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
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#104637 Sep 1, 2012
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are perfectly free to go to your grave believing anything you wish Mr. Liars, but not only can I make that statement with a straight face so did the HDoH. That you choose to doubt those who should know in favor of those who have no way of knowing would suggest you like every other birfoon are suffering from other issues which seem to be way out of your ability to control.
Smoke Pops. Weed. Mary Jane.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#104638 Sep 1, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
Even Topix won't allow me to spell ignorant correctly when it applies to you. Ha ha.
Bush's fault right? LMAO

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#104639 Sep 1, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Agreed.I never said you were on one side or another,as I noted pretty much your dislike for most things political;
2. "Forced"? Whole Universal health care plan was "forced" to be a weak one,as a true Universal health care plan where premiums are paid via taxes would never have passed the first cttee,much less the whole House AND Senate.Universal health care plan as exists in the 33 other OECD nations is mostly funded through taxes,and everyone has access.But with the word "socialism' through ignorance and hence fear,is not to be pronounced in the US as so many,including 1940s style politicians, equate it to communism;
3. I agree.Romney, whose Mass plan Obama largely copied,will be crushed by...Romney.Go figure;
4. Your inflation estimate is a tad high,and though not an expert on the matter,would peg it more at around 15%.Still way too high. Govts have a way of toying with labour statistics.Always have.Why are you implying that Obama is doing it differently from his predecessors?;
Return of industry? Not likely.Who started the export of jobs,of industry.Do you believe that Obama,in 4 years,exported most of those plants? How about that tax break that Obama tried to repeal, a tax break given to industry that exports its jobs and manufacturing?Repub congress shot it down, as it did over 33. Read today's Doonsbury and tell me it ain't so.Even if every company that went to China, Vietnam or Mexico returned to the US,and same for us,incidentally,we CAN NO LONGR build anything electronic,the know-how has gone,no longer exists. We'd have to import advisors from China,Vietnam and Mexico.What a joke.We don't know how to manufacture stuff any more.
Extending the phoney patriot act is a mistake. The $700 billion defence budget is a joke, an unfunny joke. a 10% cut would offer zero-premium all-paid-for universal health care for every citizen. Or close.Still being in Afghanistan is a mistake,as is a presence in Iraq. Libya was a mistake. Yes,errors have been made. But you think that's bad? Elect Mitt, you'll see, soon you'll be making F-35s in Russia and China. You've already lost most of your commercial aircraft buidling ability, most 787 components or more than 70% of them coming from China and Italy, same for 747-8 and 777. As per Russia when the wall came down in 1989, all that is 100% US-built (not even sure of that) are navy ships and submarines and fighter-bomber aircraft. Signs are all there. Can Obama fix a little bit of all of that? I think so. I said a little bit. Can Romney do same? I doubt it.
The way that universal health care is done elsewhere is impossible here. 100% of our federal taxes go directly to the Fed. as interest on imaginary money. Doesn't fix a pot hole, doesn't fund a welfare check, doesn't build a bridge.

There are no tax revenues.

Unemployment at 15% does not include the people who have simply stopped looking for work...as in many cases it does not exist. They would love full time work, but they are fed up with a fruitless time consuming pursuit. 23% is far more realistic.

I can agree with almost all of your last paragraph. However, making token efforts to fix things a bit is not enough.

You end the Fed or you have no where to go but down hill.

I have a video for you J.O.(I dont care if anyone else watches I am willing to go 1 at a time.)
5 parts...about 7 mins a piece, instead of futile arguments with people on this forum I ask that you view this material. See if it doesn't change your mind. Even if it doesn't the info alone is worth the time.

Part 1


Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#104640 Sep 1, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
From above : "See, what you hate is that I do represent America right down to my last breath. Red, White and Blue baby."
YOU, a bloated disgusting slug, represent The United States of America? An ignorant vulgar traitor now represents such a fine country? Go back to your trailer park, oaf, and weekends at the Ronald McDonald asylum. How it must suck for such a poor specimen to think he represents even a doghouse.
Eat shat and die jokieboi.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#104642 Sep 1, 2012
I knew that was going to happen...

