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

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#188567 Apr 14, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, no president is a "lawmaker"! That is Congresses job. The president is the one who is suppose to apply and enforce laws passed by Congress!!
Boy, you have a weird view about our Constitution!!!
Okay, here's news for you, Constitution expert :

The President presides over the whole apparatus of government, He is, to use a business term, the Chief Executive Officer of the whole shebang.

He is, therefore, the head and superior of the Attorney General, the Justice Dept, the Sec of Defence, the Sec of the Interior, the secretary of Agriculture, the Sec of Health, the Sec of Public Works, the titular head of homeland security, the Sec of State etc.

He DELEGATES authority, he does not give it up - he is the big guy, whether it's GWB or Obama, like it or not. It's, to make it plain and easy to understand for you, like the CEO of Ford. He DELEGATES authority through intermediaries right down to man/woman who screws the last nut on the last vehicle on the assembly line. Now go back to your "Constitution for Dummies".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188568 Apr 14, 2014
Again, if any of us "common folks" had done what Bill Clinton had done, this judge would have found us in CRIMINAL Contempt and sent us to prison.
Please note, she was aware of the false affidavits a year before the impeachment of Bill Clinton but waited until after the impeachment to make it public. WHY? Oh, it might have effected the impeachment trial and Bill may have been CONVICTED!!!
Yep, Justice Webber-Wright, withheld information from CONGRESS!!!

Jones Case Judge May Cite Clinton

Text of Judge Wright's Sept. Order
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 17, 1999; Page A1

Just days after winning acquittal at his impeachment trial, President Clinton was confronted with a new legal threat yesterday as a federal judge signaled that she may hold him in contempt of court for providing misleading testimony about his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky.

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who oversaw the Paula Jones lawsuit that led to Clinton's impeachment, told attorneys involved in the case yesterday afternoon that she will explore civil sanctions against the president and gave them until Friday to file the first motions related to the process.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188569 Apr 14, 2014
This is way to long to post the whole thing. Go to link.

I. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied under oath as a defendant in Jones v. Clinton regarding his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

(1) He denied that he had a "sexual relationship" with Monica Lewinsky.
(2) He denied that he had a "sexual affair" with Monica Lewinsky.
(3) He denied that he had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky.
(4) He denied that he engaged in or caused contact with the genitalia of "any person" with an intent to arouse or gratify (oral sex performed on him by Ms. Lewinsky).
(5) He denied that he made contact with Monica Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia with an intent to arouse or gratify.
On May 6, 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Corbin Jones filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against President Clinton claiming that he had sexually harassed her on May 8, 1991, by requesting her to perform oral sex on him in a suite at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock. Throughout the pretrial discovery process in Jones v. Clinton, United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled, over the President's objections, that Ms. Jones's lawyers could seek various categories of information, including information about women who had worked as government employees under Governor or President Clinton and allegedly had sexual activity with him. Judge Wright's rulings followed the prevailing law in sexual harassment cases: The defendant's sexual relationships with others in the workplace, including consensual relationships, are a standard subject of inquiry during the discovery process. Judge Wright recognized the commonplace nature of her discovery rulings and stated that she was following a "meticulous standard of materiality" in allowing such questioning.
At a hearing on January 12, 1998, Judge Wright required Ms. Jones to list potential trial witnesses. Ms. Jones's list included several "Jane Does."(1) Ms. Jones's attorneys said they intended to call a Jane Doe named Monica Lewinsky as a witness to support Ms. Jones's claims. Under Ms. Jones's legal theory, women who had sexual relationships with the President received job benefits because of the sexual relationship, but women who resisted the President's sexual advances were denied such benefits.(2)
On January 17, 1998, Ms. Jones's lawyers deposed President Clinton under oath with Judge Wright present and presiding over the deposition. Federal law requires a witness testifying under oath to provide truthful answers. The intentional failure to provide truthful answers is a crime punishable by imprisonment
and fine.(3) At the outset of his deposition, the President took an oath administered by Judge Wright: "Do you swear or affirm ... that the testimony you are about to give in the matter before the court is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" The President replied: "I do."(4) At the beginning of their questioning, Ms. Jones's attorneys asked the President: "And your testimony is subject to the penalty of perjury; do you understand that, sir?" The President responded, "I do."(5)
Based on the witness list received in December 1997 (which included Ms. Lewinsky) and the January 12, 1998, hearing, the President and his attorneys were aware that Ms. Jones's attorneys likely would question the President at his deposition about Ms. Lewinsky and the other "Jane Does." In fact, the attorneys for Ms. Jones did ask numerous questions about "Jane Does," including Ms. Lewinsky.
There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied under oath in answering those questions.
A. Evidence that President Clinton Lied Under Oath During the Civil Case
1. President Clinton's Statements Under Oath About Monica Lewinsky
During pretrial discovery, Paula Jones's attorneys served the President with written interrogatories.(6) One stated in relevant part:
xxxx
http://www.gooddocuments.com/icreport/grounds...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188570 Apr 14, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, here's news for you, Constitution expert :
The President presides over the whole apparatus of government, He is, to use a business term, the Chief Executive Officer of the whole shebang.
xxxxxxx
Ah, does the president tell the U.S. Supreme Court how to make their rulings? Does he tell Congress what laws to pass and what laws not to pass.
The last time I read our Constitution, the president only controls the Executive Branch
And if the president did control Congress, why did the House impeach Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton can not remove any Rep. or Senator but the Congress can remove the Prez.!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188572 Apr 14, 2014
Linktv org wrote:
<quoted text>
Most in Congress DO NOT BELIEVE in the US Constitution.
If they did, they would have impeached:
LBJ for lying about the Gulf of Tonkin.
Nixon for Watergate.
Reagan/Bush for Iran/Contra.
Bush/Cheney for WMD in Iraq, and spying on all innocent law-abiding Americans.
Ah, they were in the process of impeaching Nixon when three REPUBLICAN Seantors went to Nixon and they told him THEY, the Republicans, would vote to convict him. And that was when Nixon Resigned. Again, Nixon had NOTHING to do with Water Gate except of AFTER THE FACT when he tried to cover it up.
The Congress was controlled by the Democrats when LBJ was president and the Dems where happy to sleep with the Pig from Texas.
Again, Reagan and Bush-41 did not break any laws and neither id Bush-43 and Cheney. Get over it!!!
And Bill Clinton was held in CIVIL CONTEMPT by Justice Webber-Wright and then signed a Consent Decree in lieu of being Indicted by Janet Reno!!!
Can't face the facts that Bill Clinton is a serial sex criminal and committed several felonies just in the Paula Jones case, can you!!! But you KNOW Reagan, Bush-41, Bush-43 and Cheney must have commuted at lease one crime, don't you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188573 Apr 14, 2014
And what is sad is that Deep Throat Jacqueau will have forgotten all of this by tomorrow morning. Sort of like Groundhog Day but unlike the character in Groundhog Day, he will never figure it out and will never leave Groundhog Day!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188574 Apr 14, 2014
And what is sad is that Deep Throat Jacqueau will have forgotten all of this by tomorrow morning. Sort of like Groundhog Day but unlike the character in Groundhog Day, he will never figure it out and will never leave Groundhog Day!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188575 Apr 14, 2014
Or this one for Deep Throat

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188576 Apr 14, 2014
Maybe I should post this a few more times. for Jacqueau

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188577 Apr 14, 2014
Is winter over up there Jacqueau?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188578 Apr 14, 2014
Linktv org
Most in DEMOCRATS in Congress DO NOT BELIEVE in the US Constitution.
If they did, they would NOT have impeached:
LBJ for lying about the Gulf of Tonkin.
Deleted
Nixon for Watergate.
Reagan/Bush for Iran/Contra.
Bush/Cheney for WMD in Iraq, and spying on all innocent law-abiding Americans.

Fixed it for you, Rogue Scholar
Oh, it is not against the law for a politician to lie but it is against the law to commit perjury in a court or grand jury!!!! Ah, didn't Bill Clinton dew both?
TrutherBirther

Waukesha, WI

#188579 Apr 14, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Linktv org
Most in DEMOCRATS in Congress DO NOT BELIEVE in the US Constitution.
If they did, they would NOT have impeached:
LBJ for lying about the Gulf of Tonkin.
Deleted <quoted text>
Reagan/Bush for Iran/Contra.
Bush/Cheney for WMD in Iraq, and spying on all innocent law-abiding Americans.
Fixed it for you, Rogue Scholar
Oh, it is not against the law for a politician to lie but it is against the law to commit perjury in a court or grand jury!!!! Ah, didn't Bill Clinton dew both?
Mr&Mrs Clinton both belong in prison. Usurper Obama should face a firing squad.
TrutherBirther

Waukesha, WI

#188580 Apr 14, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Snowden should be given the medal of honour.
yeah the Peace Prize isn't what it used to be since it was tainted by Gore, Putin & Bath-house Barry.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#188581 Apr 14, 2014
TrutherBirther wrote:
<quoted text>Mr&Mrs Clinton both belong in prison. Usurper Obama should face a firing squad.
Moron should be locked in a rubber room

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#188582 Apr 14, 2014
Homeowners Upset Over O'Hare Noise Win Property Tax Appeal
________

"Residents of three choice Northwest side Chicago neighborhoods have won property tax appeals after arguing that the values of their homes has taken a nose dive due to new flight patterns at O'Hare International Airport"

Chicago Sun Times

“Kenyan-born Obama=Antichrist”

