BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 219332 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.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#104730 Sep 1, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
What is sad, we taxpayers probably spent $10M on this investigation.
What is sad is Rouge is assuming without facts again.
ehancock

Dedham, MA

#104731 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
When foreign powers are allowed to interfere in what is STATE buisness...
We are no longer "one nation"...now are we?
The same oath also says a few things about LIBERTY and JUSTICE does it not?
You can't have it both ways.
Ever hear of the Tenth Amendment?
Not only do foreign powers have no say...but Obama needs to mind his buisness as well. The constitution gives the Federal Govt. ZERO power in this matter.
If the Constitution doesn't give the federal govt. EXPLICIT power to weigh in on the matter....
Arizona can do whatever it wants, whenever they would like to do it. Period.
Constitution trumps pledge of alligance EVERY day of the week and twice on Sundays.
The oath quite clearly says INDIVISIBLE. There is no way around it.
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#104732 Sep 1, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you think that Giuliani was going to laud Obama at the RNC? The dems will have their turn next week; They'll have touching stories or good mommas with dying kids too. It's all part of politics. I really believe, though, that democrats care a bit more. It's the same here.
Yep. Democrats care more.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-aborti...
American Lady

Danville, KY

#104733 Sep 1, 2012
ehancock wrote:
<quoted text>
There is absolutely no evidence that the Constitution used the Vattel definition of Natural Born Citizen. In fact, the phrase Natural Born Citizen did not appear in any English-language translation of Vattel until ten years after the Constitution was written. And Vattel is not referred to in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is referred to about twenty times.
What the "hell" is that, that I just cited then?
dipchit.........

The Venus - 12 U.S. 253 (1814)
More Sharing ServicesShare|

Syllabus
Case
U.S. Supreme Court
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The Venus
12 U.S.(8 Cranch) 253
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Syllabus
==========

Page 12 U. S. 289
The evidence of this intention will rarely, if ever, be given during peace. It must therefore be furnished, if at all, after the war shall be known to him, and that knowledge may be preceded by the capture of his goods. It appears to me, then, to be a case in which, as in many others, justice requires that subsequent testimony shall be received to prove a preexisting fact. Measures taken for removal immediately after a war may prove a previous intention to remove in the event of war, and may prove that the captured property, although prima facie belonging to an enemy, does in fact belong to a friend. In such case, the citizen, in my opinion, has a right, in the nature of the jus postliminii, to claim restitution.
As this question is not only decisive of many claims now depending before this Court, but is also of vast importance to our merchants generally, I may be excused for stating at some length the reasons on which my opinion is founded.
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants
Page 12 U. S. 290
them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12...
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#104734 Sep 1, 2012
Feds End “Probe” Of Sheriff Joe!

The federal government has closed a criminal probe of alleged financial misconduct by Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio,“America’s toughest sheriff,” and no charges will be filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/feds-end-pro...
ballantine

United States

#104735 Sep 1, 2012
American Lady wrote:
U.S. Supreme Court
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The Venus
12 U.S.(8 Cranch) 253
==========
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL.
Page 12 U. S. 289
...
As this question is not only decisive of many claims now depending before this Court, but is also of vast importance to our merchants generally, I may be excused for stating at some length the reasons on which my opinion is founded.
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
[Vattel Book II Ch XIX § 212. Citizens and natives.]
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants
Page 12 U. S. 290
them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12...
Vattel Book II Ch XIX § 212. Citizens and natives
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Too bad you can't read. Marshall is citing Vattel solely on the issue of domicle in time of war. The citation and case has nothing to do with citizenship. Only an idiot who knows nothing about law would claim a citation on the subject of domicle was relevant to citizenship and no legal authority in history has ever cited The Venus as beng relevant on the issue. Why not just admit you have no idea what you are talking about and stop these embarrassing posts.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#104736 Sep 1, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
What then, in your opinion, is the reason for the fraudulent certificates?
If he was actually born in Hawaii, there would be no need for a fraudulent birth certificate.
Exactly, as he was born in Hawaii, there is no possible motive for a fraudulent birth certificate.
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I was responding to Ellen's post that it would have been impossible.
I think he was born here.
I think his certificates are frauds.
I think he is lying about his father.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#104737 Sep 1, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
In the 1970's I was an Evaluation Instructor Pilot and helped supervise the civilian contract. One day I was inspecting a class room when I noticed a female lieutenant who was real small. I asked her if she was having problems flying the TH-55 Osage and she said the stick was pretty forward when she flew solo. I asked her her weight and she said 90 pounds.
I then too a SF 364F from an aircraft log book and did a weight and balance on the aircraft assuming the petite lieutenant had 20 pounds of clothing and gear. When I completed the 365C I realized that her aircraft was one inch behind the aft Center of Gravity limit. Now the aircraft had a MAXIMUM cockpit limit of 400 pounds but no minimum but no minimum.
Being a Eval IP I had a lot of power so I immediately restricted her from flying solo and took my case to my boss who concurred. The fix was a 20 pound horseshoe shaped sandbag which had to be strapped into the other seat when she flew solo.
The only aircraft I flew that had a posted minimum cockpit weight was the OH-58A Kiowa which was 170 pounds. And yes, when I flew solo in a Kiowa the stick was pretty far forward as I was right at 170 pounds with my clothing and gear on.
Wowee-Zowee!
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#104738 Sep 1, 2012
Surprising: Michael Moore Says Romney Will Defeat Obama In November

Shariacrat Party

Democrats are all about labels.
They label everything based on their own biases, likes, hates, and mood. Disagree with a liberal policy for sound, provable reasons, and you are labeled hateful, phobic, and racist. Decline support of Islam, and your intolerance is broadcast around the country. Never mind that you simply find Islam contrary to what you hold to be truth and morally right.
Vote against gay marriage, and the vicious verbal attack you will be subject to will almost be physically painful. Name-calling and finger-pointing are “THE” hallmark of liberal politics; it is the stock-in-trade of any aspiring Democrat and a resume must. This election cycle will be the shining example of how Democrats ply their trade of dissension, dissembling, and deceit.

A picture is worth a thousands words.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/shariacrat-p...
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#104739 Sep 1, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, as he was born in Hawaii, there is no possible motive for a fraudulent birth certificate.
<quoted text>
What is the motive for fraudulent Social Security numbers?
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#104740 Sep 1, 2012
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#104741 Sep 1, 2012
Obama Puts Millions More On The Dole

Did you know that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to get more people to sign up for food stamps?
I kid you not. One of the most absurd examples was “a 10-part series of Spanish-language ‘novelas’ that trumpeted the benefits of the food stamp program.”
In the public service announcements, several people pressure a wife and mother named Diana to sign up for assistance, even though she says she doesn’t need it.
In the fourth commercial, Diana says (in Spanish):“I don’t need help from anyone. My husband makes enough to take care of us.” That’s a great example of traditional American values, wouldn’t you say?

Read more...

http://personalliberty.com/2012/08/24/obama-p...

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#104742 Sep 1, 2012
ehancock wrote:
<quoted text>
The oath quite clearly says INDIVISIBLE. There is no way around it.
The tenth amendment says Obama has no buisness screwing around with Arizona's immigration policies.

There is no way around it.

Allowing foreign powers to dictate to states what they can and can't do is out of the question.

There is no way around it.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#104743 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
If you end the Fed...there are no taxes, no IRS, no reason you give 35% of your income directly to an illegal institution. The federal income tax is illegal anyway.
The federal power to tax does not depend upon the existence of the Fed.

Sixteenth Amendment:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, we cut defense budget, eliminate the Fed, and provide universal health care. Many people would be "forced" to pay for health care through taxes, claiming they are therefore not "free".
I cannot say that I believe cutting defense by 75% is reasonable, but I do believe that the profiteering military-industrial complex that so worried Ike is fleecing the public, while wrapping themselves in the flag and slandering anyone who differs as disloyal.
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#104744 Sep 1, 2012
Bible Verse On “Pray For Obama” Billboard Draws Secret Service Investigation

http://www.westernjournalism.com/bible-verse-...

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#104745 Sep 1, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
What then, in your opinion, is the reason for the fraudulent certificates?
If he was actually born in Hawaii, there would be no need for a fraudulent birth certificate.
I have to warn you that my theory makes neither side happy. But that is usually where the truth is found anyway.

It all starts with a speech Obama made where he plain as day states "My father served in WWII..."

Unedited from CNN


Appologist will claim this video is fake. Total bullshit. To this day no one has provided the transcript or the "real" video where he says "grandfather"...so don't even go there until you can back your claims...Ellen.

Neither Obama Senior nor Sorento were old enough to have served in WWII.

My theory...

Obama's real father is Frank Marshall Davis.

Davis was a communist extremist with strong political connections in Chicago, a lousy poet, a pornographer, a pronounced racist and was on the FBI's watch list till he died.

My evidence...

When Obama was abandoned by his mother in Hawaii he was left in the care of his grandfather who happened to have this "friend" named Frank.

Frank visited lil Barack most every weekend during his childhood.(Obama recalls this in his book)

Frank's involvement in Barack's life didn't stop there...

From Forbes magazine:
'Davis offered Obama advice at several life-changing levels: on race, on college, on women, on his mind, on his attitudes, on life, on the very notion of what Davis himself called “fundamental change.” In his memoirs, Obama features 22 direct references to “Frank” by name. Davis became a part of Obama’s life and mind, by Obama’s own extended recounting, from Hawaii—the site of multiple visits and late evenings together—to Los Angeles to Chicago to Germany to Africa, from adolescence to college to community organizing. When Obama arrived in Chicago to find himself professionally and politically—just as Frank Marshall Davis himself had once done in the 1930s—Obama literally visualized Davis, pictured him. He thought first of “Frank.”'

Sounds almost like a father...doesn't it?

Does it seem a bit weird to anyone else that a "friend of your grandfather" would take such an interest in you? Up to and including following you around the globe?

Crazy weird that Obama just happened to land in the very city where Davis' political connections are.

Also intriguing, the fact that "Grandpap's Buddy" was taking nude pictures of Obama's mother in his apartment 10 months before Barack's birth.

Then there is the fact that Barack is the spitting image of Davis and looks absolutely nothing like Obama Senior.

(google image the words- Frank Marshall Davis Obama)

Conclusion...

If Obama was not from the US, McCain and Hillary would have burnt him to the ground during or immediately after the election.

So, why won't he release a real BC?

Because Davis' name is where Obama Senior's is supposed to be. This information is not going to get him tossed from office. Yet, the ties to such a man could sway a close election.

If the republicans expose this information all it means is that Obama is the illegitamate love child of a dispicable man in the 60s. Not uncommon. It would be touted as the dirtiest of dirty politics.

Would it not be more advantageous to continue letting people think he is really an illegal alien?

Obama CHOSE to deceive people about this. It is now on him.

None of my evidence is enough on it's own, but you gotta admit a very strong pattern emerges.

In addition it explains why the reps. don't get into the mix also why he won't give up the real BC. Everything adds up. A beautifully balanced equation.

Proceed to call me crazy, it makes more sense than an illegal alien making it all the way to the White House without being vetted along the way.
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#104746 Sep 1, 2012
2 CONSENTING ADULTS AND A COW ...
Farmer's raw deal over raw milk scheduled for trial

In Wisconsin, while the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection “once supported farmers who offered raw dairy through direct-to-consumer sales,” officials said the state agency reversed its position under pressure from the Food and Drug Administration.

When the state legislature tried to block the newly developing crackdown on farmers who provide their products directly to consumers, the governor vetoed the proposal.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/farmer-faces-off-a...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#104747 Sep 1, 2012
ehancock wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."
First, that says that the source of the terms used in the Constitution is the common law (hence not Vattel).
Second, if the Supreme Court had said: "It was never doubted that if you wore suspenders and a belt, you would hold your pants up," would that mean that you had to wear both suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up?
Obviously not, and the statement in the Minor v Happersett case is similar. It simply lists the two ways of becoming a citizen at birth---birth in a country and birth by citizens---and then says that if you had both of them, there was never a question that you were a citizen at birth. But it did not say that you had to have both of them to be a citizen at birth, and it did not say (and it went on to say that it did not have to say) which of the two would be necessary.
Third, the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER the Minor v Happersett case,(hence it would overturn Minor, if the Minor statement were actually a ruling, which it wasn't). And the Wong Kim Ark case both defined the term Natural Born as coming from the common law and referring to the place of birth and stated that the 14th Amendment requires that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a citizen at birth.
Correct. The Court in Minor v Happersett recognized that persons born "in a country" of parents who are "citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also." The court recognized that persons born in the US of citizen parents are obviously born citizens. As they are born citizens in this country, they are "natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." that is the rule. Born citizens in the country they are "natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Later Ark, determined that persons born in the US of alien parents are also born citizens and became citizens upon their birth. By the same rule, such born citizens are "natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
American Lady wrote:
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) Chief Justice Waite.
'Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship)reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance.'"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of whichthe framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdictionwithout reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have beendoubts, but never as to the first.”.
==========
Sticks and stones
may break my bones.
BUT your words
will NEVER hurt :)

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#104748 Sep 1, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The federal power to tax does not depend upon the existence of the Fed.
Sixteenth Amendment:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
<quoted text>
Wojar...the legal definition of income is PROFIT.

Your labor(product) in exchange for compensation(wages) is not profit.

You make and sell fireplaces and you have 1000 dollars invested in one.

You sell said fireplace for 3000 dollars...

Do you pay taxes on 3000 dollars?

No, you pay on the 2000 dollars PROFIT.

The first 1000 dollars is your product and it would be illegal to tax you for it.

Wages are not PROFIT, it is compensation for product.

The 16th amendment does not apply to wages...

The Supreme Court has held that the 16th amendment gives the govt. no new ability to tax the people.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#104749 Sep 1, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Rogue, last straw for me. No more NY Times followng his latest Liberal spin. It's WND.com , globe.com , patriot.com for me now. Why? On account of their unfailing unbiased reporting.
It's about time you allowed yourself to be consumed by the dark force!
All kidding aside, Obama has had over three years to turn around this economy and the first two years he concentrated on advancing his Progressive agenda and the last year is a "my way or the highway" approach to things.
After the election of 1994 Bill Clinton moved to the Center and won reelection but Obama is so far left he is unable to do so. And that is why Bill Clinton was a two-term president and Obama will only be a one term president.

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.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 21 min Abe 232,854
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr Yeah 1,403,354
News Obama To Sign Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Thur... (Jan '09) 5 hr Nephew of Sotomayor 24
News Kagan confirmed as Supreme Court justice (Aug '10) 5 hr Nephew of Sotomayor 766
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 16 hr litesong 35,554
News Mitt Romney vacations with family during GOP co... 17 hr Patrick Aei 2
News Race and Beyond: Let's Talk About Race and Poverty (Oct '12) Sat Human 156
More from around the web