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

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 ... Full Story

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#90523 Jul 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rush Limbaugh always lets Liberals to to the front of his call-in line and on the average it takes them less that twenty SECONDS to start to make degrading remarks.
The NAZIs did the same thing. Once a group of people where considered less than human, it was okay to murder them. Libtards consider us Conservatives as morons, idiots, retarded, etc. and once they do, it is okay to bring it to our attention. When all it really means is, they lost their argument.

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
You call me a Birther (which is name calling) but I am proud that I am a Birther. And you should be proud to be a Libtard!
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong (again). You should be ashamed to be so consistently wrong about so many things.
Why don't you stick to your homophobic rants? You've obviously practiced those quite a bit
Is it possible for you to explain where I am wrong? We all know you have a problem with reading comprehension but you also seem to have a problem writing more than one or two sentences.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#90524 Jul 11, 2012
QUOTE OF THE CENTURY.......

Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you can quickly understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic . Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon on 04.28.2010.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."
Learn to Read

Chicago, IL

#90525 Jul 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rush Limbaugh always lets Liberals to to the front of his call-in line and on the average it takes them less that twenty SECONDS to start to make degrading remarks.
The NAZIs did the same thing. Once a group of people where considered less than human, it was okay to murder them. Libtards consider us Conservatives as morons, idiots, retarded, etc. and once they do, it is okay to bring it to our attention. When all it really means is, they lost their argument.

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
You call me a Birther (which is name calling) but I am proud that I am a Birther. And you should be proud to be a Libtard!

Is it possible for you to explain where I am wrong? We all know you have a problem with reading comprehension but you also seem to have a problem writing more than one or two sentences.
Where to begin? For starters your fantasy that anyone who refuses to Jon in the great Birfoon circle jerk must be a liberal could not possibly be more wrong....., Then of course we have every other Birfoon fable that you do desperately wish were true
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#90526 Jul 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>Also, Libtards think that by shouting at people, people will understand their message when all it really does is make them look like some one with a weak argument.
I want my, I want my, I want my MTV!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =lAD6Obi7CagXX
And some birthers think that bad-mouthing and degrading special needs/intellectually-challenge d people by insulting them, although they can't defend themselves, is right on.
Gosch Foundation

Ishpeming, MI

#90527 Jul 11, 2012
Siouxweety wrote:
Hey Jock, are you an "oil driller?"
That would explain your devotion to Obama ass crack!
:P
A Fresh Look, by Carla Binion, Nazis and the Republican Party, Nazi ...
Nazis and the Republican Party. Investigative reporter Christopher Simpson says
in BLOWBACK that after World War II, Nazi émigrés were given CIA subsidies ...

http://www.bartcop.com/nazigop.htm - 12k -
Cabal capitalists are terrorist murderers in the same sense that any other terrorist group is: they "engage in violent or life-threatening acts that are a violation of the criminal laws of the State and are intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population, to influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion, and to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." 1

Capitalist terrorism--the economic and military murder of workers worldwide--is an ongoing operation. To keep track of these outrages, it's necessary to update the record on an ongoing basis.
In 2008, capitalist economic terrorists destroyed the American economy through its criminal financial miscreancy. They set up a capitalist-dominated perversion of an economy in which American worker taxes were looted by the very economic criminals that had perpetrated the terrorism.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#90528 Jul 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, moron Rogue doesn't know the difference between having a diverse investment portfolio and hiding one's assets out of the country.
Rogue --again-- has his economic illiteracy on full display.
<quoted text>
oh yes I do. Can YOU prove Romney has a secrete account anywhere outside the U.S.?
What is the REAL issue is that you Dems want Romney to release ALL of his IRS records for the past ten years. So you do a straw-man allegation that he was "secrete accounts". If they are "secrete accounts, would the IRS know?
Yea, you want Romney to release ALL of his records but O'Bummer does not want to release his records! That is a perfect example of being flaming hypocrites.
Oh, Jacques, can you show us where "I" predicted that Republican mayoral candidate Hagan would win the Jacksonville election in May 2011?
Number 1. Secret bank accounts. I'll prove it when you come up with my 47+ proofs I asked you for, proof of statements you made up. Start with GE jet engines and proof that Dems commit more fraud at election time than Repubs. Funny how silent you are on that. I did say he exported jobs. That's well known, no need to prove that. Incidentally, I never mentioned his IRS records. I wouldn't do that, as that exceeds making comments. I comment on US matters, I call a spade a spade, but I refrain from criticising. I live in a glass house also;
Number 2. For Pete's sake, you predicted the Tea Party candidate's victory, and he lost. Last week, or a couple days ago, you said you just believed what the press said about his "certain victory" and repeated it . So you were misled and paid for being over-enthusiastic. Deal with it instead of asking me for proof. You know damn well I'm not going to go digging 6 or 8 months back on this. Everyone, including you, knows you predicted a sure-fire victory. And the governor gave a plum patronage govt job to the sure winner, how Repub is that?
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#90530 Jul 11, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, yes, and let's no forget some of your other predictions.....
1) That once the repubs won the House in 2010, they would issue subpoenas to Obama.
2) The birthers would win the GA court case.
3) The USSC would overturn Obamacare.
Nice to see you on here, Johannes. Oh, don't wait for a reply to your above post. Rogue never comes back when he gets caught in his web of tabloid pronouncements and fantasies.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#90531 Jul 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
More strange obsessions by a Birfoon
<quoted text>
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rush Limbaugh always lets Liberals to to the front of his call-in line and on the average it takes them less that twenty SECONDS to start to make degrading remarks.
The NAZIs did the same thing. Once a group of people where considered less than human, it was okay to murder them. Libtards consider us Conservatives as morons, idiots, retarded, etc. and once they do, it is okay to bring it to our attention. Wehn all it really means is, they lost their argument.
<quoted text>
You call me a Birther (which is name calling) but I am proud that I am a Birther. And you should be proud to be a Libtard!
Name-calling if your forte, right? You choose to be called "Birther", why do you object if we call you that? I can understand taking exception to "birfoon" yes, but why Birther? Libtard" is chosen by no one and is unacceptable for ANYONE, right, centre or left. Quit using it.

We could never even approximate your contempt at calling us "libtards" when we call you "birther". Quit using libtard, special needs abuser.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#90532 Jul 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Hmmmm, Mitt Romney just addressed the NAACP Convention ..... and got a relatively warm reception. All to often Republicans are treated rudely at the NAACP Conventions and because they often are they sometimes pass up an invitation to do so.
Oh, he did get a few boos but they were comparatively mild. Could it been that a lot of black folks are tired of Obama's high unemployment policy?
Rogue wrote : QUOTE "All to often Republicans are treated rudely at the NAACP Conventions " UNQUOTE

Care to show some evidence of that? I'll not hold my breath.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#90533 Jul 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
QUOTE OF THE CENTURY.......
Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you can quickly understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic . Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon on 04.28.2010.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."
Ahhh, not from Pravda this time, but from a Czech Rep rag posing as a newspaper. And you, Rogue, it's what you scoured the web to find. Eureka, a good one against Ohama and never mind the source, it is, for you, orgasmic-like. You can't find one decent US newspaper criticising Obama the way this Czech trash can does. You probably found this site by typing "Anything in the foreign press that makes Obama look bad.com and sure 'nuf, here it is. Rogue, you don't read very much , do you? No respectable paper, US or foreign, would call a US president "prince of the fools" and use words like "folly". They may criticise him, as is their right, but not in such a base manner.

Oh, BTW, and totally unrelated, I love this, Consumer Reports rates Waffle House at the very bottom in this month's edition, gives it the highest number of insalubrity points cleanliness-wise. It's called the "clean" index, ha ha. A nation-leading 21 points, eons ahead of whoever's in second place. Ha ha. Bon Appétit.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#90536 Jul 11, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep more invisible ink no English comprehension. Sucks to be you
I can't help it if you have trouble making 2+2 equal 4.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#90537 Jul 11, 2012
Jacques,
I don't know. There just seems to be an inordinate amount of tumult in regard to that Illinois Senate seat.
You know which one. I think it's cursed
I mean, look at that poor Mark Kirk. He's been incapacitated for some time now. Maybe a year.
Gov. Blagojevich is doing hard time in the federal pen.
Roland Burris, he was a bench-warmer and cheer-leader.
Patrick Fitgerald financed his own elction with his family fortune and personal campaign war-chest.
It is a very bad omen, Jacques.
There's more to follow.
loose

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#90538 Jul 11, 2012
Ellen wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: "there is a significant reason why the founders did not call us "Subjects". You should study it."
I agree with you that we are citizens, not subjects.
But the issue is whether the requirements for a Natural Born Citizen are different from the requirements for a Natural Born Subject. IF they were different, the writers of the US Constitution would tell us about the difference--but they didn't.
They did, you just refuse to read about it.
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#90539 Jul 11, 2012

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#90540 Jul 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
So a person born of citizen parents in the US cannot ever be eligible for congress because s/he is not "just a citizen" as required by Article 1 of the Birfoonistan constitution?
You're an idiot. Have you grown so tired of having your a$$ handed to you that you are now going to act like a child, making ridiculous assertions that make no sense? Oh wait, you have already done that for years.

BTW, we are all still waiting for you to explain how- Slaves and Indians, whom most certainly were born on our soil were not "Citizens", since it is your assertion that the only criteria for citizenship, and beyond that, natural born status is achieved.

Learn to Read

Chicago, IL

#90541 Jul 11, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>I can't help it if you have trouble making 2+2 equal 4.
And I can't help it if every court in the country looks at your blank sheet of paper and says "sorry loser, there are no 2's on the page"
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#90542 Jul 11, 2012
loose cannon wrote:
Jacques,
I don't know. There just seems to be an inordinate amount of tumult in regard to that Illinois Senate seat.
You know which one. I think it's cursed
I mean, look at that poor Mark Kirk. He's been incapacitated for some time now. Maybe a year.
Gov. Blagojevich is doing hard time in the federal pen.
Roland Burris, he was a bench-warmer and cheer-leader.
Patrick Fitgerald financed his own elction with his family fortune and personal campaign war-chest.
It is a very bad omen, Jacques.
There's more to follow.
loose
Given such a history, and everyone knowing about it, I don't think Obama's idiotic enough to do anyone any favours. He may not be everyone's favourite, but he's no dummy.
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#90543 Jul 11, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
They did, you just refuse to read about it.
No they didn't. There are no articles or letters saying: "Let us follow Vattel," or "Two citizen parents should be required" (Or even "one citizen parent should be required," or "let us change the rule from the old place of birth to parents"---or anything like that at all.

Instead, we have the clear use of the term Natural Born Citizen to refer to the place of birth in this quotation, written in 1803:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)

(As you can see, that refers only to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within the state."

And we have this quotation from 1829:

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)

Both were written by legal scholars who were familiar with the writers of the Constitution.

Moreover, a search of the writings of Adams, Hamilton, Wilson, Madison and others shows that they frequently used the term "Natural Born" the way that it was used in the common law, and that they never used it to refer to parents.

So we have historical evidence that the writers of the US Constitution and other Americans at the time used Natural Born Citizen the way that it was used in the common law, and no examples of them using it in the Vattel way, and certainly there were no articles or letters saying "let us use NBC to refer to parents", or "let us use NBC like Vattel", or "let us change the rule on NBC from the place of birth to the parents."

In addition to this historical research, the Wong Kim Ark decision ruled (as has the historical research) that the meaning of Natural Born actually does come from the common law, and that it actually does refer to the place of birth.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#90545 Jul 11, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Any self-respecting Democrat would reject your vote. Sorry, your two votes.
Hey Buttune. Do you have on your big girl panties today or do I need to go get my kiddie gloves again? LMAO
Learn to Read

Chicago, IL

#90546 Jul 11, 2012
Ellen wrote:
<quoted text>No they didn't. There are no articles or letters saying: "Let us follow Vattel," or "Two citizen parents should be required" (Or even "one citizen parent should be required," or "let us change the rule from the old place of birth to parents"---or anything like that at all.

.
And of course we have the charters and constitutions of several Colonies and States (written before ratification of the US Constitution) specifically stating that "Natural Born Citizen" meant someone born there. But of course Birfoons fantasize that the delegates from these States (and ratifying Legislatures of these States) all meant to abandon this clear and explicit meaning forget that it might otherwise allow a semi-black man with a funny name to become POTUS someday

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Grey Ghost 1,174,702
Sarah Palin and her onetime fans on the right: ... 1 hr woodtick57 213
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Can't Contain Excitement ... 3 hr Responsibility 96
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 hr Jay 168,502
Mexico's Take Over Of California: Complete By 2... (Jun '09) 7 hr Larry 27,522
Obama's Right-Hand Woman Speaks Out (Aug '08) 9 hr Foresttoday 155
Rubio's trip west gains political allies but bl... 10 hr Le Duped 5
More from around the web