Since: Sep 09

Casper, WY

#188583 Apr 14, 2014
Churchlady wrote:
<quoted text>When exactly did the Constitutional requirements to be President get changed? OR when exactly did the meaning of "natural-born Citizen" get redefined?
NOVEMBER 22(2013)--An 81-year-old "birther" was arrested today and charged with threatening President Barack Obama’s life, according to federal court records.
Prosecutors allege that Elwyn Fossedal was in a post office near his Wisconsin home last month when he announced,“If President Obama was here I would shoot him right there and kill him right now.”
When Secret Service agents confronted Fossedal about the threat--which was relayed to law enforcement by witnesses--he would not recant the statement and “repeated the threat using different words. He also made a number of additional threats towards the President,” according to a felony complaint.
It was in 1981 when CIA Director William Casey stated "Our disinformation program will be complete when everything the American public believes will be false."
www.beforeitsnews.com

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188584 Apr 14, 2014
loose cannon wrote:
Homeowners Upset Over O'Hare Noise Win Property Tax Appeal
________
"Residents of three choice Northwest side Chicago neighborhoods have won property tax appeals after arguing that the values of their homes has taken a nose dive due to new flight patterns at O'Hare International Airport"
Chicago Sun Times
Yep, they built a new runway a few years ago and I agree with them. If it was from the old runways and they bought there property knowing, or should have know, about the noise situation, I would say they did not have a case.
My old house near Atlanta was under the approach path but 10% of the time the wind switched and it became the departure path and had increased noise. But my back ground was aviation and I new that. Some who were not smart enough to know that the wind switched every now and then and traffic reversed and they had planes taking off at full power in their direction. Sorry, you knew the airport was there when you bought your house and you should have known that there would be a noise concern.
I hate low CQ people.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188585 Apr 14, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, no president is a "lawmaker"! That is Congresses job. The president is the one who is suppose to apply and enforce laws passed by Congress!!
Boy, you have a weird view about our Constitution!!!
Linktv org wrote:
<quoted text>
The President either veto's or passes the legislation by signing it into law.
Stop nitpicking.
But what if he does neither and it was a veto proof vote? Is he responsible then?
And what happens if the law was signed by another president?
Again, presidents do not MAKE laws, they enforce them. The Department of Justice works for the Executive Branch and not Congress!!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188586 Apr 14, 2014
Linktv org wrote:
<quoted text>
Do a little research and you will find most all the Generals, and CIA are Republicans and not Democrats.
Just like Colonel Wilkerson and General Powell are registered Republicans.
BTW: the military follows orders no matter what party as long as it is Constitutional and coincides with established law.
Ya know, my parents sometimes because "closet Republicans" in that they were registered as Democrats, voted for the most conservative Democrats in the primaries, but usually voted Republican in the General Elections.
Oh, you do know that both Teddy Kennedy and Richard Nixon were Republicans but were very Progressive and Eisenhower was a Democrat who switched to the Republican Part and was at lest a moderate Republican.
The trouble is you Libtards think are Democrats are Liberals and all Republicans of Conservatives and that is not true. Ron and Rand Paul maybe be registered Republicans but at heart they are Libertarians.
Oh LinTV, you are a cooky cutter Progressive!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188587 Apr 14, 2014
But in this guy's mindset, Democrats are NEVER racists!!!

Yes, Some Republicans Are Racist
By Michael Tomasky 14 hours ago The Daily Beast

Yes, Some Republicans Are Racist

Some time back, whenever a big racial controversy erupted, I trained myself into the habit of reading about it at FoxNews.com , just for the unbelievable comment threads. Let’s put it this way: If my friends and I went out to a bar and started playing a “let’s write the racist FoxNews.com comment thread” drinking game, our efforts couldn’t begin to approach what I read there.

I wasn’t alone. Liberal websites started feasting on these threads. And so, a couple of years ago, Ailes & Co. got wise. Stories about race were, at least in my disheartened experience, closed to comments.
http://news.yahoo.com/yes-republicans-racist-...

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min sonicfilter 1,192,190
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 11 min reality 51,535
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 22 min Graham Cracker 51,370
Drones and the ISIS wunnerful folks. 59 min R Drones AUTOMATONS 10
Grateful Dead tickets now going for up to 15K f... 1 hr DEAD STAY DEAD 2
Amy 3.4.15 2 hr RACE 6
Abby 3.4.15 3 hr Mister Tonka 4
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:47 am PST

Bleacher Report 9:47AM
Insider Buzz: Mutual Interest Between Andre Johnson and Indianapolis Colts
Bleacher Report 8:57 PM
Weighing Pros and Cons of Bears' Top FA Targets
NBC Sports 9:46 PM
Colts agree to terms on extension for long snapper Matt Overton
Bleacher Report 3:59 AM
Weighing the Pros and Cons of Top Free-Agent Targets
Bleacher Report 5:50 AM
Report: Hasselbeck's Contract with Colts Worth $3M