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

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#130891 Nov 30, 2012
Students at a local school were assigned to read two books,'Titanic' & 'My Life' by Bill Clinton.

One student turned in the following book report, with the proposition that they were nearly identical stories!

His cool professor gave him an A+ for this report.

Titanic: cost -$29.99
Clinton : cost -$29.99

Titanic: Over 3 hours to read
Clinton : Over 3 hours to read

Titanic: The story of Jack and Rose, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe.
Clinton : The story of Bill and Monica, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe.

Titanic: Jack is a starving artist.
Clinton : Bill is a bullshit artist.

Titanic: In one scene, Jack enjoys a good cigar.
Clinton : Ditto for Bill.

Titanic: During the ordeal, Rose's dress gets ruined.
Clinton : Ditto for Monica.

Titanic: Jack teaches Rose to spit.
Clinton : Let's not go there.

Titanic: Rose gets to keep her jewellery
Clinton : Monica is forced to return her gifts.

Titanic: Rose remembers Jack for the rest of her life.
Clinton : Clinton remembers Monica for the rest of his life.

Titanic: Rose goes down on a vessel full of seamen.
Clinton : Monica...ooh, let's not go there, either.

Titanic: Jack surrenders to an icy death.
Clinton : Bill goes home to Hilary - basically the same thing.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130892 Nov 30, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said anything about owning the white house? Still, omg, ha Ha, Obama will have resided in the White House exactly 731 days longer than Romney père et fils. And not looking to blow you out of the water, loser. You don't need my help, you're doing just fine blowing yourself out of it just by yourself. Oh oh, here comes nurse Ratched. Time for your tranquilizer. Sleep tight.
jacqazz, you have perfect timing. My nurse friend just left. We had a great visit. Always a pleasure! LMAO at your timing; and I'm 100% serious. You made the statement about Romney walking around the White House, thinking all this could have been his. I just wanted to make sure you knew the President doesn't get to keep it. LOL 731 days? No one is promised tomorrow, remember that. Apparently, you also misunderstood my, "getting blown out of the water" comment. I won't waste the energy trying to explain it to you. Let's just say the water would be over your head.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130893 Nov 30, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
And for the Libtard woman who lost her two children in New York city I have no empathy for her either. I feel sorry that those two innocent children dies because of their Libtard mother who did not have the commonsense to evacuated BEFORE the storm hit!
They should tie her tubes to prevent her from having any more children.
No, send her where her children are.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130894 Nov 30, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Face it Puss, you ain't very smart, is you!
You mean the Biologist, Chemist, Patent Pusher and Meth Chef isn't very smart? LMSAO!!!
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#130896 Nov 30, 2012
Thomas the Pimp wrote:
Thomas the Pimp wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, Yohannes failed to provide a link to support his allegations. The Army Corps of Engineers was instructed by CONGRESS to rebuild the CITY OWNED levees to withstand a Cat-2 hurricane after the 1965 Hurricane Betsy. And they did. It was never designed or built to withstand anything greater than a Cat-2 hurricane and that is not the fault of the Army Corps of Engineers.
If you go up the the Mississippi River levees that were designed, built and maintained by the Corps of Engineers you will see the difference. They are like golf courses. NO trees are allowed to grow on them and no varmints are allowed to borough into them either. The levees own by the City of New Orleans are totally different and it was not the fault of the Corps of Engineers.
The PHI heliport at N.O. was located next to the Mississippi River levee and, like I said, it is like a humped golf course. The grass is maintained better than most states maintain the grass next to Interstate Highways.
When I worked for PHI there were some days when we could not fly and once we spent three days during a hurricane evacuation from the Gulf as the PHI heliport at Venice was not only out side the Corps' levee but also the State's levees. Yep, PHI had their own levee and it was destroyed during Hurricane Katrina and they built a totally new heliport about five miles north of there that had a Corps' levee on the east side and a State's levee on the west side.
<quoted text>
And who wrote that Wiki article? They don't says, do they? And they leave a lot out of that article.
And again, those improvements were made in the 1960's and the CITY FAILED to maintain the levees.
Oh, do you know people sued the Army Core of Engineers? And do you know what happened to that lawsuit? It got tossed out!!!
Hurricane Katrina damage judgment against Army Corps of Engineers is reversed by federal appeals court
http://www.nola.com/katrina/index.ssf/2012/09...
Now that I've handed you your ass once again by proving you wrong, you ask 'who wrote the article'? Ah, here starts the Lifer Logic. If a dem wrote the article, it must be a lie.

Sorry, you lost lifer!!!

Never did see anything that states the causes of the levee failure were due to lack of maintenance. Just more Lifer Lies!!!!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130898 Nov 30, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that I've handed you your ass once again by proving you wrong, you ask 'who wrote the article'? Ah, here starts the Lifer Logic. If a dem wrote the article, it must be a lie.
Sorry, you lost lifer!!!
Never did see anything that states the causes of the levee failure were due to lack of maintenance. Just more Lifer Lies!!!!
They probably failed because the original citizens of New Orleans, who built over a thousand miles of levees, didn't have the proper tools, materials and know-how to build a stable base/foundation for a levee. Just a guess. LOL
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130899 Nov 30, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the Biologist, Chemist, Patent Pusher and Meth Chef isn't very smart? LMSAO!!!
He ain't smarter enuff to no he ain't no smarter than a ded hog is. LMDAO!!!
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#130900 Nov 30, 2012
On Thursday, as part of a plan to liquidate the company and lay off 18,000 workers, a federal judge in White Plains, N.Y., approved paying 19 Hostess executives bonuses totaling $1.8 million. Hostess has said it has interest from at least 110 firms who want to buy pieces of the operation.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130901 Nov 30, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Who gives a shit about a stateless alien, not me.
All aliens prior to customs know they must obey the laws of what ever place they are going, and must not deviate from their itinerary, without approval.
Birfoon: "Who gives a shit about a stateless alien, not me."

He especially does not care about a problem that shoots down his pathetic theory.

Sorry, loser. You have stated that aliens "are here" under treaty with the alien's home country. Stateless aliens have no home country. According to your pathetic theory, such persons while in the US would not be under the jurisdiction of any country at all and free to violate any law they please.

Insane.

Birfoon: "All aliens prior to customs know they must obey the laws of what ever place they are going, and must not deviate from their itinerary, without approval."

That's right, Bozo. And what they know or do not know has no bearing on jurisdiction. If they have to obey the laws of the host country they are subject to the jurisdiction of the host country, whether they know it or not.(jurisdiction, n.(14c) 1. A government's general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory;- Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.)

Incidentally, citizens of American Samoa are not US citizens but as US nationals they owe allegiance to the United States. According to birfoon Play Law, such a US national while in Kansas and owing allegiance to the United States would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because only citizens are allegedly subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

What a laugh.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense.
What about a stateless alien who has no nation?
Anyone in the US who is subject to Federal statutes is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Blabbering "jurisdiction of the Constitution" cannot change that fact.
Grow up child.
<quoted text>

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130902 Nov 30, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Face it Puss, you ain't very smart, is you!
Face it, UR at a dead end.

Now which country is the stateless alien subject to the jurisdiction of while in the US?

Moron. Alienage does not depend upon citizenship in a foreign nation or any foreign law, but rather on lack of US citizenship or nationality per US law.

Grow up.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense.
What about a stateless alien who has no nation?
Anyone in the US who is subject to Federal statutes is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Blabbering "jurisdiction of the Constitution" cannot change that fact.
Grow up child.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130903 Nov 30, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Birfoon: "Who gives a shit about a stateless alien, not me."
He especially does not care about a problem that shoots down his pathetic theory.
Sorry, loser. You have stated that aliens "are here" under treaty with the alien's home country. Stateless aliens have no home country. According to your pathetic theory, such persons while in the US would not be under the jurisdiction of any country at all and free to violate any law they please.
Insane.
Birfoon: "All aliens prior to customs know they must obey the laws of what ever place they are going, and must not deviate from their itinerary, without approval."
That's right, Bozo. And what they know or do not know has no bearing on jurisdiction. If they have to obey the laws of the host country they are subject to the jurisdiction of the host country, whether they know it or not.(jurisdiction, n.(14c) 1. A government's general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory;- Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.)
Incidentally, citizens of American Samoa are not US citizens but as US nationals they owe allegiance to the United States. According to birfoon Play Law, such a US national while in Kansas and owing allegiance to the United States would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because only citizens are allegedly subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
What a laugh.
<quoted text>
who really gives a shit about a stateless alien, let some-other country care, we are up-to our eyeballs with illegals.
Didn't read the rest of your post, don't really care to.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130904 Nov 30, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Face it, UR at a dead end.
Now which country is the stateless alien subject to the jurisdiction of while in the US?
Moron. Alienage does not depend upon citizenship in a foreign nation or any foreign law, but rather on lack of US citizenship or nationality per US law.
Grow up.
<quoted text>
No, you are read your mind!

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130906 Nov 30, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>an alien is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution, but the Naturalization Act was created for aliens who request citizenship in this country, without the act there wouldn't be any naturalized citizens.
Your statement doesn't make any sense. If the Naturalization Act was created for aliens then the question that needs to be address is where does Congress have the authority to enact Naturalization Acts?

If it is the Constitution then by your own admission, aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States then Congress is without legislative power to enact Naturalization Acts since aliens are not subject to United States power throught the Constitution.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130908 Nov 30, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Face it, UR at a dead end.
Now which country is the stateless alien subject to the jurisdiction of while in the US?
Moron. Alienage does not depend upon citizenship in a foreign nation or any foreign law, but rather on lack of US citizenship or nationality per US law.
Grow up.
<quoted text>
when you bring a stateless alien into the picture, you haven't anywhere to go from there. You are at a DED END.
I do remember how the boat people of S. Viet-Nam were adopted by the nations of the world.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130909 Nov 30, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>who really gives a shit about a stateless alien, let some-other country care, we are up-to our eyeballs with illegals.
Didn't read the rest of your post, don't really care to.
According to the clueless birfoon, aliens are under the jurisdiction of their home country while in the US. Now which country is the stateless alien under the jurisdiction of while in the US?

Cat got your tongue?

How can aliens be under the jurisdiction of their country or permanent allegiance when it is not even necessary for an alien to have a home country?

Eh birfoon?

Got a clue yet?

Your shit-faced half-baked ramblings lead to nowhere.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Birfoon: "Who gives a shit about a stateless alien, not me."
He especially does not care about a problem that shoots down his pathetic theory.
Sorry, loser. You have stated that aliens "are here" under treaty with the alien's home country. Stateless aliens have no home country. According to your pathetic theory, such persons while in the US would not be under the jurisdiction of any country at all and free to violate any law they please.
Insane.
Birfoon: "All aliens prior to customs know they must obey the laws of what ever place they are going, and must not deviate from their itinerary, without approval."
That's right, Bozo. And what they know or do not know has no bearing on jurisdiction. If they have to obey the laws of the host country they are subject to the jurisdiction of the host country, whether they know it or not.(jurisdiction, n.(14c) 1. A government's general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory;- Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.)
Incidentally, citizens of American Samoa are not US citizens but as US nationals they owe allegiance to the United States. According to birfoon Play Law, such a US national while in Kansas and owing allegiance to the United States would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because only citizens are allegedly subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
What a laugh.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130910 Nov 30, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
Recent story lines go something like this: "Currently the Constitution says that a person born in this country is an American citizen. That's it. No caveats." The problem with these sort of statements other than being plainly false is that it reinforces a falsehood that has become viewed as a almost certain fact through such false assertions over time.
This is like insisting the sun rotates around the earth while ignoring the body of evidence to the contrary.
http://www.cairco.org/issues/alien-birthright...
:)
Examples of "story lines" that a person born in the United States is an American citizen as stated the courts:

“[W]e find that the Constitution has recognized the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth. Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393, 581 (1857)(Curtis, J, dissenting)

"United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Nationality may also be acquired by naturalization and lost by expatriation." Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)

“Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant”. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S 163, 170 (1964)

“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)

"Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship." Ruggiero v. Compania Peruana De Vapores "Inca Capac Yupanqui", 639 F.2d 872, 875 (2d Cir. 1981)

"The United States, for example, bestows citizenship to persons born within the United States or its territories (jus soli) and to those born abroad to a citizen parent (jus sanguinis). The combination of these overlapping citizenship rules "must inevitably lead to cases of dual nationality as to children of foreign parents." Wauchope v. US Dept. of State, 756 F. Supp. 1277, 1283 (N.D. Ca 1991)(internal citation omitted), affirmed, 985 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993)

“Many countries confer citizenship based on bloodline (jus sanguinis) rather than, as the United States does, on place of birth (jus soli). US v. Flores-Villar, 536 F. 3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)

These conflicts arise principally by reason of the fact that in some countries nationality is governed by jus soli, i. e., it originates by birth within the country; in others, it is based on jus sanguinis, i. e., the child inherits the nationality of his parents irrespective of his place of birth; and in still others, like the United States, it may be predicated on either jus soli or jus sanguinis. Thus, a person born in the United States is a citizen thereof irrespective of the nationality of his parents. Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166, 168 (D. D.C. 1951)

A teaching moment, don't bring a water pistol to a gun fight.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130911 Nov 30, 2012
Correction: country of permanent allegiance

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130912 Nov 30, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>No, you are read your mind!
Face it, UR at a dead end.

Grow up.

Alienage does not depend upon permanent allegiance to a foreign power but rather lack of citizenship or nationality with the United States.

The stateless alien in the US cannot possibly be under the jurisdiction of a foreign power. Therefore the claim that aliens necessarily are not under the jurisdiction of the United States is categorically false.

How's the crow tasting?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Face it, UR at a dead end.
Now which country is the stateless alien subject to the jurisdiction of while in the US?
Moron. Alienage does not depend upon citizenship in a foreign nation or any foreign law, but rather on lack of US citizenship or nationality per US law.
Grow up.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130913 Nov 30, 2012
James Tiberius Kirk wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statement doesn't make any sense. If the Naturalization Act was created for aliens then the question that needs to be address is where does Congress have the authority to enact Naturalization Acts?
If it is the Constitution then by your own admission, aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States then Congress is without legislative power to enact Naturalization Acts since aliens are not subject to United States power throught the Constitution.
suggest you read the Naturalization Act of 1790, then tell me that aliens are subject to the jurisdiction, thereof, the Constitution.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130914 Nov 30, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>when you bring a stateless alien into the picture, you haven't anywhere to go from there. You are at a DED END.
You've got it arse backwards, as usual.

The assumption that aliens in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country ASSUMES that all aliens have a home country.

Simply false. If aliens in the US are not under the jurisdiction of the United States then what country has jurisdiction over stateless aliens?

Face it, UR stumped and at a dead end.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Face it, UR at a dead end.
Now which country is the stateless alien subject to the jurisdiction of while in the US?
Moron. Alienage does not depend upon citizenship in a foreign nation or any foreign law, but rather on lack of US citizenship or nationality per US law.
Grow up.

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
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 7 min Earthling-1 49,222
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min positronium 1,154,100
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr scirocco 71,045
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Yumpin Yimminy 68,884
2 cops executed in new york 2 hr The Pissed Citizen 1
More on the Eric Garner Saga 2 hr The Patriot 7
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 5 hr Cowobunga 51,254
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 11:56 am PST

Bleacher Report11:56AM
Eagles vs. Redskins: Live Score and Analysis for Philadelphia
Yahoo! Sports 5:54 PM
Eagles playoff hopes suffer with loss to Redskins
Bleacher Report 6:14 PM
RG3 Showing Enough to Remain Starter in WSH
CBS Sports 4:09 AM
Jay Cutler expected back with Bears in 2015, with new coaching staff
CBS Sports 6:33 AM
Jay Gruden on Robert Griffin III: 'I think [he] did a great job'