BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 231013 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.

Learn to Read

United States

#116219 Oct 11, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>Do not expect a reply from Rogue any time soon.
Well not an intelligent or pertinent one anyway

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#116220 Oct 11, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>You damn right, aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution, their allegiance and citizenship are to their country of origin.
Sorry, alienage does not confer diplomatic immunity.

Grow up.

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

And yet BirfoonBoy thinks aliens, though not citizens of Kansas are subject to the laws of KS under the KS constitution, which in part reads, "We the people of Kansas."

Grow up, BirfoonBoy.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
According to play law.
BirfoonBoy thinks "We the people" in the US constitution excludes aliens from US jurisdiction (ridiculous), but in the KS constitution the phrase does not so exclude.
What's in his Kool-Aid?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#116221 Oct 11, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Victory parade for you, with giant flags and marine honour guards. Why do you NEED to win so badly on thread that no one reads except us "threaders"?
The same question could be asked of you. Especially, when you consider the fact that you're not an American citizen.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#116223 Oct 11, 2012
HaHaHaHa, nothing like shutting you flappers down first thing in the morning. LMAO

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#116225 Oct 11, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>don't be stupid!
Childern can't be taxed, until 18.
Paraplegics don't meet the standards.
Aliens aren't citizens.
Indeed, paraplegics don't meet the standards. That's news?

Indeed, aliens aren't citizens. That's news?

Indeed, children cannot be taxed until 18, but that doesn't mean they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States or that they are not citizens.

It is BirfoonBoy's FALSE PREMISE[1] that persons who "can not [sic] be taxed with military duty in this country" are "not subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution."

TB sanatorium patients in AZ cannot be drafted either, but that doesn't mean they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Grow up!

__________
[1] BirfoonBoy:"Transient aliens can not be taxed with military duty in this country, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution."
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Children cannot be taxed with military duty. Paraplegics cannot be taxed with military duty.
UR an idiot.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#116226 Oct 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The same question could be asked of you. Especially, when you consider the fact that you're not an American citizen.
So? When someone says you're ignorant, does it matter where it comes from?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#116227 Oct 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, alienage does not confer diplomatic immunity.
Grow up.
<><><>< ><<><>< >
And yet BirfoonBoy thinks aliens, though not citizens of Kansas are subject to the laws of KS under the KS constitution, which in part reads, "We the people of Kansas."
Grow up, BirfoonBoy.
<quoted text>
An alien is under temporary allegiance to the "laws" of a country. Whereas a citizen's allegiance is to the "country". Enough of your childish twisting of words and implications Mobarf.

Oh, GROW UP!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#116228 Oct 11, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Most treaties are under international law.
Treaties in which the US enters are under the Treaty Clause.

Art. II,§ 2,¶ 2.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#116229 Oct 11, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
So? When someone says you're ignorant, does it matter where it comes from?
Of course.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116230 Oct 11, 2012
MyTwoCents wrote:
<quoted text>
Jose` Jalapeno is his uncle.
>
That joke ain't worth two cents!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#116232 Oct 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
An alien is under temporary allegiance to the "laws" of a country. Whereas a citizen's allegiance is to the "country". Enough of your childish twisting of words and implications Mobarf.
Oh, GROW UP!
An alien in the US owes temporary allegiance to the US and therefore must obey the laws of the US.

An alien owes temporary allegiance to the host country while under the jurisdiction and protection of the host country.

“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.”
Carlisle v. United States 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1872).

“...of the compact also redound to aliens residing within the territory of the United States, who are deemed to owe temporary allegiance TO THE UNITED STATES and thereby are entitled to the reciprocal protections of the Constitution. See United States v. Barona... 11. Abate”(emphasis added)
Ashkir v. U.S., 46 Fed.Cl. 438, 2000 WL 348805, Fed.Cl., April 04, 2000 (NO. 96-351L).

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

Hmmmm. "[R]eciprocal protections of the Constitution."
Of course in Birfoonistan, that is not possible because aliens are not under the jurisdiction thereof.

Hee hee.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, alienage does not confer diplomatic immunity.
Grow up.
<><><>< ><<><>< >
And yet BirfoonBoy thinks aliens, though not citizens of Kansas are subject to the laws of KS under the KS constitution, which in part reads, "We the people of Kansas."
Grow up, BirfoonBoy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116233 Oct 11, 2012
Hmmmmm, I just returned from shopping and I did not notice something. Obama election signs! I saw one for sheriff, city council, etc. but none for Obama.
Now to be honest I did not see any Romney signs but Conservatives usually put their signs out the last week or so, so I did not expect to see our's yet. But Liberals usually put them out early.
In 2008 Obama signs were out in September. I remember as that was when I bought my house! My next door neighbor had his two Obama signs out when I moved in in late September but it was not until the last week or so I saw any McCain signs.
Now we don't put out our signs as they are much more likely to be stolen or vandalized as happened to my TEA Party sign the following May.
What does this mean? I will let you think on that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116234 Oct 11, 2012
Eye nose, eye nose, Jacques will claim that Libtards do not steal or vandalize political signs but I will disagree. In October 2000 I went fishing off of the Flagler Beach pier and I parked my pickup about 200 feet way and when I returned I had a four-foot key scratch on my car's door. The only think I could think of was that someone did not like my "Bush/Cheney" and "Guck Fore" bumper stickers!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116235 Oct 11, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
I am just always amazed at how quickly Rouge the hypocrite contradicts what he previously knew to be true.
Rouge 8:05am - Not one person even remembers seeing Obama anywhere close to Harvard! Certainly no one there knew him.
Rouge 8:06am - everyone remembers how Obama wore that strange wedding ring ALL over the Harvard campus. They all commented on how weird it was because they knew he wasn't married.
And the pathetic ignorant Birfoon insists that he knows both of these things are true because they came from the same reliable source. If that doesn't give you a good laugh, I'm not sure what will
No, I said no one seems to remember him at Columbia. And yes, there are picture of the young Obama wearing a "wedding" ring long before he hot married! And the current "wedding" ring he is wearing is not a wedding ring!
Do you remember when someone commented about him not wearing his wedding ring a few years ago and they claimed it was out being repaired? Do you remember this Snopes article?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ramadan....
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#116236 Oct 11, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>let me know when you findout the meaning of "person", don't bother me until then. Dumbass!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/per...

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/engl...
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#116237 Oct 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
An alien in the US owes temporary allegiance to the US and therefore must obey the laws of the US.
An alien owes temporary allegiance to the host country while under the jurisdiction and protection of the host country.
“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.”
Carlisle v. United States 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1872).
“...of the compact also redound to aliens residing within the territory of the United States, who are deemed to owe temporary allegiance TO THE UNITED STATES and thereby are entitled to the reciprocal protections of the Constitution. See United States v. Barona... 11. Abate”(emphasis added)
Ashkir v. U.S., 46 Fed.Cl. 438, 2000 WL 348805, Fed.Cl., April 04, 2000 (NO. 96-351L).
<><><>< ><><>
Hmmmm. "[R]eciprocal protections of the Constitution."
Of course in Birfoonistan, that is not possible because aliens are not under the jurisdiction thereof.
Hee hee.
<quoted text>
I don't agree with your first statement. An alien owes allegiance to our "laws" not our "country".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116238 Oct 11, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure you don't want to alter that post?
Up to WW2 and perhaps including Korea, and in concert with its allies, the U.S. did just that, I agree. Do you seriously want to tell us that Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars have fostered world peace? Not to mention covert activities in Pinochet-Chile, Argentina and all of South America? Want to take that back?
Number one, the Korea War have NOT ended!
Vietnam ended because the Democrat controlled Congress defunded the war and South Vietnam surrendered nine months later.
Kuwait is free as is Saudi Arabia and there is a free flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf!
As far as Iraq, we may have pulled out to soon and as long as Iraq does not fall apart before the election, Obama does not care. And just as soon as the election is over, Obama will most probably with draw our troops under short notice.
As far a support despots like Marcoes of the Philippines, Pinochet of Chile, etc. I do not agree. You seem to be upset because they were killing your fellow communists than anything else!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#116239 Oct 11, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>They aren't under the Jurisdiction of the US Constitution, but can be prosecuted under federal, state and local laws.
Nonsense. The Constitution is not Schrodinger's cat.
Learn to Read

United States

#116240 Oct 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you remember when someone commented about him not wearing his wedding ring a few years ago and they claimed it was out being repaired? Do you remember this Snopes article?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ramadan....
Yep. Got a point?(but thanks for reinforcing the fact that the obsession with Obama's ring has been around for years and yet no one - not even Stumpy's fake wife - noticed the secret message until Corsi concocted the fable)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116241 Oct 11, 2012
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing a birfoon says is 100 percent true as the contrary is generally the case Rogue. A six-month moratorium on exploratory “water” drilling did not stop all Gulf oil production nor did it stop Oil production on federal lands which actually rose 3.7 percent in 2011.
I’m not familiar with the Bush refinery or his efforts in expanding any. You might also want to tell your birfoon friend that Obama is not in the business of building oil refineries either. Obviously refineries are not the problem or we wouldn’t be a net exporter of finished petroleum products.
At any rate Obama is not responsible for higher prices at the pump any more than under Bush when the price of gasoline increased from $1.60 per gallon when he took office in January 2001 to $4.40 per gallon in July 2008, a jump of 275 percent.
The fact is the birfoon lied when he said Obama has stopped oil production on public lands and shut down all gulf production. Oh and least I forget, stopped building refineries. LOL
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
But Obama's EPA is in the business of shutting down refineries. The Sunoco refinery in New Jersey was shit down because of EPA demands and then Obama's goons bought out the refinery and EPA WAIVED their former rulings!!! Yep, Obama's Pay to Play game hard at work rewarding his supporters.

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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Henry 1,458,233
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr SweLL GirL 9,843
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr Into The Night 62,314
News Chicago's resistance 6 hr Lickz8951 3
Why does Chicago want to harbor illegal criminals 7 hr ThomasA 15
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 7 hr YIM 7,942
Should TRUMP use this? 14 hr ITs TRUE--YES 4 SURE 8

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages