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 ... Read more

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#131125 Dec 2, 2012
Sooo, what is the BIG difference between June and November? Well, in June most investors were very optimistic that there would be a Republican in the White House early next year and now we know that will not happen. And everyone knows Obama is anti-petroleum!
You see, if investors see little profit in their future, they switch there investments. Just think of all the jobs that will not materialize next year because investors are still worried about Obama will do.

Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale Draws Little Attention
Posted: November 30, 2012

The US Department of Interiorís Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) on Wednesday held a lease sale for approximately 21 million acres of US outer continental shelf open for development in the western Gulf of Mexico. The total of all bids came to $157.68 million for 653,00 acres. Thatís a far cry from the June sale, which brought in $2.6 billion on leases for 2.4 million acres.

Read more: Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale Draws Little Attention - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2012/11/30/gulf-of-mexic...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#131126 Dec 2, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep hoping and praying, Rogue, that unemployment will be on the rise. Never mind the jobless, just think how it spites Obama.
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean Rogue is responsible for the current economic situation? And I thought it was Omama's fault because he's a doofus who hates America and Americans and sets his policies accordingly. Omama is a disgrace to America and all it stands for.
No, no, NO! Everyone knows ... it is all G.W.'s fault!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#131127 Dec 2, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Year of our lord 2000, GWB loses popular vote but is nevertheless elected president by the supreme court. GWB is left a budget surplus of $400 billion by president Clinton. He manages a modest surplus the first year. Then grants huge tax cuts to his rich buddies, and initiates Afghanistan and Iraq war. GWB does the unthinkable, the unimaginable, reels off 7 (SEVEN) deficits in a row, and if that is not bad enough, through mismanagemetn, failure of govt oversight of Wall Street, brokers, bankers, mortgage moguls and assorted crooks, presides over a final twelve months of presidency that may be as bad or worse than the great depression. Not satisfied with dragging the US in such a financial mess, he sucks the rest of the world in with him.
Obama is elected. Assorted nutballs, birthers, green partyers and various nazis, want those disastrous 7 years and recession fixed in 4 years. Yeaaaah. Well, it didn't happen. The damage was so bad, so deep, so horrendous, folks, it can't be fixed in 4 years, maybe not in 8. Obama avoided catastrophy, plain and simple, and never more so when he prevented "offshore" Romney from gaining the presidency.
If Europe can even slightly right its ship, the US will continue recovering, and the rest of the world will follow. Americans duly and rightfully re-elected president Obama on November 6, a second time, and without the assistance of the supreme court. Hail to your chief.
The budget surplus was left not by anything Bill Clinton did but by ..... Newt Gingrich. If Bill Clinton had not signed four or Newts balanced budgets, seven of the ten point of the Contract with America and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, there would have been not surplus.
Jacques thinks that if a president signs something into law, he should be given ALL of the credit!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#131128 Dec 2, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Year of our lord 2000, GWB loses popular vote but is nevertheless elected president by the supreme court. GWB is left a budget surplus of $400 billion by president Clinton. He manages a modest surplus the first year. Then grants huge tax cuts to his rich buddies, and initiates Afghanistan and Iraq war. GWB does the unthinkable, the unimaginable, reels off 7 (SEVEN) deficits in a row, and if that is not bad enough, through mismanagemetn, failure of govt oversight of Wall Street, brokers, bankers, mortgage moguls and assorted crooks, presides over a final twelve months of presidency that may be as bad or worse than the great depression. Not satisfied with dragging the US in such a financial mess, he sucks the rest of the world in with him.
Obama is elected. Assorted nutballs, birthers, green partyers and various nazis, want those disastrous 7 years and recession fixed in 4 years. Yeaaaah. Well, it didn't happen. The damage was so bad, so deep, so horrendous, folks, it can't be fixed in 4 years, maybe not in 8. Obama avoided catastrophy, plain and simple, and never more so when he prevented "offshore" Romney from gaining the presidency.
If Europe can even slightly right its ship, the US will continue recovering, and the rest of the world will follow. Americans duly and rightfully re-elected president Obama on November 6, a second time, and without the assistance of the supreme court. Hail to your chief.
Now I will address the budgets under G.W. All where Speaker Dennis Haster's budgets and Hastert is a County Club RINO. He honchoed the first six budgets and then San Fran Nan Pelosi became Speaker and her first budget, FY2008, had double the deficit that Hastert's had. And the very last Bush Budget was trashed by San Fran Nan and totally rewritten and signed into law by ..... BARRACK H. OBAMA and the deficit was THREE TIMES what Hastert's last budget was!!!
2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit $201.02 Billion Deficit R D R

2003 $377.6 Billion Deficit $470.82 Billion Deficit R R R

2004 $413 Billion Deficit $501.21 Billion Deficit R R R

2005 $318 Billion Deficit $373.24 Billion Deficit R R R

2006 $248 Billion Deficit $282.14 Billion Deficit R R R

2007 $161 Billion Deficit $178.1 Billion Deficit R D D

2008 $459 Billion Deficit $488.82 Billion Deficit R D D

2009 $1413 Billion Deficit $1509.62 Billion Deficit D D D http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits...
I know Libtardian logic, if anything bad is happening, it is the Republican's fault. But if anything good happens, it is the Democrat would did it.
Now, how has Obama done?
2009 $1413 Billion Deficit $1509.62 Billion Deficit D D D

2010 $1294 Billion Deficit $1360.67 Billion Deficit D D D

2011 $1299 Billion Deficit $1324.16 Billion Deficit D D R

2012 $1100 Billion Deficit $1100 Billion Deficit D D R

2013 $900 Billion Deficit $884.96 Billion Deficit D D R
Yep, four years of Obama and you still blame G.W.!!! When will Obama own the issue? In your twisted logic, NEVER!!!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131129 Dec 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
quite the contrary, to bind a German citizen to the Constitution is Unconstitutional, this is a process that only he can do through the naturalization process, not through an act of lawlessness.
Does the German criminal have a US citizenship after his crime spree? According to your theory he does.
Sorry, only US Citizens are subject to the US Constitution, which has jurisdiction over the US, remember it is the supreme law of the land.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#131130 Dec 2, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The budget surplus was left not by anything Bill Clinton did but by ..... Newt Gingrich. If Bill Clinton had not signed four or Newts balanced budgets, seven of the ten point of the Contract with America and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, there would have been not surplus.
Jacques thinks that if a president signs something into law, he should be given ALL of the credit!
Same old lies!!!!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131131 Dec 2, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Better a winning PUSS than a losing birther birfoon.
So, you agree! hahaha!!!

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#131132 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>quite the contrary, to bind a German citizen to the Constitution is Unconstitutional, this is a process that only he can do through the naturalization process, not through an act of lawlessness.
Does the German criminal have a US citizenship after his crime spree? According to your theory he does.
Sorry, only US Citizens are subject to the US Constitution, which has jurisdiction over the US, remember it is the supreme law of the land.
The rationale of having the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment wherein it set forth who is a citizen of the United States is to EXCLUDE indians who were members of tribes that existed within the boundaries of the United States. Congress acknowledged that INDIANS were not citizens despite the fact that they lived with the borders of the United States.

That is why the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had language that excluding INDIANS as citizens:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, EXCLUDING INDIANS NOT TAXED, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Justice Gray noted the legal status of Indians tribes and their members:

The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States; but they were ALIEN NATIONS, DISTINCT POLITICAL COMMUNITIES, with whom the United States might and habitually did deal, as they thought fit, either through treaties made by the President and Senate, or through acts of Congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes OWED IMMEDIATE ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR SEVERAL TRIBES. and were not part of the people of the United States. Id at 99

The drafters of the 14th Amendment understood that Indians were not citizens of the United States and as such incorporated "subject to the jurisdictioni thereof" language in the 14th Amendment to EXCLUDE them in setting forth who is a citizen of the United States.

Your folderol theory that this language also exludes aliens as being subject of the jurisdiction of the United States has no basis in fact or in law.

Do yourself a favor and read the congressional debates during the drafting of the 14th Amendment.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131133 Dec 2, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean Rogue is responsible for the current economic situation? And I thought it was Omama's fault because he's a doofus who hates America and Americans and sets his policies accordingly. Omama is a disgrace to America and all it stands for.
As usual, you DOH all that you read. oh thickest one. Who ever said Rogue was responsible, save that I opined that he was of the happiest of dolts when things go wrong with what he calls his country?. There is no containing his glee when numbers are bad, so long as it spites Obama? Gloom and doom are his and birthers' joy, if somehow they can blame the president, this very president rre-elected according to the will of the people.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131135 Dec 2, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Sooo, what is the BIG difference between June and November? Well, in June most investors were very optimistic that there would be a Republican in the White House early next year and now we know that will not happen. And everyone knows Obama is anti-petroleum!
You see, if investors see little profit in their future, they switch there investments. Just think of all the jobs that will not materialize next year because investors are still worried about Obama will do.
Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale Draws Little Attention
Posted: November 30, 2012
The US Department of Interiorís Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) on Wednesday held a lease sale for approximately 21 million acres of US outer continental shelf open for development in the western Gulf of Mexico. The total of all bids came to $157.68 million for 653,00 acres. Thatís a far cry from the June sale, which brought in $2.6 billion on leases for 2.4 million acres.
Read more: Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale Draws Little Attention - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2012/11/30/gulf-of-mexic...
Then please explain why the US imports less and produces more. And why Canada is worried and looking for more venues for its oil as US dependence on Canadian crude lessens.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131136 Dec 2, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Better a winning PUSS than a losing birther birfoon.
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>So, you agree! hahaha!!!
That Obama and therefore his followers won? Yes. That you and your pathetic birther birfoons and tea partyers lost? Yes.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#131137 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>quite the contrary, to bind a German citizen to the Constitution is Unconstitutional, this is a process that only he can do through the naturalization process, not through an act of lawlessness.
Does the German criminal have a US citizenship after his crime spree? According to your theory he does.
Sorry, only US Citizens are subject to the US Constitution, which has jurisdiction over the US, remember it is the supreme law of the land.
Gibberish. UR simply repeating the same nonsensical assertion.
It is factual reality that the US has jurisdiction over persons, including aliens, within US borders.
Please take your meds.
wojar wrote:
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.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#131138 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>quite the contrary, to bind a German citizen to the Constitution is Unconstitutional, this is a process that only he can do through the naturalization process, not through an act of lawlessness.
Does the German criminal have a US citizenship after his crime spree? According to your theory he does.
Sorry, only US Citizens are subject to the US Constitution, which has jurisdiction over the US, remember it is the supreme law of the land.
You can argue that a demonstrably flat tire isn't really flat until the cows come home but it won't get you anywhere. Isn't it time you join the real world?

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

#131140 Dec 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Gibberish. UR simply repeating the same nonsensical assertion.
It is factual reality that the US has jurisdiction over persons, including aliens, within US borders.
Please take your meds.
<quoted text>
Is Dale for real? I'm coming around to the possibility that he's just pulling our legs. I don't think anyone can be that obtuse and still function. Heck, he even argues against himself at times. I think he's just trying to keep the pot stirred.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#131141 Dec 2, 2012
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
Is Dale for real? I'm coming around to the possibility that he's just pulling our legs. I don't think anyone can be that obtuse and still function. Heck, he even argues against himself at times. I think he's just trying to keep the pot stirred.
On the other hand he believes in perpetual motion machines that can create energy from nothing, in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

#131142 Dec 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>On the other hand he believes in perpetual motion machines that can create energy from nothing, in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Yeah, he seems to have problems understanding all kinds of laws. Gravity must drive him nuts!!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131143 Dec 2, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
The rationale of having the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment wherein it set forth who is a citizen of the United States is to EXCLUDE indians who were members of tribes that existed within the boundaries of the United States. Congress acknowledged that INDIANS were not citizens despite the fact that they lived with the borders of the United States.
That is why the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had language that excluding INDIANS as citizens:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, EXCLUDING INDIANS NOT TAXED, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"
In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Justice Gray noted the legal status of Indians tribes and their members:
The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States; but they were ALIEN NATIONS, DISTINCT POLITICAL COMMUNITIES, with whom the United States might and habitually did deal, as they thought fit, either through treaties made by the President and Senate, or through acts of Congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes OWED IMMEDIATE ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR SEVERAL TRIBES. and were not part of the people of the United States. Id at 99
The drafters of the 14th Amendment understood that Indians were not citizens of the United States and as such incorporated "subject to the jurisdictioni thereof" language in the 14th Amendment to EXCLUDE them in setting forth who is a citizen of the United States.
Your folderol theory that this language also exludes aliens as being subject of the jurisdiction of the United States has no basis in fact or in law.
Do yourself a favor and read the congressional debates during the drafting of the 14th Amendment.
The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States; but they were ALIEN NATIONS.
You shot yourself, last time I checked all Nations other than the US, are Alien Nations.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131144 Dec 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>You can argue that a demonstrably flat tire isn't really flat until the cows come home but it won't get you anywhere. Isn't it time you join the real world?
It is time for everyone to realize that being "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", simply means your are bound to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution, only a citizen enjoys this right.

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

#131145 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>
The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States; but they were ALIEN NATIONS.
You shot yourself, last time I checked all Nations other than the US, are Alien Nations.
WOW! That may be the first time I have ever heard a Native American referred to as an alien! How, exactly, does one justify this???

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#131146 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>
The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States; but they were ALIEN NATIONS.
You shot yourself, last time I checked all Nations other than the US, are Alien Nations.
They were alien nations and ATF shot you through the head but UR unable to realize it.

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
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 6 min _Zoey_ 5,820
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 22 min Mothra 52,385
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 54 min Holy Jumpin Jesus 1,207,275
Amy 3-30-15 1 hr Kuuipo 35
Abby 3-30-15 1 hr RACE 11
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr x-ray 71,702
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 5 hr taroB 69,316
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]