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
115,361 - 115,380 of 175,240 Comments Last updated 10 min ago

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130995
Dec 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>since we have a treaty with Germany, we will try you IAW the statutes where you robbed the bank, but being a German citizen you still are not subject to the US Constitution, otherwise, you are not a citizen.
I'm sorry, but you cannot prove reality wrong through reductio ad absurdum. You can only prove a premise to be false that is inconsistent with reality.

The reality is that an alien criminal who commits a crime in the US by being tried and convicted in US courts is in fact subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This fact proves your premise (only citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) incorrect, but you cannot prove REALITY incorrect. REALITY proves your premise to be pure fantasy.

Indeed, if "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is equivalent to "subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution" the reality of aliens being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States would make it true that they are "subject to the jurisdiction of the constitution."

Again, a false premise cannot prove reality unreal.

That is, of course, unless you live in a dream world.

Now go put your play robe and gavel away in your toy box where they belong and grow up.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130996
Dec 1, 2012
 
nebka wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh quoting old Jimmy Hoffa one of the direst people the Unions have ever seen.
"direst"? The word does not seem to fit. Anyway, the union bosses are just a crocked now as they were then. The only difference now is that they fly by private jet these days.
Yep, it is bad for CEO's to fly by private jets but the LSM will not even talk about the Union Bosses who do!

Obama's Union Buddies Have Their Own Private Jets to Fly to Las Vegas (and Ireland), 02/11/2009

for instance, this private LearJet, shown below taking off in Las Vegas. Machinists union bosses spent $1.8 million (from forced dues) for hangars, jet fuel, jet maintenance, mechanics, pilots, and associated loan repayments in 2006 alone.
http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/machinsts-private...

Salaries for the 10 largest unions’ bosses range from $173,000 for the United Auto Workers’ Bob King to $618,000 for Terence O’Sullivan, the president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka makes about $283,000 per year. Gerald McEntee, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), makes $480,000. The AFSCME stands to lose the most from any of the governors’ budget victories, as it’s currently the nation’s powerhouse public sector union, with around 1.5 million members nationwide.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/union-bosse...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130997
Dec 1, 2012
 
LIFESTYLE | 9/22/2011
Why Warren Buffett owns a private jet

Since the financial crisis and when the leaders of the Big Three automakers showed up in Washington DC in private jets in order to ask for bailout money from Congress, general aviation and private jets, especially those owned or used by corporate leaders, have received considerable flak from politicians and other critics.

Nevertheless Warren Buffett explains why he owns and uses a private jet. In short, Buffet says that having a private jet makes his life better and easier as he needs to do a considerable amount of traveling as the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.

Its also worth noting that when Buffett bought a Bombardier Challenger 600 over 20ago, he named it the “The Indefensible” due to his past criticisms of such purchases that were made by other corporate CEOs. However and after he started using a private jet for awhile, he realized its value as a business tool. Hence, he renamed his aircraft:“The Indispensable.”(For more on the positive case for business aviation, see No Plane, No Gain.)

In fact, to coin a phrase, he liked it so much he bought the company. Sort of. In fact, Berkshire Hathaway owns NetJets.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewstibbe/201...

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130998
Dec 1, 2012
 
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Acerbic! Have you been watching Bill O'Riley! I haven't heard that word in years.
Veritas confundit stultitia.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130999
Dec 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
While here, aliens must obey our laws, that's it. They owe no permanent allegiance to the U.S. Very simply Mobarf. I'm really surprised that a Biologist, Chemist and Patent Pusher (LMAO) can't understand such a simple law. Better back off on the juicing. LMAO!!!
According to the 14th amendment, a person born in the US who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US is a citizen of the United States. Such a person is born with permanent allegiance to the United States.

Insofar as aliens are concerned, while here, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and they owe local allegiance in reciprocity to protection of the host country. Permanent allegiance to a foreign country does not negate the sovereign right of the United States to exercise its exclusive power within its borders. That's a simple fact of life. Get used to it.

The 14th Amendment does not say that only children born of parents with permanent allegiance to the United States can be born citizens. In fact the 14th does not even mention parents or their permanent allegiance. In other words, permanent allegiance is an inept red herring.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, if Germany had jurisdiction, the bank robber would be tried in Germany by a German court. His citizenship has no bearing on the matter. The German bank robber who robs a bank in Kansas is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If there is a treaty in which each country recognizes each other's natural right to exercise its sovereign power within its borders, that does not change the FACT that each country exercises dominion over aliens within its jurisdiction and that the aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the respective host countries. You cannot change that FACT by rewording "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof [of the US]" to "subject to jurisdiction of the constitution".
FACT, ordinary aliens within US borders are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Even if you fantasize that this natural authority of every independent and sovereign nation is derived purely via treaty, it would not change that FACT. UR in denial.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131000
Dec 1, 2012
 
