BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 243604 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

#173553 Oct 1, 2013
VETERANS DEFY SHUTDOWN & ‘BREAK’ INTO WWII MEMORIAL — CAN YOU GUESS WHO HELPED THEM? Oct. 1, 2013

Several Republican members of Congress removed barricades from the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. on Monday and escorted veterans onto the grounds that were legally closed because of the government shutdown.

Michele Bachmann at WWII Memorial
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#173554 Oct 1, 2013
Truth Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
Such as???
His own biographical words touting his birth in Kenya?
His fake birth certificate? Deemed fraudulent by Law enforcement officials and a person who works for Perkins Coie.
Yeah that is overwhelming proof of fraud.
His literary agent wrote the bio and admitted to making the mistake. His birth certificate was not forged. Birthers have not even told you that the person who works for Perkins Coie is an expert in signature analysis, not on digital documents, and, guess what, the Cold Case Posse has a 40-page report from the person who works for Perkins Coie, but has never published it.

And, double guess what, birther sites have not even told their readers (including you) that there is no evidence that Obama's mother even had a passport in 1961----and very very few 18-year-olds did in those days (which is a fact that birther sites did not tell you either). And they neglected to tell you that extremely few women traveled late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet they would like gullible people like you to assume that she was one of the few who had a passport and one of the extremely few women who traveled late in pregnancy (and she could not have traveled earlier because she was attending college), and that the birth certificate is forged and that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii are lying when they repeatedly confirmed that they sent both the short form and the long form to Obama and that ALL the facts on the copy that the White House put online are exactly the same, repeat EXACTLY the same, as on what they sent to Obama.

For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1971], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

(3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

And, as I said, there isn't even evidence that Obama's mother had a passport in 1961, and birthers have her passport file (and they failed to tell us the date on which that file was created, and if it was created after 1961, she could not have had a passport in 1961. So, duh, I wonder why they didn't tell us the date on which her passport file was created????)
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#173555 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Everyone knows an alien isn't a subject of nor subject to the US Constitution and we all know Jr. was born a citizen of his father's country, since Sr. wasn't a citizen of the US, just a fact that you can't argue with.
A child born on US soil is not an alien except for the children of foreign diplomats. What gave you the nutty idea that a child born on US soil is an alien????
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#173556 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The 14th Amendment makes only two types of citizens, those that are naturalized and those that are born here with out any foreign attachments (Natural Born Citizens).
Looks like Obama was born with foreign attachments, like being a citizen of his father's country.
If the writers of the 14th Amendment (or of any part of the Constitution) had meant a person born with foreign attachments not to be eligible to be president, they would have said so. You cannot read into the Constitution something that is not there.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#173557 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
Aliens/Illegal aliens are not taxed by the US Constitution, therefore they aren't subjects of or "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this is a condition that only a citizen can enjoy.
Yep, all children born in this country of aliens automatically receive the citizenship of their father's country of origin, just a fact that can't be debated.
Oh my, there goes the anchor babies!!!
If the writers of the US Constitution had meant the children born in this country of aliens not to be eligible to be president, they would have said so. You cannot read into the Constitution something that is not there.
Dale

United States

#173558 Oct 1, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is not a single word in the 14th Amendment that says that the US-born child of foreign citizens is not a US citizen at birth or that the US-born child of foreign citizens is a lower-level citizen than the US-born child of US citizens. There is not a single word in the 14th Amendment that says that a dual citizen is not a US citizen, or that a dual citizen is not a Natural Born Citizen.
IF it does not say it, strict construction principles hold that you cannot claim that the constitution means it, and it does not say it. libertarian principles hold that unless the Constitution or a law takes away a right or a privilege, then that right or privilege has not been taken away. And there is not a word in the 14th Amendment (or in any part of the US Constitution for that matter) that says that the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens do not have the right or the privilege to become president. NOT A WORD.
LMAO!!! All children born in the US are automatically citizens of their father's country. Was Sr. a citizen of the US? Looks like Jr. was subject to a foreign power and not eligible for citizenship.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof (US Constitution), are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already (Civil Rights Act of 1866), that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction (US Constitution), is by virtue of natural law (Law of Nations) and national law (Civil Rights Act of 1866) a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,(Note the Comma) who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#173560 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Everyone knows an alien isn't a subject of nor subject to the US Constitution and we all know Jr. was born a citizen of his father's country, since Sr. wasn't a citizen of the US, just a fact that you can't argue with.
You can't read into the Constitution what isn't there, and there is not a single word in the Constitution that bars either the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president.
Dale

