BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 243600 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.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#175996 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I'll redo the first page
You wrote:"You seem quite ignorant of our history Jacque from Canada. It was northern Christian republicans that fought for the equality and freedom of our fellow black man, and sent tens of thousands of their sons to fight and die for the preservation of the union that the democrats were trying to destroy(and still are) so they could continue to own and work them in their fields"
Are you serious? The democrats hardly existed when the Civil War broke out, so what are you talking about? And, I've said a million times here on Topix that the Republicans were the "good guys" up to the FDR and the 1930s. Pendulum then reversed itself and the Dems became the "equalizers" of race and gender, taking off with JFK and LBJ. The Repubs swung right starting in the 50s and continuing on, though Eisenhower did perceive the perils of pro-business Repubs. He knew what he was talking about, particularly the Military-industrial complex, with emphasis on military.
You then wrote :"It is the USA that has lead the world in medical innovations, and drug technology for decades. As a matter of fact, it was the christian church that started modern healthcare. I can sue my insurance company but not my government if I believe they have harmed me or my family"
Really? Again,if you've read me at all, you'd know I've been saying all along that the U.S.A. was a leader in medical innovations and drug technology. A leader, yes, but not alone, as you'd have to factor in Western Europe, Japan, Australasia, Canada.You're not alone. And those famous medical miracles are only available to a perhaps half of the U.S. population. Before Obamacare, fully 50 million Americans without coverage could not avail themselves of these famous medical advances or drugs. Add to that millions who would be followed to their doctors' or hospitals' offices by an insurance company inspector(see LRS).
Religious orders you say?What?They're non-existent,poor you. Private insurance and hospital corps have replaced them,turning a free religious gum 5-minute procedure into a $3,500 bill, ask wojar.We cannot sue gov't? Plenty patients have sued gov't here for malpractice, but no ridiculous $10 million suit for a finger infection allowed here.
Oh, and this is also for Obskeptic : Speaking of Republicans and Abraham Lincoln, do you really think that the great Lincoln would ever stoop to give the time of day to people like Goldwater, Nixon, GWB, Cheney, Grove, Rumsfeld, Romney, Rush, Gingrich, Pat Robertson, Trump, Taitz, Cruz, et al? Do you really think he would?
Therealnews com

Edison, NJ

#175997 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, and yes I mainly agree with you. Clinton did do that, as he did what Obama resisted , and rightly so, doing, that is to bend to blackmail and terrorism. Clinton did approve right wing legislation, which allowed him to pass some of HIS pro-people legislation? That is why Gingrich's gov't stoppage halted. Did he do right? I don't know.
No, I re-did my first page, as when I clicked "Post comment", the whole thing went to the Topix index , and that's when I knew I was technically screwed. Oh, I did not think, as birthers do that I was censored. Toxpix people have other stuff to do.
As to my re-done first page, I forgot to mention, and it involves the best medical , surgery etc and drug services in the world, well, that's all fine, except that 50 million uninsured Americans, before obamacare plus those followed to their dr's office by insurance company auditors (see LRS), well, let's say, close to half the American population could not avail themselves of the "best medicine and drugs in the world." But rich foreign potentates and dictators and royalty could. No problem, with most of them paying for their medical services with petro dollars.
I also lose my post sometimes and who knows where it goes?

The liberals wanted the government to buy medicines in bulk thus lessen the cost, Obama and his corporate Democrats said NO.

The Liberals wanted Single Payer ( Medicare For All ), Obama and his corporate Democrats said NO.

The Liberals wanted a Public Option to compete with private insurance, Obama and his corporate Democrats said NO.

Enclosed is an hour talk on the facts leading up to the meltdown of 2008. It gives a better perspective and understanding of what really happened.

==========

Special: Robert Scheer on the Great American Stickup
http://tinyurl.com/26nnfcm /
http://www.linktv.org/programs/robert-scheer-...
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#175998 Oct 22, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The court declined to address the question of whether persons born outside the US to citizen parents would be a natural born citizen for Article 2 Section 1 purposes.
However, birfoons cannot understand what that means.
<quoted text>
How many times did you have to read it before it dawned on you? LMAO! Poor child.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#175999 Oct 22, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
So both parents of each child were present at the single parents' meeting because it takes two to make a baby?
Romper is off his rocker.
<quoted text>
In a normal day, how many times do you actually understand what someone says to you? Any? LMAO!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176000 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, and yes I mainly agree with you. Clinton did do that, as he did what Obama resisted , and rightly so, doing, that is to bend to blackmail and terrorism. Clinton did approve right wing legislation, which allowed him to pass some of HIS pro-people legislation? That is why Gingrich's gov't stoppage halted. Did he do right? I don't know.
No, I re-did my first page, as when I clicked "Post comment", the whole thing went to the Topix index , and that's when I knew I was technically screwed. Oh, I did not think, as birthers do that I was censored. Toxpix people have other stuff to do.
As to my re-done first page, I forgot to mention, and it involves the best medical , surgery etc and drug services in the world, well, that's all fine, except that 50 million uninsured Americans, before obamacare plus those followed to their dr's office by insurance company auditors (see LRS), well, let's say, close to half the American population could not avail themselves of the "best medicine and drugs in the world." But rich foreign potentates and dictators and royalty could. No problem, with most of them paying for their medical services with petro dollars.
LMAO!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176001 Oct 22, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times did you have to read it before it dawned on you? LMAO! Poor child.
Unlike the status of children born in the US who are natural born citizens per binding precedent (even if born of alien parents), there is no binding precedent governing putative natural born citizen status of children born beyond US jurisdiction.

