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

the westerner wrote:
<quoted text>
Successful? At sleeping with black men in 1961? And then leaving her parents to raise poor little Barry? Not my idea of successful, but then I'm not some retarded canadian.

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
Hooray for us.

1. She had a university degree. Do you?
2. She was not ugly, not that it makes any difference. But seeing as you are both uneducated and ugly...Wow.
3. So she slept with black men in 1961. 1961 was a bad year for sleeping with black men? Please indicate how sleeping with black men is not okay for you. Would it have made any difference if she slept with white men say, in 1964?

spud wrote:

<quoted text> Lets see if the "constitutional scholars" healthcare and amnesty plans stand constitutional muster then. No need to start hyperventilating yet. Just wait and see.

Yes, those apocalytic Obama projects (affordable health care, amnesty for children of illegals who are law-abiding, know no other country, work, contribute, pay taxes, enroll in the armed forces, etc) are sure signs of a totalitarian regime. What about those democratic measures, like building and maintenance of highways, the armed forces, foreign affairs, police and firefighters, car, truck, naval and aviation safety and security regulations, security measures at all airports including removing our shoes and thereby forced to smell birthers' and tea partyers' stinking feet? Have the citizens ever voted on those aforementioned "totalitarian measures?" Oh, yes, they did, both directly and in a generic sense (no airplanes or cars in 1776) one way or another. But free health care, amnesty, noooo, although accepted as a way of life in 33 other OECD and poorer countries even, VERY totalitarian. Don McLean warned, "Bye bye American Pie".

I told you SHEEPLE that the usurper would rule as a Dictator by Executive Order.

Did you know Big Government Barack Obama has signed more than 900 -- yes, NINE HUNDRED -- Executive Orders in just 40 months? That's over 22 Executive Orders per month on average -- or roughly, ONE EXECUTIVE ORDER PER BUSINESS DAY!
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/

Cancer on the pResidency wrote:

I told you SHEEPLE that the usurper would rule as a Dictator by Executive Order.
Did you know Big Government Barack Obama has signed more than 900 -- yes, NINE HUNDRED -- Executive Orders in just 40 months? That's over 22 Executive Orders per month on average -- or roughly, ONE EXECUTIVE ORDER PER BUSINESS DAY!
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/

Doesn't that mean he's doing his job?? I mean, who else signs executive orders? You're raving about the man doing what we put him in office to do!

Cancer on the pResidency wrote:

I told you SHEEPLE that the usurper would rule as a Dictator by Executive Order.
Did you know Big Government Barack Obama has signed more than 900 -- yes, NINE HUNDRED -- Executive Orders in just 40 months? That's over 22 Executive Orders per month on average -- or roughly, ONE EXECUTIVE ORDER PER BUSINESS DAY!
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/

13489 to 13615 is hardly 900 EOs

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
13489 to 13615 is hardly 900 EOs

Wit, math, knowledge, not birther strong suits, wojar.

Disposition Table of Executive Orders

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/exec...

"A Comprehensive List Of Obama’s Worst Executive Orders"

There's a wacko site that says Obama signed 900 executive ordersm and allegedly lists his worst executive orders such as

"Executive Order 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons."

The problem with this nonsense is that President Obama was only six months old when EO 11002 was signed.

Executive Order 11002
Assigning emergency preparedness functions to the Postmaster General

In fact the entire list compiled by Laurie the Clown Roth is comprised of Executive Orders signed by previous Presidents.

And birfoons just gobble up the slop.

Another from Laurie the Clown

Executive Order 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

This was also signed when Obama was an infant.

Laurie the clown:

"There have been over 900 Executive orders put forth from Obama, and he is not even through his first term yet. He is creating a martial law ‘Disney Land’ of control covering everything imaginable. Some of the executive orders he has signed recently have been exposed thanks to ‘Friends of Conservative Action Alerts.’ They have compiled a choice list of ‘Emergency Powers, Martial law executive orders’: Get your headache medication out while you still can without a prescription.

* Executive Order 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports."
<><><>< ><><><> <><><>
Reality:

Executive Order 10990
Reestablishing the Federal Safety Council

Signed: February 2, 1962
Federal Register page and date: 27 FR 1065, February 6, 1962
Revokes: EO 10194, December 19, 1950
Superseded by: EO 11612, July 26, 1971

Laurie the Clown:

A Comprehensive List Of Obama’s Worst Executive Orders

"Executive Order 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media."

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< >

Reality:

Executive Order 10995
Assigning telecommunications management functions

Signed: February 16, 1962
Federal Register page and date: 27 FR 1519, February 20, 1962
Revokes: EO 10460, June 16, 1953
Amends: EO 10695-A (not published); EO 10705, April 17, 1957
See: EO 11051, September 27, 1962
Amended by: EO 11084, February 15, 1963
Revoked by: EO 11556, September 4, 1970

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>

Just keep slurping up the slop, birfoons.

#85,678

Cancer on the pResidency wrote:

What is a requirement?
1. that which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory: One of the requirements of the job is accuracy.
2. an act or instance of requiring.
3. a need or necessity: to meet the requirements of daily life.
It is the opposite of a non-requirement.
What does the Constitution contain in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?
That would be a Presidential eligibility REQUIREMENT that must be complied with by whomever runs to occupy the office.
The burden for providing the proof falls upon the candidate, not on "We the People".
Any questions, SHEEPLE?

Yes. Please cite any legal authority that uses the term “burden of proof” with respect to presidential candidates. THERE IS NONE except in your fantasy.
Please demonstrate conclusively that President Obama did not satisfy any burden of proof. Please explain how this did not happen on Jan. 8, 2009 [has l’il tacky figured out yet after all these years what happened on that date?].
====
CAN’T L’IL TACY ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION????
THE ELIGIBILITY ISSUE
What are the various ways that a candidate’s eligibility as natural-born American citizen can be determined for purposes ofArt.II,§ 1,¶ 5 of the [original] United States Constitution?
====
All “birther” claims rejected with prejudice by the United States Supreme Court:
”Appellants'[Kerchner] contention [is] that “the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father.” Appellants' Br.[by “atty.” Mario Imabozo] at 18. That assertion goes to the merits of whether President Obama is in fact eligible to hold office.”
“This court employs an objective standard to determine whether or not an appeal is FRIVOLOUS” which “focuses on the merits of the appeal regardless of good or bad faith.” Hilmon Co. v. Hyatt Int'l, 899 F.2d 250, 253 (3d Cir.1990)(internal quotation omitted). We have stated that “an appeal from a FRIVOLOUS CLAIM is likewise FRIVOLOUS.” Beam, 383 F.3d at 108. Appellants had ample notice that this appeal had NO MERIT. They should have been aware that we rejected almost identical claims in Berg, as have courts in other jurisdictions.”
In Kerchner v. Obama (2010) the United States Supreme Court rejected expeditiously ALL “birther” claims with prejudice as being devoid of any legal or factual merit. RES JUDICATA.

85,664

Frank wrote:

Neither of them added five trillion dollars to the national debt by funneling that money to political supporters while ignoring the nations [SIC] problems.

Please describe succinctly why it is not BETTER to ADD DEBT than to subtract it. If possible, please cite an recognized economist who supports your uneducated view.
Please tell the Class the extent of your course work in Economics at the level of higher education. One course in Economics 101 perhaps? Thank you.

#85,654

spud wrote:

So one loss equals 132-0? You Obama apologists and irresponsible Dems. are unbelievable. Do you really think that your legal babble changes anything?

So sorry, rouge, that Civics was beyond your understanding on your way to a GED.
Our grand 800-year tradition of Anglo-American jurisprudence does not consist of “wins and losses.” In this case the Supreme Court has REJECTED all of the “birther” fantasies. Look up RES JUDICATA in your Funk & Wagnalls. Case closed FOREVER.
====
”Appellants'[Kerchner] contention [is] that “the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father.” Appellants' Br.[by “atty.” Mario Imabozo] at 18. That assertion goes to the merits of whether President Obama is in fact eligible to hold office.”
“This court employs an objective standard to determine whether or not an appeal is FRIVOLOUS” which “focuses on the merits of the appeal regardless of good or bad faith.” Hilmon Co. v. Hyatt Int'l, 899 F.2d 250, 253 (3d Cir.1990)(internal quotation omitted). We have stated that “an appeal from a FRIVOLOUS CLAIM is likewise FRIVOLOUS.” Beam, 383 F.3d at 108. Appellants had ample notice that this appeal had NO MERIT. They should have been aware that we rejected almost identical claims in Berg, as have courts in other jurisdictions.”
In Kerchner v. Obama (2010) the United States Supreme Court rejected expeditiously ALL “birther” claims with prejudice as being devoid of any legal or factual merit. RES JUDICATA.

spud wrote:

If Obama was really a natural born citizen, wouldn't you think he would believe in our form of government instead of the totalitarian vision he has?

Almost all members of the U.S. Communist Party are natural-born citizens, yet they do not believe in our constitutional republic.
What is the logic, rube, that suggests the nature of one's birth has anything to do with one's belief.
(Except, perhaps, the upper class know not to have anything to do with riff raff, uneducated military grunts who scammed the welfard system for twenty years.)

#85,679

Cancer on the pResidency wrote:

Did any of you SHEEPLE figure out how to explain this evidence of fraud and forgery?

Asked and answered and answered and answered.
NO DOUBT AS TO THE FRAUD AND FORGERY.
Why do you have so much trouble with the LEGAL issues:
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S CRIMINAL ACT(S)
1. YES or NO? Has the Sheriff of Maricopa County (AZ) determined there is probable cause that Barack HUSSEIN Obama has committed a CRIME?
2. If so, what is the specific criminal statute (federal or state?) that the Sheriff of Maricopa County (AZ) has determined that Obama has violated? Please cite the specific statute.
3. If so, what is the specific criminal act(s) and WHERE (the required nexus) and ON WHAT DATE was the specific criminal act(s) committed?
4. What are the requisite elements to secure a conviction for that CRIME?
5. What is the basis for the Sheriff of Maricopa County’s jurisdiction to investigate a matter related to a federal election?

So Jacques, you know, many in the scientific community have always felt that the SSC, which since its inception was designed for Fermilab, ultimately was shifted to Texas to try and create a scientific mecca of the future.
The one big glaring hole in that thinking was that there was no world class city to to provide ancilliary support.
It ultimately became a political hot potato and Bill Clinton dropped it.
loose

#85,707

American Lady wrote:

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
Thomas Paine
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
Thomas Paine
"The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Where, some say, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, He reigns above."
Thomas Paine

l’il tacky, why do you continue to quote someone who REFUSED to support the United States Constitution?

#85,708

Just Sayin wrote:

How America’s worth was nearly halved
Posted by Robert Morley on June 14, 2012
The typical American family has less wealth today than it did in the early 1990s, according to new data from the Federal Reserve. Around 20 years’ worth of gains were wiped out. Why?
One phrase: leveraged debt.
The net worth of American families plummeted by a whopping 38.8 percent between 2007 and 2010, according to the report. The median net worth of U.S. families dropped from $126,400 to $77,300. The net worth is calculated by adding up all your assets and subtracting all your debts.
According to the Fed, most of the damage was due to the housing crash. When home values plummeted it destroyed what was in many cases the family’s main investment.

CORRECT. As the data demonstrates ALL of the wealth was wiped out prior to Jan. 20, 2009.
Why do you post this message that is so hateful toward our President Geo. W. Bush, when you really want to show your intense loathing and irrational hatred of your President Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Jr.?
Is it because you are too stupid to know what you are posting?

#84,675
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
"And there has been NO recovery while national debt has gone up 35%."
====
You heard me correct. NO RECOVERY. Just like FDR caused a double-dip depression Obama has created a double-dip recession.

Terri Tanna wrote:

What are your METRICS?
A truck driver says so?
I've given you mine: more wealth has been created in the United States during the first three years of this administration than in any comparable period in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD -- the U.S. equity markets grew by 106.1% and bondholders made a killing as the yield on our Treasury obligations plummeted to the lowest level in our 224-year history (1.96% on the ten year and similar on the long-bond).