BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

There are 239221 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

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 ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173895 Oct 4, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Aliens have never been, "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)".(see 14th amendment)
Anyone with eight grade reading level should be able to understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States is a condition precedent to citizenship per the 14th Amendment, as also per naturalization laws, which require persons to be under the jurisdiction of the United States for a prescribed period prior to naturalization.

Somehow Dufus Dale believes that appending "(US Constitution)" to the jurisdiction clause reverses the obvious logic. That is a sign of seriously disordered thinking.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. The authority to establish legislation governing naturalization is vested in Congress which in turn delegated the authority to the Attorney General per 8 USC § 1421 (a).
The 14th Amendment requires aliens to be under the jurisdiction of the United States in order to be naturalized in the United States. While under the jurisdiction of the United States aliens are subject to US law, including naturalization law per Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 4. The amendment and the clause are in perfect harmony.
<quoted text>
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#173896 Oct 4, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Aliens have never been, "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)".(see 14th amendment)
Answer: That is your nutty opinion. But your repeating it over and over does not make it correct. EVERYONE in the USA except for foreign diplomats and their families are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173897 Oct 4, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>What citizenship does an alien have prior to his naturalization?"
How many times need I answer this?

The alien does not necessarily have any citizenship in any country. An alien is one who is in a country but not a citizen of the country.

From Black's Law Dictionary:

alien (ay-lee-<<schwa>>n or ayl-y<<schwa>>n), n.(14c) A person who resides within the borders of a country but is not a citizen or subject of that country;

Got any more simpleton questions?

“Kenyan-born Obama=Antichrist”

Since: Sep 09

Casper, WY

#173898 Oct 4, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer: That is what Bingham said in 1866. Here is what he said in 1869:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
That means nothing. The ONLY thing that matters is what our nation's founders intended.
Jesus saves.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#173899 Oct 4, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>So is Kenyan-born Obama a man without a country?
The “born in Kenya” story is the height of the loony side of the birther movement. It is based on forgeries like that of Lucas D. Smith, and falsifications–such as the claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—when she actually said right on the same tape that he was born IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.

Lucas D. Smith, a convicted felon, claimed that he went to Kenya and got Obama’s birth certificate at a hospital in Mombasa. But Lucas D. Smith has constantly refused to show proof that he, Smith, had ever gone to Kenya. All that he would have to do would be to show a Kenya stamp on a page of a passport, but Lucas D. Smith has refused to do that, constantly, and he has also constantly refused to say why he will not show that proof.(Moreover, his “birth certificate” uses US date formats [month/day/year] and not the day/month/year format used in Kenya.)

Laying aside for a moment the overwhelming proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, the evidence that Obama was NOT born in Kenya is also very strong. There were a grand total of 21 people who came to the USA from Kenya in 1961. Of these only seven were US citizens. And the birther myth has always been that Obama’s parents went there and returned by plane, but only one person came to the USA from Kenya in 1961 by plane and that person was, wait for it, NOT a US citizen. And Obama’s father did not go to Kenya in 1961 either (making it unlikely that his mother did, since travel late in pregnancy was rare, and even more rare without the husband going along). WND has proved with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961.

And the Kenyan government investigated the “born in Kenya” story, and found that it was not true.

“Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, can’t understand why his office gets so many baseless questions about whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

“It’s madness,” said Chessoni on Monday.“His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya. When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.””

http://washingtonindependent.com/53654/forged

Obama has a Hawaii birth certificate that says that he was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have confirmed that fact. It is also confirmed by the birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, which were sent to the papers only by the DOH of Hawaii.

Obama’s birth announcement appeared in a section of the newspapers called Health Bureau Statistics. As the name indicates, and as the papers and the DOH also say, ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to the Health Bureau Statistics section of the paper. And the DOH only sent out those notices for children that it had issued birth certificates for, and in 1961 the DOH was not allowed to register the births of children who were not born in Hawaii.