The Play Justice seems to believe that the court by not addressing the status of children of citizens born beyond jurisdiction of the US somehow negated it's clear declaration,“we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Will it ever dawn on the practitioners of Play Law? I doubt it.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The court declined to address the question of whether persons born outside the US to citizen parents would be a natural born citizen for Article 2 Section 1 purposes.
However, birfoons cannot understand what that means.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176002 Oct 22, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike the status of children born in the US who are natural born citizens per binding precedent (even if born of alien parents), there is no binding precedent governing putative natural born citizen status of children born beyond US jurisdiction.
The Play Justice seems to believe that the court by not addressing the status of children of citizens born beyond jurisdiction of the US somehow negated it's clear declaration,“we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Will it ever dawn on the practitioners of Play Law? I doubt it.
<quoted text>
See if you can wrap your little 6 year old mind around this. Plain, simple and true! LMAO! Will it ever dawn on the 6 year old that he has soiled himself? How's that grass hut condo doing? Still standing? Got your "seed" money saved up? LMAO!

http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitiz...
American Lady

Danville, KY

#176003 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
LIFETIME job, eh? You must've been on unemployment if you thought them the save values you espouse here on Topix. Are your kids communist tots?
When a parent dies ... or NOT
Don't 'you' STILL call them Mom & Dad!?!

OR

Does a child call them by their 'given' name!?!

L~I~F~E~T~I~M~E
<3
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176004 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
LIFETIME job, eh? You must've been on unemployment if you thought them the save values you espouse here on Topix. Are your kids communist tots?
Beautifully written! LMAO!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176005 Oct 22, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!
Another eleoquent reply, this time , to :

Jacques from Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks, and yes I mainly agree with you. Clinton did do that, as he did what Obama resisted , and rightly so, doing, that is to bend to blackmail and terrorism. Clinton did approve right wing legislation, which allowed him to pass some of HIS pro-people legislation? That is why Gingrich's gov't stoppage halted. Did he do right? I don't know.
No, I re-did my first page, as when I clicked "Post comment", the whole thing went to the Topix index , and that's when I knew I was technically screwed. Oh, I did not think, as birthers do that I was censored. Toxpix people have other stuff to do.
As to my re-done first page, I forgot to mention, and it involves the best medical , surgery etc and drug services in the world, well, that's all fine, except that 50 million uninsured Americans, before obamacare plus those followed to their dr's office by insurance company auditors (see LRS), well, let's say, close to half the American population could not avail themselves of the "best medicine and drugs in the world." But rich foreign potentates and dictators and royalty could. No problem, with most of them paying for their medical services with petro dollars.

==========
==========

Did you not just ask wojar how long it took him to comprehend anything?
Learn to Read

United States

#176006 Oct 22, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>See if you can wrap your little 6 year old mind around this. Plain, simple and true! LMAO! Will it ever dawn on the 6 year old that he has soiled himself? How's that grass hut condo doing? Still standing? Got your "seed" money saved up? LMAO!

http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitiz...
Fascinating. Completely useless and without authority but fascinating.

fable"s"

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176007 Oct 22, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Beautifully written! LMAO!
You want a war of typos? I've resisted and not pointed out your errors and grammatical horrors of the last few days, never mind the typos. Okay, "save" should have read "same" in my post. It does change the whole meaning of the sentence, I agree. American Lady understood it for what it reallymeant, a typo, and had the grace not to correct me. I thank her for that.
Learn to Read

United States

#176008 Oct 22, 2013
Romper. Please do not anger the typing police
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176009 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Another eleoquent reply, this time , to :
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, and yes I mainly agree with you. Clinton did do that, as he did what Obama resisted , and rightly so, doing, that is to bend to blackmail and terrorism. Clinton did approve right wing legislation, which allowed him to pass some of HIS pro-people legislation? That is why Gingrich's gov't stoppage halted. Did he do right? I don't know.
No, I re-did my first page, as when I clicked "Post comment", the whole thing went to the Topix index , and that's when I knew I was technically screwed. Oh, I did not think, as birthers do that I was censored. Toxpix people have other stuff to do.
As to my re-done first page, I forgot to mention, and it involves the best medical , surgery etc and drug services in the world, well, that's all fine, except that 50 million uninsured Americans, before obamacare plus those followed to their dr's office by insurance company auditors (see LRS), well, let's say, close to half the American population could not avail themselves of the "best medicine and drugs in the world." But rich foreign potentates and dictators and royalty could. No problem, with most of them paying for their medical services with petro dollars.
==========
==========
Did you not just ask wojar how long it took him to comprehend anything?
LMAO!
Obskeptic

