BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 243256 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#110795 Sep 24, 2012
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
Both have Romney stuck in the mud at 191 leaving his path to victory ever so slim, but tell the truth Rogue; don’t Romney kind of remind you of Max Headroom? LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =pDvm_MlgxdUXX
A little bit. But at least he is not a fraud and a crook!
Let's see. Romney's Blain Capitol succeeded with 80% of their capitol ventures and you see him as a looser but Obama had over 90% of his home loan clients loose their homes and you see him as a success?
Yep. only 18 out of over 200 home loan clients Obama the lawyer represented are still in their homes while the rest have had their homes foreclosed on or sold short and you think he did a good job?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#110796 Sep 24, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that the Hawaii department of health is supposed to check on whether an IMAGE of a document it issued is authentic? How can it do that? The image may be enhanced (which is not illegal, by the way) or it may have been degraded in the process of scanning the document. And, finally, it is the facts on the document that count.
Easy, all they have to do is put the jpg and a real copy side by side and if there are any deviations, that would be an indication that the jpg was either not a copy of the document or it had been altered by leaving out some information.
I tell you what, the next time you get stopped by a cop while driving, just show him jpg's of you DL, vehicle registration and insurance card and see what he says!!! "Go to Jail do not collect $200".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#110797 Sep 24, 2012
Oh goody. Now I know why you progressives hate the John Birchers. The Koch brothers are members!!!!
You do know they can best be described at ... Libertarians, don't you? OOoo, can't have no patriots in the country but communists, socialists, etc. are fine with you!!! Soooo, exactly who are the anti-Americans???
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#110799 Sep 24, 2012
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
The sentence before explains it Rogue. Why does the birfoon require an outside source to tell them what someone said?
“Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”
Barack Obama
Without doubt, that was one of the dumbest things any president has ever said!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#110800 Sep 24, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.

Ark: Natural Born Citizen without regard to parentage.
Elg: Natural Born citizen without regard to parentage.
BirfoonBoy: pissing in the wind with delusions of grandeur.

Tedious ovine bleating "Ark citizen, Elg Natural Born" cannot change binding precedent.

Born in the US = natural born citizen.
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).
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, the US courts, and the Congress understand the Ark opinion, despite birfoon protestations otherwise.
Born in the US = natural born citizen.
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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#110801 Sep 24, 2012
I am not a Libertarian but I do define myself as a Conservatarian. I believe in limited government that is business and job friendly but also that takes care of those in need.
About ten years ago I was at a truck stop south of Nashville, TN and my waitress seemed depressed so I asked her what was up and she told me she was living with her widow mother with her two children and her ex-husband had dies a year and a half earlier so I asked her if she and her children were drawing SS survivor benefits and she said 'no' so I told her about it.
http://www.ssa.gov/survivorplan/ifyou.htm
I then asked her what she was doing later that day or tomorrow and whether she had his death certificate, children's birth cert. etc. Several weeks alter I stopped at the same truck stop and inquired about her and they told me she no longer worked there!
Now, many federal programs can back date benefits 36 months and since her ex- had died a year and a half earlier I can assume she got 18 +/- months benefit$.
Yes, I think we can help those in need.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#110803 Sep 24, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy, all they have to do is put the jpg and a real copy side by side and if there are any deviations, that would be an indication that the jpg was either not a copy of the document or it had been altered by leaving out some information.
I tell you what, the next time you get stopped by a cop while driving, just show him jpg's of you DL, vehicle registration and insurance card and see what he says!!! "Go to Jail do not collect $200".
Obama has the physical copies of his short form and long form birth certificates. How do we know? Because Hawaii said that they sent them to him and because Obama showed the physical copies of both of them to the press. One reporter stated that she had felt the seal on the long form and photographed it. Moreover, he returned to the USA from Indonesia alone. To do so he needed a US passport (a foreign passport would have required a US visa, and there is no evidence Obama applied for one). To get a US passport, he would have had to show a US birth certificate.

As to your allegation that the department of health of Hawaii should validate that the image of Obama's birth certificate is not forged. But no one ever asked them to do that. The secretary of state of Arizona certainly didn't. He simply asked Hawaii to confirm the facts.

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#110804 Sep 24, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Er, Fox also puts Obama ahead. By as many as 8 points in certain states. Rogue, ohhhh, Rogue, why are you not quoting Fox? As to the Huffington Post, it's Rogue's favourite site WHEN it posts favourable Romney polls, which it has failed to do lately and thus we have jilted anti-Huffington post Rogue.
I still say it's too early to call, the debates may sway some, and the last week of campaigning will tell.
Fox like everyone else knows it’s not looking good for Miffed Romney. I suppose their job now is to alert their subjects to the urgency and attempt to prepare them for the inevitable. LOL
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#110805 Sep 24, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy, all they have to do is put the jpg and a real copy side by side and if there are any deviations, that would be an indication that the jpg was either not a copy of the document or it had been altered by leaving out some information.
I tell you what, the next time you get stopped by a cop while driving, just show him jpg's of you DL, vehicle registration and insurance card and see what he says!!! "Go to Jail do not collect $200".
And regarding: "an indication that the jpg was either not a copy of the document or it had been altered by leaving out some information."

As to that. When they say that the information is exactly the same, that means that nothing was left out. If something was left out, the information could not be exactly the same.

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#110806 Sep 24, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
A little bit. But at least he is not a fraud and a crook!
Let's see. Romney's Blain Capitol succeeded with 80% of their capitol ventures and you see him as a looser but Obama had over 90% of his home loan clients loose their homes and you see him as a success?
Yep. only 18 out of over 200 home loan clients Obama the lawyer represented are still in their homes while the rest have had their homes foreclosed on or sold short and you think he did a good job?
I have no idea what you’re talking about Rogue, but do you think it’ll fly in a campaign ad? Know any not too swift boaters? LOL

Return of the not-too-swift boaters
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/16/1121...
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#110807 Sep 24, 2012
How come Omama isn't talking about the murders of 4 Americans including an Ambassador? They had been warned of attacks yet nothing was done. And this guy is supposed to be good for America? Now, that's a good one! Anyone know how many US officials have been killed under Omama's watch?

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#110808 Sep 24, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Without doubt, that was one of the dumbest things any president has ever said!
Obama is not responsible for your intellectual deficiencies Mr. Liars. Perhaps he should have said “you didn’t build those” but the folks listening knew exactly what he was saying as anyone save the ignorant birfoon would demand more than four words from a speech to form any opinion on the validity of assertions being made.

What’s dumb is to date you remain confused. Will four Pinocchio’s do?

The key question is whether “that” refers to “roads and bridges”— as the Obama campaign contends — or to a business. Yes, it’s a bit of a judgment call, but the clincher for us was Obama’s concluding line:“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

Obama appears to be making the unremarkable point that companies and entrepreneurs often benefit in some way from taxpayer support for roads, education and so forth. In other words, he is trying to make the case for higher taxes, and for why he believes the rich should pay more, which as we noted is part of a long Democratic tradition. He just did not put it very eloquently. So we believed Three Pinocchios was a reasonable compromise, given the ungrammatical nature of Obama’s phrasing.

However, in light of the GOP’s repeated misuse of this Obama quote in speech after speech, we feel compelled to increase the Pinocchio rating to Four.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-chec...
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#110809 Sep 24, 2012
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama is not responsible for your intellectual deficiencies Mr. Liars. Perhaps he should have said “you didn’t build those” but the folks listening knew exactly what he was saying as anyone save the ignorant birfoon would demand more than four words from a speech to form any opinion on the validity of assertions being made.
What’s dumb is to date you remain confused. Will four Pinocchio’s do?
The key question is whether “that” refers to “roads and bridges”— as the Obama campaign contends — or to a business. Yes, it’s a bit of a judgment call, but the clincher for us was Obama’s concluding line:“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
Obama appears to be making the unremarkable point that companies and entrepreneurs often benefit in some way from taxpayer support for roads, education and so forth. In other words, he is trying to make the case for higher taxes, and for why he believes the rich should pay more, which as we noted is part of a long Democratic tradition. He just did not put it very eloquently. So we believed Three Pinocchios was a reasonable compromise, given the ungrammatical nature of Obama’s phrasing.
However, in light of the GOP’s repeated misuse of this Obama quote in speech after speech, we feel compelled to increase the Pinocchio rating to Four.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-chec...
Who cares how you took it? I don't. Taxes built those roads, bridges, etc. Who pays taxes? The people do. Now, if you can't deduce from that, that his message was wrong then you're blind. The people built America. I'm sure this will soar right over the heads of those who are in denial.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#110810 Sep 24, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy, all they have to do is put the jpg and a real copy side by side and if there are any deviations, that would be an indication that the jpg was either not a copy of the document or it had been altered by leaving out some information.
I tell you what, the next time you get stopped by a cop while driving, just show him jpg's of you DL, vehicle registration and insurance card and see what he says!!! "Go to Jail do not collect $200".
Obama has the physical copies of his short form and long form birth certificates. How do we know? Because Hawaii said that they sent them to him and because Obama showed the physical copies of both of them to the press. One reporter stated that she had felt the seal on the long form and photographed it. Moreover, he returned to the USA from Indonesia alone. To do so he needed a US passport (a foreign passport would have required a US visa, and there is no evidence Obama applied for one). To get a US passport, he would have had to show a US birth certificate.

As to your allegation that the department of health of Hawaii should validate that the image of Obama's birth certificate is not forged. But no one ever asked them to do that. The secretary of state of Arizona certainly didn't. He simply asked Hawaii to confirm the facts.

And regarding: "an indication that the jpg was either not a copy of the document or it had been altered by leaving out some information."

Answer: When they say that the information is exactly the same, that means that nothing was left out. If something was left out, the information could not be exactly the same.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#110811 Sep 24, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither case that you mention were about Ark being eligible to be president or Elg being eligible to be president. So the fact that one of them was listed as Natural Born and the other wasn't is irrelevant to rulings on Natural Born status. What IS relevant is the definition of the meaning of Natural Born in the Wong Kim Ark case, which says that it comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel), and that it refers to the place of birth---hence not to the parents.
If the US Constitution does not take away a right and the US Supreme Court does not say that the US Constitution has taken away a right, it remains a right.
The US Supreme Court has never ruled that two citizen parents are required for Natural Born Citizen status. Since it has not ruled that two US parents are required, and since the US Constitution does not say that two citizens are required---they are not required.
The rights of the US citizens born in the USA to foreign parents have not been taken away; they remain exactly the same as the rights of US citizens born in the USA to US parents.
That holds until the US Supreme Court rules that the right was taken away by the Constitution. Well, the US Supreme Court has not done so, and it is not likely to do so.
The Wong Kim Ark case says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. It is extremely unlikely that the US Supreme Court will in the immediate future---or for that matter in the distant future---say that the meaning of Natural Born does not come from the common law and does not refer to the place of birth.
Seven state courts and one federal court have ruled that the Wong Kim Ark case applies to Obama and that the Wong Kim Ark case said that Natural Born refers to the place of birth. At least one of those cases is being appealed to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court will not take the appeal for one of the most common reasons that it does not take appeals----that it agrees with the ruling of the lower court.
So the US Supreme Court will not rule on the matter (and if it did, it would rule against birthers). So the rights of Americans born in America to foreign parents have not and cannot be taken away. Their rights are the same as Americans born in America to American parents. They are Natural Born US citizens and eligible to be president.
Blah Blah Blah..

You can talk all you like, but you can't change the facts:

Ark- Citizen
Elg- Natural Born Citizen

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#110812 Sep 24, 2012
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.
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.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#110813 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.
The US Supreme Court has never ruled that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen. Unless and until it does, the US-born children of foreigners have exactly the same ability to be Natural Born Citizens as the US-born children of foreigners.

Neither slaves nor Indians were allowed to be citizens, but the fact that they were not allowed to be citizens does not mean that other groups were not allowed. Maybe we should think that left-handed people were not allowed to be Natural Born Citizens because slaves were not allowed to be citizens, or women were not allowed to be citizens because slaves were not allowed to be citizens. Or Jews were not allowed to be citizens because slaves were not allowed to be citizens.

The reverse is true. Unless there is actual evidence of a group being barred from citizenship or from Natural Born status, they have all the rights of any group that is allowed to be citizens and is allowed to be Natural Born. And there is nothing in the US Constitution that forbids the US-born children of foreigners from being citizens or from being Natural Born. And the US Supreme Court has not ruled it either, and unless and until it does (which is not likely at all) the US-born children of foreigners have exactly the same rights to be Natural Born Citizens as the US-born children of US citizens.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#110814 Sep 24, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama has the physical copies of his short form and long form birth certificates. How do we know? Because Hawaii said that they sent them to him and because Obama showed the physical copies of both of them to the press. One reporter stated that she had felt the seal on the long form and photographed it. Moreover, he returned to the USA from Indonesia alone. To do so he needed a US passport (a foreign passport would have required a US visa, and there is no evidence Obama applied for one). To get a US passport, he would have had to show a US birth certificate.
As to your allegation that the department of health of Hawaii should validate that the image of Obama's birth certificate is not forged. But no one ever asked them to do that. The secretary of state of Arizona certainly didn't. He simply asked Hawaii to confirm the facts.
Ah, you ASSUME that because the State of Hawaii said they had sent him some documents, that the jpg on the internet are copies od said documents. Prove it!!!
The HDoH has only said the "information" is correct and has never comment as to whether or not that that is an accurate copy of said document.
There is so much smoke and mirrors on this issue, you may really be in ..... Kenya and you don't know it!
Oh, it is 11:20 a.m. in Jackson, MS. Has anyone heard anything?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#110815 Sep 24, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And regarding: "an indication that the jpg was either not a copy of the document or it had been altered by leaving out some information."
Answer: When they say that the information is exactly the same, that means that nothing was left out. If something was left out, the information could not be exactly the same.
The HDoH never said "that the information is exactly the same". They merely said the information was correct, and nothing more.
Besides, they asked if the document was real and they never answered the question.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#110816 Sep 24, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares how you took it? I don't. Taxes built those roads, bridges, etc. Who pays taxes? The people do. Now, if you can't deduce from that, that his message was wrong then you're blind. The people built America. I'm sure this will soar right over the heads of those who are in denial.
Ah, how did the people pay for those roads, bridges, etc. They earned it through growing food, making things, trade, etc. It is business that give value to our paper currency.
Obama can print all the money he wants and all that will do is devalue the paper money that people are holding. It is like using a condom when having sex. If everyone did that, there would be no new people!

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Conservatives balk at GOP plan to avert governm... 4 min Quirky 228
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 10 min Freedom of the Press 53,128
News Trump says he's 'like, really smart,' 'a very s... 44 min Reality 608
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 56 min EdmondWA 17,636
News Deportation fears have legal immigrants avoidin... 1 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 20
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr VetnorsGate 1,685,120
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 1 hr Quirky 2,669
News US marches for women's rights slam Trump, encou... 2 hr Quirky 62
News White House says Trump focused on minimizing sh... 6 hr Wait Wait 41
More from around the web