Oh, and there is this:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiol

And, btw, birthers have never been able to show that Obama's mother even had a passport in 1961---and very very few 18-year-olds did in those days. Still they'd like gullible people to assume that she was one of the few 18-year-olds to have a passport, and one of the extremely few women who traveled abroad during the last three months of pregnancy because of the risk of stillbirth (she could not have gone earlier because she was attending college) and that she traveled ALONE (WND has proven that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) by ship (ALL 63 persons who went from the USA to Kenya in 1961 went by ship according to the INS) and gave birth in Hawaii---despite the fact that the government of Kenya said that it never happened.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173900 Oct 4, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is what you, and you alone, claim. But you are not qualified to make that claim. It is stupid and wrong. It is simply a nutty idea. It is not what the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction really is. As Johnathan Bingham, one of the key writers of the 14th Amendment said:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
There is laso the obvious consequence of Dale's assertion that only citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It turns the notion of national sovereignty on its head. The nutty idea is absurd on its face. That will not dissuade the psychotically grandiose mind.
Dale

United States

#173901 Oct 4, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The alien does not necessarily have any citizenship in any country. An alien is one who is in a country but not a citizen of the country.
From Black's Law Dictionary:
alien (ay-lee-<<schwa>>n or ayl-y<<schwa>>n), n.(14c) A person who resides within the borders of a country but is not a citizen or subject of that country;
Got any more simpleton questions?
About time!!! Now as you can see and alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution), this only a condition that a citizen can hold.(see 14th amendment)
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#173902 Oct 4, 2013
Re: "and gave birth in Hawaii.."

That should read "and gave birth in KENYA...." AND, as stated, it never happened. Obama was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the Index Data and the birth notices in the 1961 Hawaii newspapers (that could only have been sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii, which in 1961 only sent birth notices for children born in Hawaii) all show.
Dale

United States

#173903 Oct 4, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
It is Dufus Dale who cannot comprehend the use of the comma.
"He prefers apples, oranges, fruits of the land to others." Only an idiot would think the comma before fruits distinguishes "fruits of the land" from apples and oranges. Similarly only an idiotic birfoon would think the comma preceding children of ambassadors distinguishes them from foreigners and aliens.
As Dufus Dale has not learned simple English grammar and syntax through his entire life it is evident he will never comprehend the mysteries [hee hee] of the comma.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! Face it, you have been schooled!!
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#173904 Oct 4, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>That means nothing. The ONLY thing that matters is what our nation's founders intended.
Jesus saves.
And we know from the quotations of the American legal scholars at the time who knew the writers of the Constitution, that they intended the meaning of Natural Born Citizen to be the same as the Natural Born in the common law.

"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)

As you can see BOTH of the quotations refer to the place of birth, and the second of them says that EVERY child born in the country is a Natural Born Citizen, which is exactly the same thing that Bingham said and the US Supreme Court said in the Wong Kim Ark case.

That was the intent of the writers of the Constitution. Moreover, some of the same men had written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." So, it seems clear that if their intend had been that the US-born children of foreigners were not equal to the US-born children of US citizens in respect to presidential eligibility they would surely have told us----and they never did.
Dale

United States

#173905 Oct 4, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is what Bingham said in 1866. Here is what he said in 1869:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
LMAO!!! What Bingham said in 1866 became Constitutional Law in 1868.
Get yourself an amendment!
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#173906 Oct 4, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>About time!!! Now as you can see and alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution), this only a condition that a citizen can hold.(see 14th amendment)
That is what you, and you alone, claim. But you are not qualified to make that claim. It is stupid and wrong. It is simply a nutty idea. It is not what the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction really is. Your repeating your nutty idea over and over does not make it true:

As Bingham, one of the key writers of the 14th Amendment said:

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
Dale

United States

#173907 Oct 4, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is your view, but it is wrong. Everyone in the USA except for foreign diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of US law. Your repeating and repeating of the nutty claim does not make it correct.
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
LMAO!!(see 14th amendment)
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#173908 Oct 4, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! What Bingham said in 1866 became Constitutional Law in 1868.
Get yourself an amendment!
No, what Bingham said in 1869 is the meaning of the citizenship part of the 14th amendment, that birth in the country is sufficient regardless of the citizenship of the parents:

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#173909 Oct 4, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>So is Kenyan-born Obama a man without a country?
Answer: The “born in Kenya” story is the height of the loony side of the birther movement. It is based on forgeries like that of Lucas D. Smith, and falsifications–such as the claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—when she actually said right on the same tape that he was born IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.

Lucas D. Smith, a convicted felon, claimed that he went to Kenya and got Obama’s birth certificate at a hospital in Mombasa. But Lucas D. Smith has constantly refused to show proof that he, Smith, had ever gone to Kenya. All that he would have to do would be to show a Kenya stamp on a page of a passport, but Lucas D. Smith has refused to do that, constantly, and he has also constantly refused to say why he will not show that proof.(Moreover, his “birth certificate” uses US date formats [month/day/year] and not the day/month/year format used in Kenya.)