Sorry for the double post.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#104643 Sep 1, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
The natural born citizen clause replaced a previously drafted eligibility requirement:
"[H]e shall be of the age of thirty five years, and a citizen of the United States, and shall have been an inhabitant thereof for twenty one years."
On September 4, 1787, that was changed to
"No person except a natural born citizen or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President; nor shall any person be elected to that office, who shall be under the age of thirty five years, and who has not been in the whole, at least fourteen years a resident within the U. S."

The rule was modified to require a person born in the United States.
<quoted text>
There were no Constitutional Convention records of debates regarding the eligibility clause in the Constitution. James Madison who kept records of the proceedings in the Constitutional Convention made no reference in his book entitled "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787"

Alexander Hamilton's version was:

“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”

Constitution version:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;.....

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 rejected was because each state could determine who was its citizen.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#104644 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
UNREAL!!!!!
Arizona should claim soverignty and secede immediately.
Watch how many states follow.
Please do and take the following states:
South Carolina
Texas
Alabama
Mississippi
Georgia
Oklahoma
Kentucky

and any other redneck/Neanderthal state
Grand Birther

Louisville, KY

#104645 Sep 1, 2012
Feds end probe of 'America's toughest sheriff' Joe Arpaio; no charges
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/31/13...
ballantine

United States

#104648 Sep 1, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
There were no Constitutional Convention records of debates regarding the eligibility clause in the Constitution. James Madison who kept records of the proceedings in the Constitutional Convention made no reference in his book entitled "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787"
Alexander Hamilton's version was:
“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”
Constitution version:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;.....
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 rejected was because each state could determine who was its citizen.
Except it wasn't rejected as far as we know. The draft that contained such language was not shown to the Convention but to Madison after the Convention. The draft Hamiton showed to the convention was little more than an outline.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#104649 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me clarify a few things for you J.O.
1)I think I made it abundantly clear in my last few post that I am not on a side unless you count the American people as a political party.
2)"Free" health care for all couldn't be further from the truth. You are forced to BUY said insurance UNDER PENALTY OF LAW! Exactly how does this translate to freedom?
Find me a founding father that would be cool with that.
3)I "stick up" for no group of people who don't act in the best interest of America.
It doesn't matter what people want...
It is simply inevitable that republicans will repeal this legislation. They now have the congress, if they get the presidency Obamacare will not even take affect. Hence, my statement.
4)I see no great turn about in America. More people are jobless than ever before. The unemployment statistics are fraudulent, it is not even close to a representation of what is going on. Actual unemployment hovers around 23%... more if you include under-employed.
I see no evidence of the return of industry to the U.S.
The man auto-stamped the fukin Patriot act extention for christ sake! He then went on to sign the NDAA!!!! What kind of a man signs this crap?
You are damn right I am predjudiced! Predjudiced against any man who would see our freedoms lessened.
You think I dislike Obama?
You should have heard me when Bush was in office.
American FIRST...political affiliation distant second.
1. You did make that crystal clear and I pointed it out in a following post;
2. In a universal health care plan, not only is no one forced to buy health insurance, it's paid with taxes. All taxpayers (except maybe big corporations and the rich) pay taxes that go towards health care, thereby diminishing by oh so much, individual premiums. Obama was forced into an obamacare compromise, as I wager his ambition would be to have a universal health care plan that resembles that of the other 33 "have" OECD countries. As to the constitution, it's an 18th century document that does not reflect today's times. Not enough amendments since then. Justice Ginsberg was totally and 100% right. Does the constitution allow for publicly-built roads, road tolls, forced automobile 3rd-party coverage? What were the implications of universal health care in the 18th century? etc etc...;
3. 1 agree with you, whether one likes it or not;
4. I know you're a fair man and you speak with conviction. I don't however see any erosion of freedom in your country, which, incidentally, resembles ours, ;arty and government-wise. Your Dem party is almost the same as our conservative party actually in power. We have much to bitch about, yes, but change for change will bring nothing but disappointment.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#104650 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
The way that universal health care is done elsewhere is impossible here. 100% of our federal taxes go directly to the Fed. as interest on imaginary money. Doesn't fix a pot hole, doesn't fund a welfare check, doesn't build a bridge.
There are no tax revenues.
Unemployment at 15% does not include the people who have simply stopped looking for work...as in many cases it does not exist. They would love full time work, but they are fed up with a fruitless time consuming pursuit. 23% is far more realistic.
I can agree with almost all of your last paragraph. However, making token efforts to fix things a bit is not enough.
You end the Fed or you have no where to go but down hill.
I have a video for you J.O.(I dont care if anyone else watches I am willing to go 1 at a time.)
5 parts...about 7 mins a piece, instead of futile arguments with people on this forum I ask that you view this material. See if it doesn't change your mind. Even if it doesn't the info alone is worth the time.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =_dmPchuXIXQXX
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Because it's from you, I'll view the material, but so sorry, will have to be later, as I gotta jump around, saturday morning and all that. Tks.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#104651 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
I knew that was going to happen...
Sorry for the double post.
No problem, but I may have replied twice. Hope I didn't contradict myself lol
American Lady

