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
166,881 - 166,900 of 177,545 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188555 Apr 14, 2014
Linktv org wrote:
Judge Andrew Napolitano says Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted for crimes against the United States Constitution.
The Libertarian commentator debates politics, history and what he considers to be the unconstitutional behavior of both the Bush and Obama administrations, with consumer advocate and four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader.
June 2, 2010 / http://tinyurl.com/kpno7e7
Well, this is something you don't see every day. Ralph Nader hosted this interview segment with Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano and discussed his book, Lies the Government Told You. I'm surprised the judge is going to be allowed on Fox after making the statements he did about Bush and Cheney during the interview.
Nader: What's the sanction for President Bush and Vice President Cheney?
Napolitano: There's been no sanction except what history will say about them.
Nader: What should be the sanctions?
Napolitano: They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrants. I'd like to say they should be indicted for lying but believe it or not, unless you're under oath, lying is not a crime. At least not an indictable crime. It's a moral crime.
Nader: So you think George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should even though they've left office, they haven't escaped the criminal laws, they should be indicted and prosecuted?
Napolitano: The evidence in this book and in others, our colleague the great Vincent Bugliosi has amassed an incredible amount of evidence. The purpose of this book was not to amass that evidence but I do discuss it, is overwhelming when you compare it to the level of evidence required for a normal indictment that George W. Bush as President and Dick Cheney as Vice President participated in criminal conspiracies to violate the federal law and the guaranteed civil liberties of hundreds, maybe thousands of human beings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =3wepQdPHaiQXX
----
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
by Vincent Bugliosi / May 9, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/yjwxsea
There is direct evidence that President George W. Bush did not honorably lead this nation, but deliberately misled it into a war he wanted. Bush and his administration knowingly lied to Congress and to the American public -- lies that have cost the lives of more than 4,000 young American soldiers and close to $1 trillion.
A Monumental Lie
In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.
On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.
According to the October 1, 2002 NIE, "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war." The report concluded that Hussein was not planning to use any weapons of mass destruction; further, Hussein would only use weapons of mass destruction he was believed to have if he were first attacked, that is, he would only use them in self-defense.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/0...
And do you know what Judge Andrew Napolitano has said about Pres. Obama? Do you really want to go there?!?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188556 Apr 14, 2014
Linktv org wrote:
<quoted text>
So you also believe that Traitor Colonel North acted alone without Reagan and Bush?
ROTFL
LOL
And you have proof that Reagan or Bush-41 violated the law? If they had, the REPUBLICANS would have incised that they be prosecuted.
Republicans clean their own houses while you Democrats are happy sleeping with pigs!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188557 Apr 14, 2014
Linktv org wrote:
<quoted text>
They all live in the Rightwing bubble.
Could you imagine if a multitude of CIA, FBI, and Generals came out publicly against Obama like they did against Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld?
LOL
"Multitude"? Okay, name them? Yes, you always have a few loony-tooney-lefties in government but the majority will back the president in office.
Oh, lefties are just a lot noisier than we on the right. Just compare a TEA Party event to any of the Occupy rallies!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188558 Apr 14, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
The President, the Number One lawmaker in the land, the Commander in Chief, the head of all the ministries and secretaries of state, head of all governmental institutions, who is the example upon which the populace depends as a legal and moral guide, is ABOVE THE LAW? Would you like to rephrase that?
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

Sayville, NY

#188559 Apr 14, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And do you know what Judge Andrew Napolitano has said about Pres. Obama? Do you really want to go there?!?
Yes I will go there because Obama is continuing over 90% of all Bush and Cheney's failed and illegal policy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188560 Apr 14, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You : "Oh, Bush did not give Scooter Libby any pardon. He commuted his sentence. Libby is still a convicted felon and still had to pay fines!!! But since when did facts get in the way of your opinions?
But what is really sad is that Deep Throat Jacqueau with flush this from his memory and repeat the same lies in a few weeks. And he wonders why I call people like him, Libtards???"
Loser. You can't read. I ASKED if Libby had been pardoned, not STATED, nor SAID. Oh, a presidential commute, right? Hmmm, sounds pretty much the same.
Rogue : Who paid the $250,000 fine, if at all paid? Was Libby a rich man?
Now remember, Rogue, a QUESTION is not a STATEMENT.
Well, stop using Frenchy-English then and say what you mean.
And you do knot no what the difference between a pardon and a commutation is? I would try and explain it you but I think you lack the CQ to understand it.
And who paid his fine? Do you have any evidence he did not pay his fine?
And who paid Bill Clinton's fines? Oh, he had a defense fund payed for by a bunch of Libtards like you who thought he was innocent and THEY paid the fines, bot Bill!!! Oh, did Scooter Libby has a Defense Fund?
Linktv org

Sayville, NY

#188562 Apr 14, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Multitude"? Okay, name them? Yes, you always have a few loony-tooney-lefties in government but the majority will back the president in office.
Oh, lefties are just a lot noisier than we on the right. Just compare a TEA Party event to any of the Occupy rallies!!!
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.
Linktv org

Sayville, NY

#188563 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!!!
The President either veto's or passes the legislation by signing it into law.

Stop nitpicking.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188564 Apr 14, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, did he commit treason or is he a patriot. Maybe a little of both. I say let him stay in Russia for a few years and see if Obama will pardon him like Bill Clinton did for Marc Rich!
<quoted text>
No, Oliver North Libbey were NOT pardoned. But the Democrats in the Senate Pardoned Bill Clinton!!! Nixon was pardoned more for the good of the people than anything else.
Oh, what charges where against Nixon? Clinton?
Nixon and no prior knowledge or consent to the Water Gate break in but he did try and cover it up where as Bill Clinton did commit perjury in a federal court, perjury in a federal grand jury, conspire with Monica Lewinsky to obstruct justice, suborn a false affidavit from Monica, conspire with Monica to get a false affidavit from Linda Tripp, submitted two false affidavit to a federal court, etc.
Yep, Nixon, ONE felony and Bil, at least SIX felonies!!!
Now shut the f-up,,,,,, again!!!
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Loser. Clinton had nothing to be pardoned for, therefore, no pardon issued. Who pardoned him? President Clinton? I thought only presidents could pardon. Am I wrong? Tell me.
Well, if he did not commit any crimes, why was he indicted by the House of Reps? I have shown this many times before but you seem to flush it from your memory two seconds after I post it!!!

From Wiki: Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228206 vote)[16] and obstruction of justice (by a 221212 vote).[17] Two other articles of impeachment failed a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205229 vote)[18] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148285 vote).[19] Four Republicans opposed all four articles, while five Democrats voted for three of them and one Democrat for all four. Clinton thus became the second U.S. president to be impeached, following Andrew Johnson in 1868.(Clinton was the third sitting President against whom the House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings since 1789. Articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon were passed by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 and reported to the full House, but Nixon resigned the Presidency before the impeachment resolutions could be considered.)

Chink,,, FLUSH! It is already gone from Deep Throat Jacqueaus memory.
Linktv org

Sayville, NY

#188565 Apr 14, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And you have proof that Reagan or Bush-41 violated the law? If they had, the REPUBLICANS would have incised that they be prosecuted.
Republicans clean their own houses while you Democrats are happy sleeping with pigs!!!
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.

“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?

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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 min J RULES 69,106
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min TheIndependentMaj... 1,102,004
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 10 min litesong 46,389
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 13 min mahz 49,520
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr the wandering girl 4,681
Word (Dec '08) 1 hr andet1987 4,669
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 1 hr andet1987 1,264
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 6 hr RACE 97,985
•••
•••

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 ]
•••