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 5,836)

Showing posts 116,701 - 116,720 of174,460
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132545
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Just in case you do not know what a Areo Commander Srike Commander is they were built form the early 1950's well into the 1970's.
And if you don't know who Bob Hover is, he is a legion in his own time. Gen. Doolittle said he was the best stick and rudder pilot he had ever met.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Interesting story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
He retired about a decade ago but apparently he is still kicking.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132546
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The new president of Egypt has sacked the military leadership and the new military leadership are all aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. IMHO we should cut off funding to their military.
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought the military leadership had already been sacked two or three months ago, no?
Don't worry, all Morsi needs to do is go too far with his constitution and the army will come right back - not that this will improve the situation in many ways, but the army's against a Moslem theocracy, so that alone is an improvement.
I don't know about the Army hanging in there. They have probably purged anyone who is not part of the Muslim Brotherhood.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132547
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jacques Ottawa wrote:
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
What'd I tell ya, Poppo? The bum invents, the bum is challenged, the bum tells you to do his leg work. Oh, Poppo, did you see his election-day predictions that I re-posted? And did you see his response? Scroll forward, ha ha, instead of hiding in shame, he shouts blowhard eptiteths. Birther lying trash
<quoted text>
Well, you know, Poppo, shortly after Novembr 6, I mentioned LRS's election predictions and how prematurely triumphant they were. He challenged me to show him said boasts and predictions. I did. His reaction ? Ballistic. Such is birfoostan. I did love the way he totally lost it yesterday, though. But , enough is enough,'cuz I have this feeling, like it's no longer fun to constantly best a child or a moron. So unless he really pleads for it, I'm gonna let him slither along and ignore him.
Who lost it Lunasquid? You did. When? Friday night! And it was HILARIOUS! And you're right, I'm not doing your legwork, lazyazz. What, do you feel ENTITLED to someone doing your legwork? LMAO!!! Stark raving lunatic running like a scalded azz ape! LMAO!!!

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132549
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Absent any amendments to Article II Section 1 Clause 4, the natural born Citizen requirement is still the supreme Law of the Land. The Founding Fathers were very careful in their wording of the Constitution. The words “natural born Citizen” are used only once and that is when the Founding Fathers were discussing the qualifications to hold the highest office of Government. The historical thread from Vattel thru the first Naturalization Law to Chief Justice Morrison Waite’s 1874 Supreme Court opinion is consistent. Each one identifies the requirement that the parents must be citizens in order for their child to be natural born. President
Courts have recognized that the drafters of the constitution of whom most were lawyers were influenced by the principles and history of the common law that we inherited from the English.“The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917)(Pitney, J. dissenting); See also Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888)(“The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”)

Since the drafters of the Constitution wrote it in the language of the English common law then according to statutory construction that unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, words are to be taken at their ordinary and contemporary meaning.“ A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 US 37,42 (1979).

Moreover, if the use of words in the Constitution have a common law meaning then the courts must infer the incorporation of this common law meaning unless the language of the Constitution compels a different meaning.”[G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911)

Furthermore, if words were created not by positive law but rather by judicially created concept then any interpretation of those words other than their common law meaning must be specific and clear. "The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific." Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988)(quoting Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986)). Thus, it is proper to consider that Congress acts with knowledge of existing law, and that "absent a clear manifestation of contrary intent, a newly-enacted or revised statute is presumed to be harmonious with existing law and its judicial construction." Johnson v. First Nat'l Bank of Montevideo, 719 F.2d 270, 277 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012, 104 S.Ct. 1015, 79 L.Ed.2d 245 (1984). Estate of Wood v. CIR, 909 F. 2d 1155,1160 (8th Cir. 1990)

In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that have a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there is language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132550
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

none shadowreports posts wrote:
It seems to me it's too late and is now a mute point.
My opinion is different than your's is.
Do you know a 73 y/o man has just been convicted of a murder that was committed in 1957 when he was just 18 y/o? Should he not have prosecuted him because the murder happened so many years ago?
http://www.rivercountry1017.com/A-Former-Illi...

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132551
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

It was Blackstone's influence and not Vattel's influence that was the source of the natural born citizen term in the Constitution.
Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries the following:
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.(Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765)

Blackstone further noted the difference between Civil Law and Common Law regarding children born of aliens in England:
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien. Id.