Laying aside for a moment the overwhelming proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, the evidence that Obama was NOT born in Kenya is also very strong. There were a grand total of 21 people who came to the USA from Kenya in 1961. Of these only seven were US citizens. And the birther myth has always been that Obama’s parents went there and returned by plane, but only one person came to the USA from Kenya in 1961 by plane and that person was, wait for it, NOT a US citizen. And Obama’s father did not go to Kenya in 1961 either (making it unlikely that his mother did, since travel late in pregnancy was rare, and even more rare without the husband going along). WND has proved with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961.

And the Kenyan government investigated the “born in Kenya” story, and found that it was not true.

“Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, can’t understand why his office gets so many baseless questions about whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

“It’s madness,” said Chessoni on Monday.“His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya. When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.””

http://washingtonindependent.com/53654/forged

Obama has a Hawaii birth certificate that says that he was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have confirmed that fact. It is also confirmed by the birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, which were sent to the papers only by the DOH of Hawaii.

Obama’s birth announcement appeared in a section of the newspapers called Health Bureau Statistics. As the name indicates, and as the papers and the DOH also say, ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to the Health Bureau Statistics section of the paper. And the DOH only sent out those notices for children that it had issued birth certificates for, and in 1961 the DOH was not allowed to register the births of children who were not born in Hawaii.

Oh, and there is this:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiol

And, btw, birthers have never been able to show that Obama's mother even had a passport in 1961---and very very few 18-year-olds did in those days. Still they'd like gullible people to assume that she was one of the few 18-year-olds to have a passport, and one of the extremely few women who traveled abroad during the last three months of pregnancy because of the risk of stillbirth (she could not have gone earlier because she was attending college) and that she traveled ALONE (WND has proven that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) by ship (ALL 63 persons who went from the USA to Kenya in 1961 went by ship according to the INS) and gave birth in Kenya---despite the fact that the government of Kenya said that it never happened.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173910 Oct 4, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer: That is what Johnathan Bingham said in 1866. Here is what he said three years later:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
Actually that was stated by Senator Jacob Howard on May 30, 1866.

Here is something he said a week earlier.

“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).(May 23, 1866.)

“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).-Senator Jacob Howard, Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866.

“But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870)

Obviously Dale cannot understand the comma before "who belong to the families of ambassadors".
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!!
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, 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, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law 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.
Now would you please tell me how foreigners and aliens are born in this country, we all know that ambassador's family members are not granted citizenship to the US, but just how are aliens born here.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#173911 Oct 4, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!(see 14th amendment)
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. "

And since Bingham, one of the key writers of that section of the 14th Amendment, says that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, the term "jurisdiction" cannot exclude the US-born children of foreigners. Currently it excludes only the US-born children of foreign diplomats, who are the only people in the USA who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

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

"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other.“Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297 ...)

More reading on the subject:

http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/3 ...

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

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obama ...

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

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

United States

#173912 Oct 4, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone with eight grade reading level should be able to understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States is a condition precedent to citizenship per the 14th Amendment, as also per naturalization laws, which require persons to be under the jurisdiction of the United States for a prescribed period prior to naturalization.
Somehow Dufus Dale believes that appending "(US Constitution)" to the jurisdiction clause reverses the obvious logic. That is a sign of seriously disordered thinking.
<quoted text>
LMAO!! Only citizens are "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution), if this were not true we wouldn't need the naturalization process, would we.
"All persons born or naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof". Now what has jurisdiction over the US?
Dale

United States

#173913 Oct 4, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer: That is your nutty opinion. But your repeating it over and over does not make it correct. EVERYONE in the USA except for foreign diplomats and their families are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
LMAO!!! Cry me a river!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173914 Oct 4, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! You keep forgetting that comma, don't you.
here is what Senator Howard said a week earlier. it puts the lie to Dale's pathetic misreading and lack of comprehension of basic English grammar and syntax.

“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).(May 23, 1866.)

“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).-Senator Jacob Howard, Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866.

“But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870)

Obviously Dale cannot understand the comma before "who belong to the families of ambassadors".

Pathetic.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
One way for a foreigner or alien to be born in this country is to be born the child of a foreign ambassador (as plainly stated in the quote Dufus Dale does not comprehend).

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min No Surprize 1,507,767
Jonny's Towing is Chicagoland's Most Crooked Co... 1 hr Trekkie 38
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr SweLL GirL 10,490
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Seer 8,064
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Bbzzoo 63,543
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 4 hr They cannot kill ... 3,629
News Chicago should decriminalize fare evasion 4 hr ShouldPharrt 2

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages