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

Full story: Chicago Tribune

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 ...

Comments (Page 5,735)

Showing posts 114,681 - 114,700 of173,633
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130237
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong.
Obama was born under the allegiance of his father's nation, which made him a citizen of that nation, he must be naturalized to be come a citizen of the US.
Of course the Constitution does not recognize a dual-citizenship status. If it does please reference.
Wrong.

“[I]t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.).
United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also
Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928)(child born in the United States to German nationals)

A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1. In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)

As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States.“ At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)
(internal citation omitted)

Moreover, The Naturalization Acts did not apply to children born in the United States of aliens parents for the simple reason that they only applied to foreign born persons.

"this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government.", Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393, 417 (1857).

Applying the rationale in the Dred Scott case, children born in the United States to alien parents were not born in a foreign country under a foreign government.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130238
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
"Jurisdiction over the US Government is the Constitution" What does your statement have to do with whether or not aliens residing in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
If you were as psychotic as Dale you would understand.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130239
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Like hell, an alien does not become a citizen until he is "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this being the US Constitution.
If you will look at the 1790 Naturalization Act, you will notice that an alien is under the jurisdiction, but not subject to it until becoming a citizen. Big diference between "under" and "subject to".
Courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are citizens.

"CITIZEN CHILDREN have, of course, an absolute right to remain in the United States. The Cerrillos' citizen children were born to Mexican nationals here illegally.
Cerrillo-Perez v. INS, 809 F. 2d 1419, 1423 (9th Cir. 1987)(emphasis added)

"Petitioners are husband and wife, both aliens. Prior to 1951 both worked as seamen on foreign vessels. In July 1951 the wife lawfully entered the United States as a crew member of a ship in a United States port. Being pregnant, she sought medical advice; subsequently she decided in the interest of her health to stay ashore. A month later, on the next occasion his ship arrived in the United States, her husband joined her; he also failed to leave on the expiration of his limited lawful stay. In November 1951 their child was born; the child is, of course, an AMERICAN CITIZEN BY BIRTH." United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S.72, 73(1957)(emphasis added)

"Doris C. Oforji appeals from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming, without opinion, the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Oforji argues on appeal that the BIA erred by failing to appropriately weigh and consider the evidence presented; in failing to extend derivative asylum and relief to Oforji on behalf of her UNITED STATES CITIZEN CHILDREN; and in issuing an affirmance without opinion. We affirm."
Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F. 3d 609, 611 (7th Cir. 2007)(emphasis added)

"It is also established under California law that ineligible aliens may arrange gifts of agricultural land to their citizen children." Oyama v. California, 332 US 633, 640 (1948)

"We believe it clear that some CITIZEN CHILDREN who are eligible to attend Texas schools live with their illegal alien parents." Doe v. Plyler, 628 F. 2d 448, 460 (5th Cir. 1980), affirmed, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)(emphasis added)

Please explain again why a child born in the United States to alien parents is not a citizen

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130240
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Quite the contrary, the constitution only recognizes persons who are eligible to become "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", remember the "and" part. Aliens born here are not, Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, which would make him an alien. Now remember the US Government can't strip a citizenship away, unless by the request of the individual, by naturalization.
Oh, Obama was a baby! That is right and under the jurisdiction of his father and the father's country of origin.
At no time was Obama under "British jurisdiction". Dual citizenship at birth does not equate dual allegiance. All children of alien parents born in the United States have dual citizenship: United States citizenship and citizenship of his or her parents.

Courts have long recognized that foreign nations have no jurisdiction over its citizens or subjects in the United States. "[T]he legal status of foreign nationals in the United States is determined solely by our domestic law — foreign law confers no privilege in this country that our courts are bound to recognize." Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F. 2d 633, 638-639 (2nd Cir. 1956). See also Rundell v. La Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 100 Fed. 655, 660 (7th Cir. 1900)("Such laws may give rise to personal relations between the sovereign and subjects, to be enforced in his own domains; but they do not rightfully extend to other nations.”)

Moreover, United States' jurisdiction over Obama while he was residing in the United States is complete and does not share its jurisdiction with "British jurisdiction" since "British jurisdiction" does not extend beyond British territorial limits. "`no sovereignty can extend its process beyond its own territorial limits, to subject other persons or property to its judicial decisions. Every exertion of authority beyond these limits is a mere nullity, and incapable of binding such persons or property in other tribunals;'" Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe 137 U.S. 287,296 (1890)

As such, United States jurisdiction over Obama was exclusive and absolute at the time of his birth. "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute." Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116 , 136 (1812)

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130241
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Like hell, an alien does not become a citizen until he is "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this being the US Constitution.
If you will look at the 1790 Naturalization Act, you will notice that an alien is under the jurisdiction, but not subject to it until becoming a citizen. Big diference between "under" and "subject to".
"Big difference" if you live in a rubber room.
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Your interpretation of the the 14th Amendment is wrong. The 14th Amendment defines who is an United States citizen. It has nothing to do with the status of an alien. In fact, courts have recognized that aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
"The Amendment [14th], in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of ALL OTHER PERSONS, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. EVERY CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION, OF THE UNITED STATES. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898))(emphasis added)
"The Supreme Court has extended significant constitutional protections to aliens within the United States, without distinguishing between those who are here legally or illegally, or between residents and visitors. See, e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1070, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886)("The Fourteenth Amendment ... is not confined to the protection of citizens....[Its] provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction [of the United States]."); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464, 11 S.Ct. 897, 900, 35 L.Ed. 581 (1891)(holding that although fifth and sixth amendments do not apply to trials conducted in consular courts, their guarantees apply to "citizens and others within the United States, or who are brought there for trial"). US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 856 F. 2d 1214, 1222 (9th Cir. 1988), reversed on other grounds, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259 (1990)
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130242
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is right. There is no such thing as dual citizenship. The fact that a foreign country considers that someone is also a citizen of that country does not affect US law IN THE SLIGHTEST. Our law is not affected by their law. Dual citizenship does not affect US citizenship, and it does not affect Natural Born Citizen status either.
And, guess what, Obama is not a dual citizen. He WAS a dual citizen, but that lapsed long ago. Kenya law does not allow dual citizens, so since Obama was a citizen of the USA he automatically lost Kenyan citizenship when he became 21. In contrast, Jefferson and Madison were dual citizens WHEN THEY WERE PRESIDENT.
ALSO, you are not allowed to make up theories in strict construction interpretation. If the US Constitution does not say "dual citizens are barred" and if the meaning of Natural Born does not exclude dual citizens, and the US Constitution does not bar dual citizens and Natural Born status includes them, so dual citizens are not barred. And, as noted, Obama is not a dual citizen; he is a FORMER dual citizen.
and your point is! In 1963 Obama got his citizenship for life as defined by the Kenya Constitution, prior to that he was a subject of the crown.
Sorry, to be a citizen of another foreign power, prevents you from being born a citizen of the US.
Guess what, your citizenship is at the moment of birth.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130243
Nov 27, 2012
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
According to Forbes, there are 1,153 billionaires on this Earth and 400 of them live in the U.S.
We are about 5% of the Earths populations but we have about 25% of all the wealth of the world right here in America.
Out of the 11 billionaires in Africa, only three looked to be "black", one looked Asian, three looked European and the rest looked to be Arabs.
If it were not for the Europeans, Africa would be next to knothing in wealth.
Ah, yes, those wonderful Europeans.

The story is more like for some 500 years those wonderful Europeans used their military might to make colonies all around the world to extract the wealth from those colonies and bring it back to the mother country. GET REAL!!!!
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130244
Nov 27, 2012
 
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>and your point is! In 1963 Obama got his citizenship for life as defined by the Kenya Constitution, prior to that he was a subject of the crown.
Sorry, to be a citizen of another foreign power, prevents you from being born a citizen of the US.
Guess what, your citizenship is at the moment of birth.
In 1963 Obama was 2 years old.....and unable to resign his USA citizenship.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130245
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>a
Sorry, to be a citizen of another foreign power, prevents you from being born a citizen of the US.
According to play law.

Grow up.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130246
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Like hell, an alien does not become a citizen until he is "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this being the US Constitution.
If you will look at the 1790 Naturalization Act, you will notice that an alien is under the jurisdiction, but not subject to it until becoming a citizen. Big diference between "under" and "subject to".
You do understand that the Equal Protection Clause of the
in the 14th Amendment applied to both citizens and non-citizens?

You do understand that the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment describes who is a United States citizen?

You do understand that under the 14th Amendment that aliens are not citizens?

You do understand that aliens are under the jurisdiction of the United States?

If you do not understand any of the above statements, please review your class notes that you took in the Constitutional class in your second year of law school.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130247
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess what, your citizenship is at the moment of birth.
According to US law, President Obama was a US citizen at birth -- a natural born citizen.

Nobody cares what his citizenship was according to Play Law.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130248
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>and your point is! In 1963 Obama got his citizenship for life as defined by the Kenya Constitution, prior to that he was a subject of the crown.
Sorry, to be a citizen of another foreign power, prevents you from being born a citizen of the US.
Guess what, your citizenship is at the moment of birth.
Wrong.

When Obama reached his 23rd birthday, he was no longer a citizen of Kenya since Kenya's constitution prohibits dual citizenship in adulthood. Obama had therefore automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 23, in 1984. Kenya Constitution, Chapter VI, Section 97

97. Dual citizenship

1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya. made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.

As such, Obama didn't receive his "citizenship for life" from Kenya since he was also a "citizen of some country other
than Kenya" as defined in the Kenya Constitution. As a result, his Kenya citizenship expired by operation of law on his 23rd birthday.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130249
Nov 27, 2012
 
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
The status of Obama's dual citizenship at the time of his birth is completely irrelevant as to his natural born citizenship status.
What is relevant is the fact that he was born in the United States.
Obama was born in the allegiance of the United States. "“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F Cas 785,818 (1866)
Courts on numerous times have held that a native born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)(“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”)
In fact, the courts on numerous occasions observed that native born citizens are natural born citizens and thus are eligible to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)("Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.")
Furthermore, if Obama was not a natural born citizen then he is either a naturalized citizen or an alien. But this is a false dilemma fallacy since Naturalization Acts do not confer citizenship on native born citizens in the United States nor is he an alien since courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizen.
In Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949 )
the court noted:
"It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens.(internal citations omitted) And it is equally well established in our law that the plaintiff, while an infant could not divest himself of such citizenship, whether by his own acts, or the acts of his parents.(internal citations omitted)
In the New Jersey Supreme Court case Benny v. O'Brien, 32 Atl 696 (1895), Justice Van Syckel addressed the issue before the court: "The question presented is whether a person born in this country of alien parents, who, prior to his birth, had their domicile here, is a citizen of the United States?"
In answering in the affirmative Justice Van Syckel declared:“The words of the fourteenth amendment are, "born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof." Those provisions by implication concede that there may be instances in which the right to citizenship does not attach by reason of birth in this country. Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were 'domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power.” Id
As such, Obama's dual citizenship status at birth is legally irrelevant and immaterial since courts have held that mere birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural born citizenship status.
could you please point to the place in the constitution, where you found native born.
If Benny's parents were aliens, they were not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. Citizens are the only persons that are "subject to" the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

“WTFU”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130250
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

My advice to the little group of crazies.. Turn off fox news. Turn off Glen Beck.. Open your eyes and come out of your little fox holes.Stop living BRAINWASHED.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130251
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
According to play law.
Grow up.
you wish it was play law.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130252
Nov 27, 2012
 
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1963 Obama was 2 years old.....and unable to resign his USA citizenship.
correct.

What the birthers failed to understand is that the only way a natural born or naturalized citizen can have his or her United States citizenship revoked is by the citizen doing any one of the SEVEN proscribed acts listed in 8 U.S.C. 1481. If they took the time to read this statute they will realize that a MINOR can't renounced his or her United States citizenship because those acts required either the citizen have attained the AGE OF EIGHTEEN (sections 1,2 and 4) or have been tried and convicted for TREASON(section 7) or served in the armed forces of a foreign state when such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States (section 3) Since Obama had neither attained the age of eighteen nor tried and convicted of TREASON nor served in the armed forces of a foreign state while he was a MINOR in Indonesia and, as such, Obama never lost his United States citizenship
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130253
Nov 27, 2012
 
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
When Obama reached his 23rd birthday, he was no longer a citizen of Kenya since Kenya's constitution prohibits dual citizenship in adulthood. Obama had therefore automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 23, in 1984. Kenya Constitution, Chapter VI, Section 97
97. Dual citizenship
1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya. made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.
As such, Obama didn't receive his "citizenship for life" from Kenya since he was also a "citizen of some country other
than Kenya" as defined in the Kenya Constitution. As a result, his Kenya citizenship expired by operation of law on his 23rd birthday.
wrong.
go up to, I think it was 7a, he was proclaimed a citizen.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130254
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
correct.
What the birthers failed to understand is that the only way a natural born or naturalized citizen can have his or her United States citizenship revoked is by the citizen doing any one of the SEVEN proscribed acts listed in 8 U.S.C. 1481. If they took the time to read this statute they will realize that a MINOR can't renounced his or her United States citizenship because those acts required either the citizen have attained the AGE OF EIGHTEEN (sections 1,2 and 4) or have been tried and convicted for TREASON(section 7) or served in the armed forces of a foreign state when such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States (section 3) Since Obama had neither attained the age of eighteen nor tried and convicted of TREASON nor served in the armed forces of a foreign state while he was a MINOR in Indonesia and, as such, Obama never lost his United States citizenship
by the 14th he didn't have a US citizenship to resign, he was a citizen of his father's nation.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130255
Nov 27, 2012
 
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Your interpretation of the the 14th Amendment is wrong. The 14th Amendment defines who is an United States citizen. It has nothing to do with the status of an alien. In fact, courts have recognized that aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
"The Amendment [14th], in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of ALL OTHER PERSONS, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. EVERY CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION, OF THE UNITED STATES. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898))(emphasis added)
"The Supreme Court has extended significant constitutional protections to aliens within the United States, without distinguishing between those who are here legally or illegally, or between residents and visitors. See, e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1070, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886)("The Fourteenth Amendment ... is not confined to the protection of citizens....[Its] provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction [of the United States]."); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464, 11 S.Ct. 897, 900, 35 L.Ed. 581 (1891)(holding that although fifth and sixth amendments do not apply to trials conducted in consular courts, their guarantees apply to "citizens and others within the United States, or who are brought there for trial"). US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 856 F. 2d 1214, 1222 (9th Cir. 1988), reversed on other grounds, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259 (1990)
LMAO!!!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130256
Nov 27, 2012
 
it raises revenue wrote:
How does a higher tax rate for the wealthy help the economy?
Raising Revenue is good, We also should cut Expenses at the same time
and staring with the 1% makes sense.
It barely amounts to a drop in the bucket.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 114,681 - 114,700 of173,633
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

59 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min EasyEed 1,072,300
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 50 min No Warming 45,492
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) 56 min newpoly 1,830
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 2 hr andet1987 395
AP Exclusive: Union members appointed after $10... (Mar '08) 3 hr Obama Sucks 7,562
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr KiMare 48,690
Abby 7-11 3 hr edogxxx 11
•••
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••