Why does Obama want another $150 BILLION for stimulus? Isn't the recession OVER?!?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131001
Dec 1, 2012
 
Or does he know we will be back into another recession within a few months?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131002
Dec 1, 2012
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the 14th amendment, a person born in the US who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US is a citizen of the United States. Such a person is born with permanent allegiance to the United States.
Insofar as aliens are concerned, while here, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and they owe local allegiance in reciprocity to protection of the host country. Permanent allegiance to a foreign country does not negate the sovereign right of the United States to exercise its exclusive power within its borders. That's a simple fact of life. Get used to it.
The 14th Amendment does not say that only children born of parents with permanent allegiance to the United States can be born citizens. In fact the 14th does not even mention parents or their permanent allegiance. In other words, permanent allegiance is an inept red herring.
<quoted text>
The U.S. has the right to exercise its power within in its own borders?!? Duh. All I will say is this, if this is truly how you interpret the 14th, then you're a complete dumbazz without a clue. LMAO! squid

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131003
Dec 1, 2012
 
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The U.S. has the right to exercise its power within in its own borders?!? Duh. All I will say is this, if this is truly how you interpret the 14th, then you're a complete dumbazz without a clue. LMAO! squid
You call that a rebuttal?
Sorry loser, ordinary aliens in the US are under US jurisdiction. Their children born in the US are born subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They are natural born citizens.

The parents' "permanent allegiance" does not negate US sovereignty or jurisdiction - the authority to exercise its power within its borders.

wojar wrote:
According to the 14th amendment, a person born in the US who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US is a citizen of the United States. Such a person is born with permanent allegiance to the United States.
Insofar as aliens are concerned, while here, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and they owe local allegiance in reciprocity to protection of the host country. Permanent allegiance to a foreign country does not negate the sovereign right of the United States to exercise its exclusive power within its borders. That's a simple fact of life. Get used to it.
The 14th Amendment does not say that only children born of parents with permanent allegiance to the United States can be born citizens. In fact the 14th does not even mention parents or their permanent allegiance. In other words, permanent allegiance is an inept red herring.
<quoted text>

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131004
Dec 1, 2012
 
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
Veritas confundit stultitia.
I didn't know you were Italian!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131005
Dec 1, 2012
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>You call that a rebuttal?
Sorry loser, ordinary aliens in the US are under US jurisdiction. Their children born in the US are born subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They are natural born citizens.
The parents' "permanent allegiance" does not negate US sovereignty or jurisdiction - the authority to exercise its power within its borders.
<quoted text>
Mobarf, don't you remember? I said I was done with your stupid little game of twisting words. You have to twist things because you know you're wrong. Poor Mobarf just doesn't have a clue about much of anything. And do not forget, you remain unAmerican, Insignificant and Irrelevant. LMAO
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131006
Dec 1, 2012
 
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>You are still a PUSS! LMAO!!!
Better a winning PUSS than a losing birther birfoon.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131007
Dec 1, 2012
 
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Mobarf, don't you remember? I said I was done with your stupid little game of twisting words. You have to twist things because you know you're wrong. Poor Mobarf just doesn't have a clue about much of anything. And do not forget, you remain unAmerican, Insignificant and Irrelevant. LMAO
Every time the irrational birfoon is stymied he whines and calls names.

