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
135,081 - 135,100 of 176,652 Comments Last updated 54 min ago

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153978
May 2, 2013
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The birther quoted the personal opinion of Bingham, and then I showed that he had changed that opinion, and I added another opinion.
As for a Supreme Court ruling, well, that ALSO shows that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth. Here is the key ruling, the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case (which, btw, was AFTER Minor v. Happersett):
"
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."
That quite clearly shows that the majority in the Wong Kim Ark case (and it was six justices to two, one not voting) held that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen came from the common law ("by the law of England for the last three centuries") and that it referred to the place of birth, not the citizenship of the parents. It also said that the same rule was used in England and in the 13 colonies and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. And it said that Natural Born Citizen includes all the children born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.
<quoted text>
Where does it say in United States v. Wong Kim Ark or in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say "natural Born citizen"?
Again, all it says is "citizen". Wong Kim Ark was a "native born citizen" as he was born on U.S. soil. But John McCain is a "natural born citizen" as both of his parents were U.S. citizens. My younger sister, who was born in Munich Germany in 1956 is also a "natural born citizen", again, because both of her parents were also U.S. citizens. And she has a DS-1350 to prove it. John McCain does not have a DS-1350 because the Panama "Canal Zone" was a U.S. territory at the time of his birth.
Certification of Report of Birth (DS-1350)
http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/faq/faq_...
Irrelevant , totally irrelevant AGAIN. How on earth is your post relevant to Bingham? Who do you think you're fooling? You're an embarrassment to the birther movement and that, Rogue, is a stretch. Even LRS has taken refuge in his one-man trailer and refuses to talk to WND.com and Foxnews.com reporters LMAO (LRS tm reg'd).

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153979
May 2, 2013
 
loose cannon wrote:
Jacques,
I just read that President Obama is going to nominate Penny Pritzker as Commerce Secretary.
My questions to you are how and why does one of the richest people in America wind up with the name "Penny"?
Could it be that she is a Penny Pinscher? My understanding is that the penny is derived from the British pence, and that in America the coin is officailly called the 'cent'.
I do not trust her.
loose
How crushed she must be that , as you wrote "I do not trust her."
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153980
May 2, 2013
 
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Psssst. Hey Romper. You forgot to call me a troll. You're slipping wuss boy
You're the only person I know who gets upset because he WASN'T called a troll! LMAO! You're new aren't you? A bit green? A bit stupid? Yep, yep and yep. MoeRon, sparkle for us! LMAO!!!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153981
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Re: "Where does it say in United States v. Wong Kim Ark or in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say "natural Born citizen"?"

Here it is again:

"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."

It says that everyone born in England was a "Natural born subject". Then it says that the same rule was practiced in the colonies, and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

The ruling also quotes this: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. "

The ruling also quotes this: "Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens.... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; ... British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; ... and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State.... The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. "

And so far TEN appeals court rulings on the issue of presidential eligibility have all ruled that the Wong Kim Ark case did indeed rule that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen, and not one of them ruled that the Minor v. Happersett decision applied or that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen.

And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten appeals court rulings, which had said that the Wong Kim Ark case said that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen. The result of the US Supreme Court decision to turn down the appeal, is that the ruling of that appeals court, and the other nine appeals courts, STAND.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153982
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Hey Flappers, guess y'all are pretty bumbed that your bomb making buddies got caught, huh? I'm sure they're related to one of you! What a sad bunch of losers. LMAO squidiots

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153983
May 2, 2013
 
Yep, I agree, this is very racist. But the producer is BLACK so Pepsico aired it! What were they thinking?
http://stereogum.com/1338781/pepsi-pulls-tyle...
If a white guy had produced this video, he would have been lynched.
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153984
May 2, 2013
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Where does it say in United States v. Wong Kim Ark or in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say "natural Born citizen"?
Again, all it says is "citizen". Wong Kim Ark was a "native born citizen" as he was born on U.S. soil. But John McCain is a "natural born citizen" as both of his parents were U.S. citizens. My younger sister, who was born in Munich Germany in 1956 is also a "natural born citizen", again, because both of her parents were also U.S. citizens. And she has a DS-1350 to prove it. John McCain does not have a DS-1350 because the Panama "Canal Zone" was a U.S. territory at the time of his birth.
Certification of Report of Birth (DS-1350)
http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/faq/faq_...
L O L, Rogue Dumbarse has never read the WKA decision because it's too long for his infantile attention span.

The 14th Amendment does not need to have those exact words in it, Rogue Dumbarse. The whole point is to make citizens out of all the people, slaves included, born in this country. The only distinction is between natural born and naturalized.

If you had a brain, you would know that there is a difference between "necessary" and "sufficient." It is sufficient to be born in the US to be a natural born citizen.

It is sufficient to have two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen if born outside the country. Is it necessary? No court has ever ruled on that.

Please do not weigh in on matters you do not understand.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153985
May 2, 2013
 
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the only person I know who gets upset because he WASN'T called a troll! LMAO! You're new aren't you? A bit green? A bit stupid? Yep, yep and yep. MoeRon, sparkle for us! LMAO!!!
Er, slug, "troll" may seem like a compliment when you are so addressed, but for most sane people, it's pejorative. And when I call you slithering slug, it's not meant as a compliment. Hope that clears it up for you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153986
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ellen1 wrote:
Re: "Where does it say in United States v. Wong Kim Ark or in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say "natural Born citizen"?"
Here it is again:
"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."
It says that everyone born in England was a "Natural born subject". Then it says that the same rule was practiced in the colonies, and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
The ruling also quotes this: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. "
The ruling also quotes this: "Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens.... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; ... British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; ... and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State.... The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. "
And so far TEN appeals court rulings on the issue of presidential eligibility have all ruled that the Wong Kim Ark case did indeed rule that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen, and not one of them ruled that the Minor v. Happersett decision applied or that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen.
And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten appeals court rulings, which had said that the Wong Kim Ark case said that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen. The result of the US Supreme Court decision to turn down the appeal, is that the ruling of that appeals court, and the other nine appeals courts, STAND.
Hey stupid, that is NOT the findings of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Show us in the ORIGINAL findings of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and no other interpretations of it.
But the fact is a no place in United States v. Wong Kim Ark does it mention "natural born citizen" and neither is it mentioned in the Fourteen Amendment!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153987
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
L O L, Rogue Dumbarse has never read the WKA decision because it's too long for his infantile attention span.
The 14th Amendment does not need to have those exact words in it, Rogue Dumbarse. The whole point is to make citizens out of all the people, slaves included, born in this country. The only distinction is between natural born and naturalized.
If you had a brain, you would know that there is a difference between "necessary" and "sufficient." It is sufficient to be born in the US to be a natural born citizen.
It is sufficient to have two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen if born outside the country. Is it necessary? No court has ever ruled on that.
Please do not weigh in on matters you do not understand.
Barfer Girks, are you really this stupid? If you're going to make a play on words then I'll give you another, Native Born Citizen. Tell us Barfer, what is the difference between the two, native/natural? Please do not open your mouth anymore as only turds fall out! squidiot

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153988
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Yep, I agree, this is very racist. But the producer is BLACK so Pepsico aired it! What were they thinking?
http://stereogum.com/1338781/pepsi-pulls-tyle...
If a white guy had produced this video, he would have been lynched.
I would not have thought it's racist, but rather stupid, moronic, insensitive and moslty appealing to today's 12 to 35-yr-old men who remain immature into middle-age. It treats defenceless little older ladies and rape like they were the the norm. Ever seen the Progressive, Geico and other stupid commercials?

Oh, Rogue, heard about this probable NRA adorator and gun lover who gave his FIVE-YR-OLD (yes, 5 years of age) a 22 cal carbine, he instantly killed his older sister or brother, not sure, so disgusting, I don't want details. How many of those Cletuses like you and LRS and Justice ha ha Dale and KFC GB and Un-Anti-American communist Lady and Frank etc would emulate this inbred creature?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153989
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

I know how you Libtards read between the lines but in no place in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark nor the Fourteenth Amendment does it mention "natural born citizen"! NOWHERE!!!

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen, July 15, 2009

In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

The intent and purpose of the amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”

The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14t...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153990
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I am sure most of you have no idea what the purse is hooked on but for starters this is in a flight simulator and not a real aircraft.
The four yellow and black striped handles do two things. If you pull it straight on it 1) cuts off the fuel to that engine and it 2) arms the automatic fire extinguishers. Now, if she turns it left or right, it will fire one fire extinguisher. Turn it the other way it will fire another one.
Every engine does not have two extinguishers but the two engines of the same wing share the same bottles. There are two squibs on each bottle. One fires it goes to one engine and the other one shoots it into the other engine. But you get only one shot per bottle.
I have only on two occasions activated that lever. One was an actual in flight engine failure and the other one was a major fuel leak on engine start. Oh, the mechanic who had installed the fuel control, well, it forgot the gasket and when I hit the start button about ten gallons of jet fuel poured over the engine!!!

http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites...
Grand Birther

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153991
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Barfer Girks, are you really this stupid? If you're going to make a play on words then I'll give you another, Native Born Citizen. Tell us Barfer, what is the difference between the two, native/natural? Please do not open your mouth anymore as only turds fall out! squidiot
Louisiana Loser, I realize you're very dumb and are incapable of legal research.

I'll help you: the courts use native and natural synonymously.

