BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 194635 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.

Therealnews com

Oakdale, NY

#173988 Oct 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
But Iran-Contra was worse because ...... Reagan was the president.
No, No, No, September 11, 2001 was much worse than Benghazi. Bush and Cheney was warned by the whole Clinton Administration about al Qaeda and Intelligence agencies from all over the world and did nothing to stop it.

A Simple Phone Call to American airports security would suffice and Bush did not do it.

----------

Proof Bush Is Guilty For September 11, 2001
http://tinyurl.com/kpxqlgc
On July 10, 2001, Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams sent a warning memo to FBI headquarters warning that middle eastern fundamentalist men were learning how to fly airplanes. Not learning how to take-off, and not learning how to land.

July 20, 2001 FBI warned Bush about planes being used as weapons in Genoa Italy G8 Summit.

On July 26, 2001, CBS News http://tinyurl.com/9s52o reported that John Ashcroft was warned by the FBI not to fly on commercial airlines.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/nat...

On August 6, 2001, Ignorant "Iraqi Oil" Bush was warned by the CIA: Usama bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States.

On August 17, 2001, Minneapolis FBI agent Coleen Rowley sent a blistering 13 page letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller warning him the French Intelligence Service confirmed that Zacarias Moussaoui has affiliations with Usama bin Laden and connections with al Qaeda terrorists.

FBI agent Rowley also warned Director Mueller that Zacarias Moussaui took flying lessons in Oklahoma. Not learning how to take-off, and not learning how to land. Just learning how to fly. All Americans should impeach Bush for not protecting America on September 11, 2001.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/2...
Therealnews com

Oakdale, NY

#173989 Oct 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
But Iran-Contra was worse because ...... Reagan was the president.
Plot to assassinate Bush - reports
July 9, 2001 / http://tinyurl.com/kpxqlgc
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/2...

Records Show Tenet Briefed Rice on Al Qaeda Threat
October 2, 2006 / http://tinyurl.com/3xerca
JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 2 — A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday. http://tinyurl.com/3xerca
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/...

Report: France told CIA about plans to hijack planes prior to 9/11
According to Le Monde, undercover agents wrote classified document titled "Plan to hijack an aircraft by Islamic radicals" April 16, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/p2jdyxc
French secret services produced nine reports between September 2000 and August 2001 looking at the Al-Qaida threat to the United States, and knew it planned to hijack an aircraft, the French daily Le Monde said on Monday.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-france-tol...

Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified
http://tinyurl.com/6zalm / January 25, 2001 Richard Clarke Memo:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB14...

Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say
http://tinyurl.com/n882x / June 30, 2006
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news... #

Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11
June 3, 2002 / http://tinyurl.com/kvxha8z
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Heads-...

Bush knew of terrorist plot to hijack US planes
19 May 2002 / http://tinyurl.com/9pwjed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/19/t...

TRACES OF TERROR: THE INTELLIGENCE REPORTS; EGYPT WARNED U.S. OF A QAEDA PLOT, MUBARAK ASSERTS
June 4, 2002 / http://tinyurl.com/8cd8ng
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...

BUSH WAS WARNED BIN LADEN WANTED TO HIJACK PLANES
May 16, 2002 / http://tinyurl.com/9p8t36
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/us/bush-was...

U.S. Ignored Warnings From French
May 28th 2002 / http://tinyurl.com/7fq89f
http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-05-28/news/u...

U.S. was warned that Moussaoui had close ties to al-Qaida, analyst says
French authorities alerted the FBI in August that the "20th hijacker" had trained in al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan, according to an intelligence expert -- but the U.S. did nothing./ http://tinyurl.com/8ou8jn / May 23, 2002
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/...

Ashcroft Flying High
WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001 http://tinyurl.com/9s52o
ASHCROFT WAS WARNED BY THE FBI NOT TO FLY ON COMMERCIAL AIRLINES.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/nat...

FBI agent John O’Neill said: All of the answers, and all of the clues allowing us to dismantle Usama bin Laden’s al Qaeda organization can be found in Saudi Arabia.

In August of 2001 FBI special agent John O’Neill complained bitterly that the United States State Department ---- and behind it the oil lobby ---- who make up President Bush’s entourage, blocked attempts to prove UBL’S guilt for the USS Cole.
The US ambassador to Yemen Republican Barbara Bodine forbade O’Neill and his FBI team from entering Yemen.