wojar wrote:
<quoted text>You call that a rebuttal?
Sorry loser, ordinary aliens in the US are under US jurisdiction. Their children born in the US are born subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They are natural born citizens.
The parents' "permanent allegiance" does not negate US sovereignty or jurisdiction - the authority to exercise its power within its borders./
<quoted text>
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131008
Dec 1, 2012
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Celebrated historian Bertram Oxley has uncovered a memorandum from former Japanese Emperor Hirohito to Admiral Yamamoto dated December 6, 1941, showing that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was motivated by an offensive film made by Charlie Chaplin ridiculing Japanese cuisine.
"Contrary to historical accounts over the last seventy years," Professor Oxley said in an interview today with the BBC, "What appeared to be a meticulously planned surprise attack was actually a spontaneous demonstration by moderate sushi connoisseurs in the Imperial Navy in response to a hateful and offensive movie. Thereafter, extremist elements within the Japanese military co-opted the spontaneous attack, transforming it into the overseas contingency operation sometimes referred to as 'World War II.'"
The discovery has created a sensation in scholarly circles. "This is a remarkable find," declared Reginald Smythe, chairman of the Progressive Historians Association and former Obama State Department official. "Had President Roosevelt condemned this movie­ instead of uttering that infernal 'Day of Infamy' provocation ­ the war could have been avoided and millions of lives would have been saved."
Reached at his home in Houston, former President George H. W. Bush, an aviator in the Pacific during the war, expressed skepticism. "It's simply inconceivable that the Japanese First Air Fleet, with six aircraft carriers, could have staged a spur of the moment attack on an island thousands of nautical miles from the Japanese homeland with such stealth and precision." Most experts dismissed Mr. Bush's remarks, however, since it's widely understood that World War II was primarily his son's fault.
White House spokesman Jay Carney, asked this afternoon about the memo's discovery stated, "Of course, hindsight's 20-20. But one can only wonder how much pain and suffering could have been averted had FDR simply apologized to Hirohito at the outset."
"Fortunately," Carney continued, waving off questions from White House reporters anxious to return to questions about Mitt Romney's grooming habits, "We've evolved to a more sophisticated strategy of leading from behind, so we're unlikely to repeat the disastrous mistakes of the past."
If Hilary had been running the State Department then, we’d all be living on EASY STREET today.
In case, just in case, one never knows --- this is a tongue-on-cheek thing, Rogue. A joke.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131009
Dec 1, 2012
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
"direst"? The word does not seem to fit. Anyway, the union bosses are just a crocked now as they were then. The only difference now is that they fly by private jet these days.
Yep, it is bad for CEO's to fly by private jets but the LSM will not even talk about the Union Bosses who do!
Obama's Union Buddies Have Their Own Private Jets to Fly to Las Vegas (and Ireland), 02/11/2009
for instance, this private LearJet, shown below taking off in Las Vegas. Machinists union bosses spent $1.8 million (from forced dues) for hangars, jet fuel, jet maintenance, mechanics, pilots, and associated loan repayments in 2006 alone.
http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/machinsts-private...
Salaries for the 10 largest unions’ bosses range from $173,000 for the United Auto Workers’ Bob King to $618,000 for Terence O’Sullivan, the president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka makes about $283,000 per year. Gerald McEntee, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), makes $480,000. The AFSCME stands to lose the most from any of the governors’ budget victories, as it’s currently the nation’s powerhouse public sector union, with around 1.5 million members nationwide.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/union-bosse...
You, correcting a typo ("direst"). You don't usually do that, I'm surprised.

And you know, retribution comes quickly, ironically by you own keyboard, as witness : "crocked" in the same paragraph.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131010
Dec 1, 2012
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
LIFESTYLE | 9/22/2011
Why Warren Buffett owns a private jet
Since the financial crisis and when the leaders of the Big Three automakers showed up in Washington DC in private jets in order to ask for bailout money from Congress, general aviation and private jets, especially those owned or used by corporate leaders, have received considerable flak from politicians and other critics.
Nevertheless Warren Buffett explains why he owns and uses a private jet. In short, Buffet says that having a private jet makes his life better and easier as he needs to do a considerable amount of traveling as the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.
Its also worth noting that when Buffett bought a Bombardier Challenger 600 over 20ago, he named it the “The Indefensible” due to his past criticisms of such purchases that were made by other corporate CEOs. However and after he started using a private jet for awhile, he realized its value as a business tool. Hence, he renamed his aircraft:“The Indispensable.”(For more on the positive case for business aviation, see No Plane, No Gain.)
In fact, to coin a phrase, he liked it so much he bought the company. Sort of. In fact, Berkshire Hathaway owns NetJets.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewstibbe/201...
1.Buffett owns NetJets, yes, over 300 mostly biz jets that form a "pool", available to stakeholders, as per time shares;

2. Buffet never used one of them until about two years ago, he always flew commercial coach, though god knows why. Now, at 73 I believe, he has smartened up, and is using one of his own. Just as an aside, he and his wife still live in the same modest bungalow that he bought 25 years ago. He's nuts, and so unlike his buddy Bill Gates who lives in some sort of TajMahal in Washington state.;

3. Buffet is worth a cool $50 billion. Unlike the Big Two automakers with their leveraged biz jets, he has never asked for a cent from the govt, and as a matter of fact, even has gone on record wanting to pay more taxes.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131011
Dec 1, 2012
 
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Acerbic! Have you been watching Bill O'Riley! I haven't heard that word in years
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
Veritas confundit stultitia.
Ad litteram
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131012
Dec 1, 2012
 
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Better a winning PUSS than a losing birther birfoon.
Better an American than a Canadian! LMAO
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131013
Dec 1, 2012
 
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Better an American than a Canadian! LMAO
Of course.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131014
Dec 1, 2012
 
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course.
Actually I meant; Better an American than an unAmerican, insignificant and irrelevant Canadian! LMAO!!!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

54 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Buroc Millhouse Obama 1,084,506
Ku Klux Klan recruitment drive raises old fears... 15 min Hurray 1
IL Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Illinois ... (Oct '10) 16 min Nono 6,592
IL Who do you support for Secretary of State in Il... (Oct '10) 19 min Chicagobunny 528
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) 20 min Duck Hook 1,880
White house down 33 min Anonymous 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... 35 min Jacques from Ottawa 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 20 hr RACE 97,585
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••