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

#151680 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
None of those rulings were unconstitutional. What IS unconstitutional is your crazy theory.
On October 1 of last year, the current US Supreme Court turned down a birther appeal of one of ten rulings, the Farrar case in Georgia, which held that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. By turning down the appeal of that ruling, the current US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court---and the nine other courts, all of which held that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen---to stand. They are not unconstitutional.
You are simply wrong.
Very Unconstitutional per the 14th amendment.
All children born in this country of alien fathers are ipos facto citizens of their father's country of origin, just a fact you can't change.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151681 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one born in the USA other than the children of foreign diplomats is "subject to the jurisdiction" of a foreign country UNDER US LAW, which is what counts.
Dual citizenship does not affect US citizenship or Natural Born Citizen status.
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 this is right, and you are wrong:
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
You are wrong.
Answered that today.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#151683 Apr 18, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Ah, just found this from 2011. See Jacques, I can be fair and balanced. Sooo, is he a Republican or is he a Democrat?
Voters select six new officeholders during election January 5, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 2:51 pm, Wed Sep 26, 2012.
Loyd Cook
In Precinct 1, Eric Williams added another Republican to the slate of county officials, defeating longtime justice of the peace Johnny Perry, a Democrat, in the November general election.
Williams defeated the incumbent Democrat by a 2,274-1,523 final total.
http://www.kaufmanherald.com/news/article_f14...
Who cares? Who cares if a criminal is conservative or democrat for heaven's sake. He or she commits a felone, he or she must pay no matter the party. Same for elected country officials, whichever party appoints them, they must be neutral, like John Roberts proved he could be.

There is a huge public works scandal before the courts in Québec at the present time. The liberal party, my party, is accused and, from the looks of it, rightly accused of corruption in the awarding of public works contracts. Were they conservative and you a Canadian, you'd defend them to the death. Not me. Wrong is wrong, and if found guilty as charged, I hope the bastards pay for it, though probably only small fry will eventually pay. Your cherished 1% can afford fancy lawyers, they get off. Disgusting.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151684 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>That is right by 1869 the 14th was law and every person born in the US and not subject to a foreign power were Natural Born Citizens.
In 1868 the Constitution made citizens, not the English Common Law, you will not find one mention of English common law in Howards framing of the 14th Citizenship Clause, that is what counts.
Howard was one of hundreds of members of Congress, and you have seen the views of Senator Lyman Turmbull above, and he does quote the common law (which is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers while Vattel and the two-parent theory are not mentioned once). More importantly, the final meaning is not determined by looking at the view of one or two members of Congress. It is determined by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that the meaning DOES come from the common law.

And, you know what, the Supreme Court was right, as the quotations from AMERICANS (not Swiss) at the time shows:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)

Your nutty theory is wrong.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#151685 Apr 18, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Now, just because someone says he is something, does not mean he is. An example is Mayor Michael Bloomberg who was a Democrat, ran as a Republican for mayor, and then switched to Independent.
But whatever party he claims to be apart of, he is a blooming idiot!
Say what you want about Bloomberg, and idiot he is not. Branding your foes idiot is the fastest way to loserville.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151686 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Very Unconstitutional per the 14th amendment.
All children born in this country of alien fathers are ipos facto citizens of their father's country of origin, just a fact you can't change.
That's right; they are dual citizens. But that does not affect their US citizenship IN ANY WAY. Just a fact you can't change.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#151687 Apr 18, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Damn that G.W. Bush by taking care of his Saudi friends again. I am sure he will use the same SR-71 his dad used back in 1980 to spirit him out of the country were Obama won't be able to get him!!!
U.S.‘deporting Saudi person of interest’
Posted on April 18, 2013
What? How does this happen? This is not good. We can’t seem to deport anyone, yet a person of interest gets a pass?
Check it out:
An expert on terrorism says the Saudi national who was the original “person of interest” in connection with Monday’s Boston Marathon bombing is going to be deported from the U.S. next week.
The foreign student from Revere, Mass., is identified as 20-year-old Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi.
“I just learned from my own sources that he is now going to be deported on national security grounds next Tuesday, which is very unusual,” Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism told Sean Hannity of Fox News Wednesday night.
The Reuters news agency reported President Barack Obama met with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal on Wednesday, noting “the meeting was not on Obama’s public schedule.”
After that meeting was mentioned, Emerson told Hannity,“That’s very interesting because this is the way things are done with Saudi Arabia. You don’t arrest their citizens. You deport them, because they don’t want them to be embarrassed and that’s the way we appease them.”
Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/04/u-s-depor...
An almost carbon copy of LRS's looney tooney post. And yes, GWB did sneak out hundreds of Saudis in a no-fly US sky. Go figure.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#151688 Apr 18, 2013
Jo, the Libtard from Boca Raton, FL!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151689 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Answered that today.
Your answer was wrong.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#151690 Apr 18, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Now, just because someone says he is something, does not mean he is. An example is Mayor Michael Bloomberg who was a Democrat, ran as a Republican for mayor, and then switched to Independent.
But whatever party he claims to be apart of, he is a blooming idiot!
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Say what you want about Bloomberg, and idiot he is not. Branding your foes idiot is the fastest way to loserville.
I take that back because he is smart enough to get you Libtards to give him money!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#151691 Apr 18, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Now, just because someone says he is something, does not mean he is. An example is Mayor Michael Bloomberg who was a Democrat, ran as a Republican for mayor, and then switched to Independent.
But whatever party he claims to be apart of, he is a blooming idiot!
Churc hill was a conservative, then a liberal and once more a conservative. So what? Proves the man can think for himself instead of stupidly adhering 100% to the party line. Same for Bloomberg. Maybe, in the end, he could't stand either party.
Learn to Read