Danville, KY

#104652 Sep 1, 2012
David Barton's new book, The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed about Thomas Jefferson, is not as bad as it is being made out to be.
It has very serious problems—special pleading, fundamental errors of omission, a willful misunderstanding and deliberate distortion of Jefferson's basic religious outlook, demonization of those who see Jefferson as a deist and freethinker, and the frequent use of the straw man fallacy. But Barton is right in one key respect: Thomas Jefferson was less thoroughly secular than some advocates of separation of church and state have claimed. He did not seek to remove all religious expression from the public square. Nor did he conceive the University of Virginia as an unambiguously secular institution of higher learning. For this reason, though Barton's book is not likely to win praise in any but conservative and evangelical circles, it does a service to our national conversation about the place of religion in American public life, and the debate it is generating may help to clarify both Jefferson's personal religious views and his talismanic phrase, "wall of separation between church and state."

The basic problem of Barton's book is that he approaches Jefferson not as a scholar or historian, but as an evangelical Christian propagandist and casuist with a preconceived result in mind. His life mission is to prove the Founding Fathers intended America to be a Christian nation. For many years he has combed through the lives and letters of America's founders to find whatever they wrote that appears to reinforce his fixed idea.

http://www.jeffersonhour.com/Barton%20Review....

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#104653 Sep 1, 2012
American Lady wrote:
OBAMA BANNED THIS VIDEO - GEE, I WONDER WHY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Who made this video?
2. Can you prove Obama banned it?
SHE did not say it was banned, that is in the title!
You do know the difference, don't you?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#104654 Sep 1, 2012
What is sad, we taxpayers probably spent $10M on this investigation.

A Stoos Views/Hugh Betcha Exclusive
“No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found.”—NOAA
In a startling, hard hitting report, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the United States government has assured an anxious public that, no, there are no mermaids. Hugh Betcha, Ace Reporter, Head of the Environmental News Bureau of the Stoos Views news conglomerate, first broke the story last month after receiving a tip from a source inside the agency who did not wish to be revealed. The source, hereinafter referred to as Deep Throat, told Hugh, the recipient of the MSNBC 2012 Most Respected Reporter award:
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#104655 Sep 1, 2012
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
Frank, Zeituni Onyango, President Obama's aunt, says “You’re naked liar in the name of the Lord,”
She told me to tell you that plant shut down in 2008 and Obama made no such promise. LOL
Our rating
Ryan said Obama broke his promise to keep a Wisconsin GM plant from closing. But we don't see evidence he explicitly made such a promise -- and more importantly, the Janesville plant shut down before he took office.
We rate Ryan's statement False.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statement...
Your god is going to punish you for lying Frank.
Proverbs 6:16-19
King James Version (KJV)
16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, A LYING TONGUE, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren
Pops, I don't think you're qualified to be speaking for God. IYKWIM
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#104656 Sep 1, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
People who even think that succession is possible should remember the oath that they and millions of others have taken.
It says in part: "one nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE..."
We have all pledged that this nation should be indivisible. So we cannot recommend that states leave it.
You do remember that little misunderstanding called the CIVIL WAR don't ya? And I don't think the Pentagon is going to allow the military to attack its own. They'll turn on Obama first.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#104657 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
The way that universal health care is done elsewhere is impossible here. 100% of our federal taxes go directly to the Fed. as interest on imaginary money. Doesn't fix a pot hole, doesn't fund a welfare check, doesn't build a bridge.
There are no tax revenues.
Unemployment at 15% does not include the people who have simply stopped looking for work...as in many cases it does not exist. They would love full time work, but they are fed up with a fruitless time consuming pursuit. 23% is far more realistic.
I can agree with almost all of your last paragraph. However, making token efforts to fix things a bit is not enough.
You end the Fed or you have no where to go but down hill.
I have a video for you J.O.(I dont care if anyone else watches I am willing to go 1 at a time.)
5 parts...about 7 mins a piece, instead of futile arguments with people on this forum I ask that you view this material. See if it doesn't change your mind. Even if it doesn't the info alone is worth the time.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =_dmPchuXIXQXX
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
OK. Part 1 done. I was aware of most of what's in the video, and so interesting it is, but I confess did not know about Wilson's statement. Frankin's statement was idealism, well, socialism at best, but yes, partly the reason for the war of Independence. Most of the message is true, though a bit biased. Who produced it? An insider friend told me that if we really really knew how government really works, and the point at which govt is run by a few people, we'd implode out of just plain worry and hopelessness.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#104658 Sep 1, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
That one from above : "Ryan said Obama broke his promise to keep a Wisconsin GM plant from closing. But we don't see evidence he explicitly made such a promise -- and more importantly, the Janesville plant shut down before he took office." Yes,Rogue levelled the same accusation at Obama for transferring the GE jet engine plant to the Czech Republic. Transfer was effected in 2008, under GWB. I asked him if he wanted to correct that, he never, after at least 10 requests, replied. Just like Ryan, but hey, the birthers and Repubs lap it up, never mind the facts. Ryan, the masculine Sarah Palin. Well, at least, Palin is a good-looking woman.
yada yada yada.......so old and tiresome. Clown.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#104659 Sep 1, 2012
American Lady wrote:
OBAMA BANNED THIS VIDEO - GEE, I WONDER WHY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Who made this video?
2. Can you prove Obama banned it?
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
American Lady wrote:
OBAMA BANNED THIS VIDEO - GEE, I WONDER WHY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
<quoted text>
SHE did not say it was banned, that is in the title!
You do know the difference, don't you?
Wow, so sorry, I thought she had written that on her own. Cut-and-paste, eh? What a surprise.

She has no idea who wrote it, she just posts it. Talk about honesty. But mostly, talk about hate.

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) 22 min Morse 1,144,191
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 47 min Le Jimbo 163,203
Darth Vader is polling higher than all potentia... 1 hr Le Jimbo 2
Michele Bachmann: Obama Won Because He's Black ... (Feb '14) 2 hr Atlantic 388
Gay-rights activist charged with sex abuse was ... 2 hr barefoot2626 20
Aryan Nations recruiting again in northern Idaho (Apr '09) 2 hr Swedenforever 209
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 6 hr IBdaMann 33,287

2012 Presidential Election People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE