealthiest in a time of two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and after September 11, 2001.
Bush and Cheney did not pay for their wars.
That too me is Shameful, Disgraceful, and Morally Wrong!
Cheney , you're right, did not pay for their wars. He was, I believe , still a huge shareholder in Halliburton, which got the most lucrative mutli-billion , not multi-million, no, MULTI-BILLION dollar contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention that sweetheart 1.2 billion post-Katrina no-bid deal. I hear, not sure, that none of that $1.2 billion has been accounted for. See Vanity Fair for interesting but scary articles on Halliburton /Cheney in Afghanistan and Iraq and how GWB's A.G. made sure they could not be prosecuted. How's that for disgusting and dishonest, Obskeptic?

Why is Obama not going after Cheney and Halliburton? Why? Boys will be boys, and they do stick together. And anyhow, Halliburton is bigger than the gov't, so why bother?

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#187774 Apr 2, 2014
Jacques,
I wish it was not that way. But the fact of the matter is that air travel is a very dirty mode of transportation.
They had better clean up their act

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#187775 Apr 2, 2014
loose cannon wrote:
Jacques,
I wish it was not that way. But the fact of the matter is that air travel is a very dirty mode of transportation.
They had better clean up their act
Cars, trains, ships, trucks, are absolutely necessary. We HAVE to use them. That does not mean they should be polluting.

Same for food, We HAVE to eat. That does not mean the food providers should poison us, either accidentally (lack of precautions) with E.Coli, salmonella or intentionally with sugar, fructose, genetically-modified dairy products and grains, dyes and colours, well,. the list is just too long.

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) 3 min woodtick57 1,395,933
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 10 min RACE 8,907
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 35 min An NFL Fan 60,136
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 39 min TRD 70,730
abby6-29-16 1 hr Trust Jesus 6
Chicago has the Worst Women 2 hr Stoopid Voters 14
Who's this Fauxcahontas? 2 hr Stoopid Voters 27
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr Sublime1 102,527

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages