BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 241539 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.

Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#111081 Sep 25, 2012
loose cannon wrote:
Jacques,
I have been reading up on Islamic jihad.
It should be required reading for everyone of sound mind and body.
I am planning to start my own little mini-series here expounding on my horrific discoveries entitled "Islam 101".
Why don't you read the Old Testament first, parts of which were used to "inspire the koran?".

The Old Testament, which has been canonized by the Holy See, and is accepted as the true word of god, clearly orders you to stone to death any adulterer and homosexual. We can conclude from this command that we have a duty to stone these sinful people, no matter that we will be prosecuted, as we would be martyrs, victims of persecution as were the first christians. If you are a good christian, Loose, you HAVE to start the murderous stoning of these evil adultererers NOW or else renounce your faith.

After you've finished with the above, then I suggest you move on to Islamic Jihad.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111082 Sep 25, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
So far, the birther-birfoons, under the leadership of Rogue and Sioux, have claimed :
1. That the US Ambassador to Libya was raped before he died;
2. That the US Ambassador was personally killed by an ex-Gitmo detaineeè;
3. That the Ambassador was homosexual.
We are awaiting confirmation of the above three low, cheap, mean reports conveyed via Obama-hate internet sites by these two birfoon birther leaders. In the meantime, would they, excluding obscenity, comment?
Well then Jacques, you should have no problem showing us where "I" claimed those things!
Now, typical Libtardian Logic, if I post a source, that means I accept that as fact!

This from the Washington Times;
PICKET: UPDATE - AFP not behind report of purported rape of murdered U.S. ambassador to Libya

According to the Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org , citing AFP news sources, U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed by gunmen that stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday, was reportedly raped before being murdered.......:

UPDATE 2 9/15/12:
The AFP has sent out the following statement:
Greetings, Concerning your query on the report published by a Lebanese website according to which ambassador Stevens was sodomized. That report falsely quoted our news agency and has no truth whatsover to it. AFP promptly sent a strongly worded complaint to that website and they removed the report and published a denial, saying that AFP did not report such a thing.
A news report made by the Libyan Free Press was also reporting that Ambassador Stevens was sodomized before he was killed. Their video was removed.

Read more: PICKET: UPDATE - AFP not behind report of purported rape of murdered U.S. ambassador to Libya - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercool...
Follow us:@washtimes on Twitter

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111083 Sep 25, 2012
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
You’re a funny man Mr. liars. That Obama is calling for a balanced approach to deficit reduction I believe is shared by the majority of Americans. Do you feel oppressed now that we have a black president Mr. Liars? Did the patriot act give you a sense of extended freedom?
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Gramps, isn't that the same line of BS Omama fooled you guys with 4 years ago? We must have a balanced approach to deficit reduction....that one is almost as good as Omama's transparency pledge! What a joke. Gramps, we don't have a black President. We have a bi-racial President. Don't worry, I'm sure your "entitlement" check will be there on the 1st. How come people are leaving Clownifornia in droves? I mean it's such a well run state and really has its finances in order!!! Plus, it's a sanctuary state.....LMAO y'all really got it going on out there in Clownland.
The only thing is that Obama's idea of a "balanced approach" is not the same as most people have. Reducing spending by 0.3% is NOT BALANCED!

Since: Aug 12

AntiObama

#111084 Sep 25, 2012
Did Whoopie Goldberg endorese Obama yet?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111085 Sep 25, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
Obama is right now speaking at the UN. So far so good, why, he was just applauded after speaking of the right of every American to express themselves, that he is very much criticized himself and will fight to the death the right of anyone to criticize him. Spoke of freedom of that LA person to make that film on Mohamad even if he does not agree with it, and will defend the right of all to criticize christianity, which he said was HIS religion. Anyhow...
But at the same time Obama and O'Biden will shake down newspapers and TV networks who did not report things they way they would have liked. Just a few weeks ago Axelrod wanted Gallup to go to the White House to explain their methodology for their polling!!! Can you spell INTIMIDATION of free speech?!?
Oh, if Bush had done that the LSM would rail in horror!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111086 Sep 25, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you read the Old Testament first, parts of which were used to "inspire the koran?".
The Old Testament, which has been canonized by the Holy See, and is accepted as the true word of god, clearly orders you to stone to death any adulterer and homosexual. We can conclude from this command that we have a duty to stone these sinful people, no matter that we will be prosecuted, as we would be martyrs, victims of persecution as were the first christians. If you are a good christian, Loose, you HAVE to start the murderous stoning of these evil adultererers NOW or else renounce your faith.
After you've finished with the above, then I suggest you move on to Islamic Jihad.
Excusez-moi, s'il vous plaît, but the Pope did no such thing. The Gospels of the New Testament as accepted as the words of God as is the Ten Commandments. The rest of the Bible is inspired by God. Not the same thing.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111087 Sep 25, 2012
Ten Commandments - by George Carlin

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#111088 Sep 25, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
In US v Ark, the USSC affirmed the jus soli principle as the rule which applies to persons born in the US. The rule, per binding precedent, applies to Ark, to President Obama, to Mitt Romney, and anyone else born within the US.
The court was presented with the question of whether Ark was a citizen. The court answered that Ark is indeed a citizen because all persons born in the US (with rare exceptions) are natural born citizens.
Marie Elg prayed the court to find her a natural born citizen, and the court of appeals answered appropriately: She was a natural born citizen because she was born in the US, without regard to the citizenship of her parents. The court relied on the precedential ruling of US v Ark.
Nevertheless the birfoon wishes to distinguish Elg on the basis of facts that had no bearing on the decision. Sheer lunacy.
<quoted text>
Agree.

Even Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent in the Wong Kim Ark case understood that the majority's ruling comfirmed that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen when he wrote:

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, WERE ELIGIBLE TO THE PRESIDENCY, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169, U.S. 649, 715 (1898)(C.J. Fuller, dissenting)(emphasis added)

Learn to Read

United States

#111089 Sep 25, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Dale thinks a group of Muslims in Dearborn can legally stone a woman to death for adultery.
Dale doesn't think

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#111090 Sep 25, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
If that was the case we would have been left with the Hamilton Clause-
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
They didn't think "born a Citizen" was enough protection from foreign influence in the Presidency, so they changed it to Natural Born which carried a more stringent requirement than simply birth.
The issue presented is what is the difference between "born a Citizen of the United States" and "natural born citizen"?

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, it was presumed that state citizenship was primary and that federal citizenship was derivative. Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 377 (1918)("It is said, however, that since under the Constitution as originally framed state citizenship was primary and United States citizenship but derivative and dependent thereon").

The reason that the drafters of the constitution did not define who was a citizen was result of the drafters' desire to "avoid entanglement in the then-existing controversy between concepts of state and national citizenship and with the difficult question of the status of Negro slaves." Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815, 828-829,(1971)

This controversy as to who can be a citizen in the United States reached its zenith in the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857 when Chief Justice Taney wrote:

we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393, 405 (1857)

In other words, Justice Taney believed that national citizenship is dependent upon state citizenship and that each state has the right to confer rights and privileges of citizenship upon whoever the state wishes.

With this understanding of the state/national citizenship controversy at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the reason that Hamilton's version "born a Citizen of the United States" was not considered was because each state could determine who was a citizen. The Constitution version "natural born citizen" would supersede any state's version of who was a citizen since "natural born citizen" would be defined by its common law meaning.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111091 Sep 25, 2012
Real-Jimmy wrote:
Did Whoopie Goldberg endorese Obama yet?
Or Colon Powell? Powell has already cut himself off from the Republican Party when he withheld information about the Amb. Joe Wilson/Valery Plame scandal from Pres. Bush so I wonder why he has not endorsed Obama this time .... unless he has found some new information on Obama!

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#111092 Sep 25, 2012
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Get a brain! An alien is still not under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
Wrong.

All foreigners who reside in the United States are under the jurisdiction and have temporary allegiance to the United States except Ambassadors under the 14th Amendment.

Justice Field in Carlisle v. United States, 83 US 147 (1873) made this observation about foreigners owing this duty of temporary allegiance to the United States when he wrote:

All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territories, and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection."

By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.

This obligation of temporary allegiance by an alien resident in a friendly country is everywhere recognized by publicists and statesmen. Id at 154.

Moreover, "an alien resident owes a temporary allegiance to the Government of the United States, and he assumes duties and obligations which do not differ materially from those of native-born or naturalized citizens; he is bound to obey all the laws of the country, not immediately relating to citizenship, and is equally amenable with citizens for any infraction of those laws." Eisler v. United States, 170 F. 2d 273, 279 (DC Cir. 1947)

Similarly, the court in Fletes-Mora v. Rogers, 160 F. Supp. 215, 218 (SD Ca 1958) noted: "Our law has long recognized an alien's obligation of "temporary allegiance" to a country while he is within its territory. The term "temporary allegiance" refers to the alien's duty to obey all laws of a country not immediately relating to citizenship so long as he remains in that country."
Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#111093 Sep 25, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then Jacques, you should have no problem showing us where "I" claimed those things!
Now, typical Libtardian Logic, if I post a source, that means I accept that as fact!
This from the Washington Times;
PICKET: UPDATE - AFP not behind report of purported rape of murdered U.S. ambassador to Libya
According to the Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org , citing AFP news sources, U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed by gunmen that stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday, was reportedly raped before being murdered.......:
UPDATE 2 9/15/12:
The AFP has sent out the following statement:
Greetings, Concerning your query on the report published by a Lebanese website according to which ambassador Stevens was sodomized. That report falsely quoted our news agency and has no truth whatsover to it. AFP promptly sent a strongly worded complaint to that website and they removed the report and published a denial, saying that AFP did not report such a thing.
A news report made by the Libyan Free Press was also reporting that Ambassador Stevens was sodomized before he was killed. Their video was removed.
Read more: PICKET: UPDATE - AFP not behind report of purported rape of murdered U.S. ambassador to Libya - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercool...
Follow us:@washtimes on Twitter
Why would you report something so awful, so brutal, so triumphantly, as you did? Your bosom buddy, American er hmm Lady would not even demur, repeating the story. You posted the AFP report because it shed a bad light on both Moslems and Obama, whom you both revile. Same for the ex-Gitmo ex-con, same for the homosexual thing. And, the homosexual "rumour", which you posted, was so done because of your homophobia. I personally have no idea if the Ambassador was or was not homosexual. But who cares? Well, homophobes do. You.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111094 Sep 25, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Dale doesn't think
But you do? How often?
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#111095 Sep 25, 2012
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>It is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray made no attempt to hide this fact when he wrote:“Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”
The Fuller court tried to change the Constiution and failed.
Baloney. There were just as many leaders of Congress who held that being subject to the jurisdiction meant simply birth in the USA as those who held the idea that foreigners in the USA were not subject to complete jurisdiction--or more.