Detroit, MI

#176010 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, and this is also for Obskeptic : Speaking of Republicans and Abraham Lincoln, do you really think that the great Lincoln would ever stoop to give the time of day to people like Goldwater, Nixon, GWB, Cheney, Grove, Rumsfeld, Romney, Rush, Gingrich, Pat Robertson, Trump, Taitz, Cruz, et al? Do you really think he would?
No, I don't. I also don't think he would consider any of the modern democrats worth a grain of salt either. Both are selling out the republic, and your list is conspicuously absent of any objectivity.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176011 Oct 22, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't. I also don't think he would consider any of the modern democrats worth a grain of salt either. Both are selling out the republic, and your list is conspicuously absent of any objectivity.
Objectivity, you say? I suggest you re-read some of your posts, like "the Muslim Obama". Want to take that back? Oh, you have not commented on my stating that the Constitution guarantees religious freedom. Obama is assuredly NOT Muslim. But, for the sake of argument, if he was,(he's not) would that bar him or any other from the presidency?

Your lack of objectivity is coming out your barn door.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176012 Oct 22, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't. I also don't think he would consider any of the modern democrats worth a grain of salt either. Both are selling out the republic, and your list is conspicuously absent of any objectivity.
Off topic again, irrelevant once more. I was talking about Lincoln and today's Republicans. Not the democrats. Lincoln was Republican, no? Today, for sure, and with the list of Republicans I supplied you with, rest assured he would not belong to that party today.

Do you reflect much before posting? Or do you always let your pre-conceived and heavily-biased opinions carry the day? I've noticed how you get progressively enervated every time you're dumbfounded or flummoxed. That's when little remarks like my posting so much and needing fresh air spurt out, not to mention "ignorant". Too bad. But relax, I don't do that. I don't have to.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#176013 Oct 22, 2013
New Report: UK Crime Statistics Fudged to Justify Gun Ban
Posted By Philip Hodges on Oct 22, 2013

How many times have we heard Piers Morgan rant and rave about crime rates in his home country? He claims gun violence is virtually nonexistent thanks to the Brits doing the “responsible” thing and taking everyone’s guns away in 1997. Sure, there was an acknowledged, initial spike in crime shortly thereafter, but then it began to fall and has since plummeted. Or so they say.
It turns out that they have an entire bureaucracy over there devoted not to fighting crime, but fighting crime statistics. Their job is to determine which crimes get recorded as crimes and which get categorized as something else, which ends up not affecting the overall crime rate.
In other words, if there is an attempted burglary, it might get reported initially by a victim or a witness, but it also might end up being categorized as “criminal damage” instead of burglary. Or if there’s an instance of what they call “Grievous Bodily Harm,” it might get categorized as “common assault.” When they downgrade the category, it affects how crime statistics are eventually reported in the media, and those numbers are the ones that find their way to Piers Morgan, who then trumpets them from his TV show so that everyone knows how effective gun control is.

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/3441/new-report-uk-...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#176014 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Off topic again, irrelevant once more. I was talking about Lincoln and today's Republicans. Not the democrats. Lincoln was Republican, no? Today, for sure, and with the list of Republicans I supplied you with, rest assured he would not belong to that party today.
Do you reflect much before posting? Or do you always let your pre-conceived and heavily-biased opinions carry the day? I've noticed how you get progressively enervated every time you're dumbfounded or flummoxed. That's when little remarks like my posting so much and needing fresh air spurt out, not to mention "ignorant". Too bad. But relax, I don't do that. I don't have to.
How do you know what people who lived over a hundred years ago would think or do anything? Did you channel Lincoln?!? You Libtards think you know everything!
Obskeptic

Detroit, MI

#176015 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Objectivity, you say? I suggest you re-read some of your posts, like "the Muslim Obama". Want to take that back? Oh, you have not commented on my stating that the Constitution guarantees religious freedom. Obama is assuredly NOT Muslim. But, for the sake of argument, if he was,(he's not) would that bar him or any other from the presidency?
Your lack of objectivity is coming out your barn door.
If you re-read my post, I said that Madonna was the person that says he is a muslim. I simply quoted her, since she is such a highly respected entertainer on the left side of politics. As for religious freedom, the constitution does guarantee that. It also guarantees that enemies of the document have the freedom to destroy the country using its freedoms. As for what I think of muslims? If they were not such a murderous bunch of hypocrites, I wouldn't have any issue with them at all, but the evidence points to them as being violent and intolerant, especially to women and infidels, and that I do have a problem with. Don't you?

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News California bans state travel to Oklahoma over i... 12 hr Annie Oakly 15
News California now world's 5th largest economy, sur... 13 hr Mr Goodpenny 12
News Disabled Veteran's Life Ruined By Illegal Immig... 14 hr davy 2
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 15 hr TheFartingClintone 64,852
News Is a new Southern California job worth a $24,40... 17 hr Solarman 1
News Consumer Choice is the key to California's clea... Fri Solarman 1
News Transgender people should not be sentenced to rape (Jul '09) Thu C Kersey 2