United States

#173561 Oct 1, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct. You can't read into the Constitution what isn't there. And there is nothing in the Constitution that bars either the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president. Not a single word. You cannot read into the Constitution something that isn't there.
LMAO!! Bad point, if it isn't in the Constitution then that would be something a state could adopt, but that isn't the case with citizenship, since the states haven't made citizens since Apr 1866.
Fox News Propaganda

Brooklyn, NY

#173562 Oct 1, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
VETERANS DEFY SHUTDOWN & ‘BREAK’ INTO WWII MEMORIAL — CAN YOU GUESS WHO HELPED THEM? Oct. 1, 2013
Several Republican members of Congress removed barricades from the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. on Monday and escorted veterans onto the grounds that were legally closed because of the government shutdown.
Michele Bachmann at WWII Memorial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =RZQBiv6Py7IXX
If General Patton were alive he'd slap your face!

LOL

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#173563 Oct 1, 2013
Fox News Propaganda wrote:
<quoted text>
The wealthy has never been punished in America except when Republican President General Eisenhower had them paying 91% in taxes and had a balanced budget for average Americans.
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
What was the tax rate under Truman? Under FDR? Under HOOVER? But that evil Republican Eisenhower is bad to the bone.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation....
What is sad is the Libtard 'Fox News Propaganda" will have totally forgotten my response but he will re-post his original thought even if it it is still untrue.
Libtardism is a mental disease.
Fox News Propaganda

Brooklyn, NY

#173564 Oct 1, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>This is the United States of America,we are not supposed to punish people for their success. The idea of our society is to attempt to help every one prosper and hope that all can reach their potential, not to attempt to lower every ones standard of living down to the lowest so that every one is the same. Since LBJ's War on Poverty more people are in poverty today than in the past sixty years. Union membership has fallen to a point that now Government Union employees are a majority of all union employees. Why do government workers need a union?
Punish was Rogues word and I used it against him.

Every liberal/progressive appreciates success and wants success for all of our children and grandchildren.

The problem is Congress rewards the wealthy which Reagan started and it never trickled down to average Americans.

History and the facts prove me correct and you incorrect.

==========

Crisis inspires rethinking of 'Reaganomics'
October 19, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/6kopdb
Big government is staging a comeback.
When Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1981, he famously declared, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Since then, conservative small-government ideas built on a foundation of deregulation and low taxes have dominated the debate over what role Washington should play in the economy.
Now the tide is turning, political experts on the right and left say. A combination of circumstances, including the resurgence of the Democratic Party and fallout from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, is giving impetus to wholesale expansion of government economic intervention.
"We've gone through a period of three decades when the default assumptions were conservative assumptions," said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and a policy adviser in the Clinton administration. "That framework has probably been torpedoed by events."
If Barack Obama is elected president and Democrats strengthen their grip on Congress, the period could be transformative. Democrats would enact a series of programs that they believe would boost economic growth and improve middle-class living standards.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...
Fox News Propaganda

Brooklyn, NY

#173565 Oct 1, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
What was the tax rate under Truman? Under FDR? Under HOOVER? But that evil Republican Eisenhower is bad to the bone.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation....
Eisenhower built up America's infrastructure and balanced the budget.

Reagan and the Bush's family did the opposite with there rightwing ideology which they got from Leo Strauss.

Blind Faith: How Deregulation and Enron's Influence Over Government Looted Billions from Americans
Sen. Gramm, White House Must Be Investigated for Role in Enron's Fraud of Consumers and Shareholders / December 2001
The combination of unregulated state wholesale electricity markets and federal deregulation of commodity exchanges has removed accountability and transparency from the energy sector, allowing corporations to manipulate price and supply of electricity and natural gas through the exercise of significant market power. California's recent energy crisis and Enron's bankruptcy would have been impossible under a regulated system.

Enron developed mutually beneficial relationships with federal regulators and lawmakers to support policies that significantly curtailed government oversight of their operations.

Enron's business model was built entirely on the premise that it could make more money speculating on electricity contracts than it could by actually producing electricity at a power plant. Central to Enron's strategy of turning electricity into a speculative commodity was removing government oversight of its trading practices and exploiting market deficiencies to allow it to manipulate prices and supply.

Dr. Wendy Gramm, in her capacity as chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), exempted Enron's trading of futures contracts in response to a request for such an action by Enron in 1992. At the time, Enron was a significant source of campaign financing for Wendy Gramm's husband, U.S. Senator Phil Gramm.
Six days after she provided Enron the exemption it wanted, Wendy Gramm resigned her position at the CFTC. Five weeks after her resignation, Enron appointed her to its Board of Directors, where she served on the Board's Audit Committee. Her service on the Audit Committee made her responsible for verifying Enron's accounting procedures and other detailed financial information not available to outside analysts or shareholders.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Blind_Faith....

========
Fox News Propaganda

Brooklyn, NY

#173566 Oct 1, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
What was the tax rate under Truman? Under FDR? Under HOOVER? But that evil Republican Eisenhower is bad to the bone.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation....
Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq
What was initially an anti-war argument is now a matter of public record. It is widely recognised that the Bush administration was not honest about the reasons it gave for invading Iraq./ http://tinyurl.com/25bxx / 10/18/03
Paul Wolfowitz, the influential United States deputy secretary of defense, has acknowledged that the evidence used to justify the war was “murky” and now says that weapons of mass destruction weren’t the crucial issue anyway (see the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq (2003.)
By contrast, Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, argues that the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flow directly from the doctrines of the political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973). His disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration.
If Shadia Drury is right, then American policy-makers exercise deception with greater coherence than their British allies in Tony Blair’s 10 Downing Street. In the UK, a public inquiry is currently underway into the death of the biological weapons expert David Kelly. A central theme is also whether the government deceived the public, as a BBC reporter suggested.
The inquiry has documented at least some of the ways the prime minister’s entourage ‘sexed up’ the presentation of intelligence on the Iraqi threat. But few doubt that in terms of their philosophy, if they have one, members of Blair’s staff believe they must be trusted as honest. Any apparent deceptions they may be involved in are for them matters of presentation or ‘spin’: attempts to project an honest gloss when surrounded by a dishonest media./ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

------

Leo Strauss, Conservative Mastermind
http://tinyurl.com/4562h / May 31, 2002
IN CONTEMPORARY American intellectual life, there is only one school of conservative intellectuals that has taken root in academia as a movement. They are the Straussians, followers of the late Leo Strauss (1899-1973). The hostile New Republic referred to Straussians as "one of the top ten gangs of the millennium." Strauss is an ambiguous, sometimes even troubling, figure, but he is essential to the conservative revival of our time and he offers the intellectual depth we are so desperately in need of. As a crude measure of his importance for those readers who continue to believe that philosophical matters are of no practical importance, consider the following list of his students or students of his students: Justice Clarence Thomas; Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; former Assistant Secretary of State Alan Keyes; former Secretary of Education William Bennett; Weekly Standard editor and former Quayle Chief of Staff William Kristol; Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind; former New York Post editorials editor John Podhoretz; former National Endowment for the Humanities Deputy Chairman John T. Agresto; and, not meaning to class myself with this august company but in the interests of full disclosure, myself.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArti...
Dale

United States

#173567 Oct 1, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't read into the Constitution what isn't there, and there is not a single word in the Constitution that bars either the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president.
LMAO!!! That is right you can't read into the Constitution what isn't there and if it isn't there then it isn't law.
Fox News Propaganda

Brooklyn, NY

#173568 Oct 1, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Fox News Propaganda wrote:
<quoted text>
The wealthy has never been punished in America except when Republican President General Eisenhower had them paying 91% in taxes and had a balanced budget for average Americans.<quoted text>
What is sad is the Libtard 'Fox News Propaganda" will have totally forgotten my response but he will re-post his original thought even if it it is still untrue.
Libtardism is a mental disease.
No Republican administration has balanced a budget since Eisenhower in 1957.

Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, all five were under Democratic Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

========

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
http://tinyurl.com/5tjkx May 19, 2003
Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.
What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?
A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done – people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.
The "right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP)– an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Like Wolfowitz, Shulsky is a student of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher named Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky's alma mater, the University of Chicago, before his death in 1973./ http://www.alternet.org/story/15935
Fox News Propaganda

Brooklyn, NY

#173569 Oct 1, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
In Ike's first year in office the marginal tax rate was 92% above $200k.
The following year it dropped to 91% above $200k.
In 1955 it was 91%......... above $400k where it remained until 1964 (voted in 1963) which reduced it to 77% above $400k
And who did that and why? JOHN F. KENNEDY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =aEdXrfIMdiUXX
Yep, JFK cut taxes in a recession.
And what has Obama done? INCREASED tax in a recession!!!
Why do you worry with sleepless nights about taxes on Millionaires and Billionaires?

When was the last time you made a million dollars a year in salary?

I would speculate NEVER!

I am sure Karl Rove appreciates all your hard work in the interest of the Koch Brothers.

ROTFL
Dale

United States

#173571 Oct 1, 2013
CNSNews.com )- Many leading Democrats in Washington these days like to point to the fact that the federal budget was balanced for part of the time that President Bill Clinton was in office. What they do not mention is that those balanced budgets occurred only when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.
In fact, according to the historical data published by the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama White House, no Congress in which the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate has balanced the federal budget since fiscal 1969--more than 40 years ago.
The federal appropriations made for that fiscal year—which began on July 1, 1968 and ended on June 30, 1969--were approved by a Democrat-controlled Congress elected in 1966. They were signed by lame-duck Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, who had decided not to run for reelection in 1968.(Until 1977, the federal fiscal year began on July 1 and ended on June 30. Since 1977, it has begun on Oct. 1 and ended on Sept. 30. Federal fiscal years are numbered by the calendar year in which they end.)
President Eisenhower in 1960 was the last Republican president to preside over a balanced budget. A Democrat-controlled Congress elected in 1958 approved the appropriations for that fiscal year in 1959.
More recently, the federal budget was balanced in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. A Republican-controlled Congress approved the appropriations for each one of those years and Democratic President Bill Clinton signed them. In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, when President Clinton governed with a Democrat-controlled Congress, the federal government ran deficits of $203.2 billion and $163.9 billion respectively.
The Republican majority Congress elected in November 1994 presided over two fiscal years with declining deficits—fiscal 1996 and 1997—before it initially balanced the budget in fiscal 1998. In fiscal 1996 and 1997, the deficits were $107.4 billion and $21.9 billion respectively.
In the 2000 election, Republicans retained control of the House but the Senate split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats. In May 2001, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched parties from Republican to Independent and began caucusing with the Democrats, giving the Democrats the effective majority and making then-Sen. Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.) the majority leader.
That split Congress was responsible for the appropriations for fiscal 2002, which put the federal government back into a deficit. After Republicans regained control of the Senate in the November 2002 elections (thus taking control of the budget process for fiscal 2004 which would begin on Oct. 1, 2003), the all-Republican Congress continued running deficits for four fiscal years (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007). During that time, with President George W. Bush in the White House, the Republicans controlled both the legislative and executive branches but failed to balance the budget.
In the November 2006 elections, Democrats won back the majority in both the House and Senate, and in the three fiscal years that have started since then (2008, 2009, 2010), they have run record deficits of $458.6 billion,$1.41 trillion and $1.55 trillion.
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/no-democrat-c...
wojar

United States

#173572 Oct 1, 2013
Guess what birfoons? Play law has never been worth a dog poo and President Obama is in his second term.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#173573 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Hello, dummy!
The Bigot who fantasizes that his fables invalidate the decision of every court in the land would finish 3rd in an intelligence contest with an empty chair
Grand Birther

Painesville, OH

#173574 Oct 1, 2013
wojar wrote:
Guess what birfoons? Play law has never been worth a dog poo and President Obama is in his second term.
B-b-but, say it ain't so.

Say. It. Ain't. So.

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 Ex-GOP Mayor Michael Bloomberg Will Spend $80M ... 8 min Say What 34
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... (Nov '16) 8 min Dada 10,068
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min mdbuilder 1,784,521
News US top court rules for baker in gay wedding cak... 13 min fish and poi 818
News Melania Trump says US should govern - with hear... 14 min Say What 583
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 16 min cpeter1313 346,386
Keith Sweat` * is back with his HITZ Collect... 17 min Jazz Moe 23
News Mike Huckabee criticized for 'bigotry' over Nan... 45 min HillaryFartedOh 45
News Trump's land of delusion 1 hr fish and poi 963
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 1 hr TangledWebOfBonkers 88,516