The Bingham and Trumbull quotations I have show both indicate that they believed that "subject to the jurisdiction" referred to everybody in the USA except for foreign diplomats and their families. In any case the six justices in the US Supreme Court who voted for the majority held the opinion of the Bingham and Trumbull quotations shown, and only the minority of two votes disagreed. And in our system the law is determined by the majority of the US Supreme Court. That is the law. If you would like to change it, try and get your legislators to propose a constitutional amendment that would overturn it. The chance that the US Supreme Court will overturn the Wong Kim Ark decision is absurdly low.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111096 Sep 25, 2012
Can you say intimidation of the press (violation of the First Amenment)? Pres. Obama and AG Holder will go down as the most corrupt administration in the history of the U.S.

Justice Dept. Gallup lawsuit came after Axelrod criticized pollsters; 09/06/2012; By Matthew Boyle

Internal emails between senior officials at The Gallup Organization, obtained by The Daily Caller, show senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod attempting to subtly intimidate the respected polling firm when its numbers were unfavorable to the president.

After Gallup declined to change its polling methodology, Obama’s Department of Justice hit it with an unrelated lawsuit that appears damning on its face.

TheDC is withholding the identities of the Gallup officials to protect them from potential retaliation from Obama’s campaign and his administration.(SEE ALSO: DOJ still hasn’t served Gallup with lawsuit)

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/06/justice-dep...
1 post removed
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#111098 Sep 25, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Several point here Jacques. First the HDoH has at no time said that the documents Obama has shown on the internet are actual copies of the documents that they made. Now, they did say "the information" is correct but they have said nothing about the authenticity of the jpg images.
And HDoH did not post those jpgs on the internet, did they.
<quoted text>
Hummm, "semantics", platitudes, half truths, quibbling or trying to define what the definition of "is" is. It is all political double talk.
Mean what you say and say what you mean, then people know where you are coming from and where you want to go. I know,I know, both sides do it, it is that Libtards take it to the planet Mars!
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. No one ever asked them to do that, however. The secretary of state of Arizona certainly didn't. He simply asked Hawaii to confirm the facts.
Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#111099 Sep 25, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Excusez-moi, s'il vous plaît, but the Pope did no such thing. The Gospels of the New Testament as accepted as the words of God as is the Ten Commandments. The rest of the Bible is inspired by God. Not the same thing.
Er, did I mention the pope? Did I not mention the old testament, which is canonized, I repeat, and accepted as the word of god as dictated to prophets and various kings and illuminated? See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon The new testament did NOT replace the old one. The order to kill adulterers and homosexuals stands. Have you done your sacred duty today, Rogue? God knows you're sufficiently armed to do so.
1 post removed
rider

Gwinn, MI

#111101 Sep 25, 2012
news Jul 2012 The nexus between terror propaganda and terrorism: Bremer and Jenkins
The nexus between terror propaganda and terrorism: Bremer and Jenkins http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-07-21/nex...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111102 Sep 25, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Er, did I mention the pope? Did I not mention the old testament, which is canonized, I repeat, and accepted as the word of god as dictated to prophets and various kings and illuminated? See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon The new testament did NOT replace the old one. The order to kill adulterers and homosexuals stands. Have you done your sacred duty today, Rogue? God knows you're sufficiently armed to do so.
Well, I will let God enforce God's laws and I will let man enforce man's laws. And what consenting adults do, is of no concern to me. But I am am called up to pull the switch/pull the trigger/ etc. on a child rapist, I would be happy to do so.
Crimes against the helpless are the worst of crimes.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 min Rose_NoHo 6,797
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min Toxic Repub Toxins 6,648
News Watergate pales next to Trump scandals, ex-US i... 3 min Trump Forever 592
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min JRB 1,547,769
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 min Patriot AKA Bozo 63,843
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 6 min Uncle Tab 274,209
News Dems say they'll slow Senate work over secretiv... 7 min Putins Glock Holster 185
News POLL: Americans Trust James Comey Over Trump 27 min old_moose 482
News GOP victory lap after Georgia election win will... 1 hr inbred Genius 52
More from around the web