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
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#116559 Oct 12, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
When you claim anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, I say bullchit. That is a direct response. Matter of fact, that's as direct as it gets! pigeon
Not only a citizen, but a Natural Born Citizen.

U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: "No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.… The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father."

Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: "However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.[The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: "Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise"

Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: "In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court.[Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).… The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.… This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive."

The above case, Farrar, was the one that the US Supreme Court turned down the birther appeals of. That means that the ruling in Georgia stands.
Jacques Ottawa

North York, Canada

#116560 Oct 12, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Barack Obama met with the Queen of England.
He asked her, "Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient
government? Are there any tips you can give me?"
..."Well," said the Queen, "the most important thing is to surround
yourself with intelligent people."
Obama frowned, and then asked, "But how do I know the people around
are really intelligent?"
The Queen took a sip of tea. "Oh, that's easy, you just ask them to
answer an intelligent riddle."
The Queen pushed a button on her intercom.
"Please send Tony Blair in here, would you?"
Tony Blair walked into the room and said, "Yes, Your Majesty?"
The Queen smiled and said, "Answer me this please, Tony. Your mother
and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your
sister. Who is it?"
Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answered, "That would be me."
"Yes! Very good," said the Queen.
Obama went back home to ask Joe Biden the same question. "Joe, answer
this for me. Your mother and your father have a child. It's not
your brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?"
"I'm not sure," said Biden. "Let me get back to you on that one." He
went to his advisers and asked everyone, but none could give him an
answer.
Finally, Biden ran in to Sarah Palin out eating one night. Biden
asked, "Sarah, can you answer this for me? Your mother and father
have a child and it's not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"
Sarah Palin answered right back, "That's easy, it's me!"
Biden smiled, and said, "Thanks!" Then, he went back to speak with
Obama. "Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that
riddle. It's Sarah Palin!"
Obama got up, stomped over to Biden, and angrily yelled into his
face, "No! You idiot! It's Tony Blair!"
Either you or Rogue came up with that one a week ago. Both senile, I guess. Anyhow, I agree it was funny the first time, but the second and soon the third time once more from Rogue, NOT.
Jacques Ottawa

North York, Canada

#116561 Oct 12, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
There are some posts from flappers that I don't read, that is correct. jacqazz, you do as much name calling as anyone you hypocrite. jacqazz, the plane I'm on is giving all you anti-America flappers as much crap as you dish out. Can you dig it? I thought that you could. LMAO Remind me again, why you are even here? pig-eon
For the 100th time, give me an example of any name-calling, save for a few "stupid" here and there. Name-calling that resembles buttflapper and dumbazzbastard. C'mon.
Jacques Ottawa

North York, Canada

#116562 Oct 12, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I got that from a post of yours! LMAO moronic pigeon
No, you didn't. I don't write badly like that.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#116563 Oct 12, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
If you understood the joke, you would think it was funny. Except that it applies to you, so you may not.
FYI, Churchill's rapier-like witty repartees were published, so witty and intelligent were they, and that was one of them. I shan't bother wasting another one on the likes of you.
Must be your delivery.
Canada dry!

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#116564 Oct 12, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Either you or Rogue came up with that one a week ago. Both senile, I guess. Anyhow, I agree it was funny the first time, but the second and soon the third time once more from Rogue, NOT.
I wasn't here.
The story wasn't meant for worthless foreign opinion.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#116565 Oct 12, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>Not only a citizen, but a Natural Born Citizen.

U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: "No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.… The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father."

Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: "However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.[The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: "Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.Â… Contrary to PlaintiffÂ’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise"

Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: "In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court.[Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).… The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.… This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive."

The above case, Farrar, was the one that the US Supreme Court turned down the birther appeals of. That means that the ruling in Georgia stands.
Yeah sure, that's what the law says ... but in Birfistan there is a higher authority than the law (it involves ruby slippers and repeating your deepest wish over and over)
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#116566 Oct 12, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Please feel free, I need to be enterained today, as LRS is not as his slithering-slug best.
Just another indication that I've gotten inside your head!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#116567 Oct 12, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only a citizen, but a Natural Born Citizen.
U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: "No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.… The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father."
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: "However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.[The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: "Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise"
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: "In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court.[Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).… The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.… This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive."
The above case, Farrar, was the one that the US Supreme Court turned down the birther appeals of. That means that the ruling in Georgia stands.
Brainchild, did you notice the dates of those cases...2008 & 2012. Gee, think they were influenced by Omama? LMAO pigeon
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#116568 Oct 12, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah sure, that's what the law says ... but in Birfistan there is a higher authority than the law (it involves ruby slippers and repeating your deepest wish over and over)
Hey, it's not my fault if the courts are wrong.
Jacques Ottawa

North York, Canada

#116569 Oct 12, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't here.
The story wasn't meant for worthless foreign opinion.
Well said. "DOH, gee gosh, I wasn't there when Christopher Columbus discovered America on behalf of the queen of Spain, so I guess it never happened".
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#116570 Oct 12, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>Hey, it's not my fault if the courts are wrong.
Hmmm. Every learned Judge and trained legal mind in the Country or LoserRepastingSpam - who is wrong? Boy that's a tough call!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#116571 Oct 12, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, it's not my fault if the courts are wrong.
In the USA the courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, decide. Not you.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#116572 Oct 12, 2012
[from this great nation's most conservative metropolitan newspaper]
==
Romney's abortion answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
=
Due to my afternoon deadline I can't tell you for sure what Mitt Romney's position on abortion was as of Thursday night.

But, treating it like a late game on the West Coast, I can give you the latest updates.

Tuesday: Romney told the Des Moines Register editorial board, "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda."
Banning abortion is always high on the agenda of many conservatives, and some quickly registered dismay and disappointment — though surely not surprise — at Romney's evident lack of vehemence and resolve on an issue that truly animates them.

Hours later, a spokeswoman offered the clarifying reassurance (hasty retraction), "Gov. Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."

Wednesday: "I'm a pro-life candidate," Romney told the audience at a campaign rally. "I'll be a pro-life president." He added that he'd "remove funding for Planned Parenthood" and block federal aid to international agencies if they so much as provide abortion counseling services.

All settled? Well, no. Romney's careerlong meanderings on abortion suggest not just irresolution, which is familiar to many who have struggled with this issue, but hypocrisy and cynicism — a "nice doggy" approach in which he says whatever he has to in order to sidle safely past easily riled voters.

His numerous, contradictory statements on the issue are all over the Web, most comprehensively in a 13,000-word analysis -- The Conversion -- published in August by Slate's William Saletan that demonstrates Romney's evolution from pro-choice to pro-life was no simple conversion, but a series of calculated pivots.

Behold:

1994: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it.... You will not see me wavering on that."

1999: "When I am asked if I am I pro-choice or pro-life, I say I refuse to accept either label."

2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice. I have never felt comfortable with the labels associated with the abortion issue."

2002: "When asked, will I preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, I give an unequivocal answer:'Yes'... I do not take the position of a pro-life candidate.… Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."

2005: "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice."

2007: "(In 2004, as governor of Massachusetts) the conclusion I reached was that ... we should therefore allow our state to become a pro-life state.... I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice, because I didn't feel I was pro-choice."

2007: I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said we don't want to have abortion.... I'd be delighted to sign that bill."

2008: "On every decision I made as governor, I came down on the side of life."

2011: "Absolutely!" (In response to the question asking if he'd support a constitutional amendment saying human life begins conception.)

2012: "What I'd like to see happen would be for the Supreme Court to say look, we're going to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states the authority to decide whether they want to have abortion or not."

2012: "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother." ("health" later retracted)

What's Romney's position on abortion as of Thursday afternoon? Evidently the same position he's always held: He'll say and do whatever he thinks will win him the most votes.

Pro-choice? Pro-life? Better to describe it as firmly, consistently pro-Mitt.

-more-

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#116573 Oct 12, 2012
SOURCES
Mitt Romney's Abortion Evolution (ABC News)

Romney's abortion remarks bring issue back into focus Mitt Romney says abortion wouldn't be part of his legislative agenda, but later says he would fight it if he's elected (LA Times)

William Saletan (Slate): The Conversion -- How, when, and why Mitt Romney changed his mind on abortion and Romney’s Abortion “Agenda”-- Don’t fall for his insinuation that he won’t restrict abortion. It’s full of weasel words. and The Pro-life Case for Planned Parenthood

Romney, aides can't keep their story straight on reproductive rights (Steve Benen)

A Mitt Romney Abortion Timeline (Buzzfeed)
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnis...

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#116574 Oct 12, 2012
American Lady wrote:
The Lord's Prayer
For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever and ever.
AL still cannot cite this verse in any authentic scriptural translation.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#116576 Oct 12, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm. Every learned Judge and trained legal mind in the Country or LoserRepastingSpam - who is wrong? Boy that's a tough call!
It's called bias for the first black president just like the media has done. Same game. To a "T"! Why are you too stupid to see it for what it is? BTW, why did Clinton say; Shame on you BHO? You remember that don't you? LMAO pigeon

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#116577 Oct 12, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said. "DOH, gee gosh, I wasn't there when Christopher Columbus discovered America on behalf of the queen of Spain, so I guess it never happened".
He didn't!
He showed up long after is was discovered.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#116578 Oct 12, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
SOURCES
Mitt Romney's Abortion Evolution (ABC News)
Romney's abortion remarks bring issue back into focus Mitt Romney says abortion wouldn't be part of his legislative agenda, but later says he would fight it if he's elected (LA Times)
William Saletan (Slate): The Conversion -- How, when, and why Mitt Romney changed his mind on abortion and Romney’s Abortion “Agenda”-- Don’t fall for his insinuation that he won’t restrict abortion. It’s full of weasel words. and The Pro-life Case for Planned Parenthood
Romney, aides can't keep their story straight on reproductive rights (Steve Benen)
A Mitt Romney Abortion Timeline (Buzzfeed)
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnis...
HELLO
Its the economy.
There is no war on women.Not even old haggard's like yourself.

"Stuff's gettin better"
2012
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#116579 Oct 12, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Brainchild, did you notice the dates of those cases...2008 & 2012. Gee, think they were influenced by Omama? LMAO pigeon
Gee. Birthers brought the cases. The reason for the dates is that is when the birthers brought them.

However, if you want some cases that are earlier:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

What makes the third child different from her siblings? Only that she was born in the USA.

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
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 min PEllen 98,879
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Incognito4Ever 1,155,823
Chicago Pizza Blows 15 min Larry 4
Chicago police stop black motorists more, ACLU ... 44 min reality is a crutch 1
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr IBdaMann 49,319
Is Vanessa Hudgens A PORN-STAR ?? (Oct '07) 1 hr moe 189
amy 12-25 1 hr RACE 2
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:06 am PST

Bleacher Report12:06AM
Indianapolis Colts vs. Tennessee Titans: Complete Week 17 Preview for Tennessee
NBC Sports 3:43 AM
Jay Cutler on Bears: "Everyone could get axed"
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Colts' Complete Week 17 Preview vs. Titans
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
Bears vs. Vikings: What Experts Are Saying About Chicago
NBC Sports 6:03 AM
Jim Caldwell: No concerns about starting a rookie center