John O’Neill, a much-admired special agent, resigned in frustration with the Bush administration and took a new job as head of security at the World Trade Center.

He died in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Therealnews com

Oakdale, NY

#173991 Oct 5, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
He also failed to mention Benghazi and the weapons being funneled to Syria through that operation. I am also not happy with many republicans, did not vote for W the second time around because of the massive spending and debt that was added to the backs of our children during his term. The difference to me is that the democrats are all parrots and do as their told. They demand we expand government and invade and control our privacy. What a joke that "the real news" believes that the democrats are the defenders of the constitution. At least the republican party is currently trying to re-direct itself back to some its original principles of smaller government, scaling back regulations, and lowering the tax burden on our citizens. Do I think that the republicans are great. Not by a long shot. Thats why I'm working to change that. As for racism, it's the democrats that believe black americans are inferior to whites, and legislate to give them "advantages" as a result. Democrats are the ones that not only disagree, which is expected in politics, but propagandize lies intended to deeply polarize this countries citizens against one another and foment outright hate. I've simply decided to play into their game and hate them back. Poke me in the chest democrats, and see how I respond. Trust me, I have no fear of them, and will do what I can to inflict pain where it belongs.
NSA Domestic Surveillance Began 7 Months Before 9/11, Convicted Qwest CEO Claims / October 11, 2007 / http://tinyurl.com/35efxc
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/nsa-...

The USA PATRIOT Act Was Planned Before 9/11
20 May, 2002 / http://tinyurl.com/767fwl
http://www.globalissues.org/article/342/the-u...

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
4/19/2004 / http://tinyurl.com/2tdfu
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-...

9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings
February 10, 2005 / http://tinyurl.com/mxzlm6v
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10...

An Incomplete Investigation
Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore "Able Danger"?
by FBI Director LOUIS FREEH / November 17, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/lehngqj /
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/an-i...

The Central Intelligence Agency's 9/11 File
Top Secret CIA Documents on Osama bin Laden Declassified
June 19, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/luhs65d
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB38...

F.A.A. Alerted on Qaeda in '98, 9/11 Panel Said
http://tinyurl.com/q5nzr / September 14, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/politics/14...

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
http://tinyurl.com/j8pbe / August 2, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173996 Oct 5, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! What does WKA v. US say about citizenship of other countries, just thought I would let you know!
(Para. 34) Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.
Yep, Ark was born a citizen of China in the US and of course that would mean he wasn't eligible for citizenship in the US.
In 1866 we made the decision to not give citizenship to those that were subject to foreign powers and it was carried over into the 14th amendment with the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" and everyone knows that an alien has never been subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution, only citizens enjoy that right.
Re: "and everyone knows that an alien has never been subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution./.."

That is what YOU and you alone say. But it is wrong. EVERYONE knows that every person inside the USA is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA except for foreign diplomats because everyone inside the USA must obey US law and can be charged and tried by US courts for violating US law EXCEPT for foreign diplomats.

Dale thinks that because he makes up something and repeats it enough times he may be able to convince some gullible person. But the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" is not determined by him. It is KNOWN by such experts on the Constitution as Bingham, and Senator Trumbull (who was responsible for the 14th Amendment on the Senate side), and both of them said that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, as did the US Supreme Court in WKA, and as such constitutional scholars as Tucker and Rawle had been saying as far back as 1803 and 1829.

“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)”

"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)

"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.]

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 ...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#173997 Oct 5, 2013
Therealnews com wrote:
<quoted text>
July 20, 2001 FBI warned Bush about planes being used as weapons in Genoa Italy G8 Summit.
On July 26, 2001, CBS News http://tinyurl.com/9s52o reported that John Ashcroft was warned by the FBI not to fly on commercial airlines.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/nat...
Do you ever read your own links? Were did it say he was a target of al Qaeda? There were w whole bunch of loony-lefties who hated Ashcroft and maybe that was the threat.
And why weren't other Bush officials given the same warning?!? It seems like you are grasping at straws.

CBS/ February 11, 2009, 9:23 PM
Ashcroft Flying High
Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/nat...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#173998 Oct 5, 2013
Therealnews com wrote:
<quoted text>
NSA Domestic Surveillance Began 7 Months Before 9/11, Convicted Qwest CEO Claims / October 11, 2007 / http://tinyurl.com/35efxc
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/nsa-...
The USA PATRIOT Act Was Planned Before 9/11
20 May, 2002 / http://tinyurl.com/767fwl
http://www.globalissues.org/article/342/the-u...
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
4/19/2004 / http://tinyurl.com/2tdfu
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-...
9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings
February 10, 2005 / http://tinyurl.com/mxzlm6v
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10...
An Incomplete Investigation
Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore "Able Danger"?
by FBI Director LOUIS FREEH / November 17, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/lehngqj /
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/an-i...
The Central Intelligence Agency's 9/11 File
Top Secret CIA Documents on Osama bin Laden Declassified
June 19, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/luhs65d
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB38...
F.A.A. Alerted on Qaeda in '98, 9/11 Panel Said
http://tinyurl.com/q5nzr / September 14, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/politics/14...
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
http://tinyurl.com/j8pbe / August 2, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
Hummm, do you want to go back to the attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941, and see how many things FDR missed.
I have read military lintel reports before and many times they included a threat assessment which often times stated they did not know what it was.
An example, early every winter the North Koreans go on maneuvers. This is after the crops had been harvested and after the first hard freeze so the tanks would not get stuck. They would do this again in late winter before the thaw but every now and then they would do something that was not usual and everyone would scratch their heads.
Like I said, you Libtards will do everything to point out the mistakes of a Republican president but when the president is a Democrat, it is "See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil"!
Now, you probably think Ben Ghazi is a Hindu taxi driver in New York City!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173999 Oct 5, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The Constitution is the law that binds us into a nation, keep on violating it, soon there won't be a USA, just 50 different nations.
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that is not in it, and there is not a word in the US Constitution that says that either the US-born children of foreigners or US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually says it, and it does not say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, duh, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either.

And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

Why? Why, when there isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Dale's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?

the Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, there NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens.

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING. And yet slimy Dale thinks that he convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.

Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents? If he did, he could have said so--but he never did. So why think that he did? Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington, who was not afraid of much, or Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton, or the others, was afraid of US-born children of foreigners, such as your ancestors?

IF, they had been afraid, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why think that they were?

Yes, they wanted the president to be a US citizen, not a foreigner. And, yes, they wanted her or him to not be naturalized. And yes, she or he had to be over 35 and live in the USA for 14 years---but that is ALL. If there had been any other barriers, anyone barred other than that, they would have told us, and they didn't.

THEY DIDN'T. They did NOT say that there is an exception for the US-born children of foreigners to the principle: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal..."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#174000 Oct 5, 2013
Morning Fox & Friends,
From the Summer of 1966 until the Summer of 1967 my family lived at Schilling Manor, Salina, KS. I was an Army Brat and my father was in Vietnam. The military had reopened the closed Schilling AFB housing area for the families of military whose husbands, and dads, who were deployed. We had an Army Protestant chaplain by no Catholic chaplain so they contracted with the local Salina parish to provide those services. We also did not have Military Police but a contract with the County Sheriff. I am sure there are military post of all branches of service which are to small to have an assigned military chaplain and they have contracted for these services with a local parish.
If the Obama administration has contracts, did they cancel them? In any event, can they stop people from visiting people on a post? I can't see where Pres. Obama thinks this is a win-win situation for him?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174001 Oct 5, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! What does WKA v. US say about citizenship of other countries, just thought I would let you know!
(Para. 34) Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.
Yep, Ark was born a citizen of China in the US and of course that would mean he wasn't eligible for citizenship in the US.
In 1866 we made the decision to not give citizenship to those that were subject to foreign powers and it was carried over into the 14th amendment with the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" and everyone knows that an alien has never been subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution, only citizens enjoy that right.
Dufus Dale's reasoning relegates the US to the status of less than an independent nation and which lacks the inherent right to determine for itself who shall be its citizens. Rather he concludes that Chinese law governs who can be a US citizen in Ark's case. According to Dale, every nation except the US has the inherent right to determine who its citizens are.

Dale's fantasy has never been the law in this country. Ever.

Oddly he cites Ark as an authority while disregarding the Court's holding and similarly disregarding the prior and subsequent holdings of lower courts, the opinions of scholars, and the opinions of framers of the 15th Amendment itself; an utterly desultory and haphazard approach constructed by disjointed reasoning. It suits the grandiose delusions of the psychotic to a tee.
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: "and everyone knows that an alien has never been subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution./.."
That is what YOU and you alone say. But it is wrong. EVERYONE knows that every person inside the USA is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA except for foreign diplomats because everyone inside the USA must obey US law and can be charged and tried by US courts for violating US law EXCEPT for foreign diplomats.
Dale thinks that because he makes up something and repeats it enough times he may be able to convince some gullible person. But the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" is not determined by him. It is KNOWN by such experts on the Constitution as Bingham, and Senator Trumbull (who was responsible for the 14th Amendment on the Senate side), and both of them said that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, as did the US Supreme Court in WKA, and as such constitutional scholars as Tucker and Rawle had been saying as far back as 1803 and 1829.
....

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174002 Oct 5, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The Constitution is the law that binds us into a nation, keep on violating it, soon there won't be a USA, just 50 different nations.
Dufus Dale's Play Law Constitution binds nothing but his delusional fantasies into an incoherent disjointed mess.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174003 Oct 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
"All persons born or naturalized in the US and "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" are citizens." Who are subject to the jurisdiction, thereof?[See 122489]
Play Justice Dale assumes that if all A are B then all B are A. That's like assuming all men who wear hats are bald because all bald men wear hats. Irrational.
Post 173968: "The constitution is the government."
Post 173952 "[T]he jurisdiction ... is the Constitution."
Conflation of constitution, jurisdiction, and government. They are all apparently the same in Play Law. "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together."
Play Law is Helter Skelter law.
So which Play Justice is the Walrus and which is the Eggman?
Dumb just got dumber.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174005 Oct 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumb just got dumber.
In Birfoonistan that ad hominem blurb in defense of the non sequitur is regarded as brilliant, creative and an elegant synthesis and analysis.

Bravo Birfoon!
wojar wrote:
"All persons born or naturalized in the US and "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" are citizens." Who are subject to the jurisdiction, thereof?[See 122489]
Play Justice Dale assumes that if all A are B then all B are A. That's like assuming all men who wear hats are bald because all bald men wear hats. Irrational.
Post 173968: "The constitution is the government."
Post 173952 "[T]he jurisdiction ... is the Constitution."
Conflation of constitution, jurisdiction, and government. They are all apparently the same in Play Law. "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together."
Play Law is Helter Skelter law.
So which Play Justice is the Walrus and which is the Eggman?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174006 Oct 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumb just got dumber.
So there is no fallacy of affirming the consequent?

There is no simple-minded conflation?

However the grand "Justice" seems unable to formulate any semblance of a rebuttal.

That's because there is nothing but empty space between his ears.
wojar wrote:
"All persons born or naturalized in the US and "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" are citizens." Who are subject to the jurisdiction, thereof?[See 122489]
Play Justice Dale assumes that if all A are B then all B are A. That's like assuming all men who wear hats are bald because all bald men wear hats. Irrational.
Post 173968: "The constitution is the government."
Post 173952 "[T]he jurisdiction ... is the Constitution."
Conflation of constitution, jurisdiction, and government. They are all apparently the same in Play Law. "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together."
Play Law is Helter Skelter law.
So which Play Justice is the Walrus and which is the Eggman?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174007 Oct 5, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The Constitution is the law that binds us into a nation, keep on violating it, soon there won't be a USA, just 50 different nations.
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that is not in it, and there is not a word in the US Constitution that says that either the US-born children of foreigners or US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually says it, and it does not say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, duh, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either.

And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

Why? Why, when there isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Dale's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, there NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens.

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING. And yet slimy Dale thinks that he convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.

Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents? If he did, he could have said so--but he never did. So why think that he did? Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington, who was not afraid of much, or Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton, or the others, was afraid of US-born children of foreigners, such as your ancestors?

IF, they had been afraid, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why think that they were?

Yes, they wanted the president to be a US citizen, not a foreigner. And, yes, they wanted her or him to not be naturalized. And yes, she or he had to be over 35 and live in the USA for 14 years---but that is ALL. If there had been any other barriers, anyone barred other than that, they would have told us, and they didn't.

THEY DIDN'T. They did NOT say that there is an exception for the US-born children of foreigners to the principle: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal..."
Obskeptic

Southfield, MI

#174008 Oct 5, 2013
Therealnews com wrote:
<quoted text>
NSA Domestic Surveillance Began 7 Months Before 9/11, Convicted Qwest CEO Claims / October 11, 2007 / http://tinyurl.com/35efxc
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/nsa-...
The USA PATRIOT Act Was Planned Before 9/11
20 May, 2002 / http://tinyurl.com/767fwl
http://www.globalissues.org/article/342/the-u...
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
4/19/2004 / http://tinyurl.com/2tdfu
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-...
9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings
February 10, 2005 / http://tinyurl.com/mxzlm6v
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10...
An Incomplete Investigation
Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore "Able Danger"?
by FBI Director LOUIS FREEH / November 17, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/lehngqj /
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/an-i...
The Central Intelligence Agency's 9/11 File
Top Secret CIA Documents on Osama bin Laden Declassified
June 19, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/luhs65d
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB38...
F.A.A. Alerted on Qaeda in '98, 9/11 Panel Said
http://tinyurl.com/q5nzr / September 14, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/politics/14...
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
http://tinyurl.com/j8pbe / August 2, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
Plenty of warnings before Bengahzi that were completely ignored as well. Your subjective interpretation of blame clearly reveals your partisanship. To excuse the democrats of blame is despicable. Clinton had multiple opportunities to take out Bin Laden and was as uninterested as W was before the muslim sponsored attack. To try and push the narrative that you are makes you the enemy to our liberty as well. Our muslim president and the democrats had two years of total control of Washington and failed to act repealing the Patriot Act. Post all the links you want and wag your finger of blame on others as the president does. There are many who will continue to fall for your one sided propaganda campaign, but those of us who can see the end game your side has planned won't be suckered. Be very careful just how much anarchy your side desires for America, because once the gloves come off, you crazy bastards might not like the results you get.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174010 Oct 5, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that is not in it, and there is not a word in the US Constitution that says that either the US-born children of foreigners or US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.
Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually says it, and it does not say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, duh, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either.
And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?
Why? Why, when there isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Dale's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?
The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, there NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens.
There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING. And yet slimy Dale thinks that he convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.
Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents? If he did, he could have said so--but he never did. So why think that he did? Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington, who was not afraid of much, or Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton, or the others, was afraid of US-born children of foreigners, such as your ancestors?
IF, they had been afraid, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why think that they were?
Yes, they wanted the president to be a US citizen, not a foreigner. And, yes, they wanted her or him to not be naturalized. And yes, she or he had to be over 35 and live in the USA for 14 years---but that is ALL. If there had been any other barriers, anyone barred other than that, they would have told us, and they didn't.
THEY DIDN'T. They did NOT say that there is an exception for the US-born children of foreigners to the principle: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal..."
Ellen, you cannot persuade Dale, who is the master of the "stream of unconsciousness" technique. He's so delusional he probably thinks I gave him a compliment.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174011 Oct 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
In Birfoonistan that ad hominem blurb in defense of the non sequitur is regarded as brilliant, creative and an elegant synthesis and analysis.
Bravo Birfoon!
<quoted text>
You're such a little kid.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174012 Oct 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're such a little kid.
Says the loser who cannot put up but cannot stop blabbering.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
In Birfoonistan that ad hominem blurb in defense of the non sequitur is regarded as brilliant, creative and an elegant synthesis and analysis.
Bravo Birfoon!
<quoted text>
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174013 Oct 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the loser who cannot put up but cannot stop blabbering.
<quoted text>
Poor lil kid. You'll grow up in time.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174014 Oct 5, 2013
Poor Twinkerbelle. All full of SHYT and no one to buy it! LMAO!!!!!

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 min IBdaMann 54,333
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min sonicfilter 1,263,914
The Messenger 1 hr DKTM 1
News Fatal heat wave 20 years ago changed Chicago's ... 2 hr Go Blue Forever 7
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr PEllen 100,286
amy august 2 2 hr PEllen 2
abby august 2 2 hr PEllen 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages