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

http://www.westernjournalism.com/marching-ord...

Oolongti wrote:

<quoted text>
Please explain to the class how you KNOW, or WHAT PROOF you have that the birth certificate aforementioned is FAKE? By what standard are you comparing said birth certificate to? What standards are YOU or the 'birthers' using? Where are you getting your 'information'?

Well - they REALLY REALLY wish it were a fake ... and their fairy godmother told them that if they repeated the same lie over and over and clicked the heels of their slippers together three times, it would come ture.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/london-missi...

Oolongti wrote:

<quoted text>
Please explain to the class how you KNOW, or WHAT PROOF you have that the birth certificate aforementioned is FAKE? By what standard are you comparing said birth certificate to? What standards are YOU or the 'birthers' using? Where are you getting your 'information'?
How do you know something is 'fake', if you do not have an original to compare it to? ie, when you are looking at a fake $20 bill for instance, do you compare it to other 'fake'$20 bills? or, do you compare it to AN ORIGINAL $20 bill? And, do you just take someone's word for it that a particular $20 bill is fake, or do you have a SET CRITERIA that is STANDARDIZED by which you compare fake to original?
It seems to me, that many of you birthers make all sorts of 'claims', but with little substance or standards to back up those claims. You say, "HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS FAKE", but you show no substance to PROVE it's originality or lack thereof. You make claims about signatures, raised seals, or moved registrar's stamps, but you have NO PROOF THAT THESE VARIABLES PROVE FRAUDULENCE. All you have in the end, is a birth certificate, with a registrar's stamp, that could have been 'moved' for any number of reasons, none of which DISPROVES AUTHENTICITY.
What NONE of you seem to tumble to is that in order for a 'case' to be built, or go to court with, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF IRREFUTABLE PROOF of something. You can't just waltz into court with 'circumstancial' nonsense, because THAT WOULD BE DISMISSED in a heartbeat either by the judge, or the defense.
SO, if you are going to waste valuable time here bloviating over a moved stamp, or a signature, or a raised seal, fine! Go for it! BUT IT PROVES NOTHING!
Please tell the class by what standards you are using to make your claims. Until you do, it's just hot air blowing out.

damn, look at all of these words! With your mastery of the language, could you please tell us how you know Obummer's LFBC is legitimate?
Come-on, are you holding something back we should know? Do you have the real copy? Chi-hua-hua!!

Egypt is taking U.S. money and running

IT’S BEEN FIVE weeks since the Obama administration granted Egypt its full $1.3 billion in annual military aid despite its government’s failure to meet conditions set by Congress for advancing democracy. In granting a waiver on national security grounds, administration officials argued that continuing the funding was more likely to encourage cooperation with the United States and progress on human rights than a cutoff would.

As it turns out, the administration was wrong. In a number of tangible ways, U.S.-Egyptian relations and the military’s treatment of civil society have deteriorated since the waiver was issued March 23. The threat to nongovernmental organizations, whose prosecution triggered the threat of an aid suspension, has worsened. Conditions for U.S.-backed pro-democracy groups elsewhere in the Middle East have deteriorated as other governments have observed Egypt’s ability to crack down with impunity.

Consider the situation of the three U.S. organizations whose offices were raided and closed by Egyptian security forces in December — the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and Freedom House. Before the waiver, senior Egyptian officials repeatedly promised U.S. envoys that the groups would be legally registered, their offices allowed to reopen and their property returned. The fine points of a settlement were under discussion. Once the waiver was issued, the process was frozen and communication ceased, according to Nancy Okail, the head of the Freedom House office in Cairo.

Learning to Read 101....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/egypt-...

American Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
Please also note Senator Bingham's use of the word "parents" (plural) as in both parents must be citizens. Not one, but TWO, as in BOTH!
Natural-born citizens, are "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens", as defined in Vattel's masterpiece of political philosophy 'The Law of Nations'(1758)§ 212, and instrumental to the Founding Fathers, who deemed it unnecessary to define in the Constitution, as it was already understood.
Here's EGG in YOUR FACE bub!

At a father and sons dinner there were present all of the sons and their fathers. BirfoonLady must think all of the fathers are gay because she thinks each son must have two fathers as "fathers" is in the plural.

Please Learn the English language.

Why Bin Laden missed Bush’s “war on terror.”

Among the cache of documents that the SEALs captured during their raid of Osama Bin Laden’s compound last year, one in particular should make many Republican foreign-policy advisers reassess their whole approach to the “war on terror.”
It’s the letter—No. 9 of the 17 missives that the administration released this week through West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center—in which Bin Laden discusses what he calls the “very important matter” of changing the name of al-Qaida.
Contrary to the tone of some news accounts, the letter is not some mildly amusing display of the former most-wanted terrorist engaging in Mad Men-style “branding.” Rather, it’s a fairly sophisticated analysis of how cultural co-optation helps build a political movement—and it’s a vindication of President Barack Obama’s approach to undermining that movement.

In this letter, Bin Laden regrets that his organization’s original name,“Qa’ida al-Jihad”, has come to be known as simply “al-Qa’ida.” The abridgement, he writes,“reduces the feeling of Muslims that we belong to them, and allows the enemies to claim deceptively that they are not at war with Islam and Muslims.” Rather, the United States could claim that it was at war only with the al-Qaida organization, which it depicted as “an outside entity from the teachings of Islam.” Bin Laden complains that Obama has “repeatedly” made this argument. Therefore, he concluded, if al-Qaida adopted a new name, which included a reference to Islam,“it would be difficult for him to say” that he wasn’t at war with Islam.
He even makes “some suggestions” of possible new names, among them Muslim Unity Group, Islamic Nation Unification Party, and Restoration of the Caliphate Group.
Along the same lines, Bin Laden is upset that his enemies “have largely stopped using the phrase ‘the war on terror’ in the context of not wanting to provoke Muslims, because they felt that saying the war on terror could appear to most people to be a war on Islam, especially after they unjustly spilled the blood of innocent Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Lear to Read 101

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...

Just Sayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep and these people are laughing all the way bank, but they'll get tired of the FORWARD MARCH command eventually. After it is too late.

I wonder what Teresa Heinz-Kerry is going to do with all her money and property in France? Ya know, Teresa has more money overseas than Romney has all together.

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Both political parties are corrupt in this issue. Gloria Allred is a Clintonesta who was furious over the way Obama controlled the caucuses, especially in Iowa. I am also very concerned about the Super Delegates who are selected by the state parties and not elected.

American Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct! Both sides have done iT....
WE need to 'clean house' ha... and Senate
There's clerks of the counties, and all sorts of people talking about iT tho. Not just Allred....;-)

I use to be a registered Republican a dozen years ago but got pissed off and became an Independent. The only reason why I registered as a Republican was so I could vote in the Primary election.
Being registered as a Republican or Democrat does not mean you are a member of the party so you have little voice except in the General elections.
Oh, I do know where the Republicans in Jacksonville have the monthly lunch at and is not in any damn country club. In fact it is a common cafeteria.

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

<quoted text>
I wonder what Teresa Heinz-Kerry is going to do with all her money and property in France? Ya know, Teresa has more money overseas than Romney has all together.

Shhhh. The Democrats don't want their slaves to know they're rich. They want them to think Republicans are the only bad guys.

Do you remember Tom Dashle? He is on the Board of BP.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wWkfsJPShUM...

American Lady wrote:

The American Revolution was a battle against the philosphophy of John Locke.
Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations was key in framing the United States
as the world's first constitutional republic.
Most Americans, today, have no idea that there once existed something, commonly known as the "American System." The vast majority of Americans today think of freedom as the equivalent of "doing your own thing." Those who think of themselves as better educated are really no better off, believing that the Constitution of the United States came out of the tradition of John Locke's Social Contract. Alexander Hamilton, who had played a key role in shaping both the American economy and the Constitution of the United States, is commonly described as a man whose outlook was "aristocratic."
The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz's influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the world's first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from Vattel's The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America's founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/97...
uhmmmuuuaaa

Yawn. Robert Trout? Zzzzzzzzzzz.

Sorry, but it is settled law that birth in this country confers citizenship.

“There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that at the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States there was any settled and definite rule of international law generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.” US v.k, 169 U.S. 649, 667 (1898).

“[W]e find that the Constitution has recognized
the general principle of public law, that allegiance
and citizenship depend on the place of birth.‘
This doctrine of citizenship by reason of place of
birth is spoken of by the writers on the subject as
the jus soli or common law doctrine.”
Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 410 (App.D.C. 1938)
modified and affirmed, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

Not even France followed Vattel's rule at the time of adoption of the Constitution.

"But at the time of the adoption of the constitution
of the United States in 1789, and long before, it
would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally,
as it certainly was in France, that, as said by
Pothier,‘citizens, true and native-born citizens, are
those who are born within the extent of the dominion
of France,’ and ‘mere birth within the realm
gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently
of the origin of the father or mother, and of
their domicile’; and children born in a foreign
country, of a French father who had not established
his domicile there, nor given up the intention of returning...."
Ark, Op. Cit. at 666.

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

<quoted text>
I wonder what Teresa Heinz-Kerry is going to do with all her money and property in France? Ya know, Teresa has more money overseas than Romney has all together.

It is not that John Kerry is broke either. After all, he did have enough money to buy a $7M sail boat but was not rich enough to pay the Massachusetts taxes?
http://bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/vi...
Ya know, when one state or country raises their taxes, the real rich people just move there money around in half-walnut shells. And I really don't blame them either.

American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
Please also note Senator Bingham's use of the word "parents" (plural) as in both parents must be citizens. Not one, but TWO, as in BOTH!
Natural-born citizens, are "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens", as defined in Vattel's masterpiece of political philosophy 'The Law of Nations'(1758)§ 212, and instrumental to the Founding Fathers, who deemed it unnecessary to define in the Constitution, as it was already understood.
Here's EGG in YOUR FACE bub!

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
At a father and sons dinner there were present all of the sons and their fathers. BirfoonLady must think all of the fathers are gay because she thinks each son must have two fathers as "fathers" is in the plural.
Please Learn the English language.

Ah ha, it the Race Card is not appropriate, throw out the Homosapien Card.
Tell me, how does ONE child, like Obama, have TWO fathers and no mother?
No don't give us that story about a man having a baby as he was still a she at the time his/hers three children were born.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story...
I know that ABC News knows that a person with female sexual organs is not a man!

Old Goat wrote:

<quoted text>damn, look at all of these words! With your mastery of the language, could you please tell us how you know Obummer's LFBC is legitimate?
Come-on, are you holding something back we should know? Do you have the real copy? Chi-hua-hua!!

Typical pathetic moron ...

OG MOron: "The LFBC is BOGUS!!!! that is a FACT!!!!

Intelligent Person: OReaLY? And how do you know this to be a fact?

OGMOron: Gee, U sur dew talk fancy! So tell me mistr IQ above 13, how do you know the LFBC is real?

Intell8iugent Person: That's the best response you can come up with to the question "how you know it is fake?" ... what a Birfoon.

Poor moron ... your life must really suck. I pity your dog.

Just Sayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Just curious. How come you don't smoke that GB from Columbus, Ohio? He is making you look bad.

Sorry, clown, but I am the original Grand Birther. Kentucky Klown is incapable of "smoking" anything other than the cigarettes s/he buys with his/her taxpayer funded disability cheques.

The Kentucky Klown is a little baby that tries to steal my screen name because I make her look so foolish.

Every single silly birfoon post Kentucky Kloen has made has been thoroughly, completely, and resoundingly debunked.

Kentucky Klown makes herself look bad. S/he's a birfer and it comes with the territory.

Grand Birther wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, clown, but I am the original Grand Birther. Kentucky Klown is incapable of "smoking" anything other than the cigarettes s/he buys with his/her taxpayer funded disability cheques.
The Kentucky Klown is a little baby that tries to steal my screen name because I make her look so foolish.
Every single silly birfoon post Kentucky Kloen has made has been thoroughly, completely, and resoundingly debunked.
Kentucky Klown makes herself look bad. S/he's a birfer and it comes with the territory.

Wow three Grand Birthers. That's the same amount of Birth Certificates Obama has. Do you have proof that you are the original or is your claim similar to Obama's?

François Hollande Wins French Presidency

French Socialist François Hollande won the French presidency in Sunday’s election. Final results showed Hollande narrowly defeated incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy with 51.6 percent of the vote.

Hollande campaigned on the need for more growth-generating economic policies and less economic austerity. In his victory speech in Paris Sunday night, he declared that his victory heralded the beginning of a new movement and the “end of austerity.”

Hollande inherits an economy that is already deep in debt. But he plans to enact further government stimulus and more spending in general.

Investors and analysts acknowledge that the election results in France—as well as debt-stricken Greece—could mean a new political upheaval. Some fear the election of Hollande could ultimately derail the government austerity measures that Eurocrats have fought so hard for, and could worsen Europe’s economic problems.

In order to overcome the EU debt crisis, many financial and political leaders have put their confidence in the austerity policies created by Germany and staunchly backed by Sarkozy. But now the famed “Merkozy” relationship is over.

Berlin must now find a new partner to help it steer Europe to stability. The Trumpet believes Germany will no longer look to France for strong support. Instead, it will kindle a new partnership with a centuries-long history. For more in-depth analysis on what the French election means for the future of Europe, read “Merkel and Monti Revive Old Berlin-Rome Axis.”•

Problem of Civilization:
A Lack of Money, The Root of All Evil

http://silvervigilante.com/problem-of-civiliz...

LOVE makes the World go 'round....

B
U
T

Money "greases" the Wheel........

Used to be that way.....
Haven't seen much 'love' lately......
LOTS of 'disrespect' THO!

One day after the lavish White House Correspondents' Dinner was held in Washington, D.C., former "NBC Nightly News" anchor Tom Brokaw stated that the annual event is diminishing the reputation of the journalists who attend it.

The longtime newsman made the remark to host David Gregory while appearing as a guest on "Meet the Press" the following morning, according to a column written by David Eldridge at the Washington Times on Sunday.

Brokaw also stated that the annual event, which features Washington reporters and editors drinking, joking and partying with Hollywood stars and other top officials, including the president, is contributing to the conception that journalists consider themselves part of the elite in the U.S.

Look, I think George Clooney is a great guy. I’d like to meet Charlize Theron. But I don’t think the big press event in Washington should be that kind of glittering event where the whole talk is about Cristal champagne, taking over the Italian Embassy, who had the best party, who got to meet the most people.

"If there's ever an event that separates the press from the people they're supposed to be serving, symbolically, it is that one." he added.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2012/...

Uncouth....):