BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 216973 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.

Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#110865 Sep 24, 2012
Here's a Daily Caller senior contributor admitting that most of conservative punditry is complete BS.

That's the birfoon's favourite kind of journalism.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/23/no-apology
Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#110866 Sep 24, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
He is probably banned at the American border
Youp should've told them that 2 weeks ago. And, oh, off to Washington in November, just after the election. I love to visit that French-designed beautiful capital and see the White House, courtesy of General Brock, 1812.
Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#110867 Sep 24, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Another example it the tail rotor assemblies on the Bell Heuys and the Bell Jetrangers. It is entirely possible to mount the tail rotor blades on a Huey backs wards but on the Jetranger there is an extra piece of metal who's only purpose is to prevent some idiot from mounting the blades backwards.
And yes, in Vietnam we did have someone mount the tail rotors backwards on a Huey. And when the test pilot took the aircraft up for a spin, it had a vibration and had lack of tail rotor control. They scratched their heads for a few days trying to figure it out when a clerk from the orderly room took some papers over to be signed and while there he noticed that while three or four Hueys had their blades turning one way, this other aircraft had them the other way. In other words, a guy who does not know anything about helicopters, other then they usually fly, saw something that was different and, OMG!!!
So just because one document looks like another, it does not mean it is not a fraud!
Fraud? Just because Dr Orly Taitz,Esq, loses a case like the one she will lose today and the one she lost in Georgia in May to an empty chair does not mean it is a fraud.
Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#110868 Sep 24, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's hope so but you've got remember Omama's Border Patrol policies.
Well, so you two ARE worried. Good.
Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#110870 Sep 24, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Editing boo boo, I'm bad!
Now I am glad we do not have this here in the U.S. If you live in Germany and belong to a "recognized" religion, the state taxes you 9% and gives the money to your church.
Because of that, many do not claim to be a member of any church so they will not get taxed. But the down side is that, by the numbers, there are very few religious people in Germany.
Oh, a few years ago the Church of Scientology tried to get "recognized" in Germany so they could join the money groping but I don't think the German government recognized them.
Oh, they can put you in jail if you don't!!!
<quoted text>
Steffi [Graf}: proof that the rich don't get to heaven; MRE KARACS IN BONN; 1997
Germany's favourite daughter was doing her patriotic best this week to enhance the image of the Fatherland. Steffi Graf, small-town girl and fading tennis ace, was the real star in the delegation accompanying President Roman Herzog on his tour of the United States. That little matter of the unpaid tax bills, for which her father Peter starts the final leg of his jail sentence tomorrow, seemed forgotten.
Then came the bombshell. Steffi, so Catholic that she once had an audience with the Pope, was leaving the Church. She initially refused to be drawn on reports about her change of heart. "It's a private matter," is all she would say.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/steff ...
"Steffi Graf, small-town girl and fading tennis ace,"???? What? She retired at the apex of her career, still a champion, to marry and have kids. Retired undefeated and if she put on her tennis shoes today and grabbed a racket, could probably beat the crap out of the top 5 worold-class players. And bravo for her decision to leave the money-grubbing church. What happened to Jesus and the money-changers in the temple?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#110871 Sep 24, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't "imply" anything puppet, they were very clear:
Ark: Citizen
Elg: Natural Born Citizen
I'm sorry that the SCOTUS decided that Wong whom did not have two US Citizen Parents was a citizen- and Elg who did a Natural Born Citizen.
You should call them and let them know they got it wrong Wojar, I am sure they would love to hear from you.
The court said very clearly:
Ark: Citizen
Elg: Natural Born Citizen
Doesn't matter how much you dance and twist puppet.
They didn't imply anything? UR not a very good liar, Mr ak "just a citizen" pilot. As Ark was a natural born citizen per the court's binding teaching, it is perfectly correct to refer to him as a citizen. I have no qualms with the court's conclusion that a child "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States." The court went to great length to explain exactly why a person born a citizen in this country is a natural born citizen. To conclude that the court did not regard Ark as a natural born citizen is simply irrational. It would mean the court repudiated it's own opinion and disregarded the binding rule that it set forth. The court didn't 'get it wrong". AkBirfoon simply doesn't understand the significance of the ruling, which every court in the US understands.

C.f., Voeltz v Obama, No. 2012-CA-02063, slip op. at 9 (Fla 2nd Cir. Ct. Sep. 6, 2012).

Hollander v McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H. 2008)

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. App. 2009).

BirfoonBoy is trying to paddle upstream without an oar. That's not my problem.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
BirfoonBoy seems to think that the court implied Ark was not a natural born citizen even though its ratio decidendi ("reason for the decision") was based on the jus soli principle according to common law. In fact the Ark decision established jus soli natural born citizenship without regard to parentage as BINDING PRECEDENT.
Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#110872 Sep 24, 2012
LRS wrote:
The "Twilight Zone" music just will not stop. Why not simply show the BC and be done with it?
And what about that ringing in your ears? WILL SOMEBODY ANSWER THAT DAMN PHONE? Ha Ha
Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#110873 Sep 24, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Although I never call names, in this case I have to say that I bet you made that up (which some people call LYING). If you did not make that up, provide a link that shows that Pelosi said it.
He will remain silent on that one, Ellen. He has no source and is not man enough to admit he once more fabricated.
Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#110874 Sep 24, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
ICYMI: A birfoon case crashed and burned in Vermont today.
No surprise though.
Oh no. 159-0. Not fair, as I'm sure the judge or presiding official was a liberal socialist, why, probably a communist, appointed by Jimmy Carter no doubt and maybe even an Iranian immigrant like that Georgia one. Poooooor birthers, so unfair.

Comments, Rogue?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#110875 Sep 24, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
You named yourself real appropriately. You need to slow your spin down as you might end up in Chine if you don't.
Do you know who Justus von Liebig was? The name is German. It means one who came from Liebich in Bohemia. Duh!
Justus Liebig wrote:
<quoted text>
HDoH's response was per statute. Verification of information. HDoH is supposed to verify information, not perform forensic digital analysis to determine how a pdf was created. The information was verified and anyone other than a 6-year old ought to understand what that means. What's Rougie's problem?
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#110876 Sep 24, 2012
Conservative girl wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie our Founders were grandfthered in regardless of their foreign parentage status. The right of Presidency "natural born citizenship" of PARENTS applies to everyone thereafter. Arthur along with Obama are the only two that this issue applies. Their are deceitfully serving as President, knowing all along they were not eligible to be President. As to your "April Fools" remark, all Obama has to do is release them to put a end to that issue. He won't, because there are political ramifications. Use your head woman for a change.
That tit for tat analogy is comical.
Like I said, Obama is so into it in lies that he cannot come clean.
It would destroy his Presidency.
What is your point, that Jefferson and Madison do not count? But then there still are Wilson and Eisenhower, who were not founders, and both were dual citizens at birth.

In addition to Arthur, who by the way there is NO evidence that he hid his father's citizenship for, there is also James Buchanan---who was not a founder and for whom there is no evidence that his father was naturalized before he was born.

Both Wilson's and Herbert Hoover's parents were both citizens when they were born, but that was only because of a law that made their mothers automatically US citizens at birth. Those laws were not the same thing as naturalizing the mothers because the did not have to swear oaths or renounce their foreign citizenship.

Now, as to the grandfather clause. It is only birthers who claim that it was written to allow Washington and Jefferson and others to be president despite their not being Natural Born Citizens. They all were Natural Born, including Jefferson (whose mother was English) and Jackson (who had TWO parents who were not US citizens). The reason for the grandfather clause, was to allow people who were not born on US territory and were only naturalized US citizens to be eligible---in particular Alexander Hamilton (who was born on the island of Nevis).

There is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution considered the US-born children of foreigners not to be US citizens at birth or that they were a lower category of citizens than the US-born children of US citizens. And surely, if they had really thought that the US-born children of foreigners were to be distrusted, they would have told us.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#110877 Sep 24, 2012
Conservative girl wrote:
<quoted text>
They were citizens, just not eligible to be President.
There is a higher criteria for President/VP. "of PARENTS" in the PLURAL. Last time I checked Obama had only one American citizen parent. It is a detail of no value to the media and Liberal judges in America, they are in the bag for him. So the farce continues.
Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so doesn't make it so. Judge Clay D. Land.

Do you really think that when Chancellor Lewis Sandford remarked in Lynch v. Clarke, in 1844, that a child born in the US of alien parents would be eligible for the Presidency, he was "in the bag" for Obama?

Get real!
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#110879 Sep 24, 2012
Conservative girl wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie our Founders were grandfthered in regardless of their foreign parentage status. The right of Presidency "natural born citizenship" of PARENTS applies to everyone thereafter. Arthur along with Obama are the only two that this issue applies. Their are deceitfully serving as President, knowing all along they were not eligible to be President. As to your "April Fools" remark, all Obama has to do is release them to put a end to that issue. He won't, because there are political ramifications. Use your head woman for a change.
That tit for tat analogy is comical.
Like I said, Obama is so into it in lies that he cannot come clean.
It would destroy his Presidency.
Re: "That tit for tat analogy is comical.

Don't like it? Too bad. The fact is that Obama has not sealed his school transcripts or college transcripts or any document. Neither has Romney. Neither of them has released their college transcripts, passport records, parents' marriage licenses (which some birthers have called for), passport records, etc. Neither has to. YOU may think that Obama should and Romney does not have to, but that is only your opinion.
Just me -

Los Angeles, CA

#110880 Sep 24, 2012
Siouxweety wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit!
If you didn't want anyone to live in a ghetto, you wouldn't be a Democrat!
Oh and as for your threat about telling people who I am, go for it!
When you show up to my front door, that's when I will be a tad afraid.
Just be aware of the legal ramifications.
Don't you think that if I intended to show up at your door, I would have done so a long time ago?

As for living in the ghetto, what were your other options at the time?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#110882 Sep 24, 2012
Conservative girl wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie our Founders were grandfthered in regardless of their foreign parentage status. The right of Presidency "natural born citizenship" of PARENTS applies to everyone thereafter.
The grandfather clause is not relevant. It's not news either.

The alleged "two citizen parent" rule, regarding Presidential eligibility, never existed in this country and was never asserted by any court in the United States. On the contrary, the USSC went to great length to demonstrate that even a child of alien parents born in the US is a natural born citizen. Concerning the Supreme Court's binding precedent, the D.C. circuit court remarked that "the subject is so elaborately considered [in US v. Ark] as to make unnecessary any further reference to this phase of the question." Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 411 (App. D.C. 1938) affirmed and modified, 307 US 325 (1939).

Get real.
Just me -

Los Angeles, CA

#110883 Sep 24, 2012
Siouxweety wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit!
If you didn't want anyone to live in a ghetto, you wouldn't be a Democrat!
Oh and as for your threat about telling people who I am, go for it!
When you show up to my front door, that's when I will be a tad afraid.
Just be aware of the legal ramifications.

BTW, I think you're much more of a threat to yourself than anyone here.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#110884 Sep 24, 2012
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>I have seen and printed off copies of Obama's original Kenyan BC(w/footprint) which was smuggled out of Kenya in 2008 by Lucas Smith. He even put out a YouTube from Kenya and signed sworn affidavits in court to authenticity. I have also seen & heard the YouTube of Obama lecturing students about community service in the 1990s proudly stating "I was born in Kenya".
This is an excellent example of why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review all call birthers crazy.

Lucas D. Smith was a convicted felon, one of whose crimes was forgery. And Lucas D. Smith simply claimed that he went to Kenya and got Obama's birth certificate there. BUT when people challenged him to prove that he had gone to Kenya by simply showing his passport with a Kenya stamp on it, Lucas D. Smith refused to do so. And he has also refused to say why he refused to show that he refuses to do so.

Re the YouTube videos. Perhaps you have not been told but it is easy to edit videos. And it is particularly easy to cut the NOT out of "I was not born in Kenya."

The "born in Kenya" story is the height of the loony side of the birther movement. It is based on forgeries like that of Lucas D. Smith, and falsifications--such as the claim that Obama's Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya---when she actually said right on the same tape that he was born IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.

Laying aside for a moment the overwhelming proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, the evidence that Obama was NOT born in Kenya is also very strong. There were a grand total of 21 people who came to the USA from Kenya in 1961. Of these only seven were US citizens. And the birther myth has always been that Obama's parents went there and returned by plane, but only one person came to the USA from Kenya in 1961 by plane and that person was, wait for it, NOT a US citizen. And Obama's father did not go to Kenya in 1961 either (making it unlikely that his mother did, since travel late in pregnancy was rare, and even more rare without the husband going along). WND has proved with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961.

And the Kenyan government investigated the "born in Kenya" story, and found that it was not true.

“Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, can’t understand why his office gets so many baseless questions about whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

“It’s madness,” said Chessoni on Monday.“His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya. When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.””

http://washingtonindependent.com/53654/forged ...

Obama has a Hawaii birth certificate that says that he was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have confirmed that fact. It is also confirmed by the birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, which were sent to the papers only by the DOH of Hawaii.

Obama's birth announcement appeared in a section of the newspapers called Health Bureau Statistics. As the name indicates, and as the papers and the DOH also say, ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to the Health Bureau Statistics section of the paper. And the DOH only sent out those notices for children that it had issued birth certificates for, and in 1961 the DOH was not allowed to register the births of children who were not born in Hawaii.


Oh, and there is this:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiol ...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#110885 Sep 24, 2012
LarrySinclair wrote:
<quoted text>So if I said "Santa Clause is alive" you would waste your time countering it? Fact is saying Obama is legal over and over doesn't make it so. He was born in Kenya long before I could vote or even cared about our Constitution. You can't change that and you can't change the definition of "natural-born Citizen" as understood by our founders.
You are on some sort of mission for the very people who are using Obama to usher in their NWO and you know it. Otherwise why would you waste your time?
If I say UR FOS that means I believe your claptrap?

Get real.

BTW. it is not I who say that the President is a natural born citizen, it is the federal and state courts in the United States.

C.f., Voeltz v Obama, No. 2012-CA-02063, slip op.(Fla 2nd Cir. Ct. Sep. 6, 2012).

Hollander v McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008)

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. App. 2009).
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so doesn't make it so. Judge Clay D. Land.
Do you really think that when Chancellor Lewis Sandford remarked in Lynch v. Clarke, in 1844, that a child born in the US of alien parents would be eligible for the Presidency, he was "in the bag" for Obama?
Get real!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#110886 Sep 24, 2012
ehancock wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone in the USA except for foreign diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. That means that they have to obey US laws, which diplomats do not. But everyone else does, so everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
Wrong! Being subject to the jurisdiction, thereof, is nothing more than being subject to the US Constitution, which is the law of the land.
The only people that are subject to the US Constitution are US Citizens.
Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, not subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#110887 Sep 24, 2012
In Dred Scott v. Sandford,(1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said: HN18 "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language,'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." 19 How. 576. And to this extent no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

In United States v. Rhodes,(1866) Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: HN19 "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is common law of this country, as well as of England." "We find no warrant for the opinion [663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution." 1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min FYVM 1,396,052
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min Uncle Tab 228,824
News Supreme deadlock: Republicans must draft their ... 8 hr Bama Yankee 2
News Egypt state news agency says Mubarak is "clinic... (Jun '12) 18 hr Zionist appeasers 18
News For Obama, setbacks from a divided Supreme Court 19 hr Synque 11
News Donald Trump accuses judge of having a conflict... 20 hr Chilli J 289
News Bush, Paulson say economy will get better, but ... (Oct '08) Wed Goldman Sachs Jew 139
More from around the web