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

#151610 Apr 18, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
AK47^ You fire communist weapons^ Wow.
Sure can, they don't mind.
best election ever

United States

#151611 Apr 18, 2013
LRS wrote:
Wonder why they shipped the Saudi out of here before one could spit? I smell a rat!
wow tell Rush and Matt Drudge they will know what to do,
you are full of sh*t
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151612 Apr 18, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone knows that a beached whale is only good for a bunch of blubber. Or, in this case, blabber! LMAO! squidtoof Psst, Obumbler is a fake!
Rational people will notice that the above statement does not discuss the facts.
SGT Rock101

Gretna, LA

#151613 Apr 18, 2013
SHEEPLE Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Only to IDIOT SHEEPLE like you who require no actual proof!
Somebody saying it is good enough for you, huh>
***News Flash***
Obama is NOT Black, a US Citizen, or Natural Born!
Wake up SHEEPLE, You are peeing your pants!
How was your trip to Boston? Explosive? A real pressure cooker? A pain in your heart? Pins and needle pain? Nailed it?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151614 Apr 18, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Sicko. Dangerous. A massacre in-waiting.
Hahahaha!!! Look who is calling me a sicko.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151616 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
WE do NOT have reciprocal treaties with every country in the world. And yet, for your nutty theory to hold, we would have to. There would have to be treaties with Tonga and Zaire and Mongolia and Azerbaijan so that their citizens when visiting could be tried by US courts---because that is what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. But there are no such treaties, and yet the tourists from those countries are subject to US law, subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
This court ruling is right; you are wrong:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
This court ruling is right; you are wrong:
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
This court ruling is right; you are wrong:
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
This court ruling is right; you are wrong:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling:“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."
This court ruling is right; you are wrong:
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.”
This Supreme Court court ruling is right; you are wrong:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established." (United States v. Wong Kim Ark). Notice EVERY child, and that the same rule applied in England, and in the colonies and in the early states AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
We have 12,000+ treaties. The remainder of your post has been answered many times over, but I do like to see you scamper for a rebuttal!!! LMAO!!!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#151617 Apr 18, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Louisiana in Mississipi, eh? Well, at least it's the same country, and one next to the other.
How about your assertion, oft-repeated, that Canada is located in Europe, as a matter of fact, in France? Now there's a doozy.
Glad you brought that up. Put that post up, will ya? LMAO!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#151618 Apr 18, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Bytch, whine, moan. Bytch, whine, moan. Bytch, whine, moan. Tsk Tsk. jakeleg is the King of Hatred! He breeds it and spreads it at will. He should be eliminated from the human race. He serves no purpose. Uncut filth!
More death threats from the boorish paper tiger. "If you can't outsmart 'em, shoot 'em, kill 'em. "
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151619 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: "Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation, just a fact you must live with! LMAO!!! "
Answer: No question at all. He was born a citizen of his father's nation AND he was born a citizen of the country in which he was born, the USA. And his citizenship in the USA is not affected by his dual citizenship. Not at all. We simply ignore dual citizenship. JUST A FACT THAT YOU MUST LIVE WITH.
Thank you! Since Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation, this means he was born subject to a foreign power and not eligible to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151620 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>We have 12,000+ treaties. The remainder of your post has been answered many times over, but I do like to see you scamper for a rebuttal!!! LMAO!!!
We do not have reciprocal treaties with every country in the world.

Every child born in the USA is a natural born citizen. This court ruling is right, and you are wrong:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

And this court ruling is right, and you are wrong:

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

And ditto for this ruling:

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

And the same for this:

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.”

And ditto for this:

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

And this:

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling:“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."