As such, Blackstone recognized and affirmed Chief Justice Lord Coke's opinion in Calvin's Case in 1608 that children born of aliens within the dominions of England were natural born subjects.

The court in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888) stated in clear and concise language the common law's influence in the Constitution: "The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

Vattel's "Law of Nations" in which he described the Civil Law's concept of citizenship that only natural born citizens are born to citizens of a country; nevertheless, Vattel himself acknowledged the difference between CIVIL LAW and English COMMON LAW regarding natural born citizenship when he wrote in Law of Nations: "Finally, there are countries, such as England, in which the mere fact of birth within the country naturalizes the children of an alien.”

The Constitution does not defined Natural Born Citizen. As such, when language in a statute does not define a common law term, courts are “guided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911)

That at the time of the drafting of the Constitution Blackstone’s Commentaries including his definition of natural born subjects was available to the founding fathers. Justice Stone observed:“It is noteworthy that Blackstone's Commentaries, more read in America before the Revolution than any other law book.” CJ Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 US 133 , 151-152 (1943).

Similarly, the court in United States v. Green, 140 F. Supp. 117, 120 (SD NY 1956) noted:“ Blackstone, whose Commentaries probably did much to influence the thinking of American lawyers at and before the time of the framing of the Federal Constitution.”

As such, it is inconceivable for the framers of the Constitution to "import" a foreign idea of citizenship based on the bloodline of fathers and not based on the Jus Soli doctrine as enunciated by Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case and reaffirmed by Blackstone in his Commentaries whose books were required readings by lawyers in colonial America.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132552
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Abse
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Courts have recognized that the drafters of the constitution of whom most were lawyers were influenced by the principles and history of the common law that we inherited from the English.“The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917)(Pitney, J. dissenting); See also Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888)(“The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”)
Since the drafters of the Constitution wrote it in the language of the English common law then according to statutory construction that unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, words are to be taken at their ordinary and contemporary meaning.“ A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 US 37,42 (1979).
Moreover, if the use of words in the Constitution have a common law meaning then the courts must infer the incorporation of this common law meaning unless the language of the Constitution compels a different meaning.”[G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911)
Furthermore, if words were created not by positive law but rather by judicially created concept then any interpretation of those words other than their common law meaning must be specific and clear. "The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific." Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988)(quoting Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986)). Thus, it is proper to consider that Congress acts with knowledge of existing law, and that "absent a clear manifestation of contrary intent, a newly-enacted or revised statute is presumed to be harmonious with existing law and its judicial construction." Johnson v. First Nat'l Bank of Montevideo, 719 F.2d 270, 277 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012, 104 S.Ct. 1015, 79 L.Ed.2d 245 (1984). Estate of Wood v. CIR, 909 F. 2d 1155,1160 (8th Cir. 1990)
In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that have a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there is language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.
And that point was addressed in the portion YOU deleted!
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132555
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The new president of Egypt has sacked the military leadership and the new military leadership are all aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. IMHO we should cut off funding to their military.
<quoted text>
I don't know about the Army hanging in there. They have probably purged anyone who is not part of the Muslim Brotherhood.
No. The army is still pretty independent and will probably step it if Morsi enacts Sharia. The old guard that resigned a while back is still in the shadows, still yields much influence.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132556
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Affirmative Diversity wrote:
The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents. The framers, concerned about destructive foreign influences at a time of the founding of the nation, were wary that the foreign biases of parents could tragically influence the country’s leadership, especially during its formative years. Being largely from England themselves, with British parents, the framers also knew and lived among Tories who did not want to see a new nation arise, but who, comfortable in their noble status and wealth under the British Crown, desired to continue to be ruled by King George III. They did their best to prevent the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and sought to undermine and subvert the ensuing Revolutionary War effort. Later, not willing to give up, British of their ilk attempted to retake control of the “colonies” and invaded Washington, D.C., in 1812, only to burn down the White House, among other dastardly deeds.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/scalia-flummoxed-a...
Yeah, this is exactly why the Founding Fathers chose Natural born citizen as a requirement for the Presidency, as opposed to merely being a citizen.
A mere citizen can be born in the US of TWO foreign parents, with loyalties that can be to other countries.
This is a citizen by birth alone.
A Natural born citizen can only be born of TWO US citizens, anywhere in the world, but their loyalties will only be to the US.
A Natural born citizen has loyalties to the US alone at birth, because of the dual parentage loyalties that they have at birth.
The US is the country that their parents were citizens of when they were born.
They are Natural born citizens.
What better way to protect against cabal and intrigue than to require that one be a Natural born citizen before being given the reigns to lead the country?
We know where that person's loyalties lie.
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-cit...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact...

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/...
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132558
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Poppo? See what I told you about LRS the slug losing it? Check out post 132547, which is pretty remarkable as I did not address him at all.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132559
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
For those of you who do not know, to be a pilot flying commercial passenger planes you must have a Class-1 FAA flight physical which means you can not be over 60 years old. But as long as you can pass a Class-2, you can fly non-passenger commercial aircraft. But who wants to fly rubber dog-shit out of China?
I thought that once you reached 60 you couldn't be the captain on a commercial passenger carrier....you had to move to the other seat.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132560
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Affirmative Diversity wrote:
The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents. The framers, concerned about destructive foreign influences at a time of the founding of the nation, were wary that the foreign biases of parents could tragically influence the country’s leadership, especially during its formative years. Being largely from England themselves, with British parents, the framers also knew and lived among Tories who did not want to see a new nation arise, but who, comfortable in their noble status and wealth under the British Crown, desired to continue to be ruled by King George III. They did their best to prevent the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and sought to undermine and subvert the ensuing Revolutionary War effort. Later, not willing to give up, British of their ilk attempted to retake control of the “colonies” and invaded Washington, D.C., in 1812, only to burn down the White House, among other dastardly deeds.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/scalia-flummoxed-a...
Yeah, this is exactly why the Founding Fathers chose Natural born citizen as a requirement for the Presidency, as opposed to merely being a citizen.
A mere citizen can be born in the US of TWO foreign parents, with loyalties that can be to other countries.
This is a citizen by birth alone.
A Natural born citizen can only be born of TWO US citizens, anywhere in the world, but their loyalties will only be to the US.
A Natural born citizen has loyalties to the US alone at birth, because of the dual parentage loyalties that they have at birth.
The US is the country that their parents were citizens of when they were born.
They are Natural born citizens.
What better way to protect against cabal and intrigue than to require that one be a Natural born citizen before being given the reigns to lead the country?
We know where that person's loyalties lie.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-cit...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact...

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132562
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Affirmative Diversity wrote:
Lower court judges, in myriad cases where the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama has been challenged, have abdicated – for apparent political reasons to save their own standing in and among the establishment – their responsibility to rule that Obama is not a natural born citizen qualified to be president. Now, with the exit stage left of the one Supreme Court justice conservatives thought had the guts to enforce the will of the framers, and to protect We the People, it is clearer than ever that revolution can no longer be avoided.
Americans no longer have a government run by people with the ethics and courage to protect the nation, and we must now do it for ourselves, hopefully peacefully and legally and with minimal collateral damage to ourselves and our families. But, as the framers experienced in 1776 with a king who did not and would not take into account their grievances, we again have no choice.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/scalia-flummoxed-a...
Not much chance of a revolution when Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and the National Review all call birthers CRAZY, and when not one of them---or Romney or McCain or Paul Ryan or Michelle Bachmann or Huckabee---asserts that Obama is not a Natural Born US Citizen.

Seven state courts and one federal court have all ruled on Obama that he is indeed a Natural Born US Citizen because the key Supreme Court ruling is the Wong Kim Ark case (which btw was AFTER Minor v. Happersett) and that the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law, not from Vattel, and that it refers to the place of birth, and that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US citizen.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132565
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Affirmative Diversity wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you exactly what a Natural born citizen was and explained why!
A Natural born citizen can only be born of TWO US citizens, anywhere in the world, but their loyalties will only be to the US....Shove your misleading links and kindly exhibit some common sense if you possess any.
Your uninformed opinion does not count.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Here are some of the SEVEN state court rulings and the one federal court ruling, all of which have ruled that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen due to the Wong Kim Ark supreme court case (which btw was AFTER Minor v. Happersett) having ruled that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US citizen due to the fact that Natural Born came from the common law and referred to the PLACE OF BIRTH:

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

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

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

Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling:“In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born int he United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.[Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling:“Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132567
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Affirmative Diversity wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you exactly what a Natural born citizen was and explained why!
A Natural born citizen can only be born of TWO US citizens, anywhere in the world, but their loyalties will only be to the US.
A Natural born citizen has loyalties to the US alone at birth, because of the dual parentage loyalties that they have at birth.
The US is the country that their parents were citizens of when they were born.
They are Natural born citizens.
What better way to protect against cabal and intrigue than to require that one be a Natural born citizen before being given the reigns to lead the country?
We know where that person's loyalties lie.
We know that Obama's loyalties do not lie with the US.
Have you forgotten about the Americans who died at Benghazi, or did you even know?
Shove your misleading links and kindly exhibit some common sense if you possess any.
You told us what your UNINFORMED OPINION claims is the meaning of Natural Born. And you can keep on repeating your uninformed opinion. But you will not convince a soul, and on December 17, a week from today, the US Electoral College will vote and Obama will win, again, as he did in 2008. And in 2008 birthers and two-fers tried to get members of the US Electoral College to change their votes to vote against Obama. And guess what, not one single one of them changed a single vote; the vote of the electors was exactly the same as the electoral vote in the general election. And then the birthers and two-fers tried to get the members of the US Congress not to confirm Obama's election. And, guess what, not one single member of Congress voted against, the vote to confirm was UNANIMOUS.

That is because Obama really is a Natural Born Citizen due simply to his place of birth, since the meaning of Natural Born citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen.

For those who are interested in the FACTS on the meaning of Natural Born and not the speculation of a birther:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297 ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-cit ...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden ...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden ...

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact ...

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/ ...
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132568
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You told us what your UNINFORMED OPINION claims is the meaning of Natural Born. And you can keep on repeating your uninformed opinion. But you will not convince a soul, and on December 17, a week from today, the US Electoral College will vote and Obama will win, again, as he did in 2008. And in 2008 birthers and two-fers tried to get members of the US Electoral College to change their votes to vote against Obama. And guess what, not one single one of them changed a single vote; the vote of the electors was exactly the same as the electoral vote in the general election. And then the birthers and two-fers tried to get the members of the US Congress not to confirm Obama's election. And, guess what, not one single member of Congress voted against, the vote to confirm was UNANIMOUS.
That is because Obama really is a Natural Born Citizen due simply to his place of birth, since the meaning of Natural Born citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen.
For those who are interested in the FACTS on the meaning of Natural Born and not the speculation of a birther:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297 ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-cit ...
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden ...
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden ...
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact ...
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/ ...
LMAO!!! You're an idiot. As you've proven over and over! LMAO!!!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132569
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! You're an idiot. As you've proven over and over! LMAO!!!
Calling names does not convince anybody.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132572
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Calling names does not convince anybody.
Neither does your reposting of the same twisted crap over and over. "and not subject to ANY foreign power" - you can't make that go away. Yet you try and try to no avail. Your argument is pure BS, mo!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132577
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

It's late fall and the Indians on a remote reservation in North Dakota asked their new chief if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild.

Since he was a chief in a modern society, he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky, he couldn't tell what the winter was going to be like.

Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared.

But, being a practical leader, after several days, he got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked,'Is the coming winter going to be cold?'

'It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold,' the meteorologist at the weather service responded.

So the chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared.

A week later, he called the National Weather Service again.'Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?'

'Yes,' the man at National Weather Service again replied,'it's going to be a very cold winter.'

The chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find.

Two weeks later, the chief called the National Weather Service again.'Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?'

'Absolutely,' the man replied.'It's looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters we've ever seen.'

'How can you be so sure?' the chief asked.

The weatherman replied,'The Indians are collecting a shitload of firewood'
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132578
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
WE have "experience" ... libTARDS ;0)
That's your reply? Namely, that you have experience at nasty name-calling? Are you that dumb or just being honest? And then ending with an insult to special needs people. Did you say you were christian?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 116,701 - 116,720 of174,460
|
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.

27 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min Patrick 1,078,389
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 48 min edogxxx 97,512
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 49 min Stuart Cudahy 45,764
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 54 min truth 48,841
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 58 min TRD 67,862
Abby 7-23 1 hr edogxxx 1
Amy 7-23 1 hr edogxxx 1
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 23 at 3:16AM CDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••