Brownstown, IN

#151692 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>Howard was one of hundreds of members of Congress, and you have seen the views of Senator Lyman Turmbull above, and he does quote the common law (which is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers while Vattel and the two-parent theory are not mentioned once). More importantly, the final meaning is not determined by looking at the view of one or two members of Congress. It is determined by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that the meaning DOES come from the common law.

And, you know what, the Supreme Court was right, as the quotations from AMERICANS (not Swiss) at the time shows:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)

Your nutty theory is wrong.
Not to mention the fact that all of the States ratifying the Constitution and the Dufus Dale amendment knew without a doubt what "subject to the jurisdiction" meant and none of them shared in the Dufus fable

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#151693 Apr 18, 2013
Abortion clinic worker: I saw 10 babies breathe
By MARYCLAIRE DALE | Associated Press – 1 hr 20 mins ago

PHILADELPHIA (AP)— A former abortion clinic worker capped the five-week murder trial of her former boss with powerful testimony that she saw more than 10 babies breathe before they were killed.
"I thought they were breathing," Kareema Cross testified Thursday, explaining that she saw their chests go up and down in the clinic run by Dr. Kermit Gosnell. "He would say they're not really breathing."
Cross, 28, is the final prosecution witness in the capital murder case against Gosnell. He is charged in the deaths of a patient and seven babies allegedly born alive.
Cross also described seeing three babies move, one after being born in a toilet, and heard a fourth give a "soft whine."
Cross, who worked at the clinic from 2005 to 2009, was so disturbed by its operation that she took photos and called authorities, although she gave a relative's name.
http://news.yahoo.com/abortion-clinic-worker-...
And this was Poopo's comment yesterday.

Yep, but, but, but Fox News would not carry Obama's award ceremony live!!!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151695 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Howard was one of hundreds of members of Congress, and you have seen the views of Senator Lyman Turmbull above, and he does quote the common law (which is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers while Vattel and the two-parent theory are not mentioned once). More importantly, the final meaning is not determined by looking at the view of one or two members of Congress. It is determined by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that the meaning DOES come from the common law.
And, you know what, the Supreme Court was right, as the quotations from AMERICANS (not Swiss) at the time shows:
"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)
Your nutty theory is wrong.
Answered that today. Do you have anything new, to post?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151696 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Answered that today. Do you have anything new, to post?
You answered it wrong today. Do YOU have anything new to post?

How about you try to explain how these two writers, who knew the writers of the Constitution could be, in your opinion, both wrong, when they both indicated that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth?

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)

And how about you try to explain how the US Supreme Court, which is the final judge on the meaning of the US Constitution, could be wrong when it wrote:

"

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."

All of which say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, and there is no mention of parents.

And how could senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson all be so wrong as to say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth and not the parents?

And how come so many courts have ruled that foreign born children in the USA are not merely US citizens at birth but Natural Born Citizens?

Come on, have you got anything new to contribute? Your previous answers were simply WRONG.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#151699 Apr 18, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Now, just because someone says he is something, does not mean he is. An example is Mayor Michael Bloomberg who was a Democrat, ran as a Republican for mayor, and then switched to Independent.
But whatever party he claims to be apart of, he is a blooming idiot!
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Churc hill was a conservative, then a liberal and once more a conservative. So what? Proves the man can think for himself instead of stupidly adhering 100% to the party line. Same for Bloomberg. Maybe, in the end, he could't stand either party.
I assume you were talking about Winston Churchill, Yes, Wiki does say that he was in the Conservative Party fro 1900 until 1904, then in the Liberal Party until 1924 and then back in the Conservative Party until 1964 but I dare say his politics were Conservative.
Just like JFK who was a Democrat but a moderate-Conservative and Nixon who was as Progressive as they came.
Our former Governor Charlie Christ was a Loony-lefty Republican, then ran for the Senate as an Independent and is now a Liberal Democrat.
But the fact is, the more Liberal you are, the more criminal you are because you can rationalize anything. Just look at Nixon. Other than being a Republican, you guys should have seen him as a progressive hero!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151700 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You answered it wrong today. Do YOU have anything new to post?
How about you try to explain how these two writers, who knew the writers of the Constitution could be, in your opinion, both wrong, when they both indicated that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth?
"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)
And how about you try to explain how the US Supreme Court, which is the final judge on the meaning of the US Constitution, could be wrong when it wrote:
"
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."
All of which say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, and there is no mention of parents.
And how could senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson all be so wrong as to say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth and not the parents?
And how come so many courts have ruled that foreign born children in the USA are not merely US citizens at birth but Natural Born Citizens?
Come on, have you got anything new to contribute? Your previous answers were simply WRONG.
The Constitution is, what it is, very short and to the point. About 95% of your posting have been a violation of the Constitution as written by the framers.
The USSC doesn't have the final say, the Constitution does, since it has jurisdiction over the USSC.
Learn to Read

Brownstown, IN

#151701 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The Constitution is, what it is, very short and to the point. About 95% of your posting have been a violation of the Constitution as written by the framers.
The USSC doesn't have the final say, the Constitution does, since it has jurisdiction over the USSC.
And Dufus Dale will simply dismiss as "unconstitutional" the mountains of evidence which disprove his fable (including the obvious fallacy inherent in the fable a/k/a "low hanging fruit")
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151702 Apr 18, 2013
Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof (US Constitution), are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already (Civil Rights Act of 1866), that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction (US Constitution), is by virtue of natural law (Law of Nations) and national law (Civil Right Act of 1866) a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens(,) who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country (when the states made the citizens and had it all screwed up).

The above was ratified in 1868 and became Law of the Land.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151703 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The Constitution is, what it is, very short and to the point. About 95% of your posting have been a violation of the Constitution as written by the framers.
The USSC doesn't have the final say, the Constitution does, since it has jurisdiction over the USSC.
First, you did not answer the question. How come the writers at the time and the US Supreme Court all say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth when, according to your theory, it refers to parents. How come?

Then, the US Constitution NEVER says that two citizen parents are required. In fact, it does not say that even one citizen parent is required. It simply requires a Natural Born US Citizen, and the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law (not from Vattel) and referred to the place of birth.(If you claim that it comes from Vattel, then you have to give proof---and there isn't any. Yes, the writers of the Constitution did read Vattel, but they read a lot of other things too.)

The Constitution has the final say, and it DOES NOT say that two citizen parents are required. Nor does it say that the meaning of "jurisdiction" excludes foreigners or dual citizens. Yes the Constitution is short, but if it does not say something, we have to assume that it does NOT mean that thing, and it never says that the US born child of foreigners is a lower class of citizen or not eligible to become president. IF the writers of the US Constitution had wanted that to be the case, they would certainly have told us, and they didn't.

So, the courts and the US Supreme Court are right, and you are simply WRONG.

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) 1 hr johnplustwomore 1,156,637
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 2 hr L Morales 71,302
Chicago police stop black motorists more, ACLU ... 2 hr L Morales 11
Southern Illinois Supports Police 3 hr Does not matter 1
Holiday Greetings 5 hr Daddy Warbucks 4
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 hr Mister Tonka 98,886
Chicagoa s 2014 murder total on track for anoth... 5 hr Did enuf die 6
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 3:30 pm PST

ESPN 3:30PM
Bears' Trestman expects to return in 2015
Bleacher Report 4:34 PM
Did Suh Intentionally Step on Rodgers?
Bleacher Report 5:12 PM
Indianapolis Colts Cap Season with Fitting AFC South Sweep
NBC Sports12:50 AM
Colts cap 11-win season with 27-10 win over Titans - NBC Sports
NBC Sports12:57 AM
Vikings finish off Bears with 13-9 win - NBC Sports