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
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#132911 Dec 13, 2012
The 14th amendment’s citizenship clause “the phrase,‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

The citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power, thus without any foreign influence, a "Natural Born Citizen".

The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them (U.S. Constitution) direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (U.S. Constitution) at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation of origin, since his father was not a citizen of the US nor any state of the US, "and not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" (US Constitution).
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#132912 Dec 13, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E Your behavior on here doesn't deserve a respectful response. You have to remember what I told you Lunatic; "I'll give it back to you ten fold". Don't like it? Then carry your azz. You made the choice long ago to continue acting like an azz, not I. But I will do what I said I would. Ten fold!
I'll try again. Here is what I wrote. Tell me how it merits the first reply and then the above. Show me the hypocrisy, what there is to give back ten fold and how the following is acting like and azz :
"Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You deserve plenty of credit for having achieved much success by taking a trucking job instead of piloting commercial aircraft. Both are valuable to the country and honourable. I've always said there is no such thing as a bad job if it's honest.
However, you solely blame Hostess and Eastern Airline workers for those companies' demise. Are you a huge shareholder, or the CEO of a huge conglomerate. Reason I ask is you speak like one. When things go wrong, it invariably the workers' fault. NEVER is it bad policy, bad admnistration, incompetence, fraud, etc on the company's part. Oh no, it's all about the ungrateful overpaid workers. Don't you think it's time you started to study the ENTIRE, COMPLETE, TOTAL reasons why companies go belly-up, Rogue? Do it in an impartial manner, and if you do, you'll find there is plenty of fault to go around, ON BOTH THE EMPLOYERS' AND THE EMPLOYEES'. However, and in the final analysis, does the buck not stop at the CEO's and board of directors' desks?"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132914 Dec 13, 2012
And here is a typical case of Loony-Lefty hate of Halliburton.

Halliburton Watch
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

You do know that Bill Clinton awarded no bid contracts to Halliburton, don't you? It was not until Dick Cheney became the VeeP nominee in 2000 that the hate speech from the left started.
Tell me, why is there nothing new on Halliburton these days? Because Dick Cheney is no longer the VeeP!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132915 Dec 13, 2012
Did you know the Gore family also owns an open-pit zinc mine?

Al Gore Was Big Oil Before Being Big Green
The BP oil spill in the Gulf is an unfortunate accident and it needs to be cleaned up. Granted. President Obama is responding with all the swiftness of a one-winged albatross in a wind storm. So be it. He will suffer a green voter backlash when the time comes. Nut the question that popped into my mind is what does Al Gore have to say about this oil spill? No really. Where is the bombastic tirade? You know if this had happened on President Bush's watch Al Gore's head would have exploded with seething rage. Why hasn't he been on every network lambasting Democrat inaction? Besides the politically inconvenient truth, maybe Al Gore is rich enough already.
A few days ago Al Gore in light of the BP oil spill, not surprisingly, did speak out. He continued his impassioned plea for the destruction of the oil industry:
http://www.nonsensibleshoes.com/2010/05/al-go...
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132916 Dec 13, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Substance? In response to the schoolyard wannabe? Why waste perfectly good English on you.(And RomperStomper proves my point again as he can't live without "getting the last word")
You can't quit posting to me, why? Get lost tumbleweed.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132917 Dec 13, 2012
Liberal politicians are frigging hypocrites!

Michael Moore Owned Halliburton, Defense Stocks
Jim Meyers; Friday, Nov. 4, 2005

Filmmaker Michael Moore has made a career out of trashing corporations and said he doesn't own any stocks due to moral principle.

How then did author Peter Schweizer uncover IRS documents showing that Moore's very own foundation has bought stocks in some of America's largest corporations – including Halliburton, other defense contractors and some of the same companies he has attacked?

In his blockbuster new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," Hoover Fellow Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132918 Dec 13, 2012
And then there is San Fran Nan Pelosi and Star-Kist tuna. Sure Snoopes tap dances around the issue but Snoops had to address the issue. "Naw, we see no problem here. Ignore to woman behind the curtain!"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/america...
You Libtards are soooo pathetic!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132919 Dec 13, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll try again. Here is what I wrote. Tell me how it merits the first reply and then the above. Show me the hypocrisy, what there is to give back ten fold and how the following is acting like and azz :
"Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You deserve plenty of credit for having achieved much success by taking a trucking job instead of piloting commercial aircraft. Both are valuable to the country and honourable. I've always said there is no such thing as a bad job if it's honest.
However, you solely blame Hostess and Eastern Airline workers for those companies' demise. Are you a huge shareholder, or the CEO of a huge conglomerate. Reason I ask is you speak like one. When things go wrong, it invariably the workers' fault. NEVER is it bad policy, bad admnistration, incompetence, fraud, etc on the company's part. Oh no, it's all about the ungrateful overpaid workers. Don't you think it's time you started to study the ENTIRE, COMPLETE, TOTAL reasons why companies go belly-up, Rogue? Do it in an impartial manner, and if you do, you'll find there is plenty of fault to go around, ON BOTH THE EMPLOYERS' AND THE EMPLOYEES'. However, and in the final analysis, does the buck not stop at the CEO's and board of directors' desks?"
Your hypocritic nature is all throughout this forum. You chose to act like an azz and I've been giving it back to you ten fold. Now, you're whining and bellyaching. Because of name calling no less! Like I said, you're a hypocrite. Ten fold pal, ten fold. LMAO squid

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132920 Dec 13, 2012
Hefty salaries, perks for union leaders raise eyebrows; Stay Connected

By Judy L. Thomas | McClatchy Newspapers
KANSAS CITY, Mo.— First-class travel. Six-figure salaries for half the 132 officers and staffers. Plenty of plum jobs for family members.

Life is good at the top of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers.

The union, with its headquarters in Kansas City, Kan., represents about 59,000 workers in the U.S. and Canada who make and repair boilers, fit pipes and work on ships and power plants. The recession has hit their trade hard, reducing union membership.

At the same time, the president’s salary has surged 67 percent in the past six years, not counting a recent raise. Add in travel and some other expenses, and Newton B. Jones received more than $600,000 last year, putting him at the absolute top of the presidents of the dozen biggest unions in the country.

presidents of the dozen biggest unions in the country.

Many relatives of union officers also ride the payroll.

Totaling the pay to just the families of Jones and two other executives, the union and its affiliates gave them more than $2 million in annual salary, according to the most recent financial reports filed by the organizations.

“This is one of the more egregious examples of money flowing like crazy that I’ve ever seen,” said Nathan Mehrens, a former U.S. Labor Department lawyer and now general counsel for Americans for Limited Government, a conservative watchdog group.

In an interview, two union spokesmen defended the spending and hiring practices before requesting other questions in writing. Although they did not respond to every question, Michael Stapp, the union’s general counsel, provided a written response that included praise for the Boilermakers.

“The Boilermaker family of organizations, together valued at over $10 billion, has proudly represented the interests of hundreds of thousands of working men and women for over 130 years,” Stapp wrote.

“The history of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers clearly demonstrates that they operate in strict accordance with all applicable laws and governing documents. They operate in much the same manner as most other labor organizations.”

Attempts to reach rank-and-file union members for comment were unsuccessful. But rumbles of discontent are sometimes felt.

In April, an anonymous letter, mailed purportedly by Boilermakers members and obtained by The Kansas City Star, sharply criticized union leaders.

“While members and their families struggle to make it through this recession, our IBB (International Brotherhood of Boilermakers) leaders have been living high off the hog at members’ expense,” the letter said.

“We regret that we have to be anonymous at this time because we fear retribution from a leadership that regrettably values its own personal and financial interests above the rank and file’s.”

In membership, the Boilermakers are a mere 5 percent the size of the Teamsters union. Yet which president received more in total disbursements from their unions last year — Teamsters President James P. Hoffa or the lesser-known Newton B. Jones?

Jones by more than $200,000.

Jones received $607,022 in total disbursements, compared with $372,489 for Hoffa.

Total disbursements include salary and business expenses, especially travel, which a union spokesman said made up most of Jones’ expenses.

Jones’ salary in the last fiscal year, which ended June 30, 2011, was $307,134 — also more than Hoffa. The figures come from annual reports the unions file with the Labor Department.

Jones’ total disbursements also are more than double those of Richard Trumka, head of the powerful AFL-CIO, a federation of national and international unions with 11.6 million members. Trumka received total disbursements of $293,750.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/13/148607/...
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132922 Dec 13, 2012
Hey Lunasquid, I'm going to pick up another 200 rounds of ammo today. Do you think that is wrong?
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#132923 Dec 13, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>No, it now comes from the 14th amendment, as ratified in 1868. This can't be changed unless the Constitution is amended.
As plainly stated, "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", meaning not subject to any foreign power.
Sorry, Obama was born a subject of a foreign power, since his father was not "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" (US Constitution).
Still clinging to that fable Dufus? Must be awful lonely in your closet

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#132924 Dec 13, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Why waste ammo on the innocent?
The Union suits have shown their propensity for violence. What next, maybe shooting the Fox contributors.
While you were mumbling about the upcoming armed conflict some of your drool messed up the bar.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#132925 Dec 13, 2012
The 14th amendment's Citizenship Clause is very complimentary to Art. 2, Section 1, para 5, and John Jay's description of a Natural Born Citizen, you know, "no foreign influence".
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#132926 Dec 13, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>No, it now comes from the 14th amendment, as ratified in 1868. This can't be changed unless the Constitution is amended.
As plainly stated, "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", meaning not subject to any foreign power.
Sorry, Obama was born a subject of a foreign power, since his father was not "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" (US Constitution).
NO, the words "Natural Born" are not mentioned in the 14th Amendment. The phrase comes from the common law.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#132927 Dec 13, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
The 14th amendment's Citizenship Clause is very complimentary to Art. 2, Section 1, para 5, and John Jay's description of a Natural Born Citizen, you know, "no foreign influence".
Re: ""no foreign influence".

There is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution thought that the US-born children of foreigners would have any more foreign influence than the US-born children of US citizens. If they had thought so, they would have said it. Instead, they wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

So, if they had really thought that the US-born children of foreigners should not be treated equally to the US-born children of US citizens, they would have said so instead of using the term Natural Born, which had applied to ALL children born in the country for three hundred years.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#132928 Dec 13, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, the words "Natural Born" are not mentioned in the 14th Amendment. The phrase comes from the common law.
By operation of the 14th is prevents anything but Natural Born and Naturalized Citizens, no one being subject to a foreign power will be granted citizenship.
As described by John Jay, a Natural Born Citizen is one with out foreign influence.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#132929 Dec 13, 2012
Good Morning Guys :)
American Lady

Danville, KY

#132932 Dec 13, 2012
Yeah ... jock itch !!!
Our Father !!!... ;0)
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#132933 Dec 13, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
While you were mumbling about the upcoming armed conflict some of your drool messed up the bar.
I don't have to drool. I just sit back and watch the Union Brown-Shirts make asses of themselves and their political party.
LMAO, great bunch of thugs!
American Lady

Danville, KY

#132934 Dec 13, 2012
George Washington is revered as the Father of this country for many reasons. Virtually every American knows that he was the first President of the United States of America. Most also know that we commanded the Revolutionary Army.

As the General of the Revolutionary Army, Washington's determination, leadership and refusal to give up made the difference between victory and defeat on more than one occasion. His daring attack on a Hessian fort at Trenton (pictured on the RIGHT) turned the tide in a War that had been clearly going the way of the British--not the Colonists. When the Continental Congress repeatedly found itself incapable of leading the young nation, Washington had to take charge, and take charge he did.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/017.html

Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour
In Company and Conversation

http://www2.lhric.org/pocantico/washington/ru...

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min RealDave 1,156,067
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 27 min J RULES 71,259
last post wins! (Apr '13) 36 min Hatti_Hollerand 406
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 37 min Hatti_Hollerand 4,921
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 43 min Homo Erectus 49,338
abby 12-26 1 hr RACE 5
amy 12-26 1 hr RACE 5
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 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Colts' Complete Week 17 Preview vs. Titans
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
Bears vs. Vikings: What Experts Are Saying About Chicago
NBC Sports 6:03 AM
Jim Caldwell: No concerns about starting a rookie center
Bleacher Report 8:46 AM
What Are Experts Saying About Vikings?
NBC Sports11:28 AM
Bears extend Roberto Garza through 2015