It would be helpful if you could actually cite some case law to support your childish and inane opinions, but every time that is asked of you, you fail miserably.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153992
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Er, slug, "troll" may seem like a compliment when you are so addressed, but for most sane people, it's pejorative. And when I call you slithering slug, it's not meant as a compliment. Hope that clears it up for you.
Still playing Mrs. Buttinsky, huh? I really don't care how you "mean" anything. Your words are worthless here, as are you. LMAO insignificant squid excretion
Grand Birther

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153993
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
I know how you Libtards read between the lines but in no place in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark nor the Fourteenth Amendment does it mention "natural born citizen"! NOWHERE!!!
Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen, July 15, 2009
In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.
The intent and purpose of the amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”
The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."
http://puzo1.blogsark.ht ml
LOL, Rogue Dumbarse is too stupid to distinguish Mario Aputz's opinion from legal scholarship. Mario doesn't cite a single source to support his opinion, whereas any normal human being can simply link to the WKA decision and read the words for themselves.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153994
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I would not have thought it's racist, but rather stupid, moronic, insensitive and moslty appealing to today's 12 to 35-yr-old men who remain immature into middle-age. It treats defenceless little older ladies and rape like they were the the norm. Ever seen the Progressive, Geico and other stupid commercials?
Oh, Rogue, heard about this probable NRA adorator and gun lover who gave his FIVE-YR-OLD (yes, 5 years of age) a 22 cal carbine, he instantly killed his older sister or brother, not sure, so disgusting, I don't want details. How many of those Cletuses like you and LRS and Justice ha ha Dale and KFC GB and Un-Anti-American communist Lady and Frank etc would emulate this inbred creature?
One, how do you know he is a NRA anything? Because he has a gun? Tell us, do the street "venders" in Shitcago who carry guns, are they members of the NRA?
Now this happened not too long ago. What idiot would give a seven year old a 9mm handgun? When my g-son was 11 I gave him a BB rifle. I showed him how to use it and my daughter supervises. Last Christmas we went to the pistol range and let him shoot my Taurus Model 941 22 Mag revolver and he did better than my daughter was. But age 13 is much more mature than a 7 year old.

Salina boy dies after shooting accident with family By KSN TV
SALINA, Kansas – A 7-year-old Salina boy died Saturday night after accidentally shooting himself Friday afternoon. 4/15/2013

Gavin Brummett was shot in the head while handling a handgun with his dad and brother on their rural property near Salina.

http://www.ksn.com/2013/04/14/salina-boy-dies...

Oh Jacques, not all gun owners are NRA members. In fact only about 3% of all gun owners are NRA members. But you hate people who are NRA members when they are the least likely to commit crimes.
Grand Birther

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153995
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Birfoon homework assignment: find a case that distinguishes native and natural born citizen.

L O L O L O L

Have fun with that, dummies.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153996
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
Louisiana Loser, I realize you're very dumb and are incapable of legal research.
I'll help you: the courts use native and natural synonymously.
It would be helpful if you could actually cite some case law to support your childish and inane opinions, but every time that is asked of you, you fail miserably.
So, you don't think there is any difference? Did the framers think the two were interchangeable? All you're doing is making a play on words which is immature and a waste of time. Admit it! You poor dipshyt! monkeylips BTW, why was a distinction necessary? LMAO!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153997
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ya know, people in the FBI, CIA, etc. are turning on the Obama administration. Fox News has said they have five whistleblowers on the Benghazi attack and about ten on the Boston Marathon bombings.
These people are sick and tired of being lied to, or being accused of lying to, and being left out to dry by an incompetent Obama administration.
If Obama was worried about LTC Terry Lakin incident, he surely has to be worried now. If he is not, he is a total idiot!
Oh, you think not? Then why did they release yesterday the pictures of the three people they want to talk with? Yep, seven months after Benghazi and they are still trying to sweep it under the rug. But when there is a basketball-bulge in the center of the rug, people will notice!!!

Whistleblower: We Know Who Was Behind Benghazi Attack
Posted on May 2, 2013

Could this be the cover-up to take down Obama?
Check it out:

All three network newscasts on Monday and Tuesday ignored the shocking assertions made by a whistleblower who told Fox News that special forces could have responded to the 2012 terrorist attack on Benghazi. He also claimed that the United States knows who perpetrated last year’s assault on the U.S. embassy. Fox News’s Adam Housley interviewed a man he described as a “special ops member who watched as the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi unfolded.”

Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/05/whistlebl...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

25 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min shinningelectr0n 1,095,061
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 23 min edogxxx 97,728
Abby 8-20 25 min edogxxx 1
Amy 8-20 28 min edogxxx 1
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr JOEL 68,833
Time Travel 1 hr Guess 1
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr RONE 49,231
•••
•••
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••