And here are the words of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case:

"

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

They are right, and you are wrong.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#151621 Apr 18, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Conpared to you, a rat smells Chanel Number 5.
You would know all about the stinch of a rat, wouldn't ya? LMAO! Better setup some traps in that dumpster of yours! You don't have a clue what Chanel #5 even smells like! Poor SAP. LMAO @ jackinawad

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#151622 Apr 18, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad you brought that up. Put that post up, will ya? LMAO!
LMAO (LRS tm reg'd). Your favourite tactic. I can't, not gonna search for it a year or so after you wrote it. Of course, all your birther friends saw it, but they shan't testify against you, now will they? But who can forget? You knew I was a Canadian yet told me to go back across the Atlantic - wow - but that was nothing. To my laughing reaction of your telling me to go back to Canada across the ocean, you claimed that Canada was in France. What a doofus. What a clown. What a birfoon buffoon birther ignorant tea partyer. Typical of that group, "the know-nuthins that start shootin'". How it must suck to think Canada is across the ocean from here and located right smack in the centre of France, no mean feat, as Canada is 19 times bigger than France.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151623 Apr 18, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
No substance. No attempt to defend your fable. What a worthless piece of trash.
My country has declared that Obama (and ALL children born here) are Natural Born Citizens
Your pathetic fables have no impact
LMAO!!! The US Constitution has jurisdiction over your country and it has said, "all persons born in the US and not subject to a foreign power are subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution", a citizen.
Guess that leaves Obama an alien, one that has never been naturalized.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#151624 Apr 18, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
More death threats from the boorish paper tiger. "If you can't outsmart 'em, shoot 'em, kill 'em. "
Or, in this case, do both! ala pukeface....hee hee hee
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151625 Apr 18, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Pot? Kettle holding on line 2 for you
Noted!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#151626 Apr 18, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO (LRS tm reg'd). Your favourite tactic. I can't, not gonna search for it a year or so after you wrote it. Of course, all your birther friends saw it, but they shan't testify against you, now will they? But who can forget? You knew I was a Canadian yet told me to go back across the Atlantic - wow - but that was nothing. To my laughing reaction of your telling me to go back to Canada across the ocean, you claimed that Canada was in France. What a doofus. What a clown. What a birfoon buffoon birther ignorant tea partyer. Typical of that group, "the know-nuthins that start shootin'". How it must suck to think Canada is across the ocean from here and located right smack in the centre of France, no mean feat, as Canada is 19 times bigger than France.
They don't lie like you. Sad SAP.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151627 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The US Constitution has jurisdiction over your country and it has said, "all persons born in the US and not subject to a foreign power are subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution", a citizen.
Guess that leaves Obama an alien, one that has never been naturalized.
ALL persons born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats are born subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Hence they are US citizens and Natural Born US citizens at birth. A child born on US soil does not have to be naturalized, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151628 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you! Since Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation, this means he was born subject to a foreign power and not eligible to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
No, he was not born subject to a foreign power. No child born in the USA other than the children of foreign diplomats is born subject to a foreign power. Children who have dual citizenship are just as much subject to the jurisdiction of the USA as children who have only US citizenship. Dual citizenship has no effect on the citizenship of the USA whatever.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151629 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not have reciprocal treaties with every country in the world.
Every child born in the USA is a natural born citizen. This court ruling is right, and you are wrong:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
And this court ruling is right, and you are wrong:
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
And ditto for this ruling:
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
And the same for this:
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.”
And ditto for this:
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
And this:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling:“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."
And here are the words of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case:
"
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
They are right, and you are wrong.
Hollander v. McCain, see, I have told you the courts are full of crap, McCain wasn't even born in the US.
Oh, looks like McCain's parents carried their country with them.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151630 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he was not born subject to a foreign power. No child born in the USA other than the children of foreign diplomats is born subject to a foreign power. Children who have dual citizenship are just as much subject to the jurisdiction of the USA as children who have only US citizenship. Dual citizenship has no effect on the citizenship of the USA whatever.
Since Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, he had to be born subject to a foreign power, the US sure didn't give him a British citizenship, did they.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 min Patriot AKA Bozo 47,035
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min DBWriter 1,115,397
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 5 min Blwlgo 4,051
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 5 min Jonah1 50,048
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 26 min edogxxx 98,366
Amy 10-1 40 min Mister Tonka 9
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 42 min HughBe 69,535

Chicago Jobs

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 ]