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

There are 20 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

#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!!!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174015 Oct 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Poor Twinkerbelle. All full of SHYT and no one to buy it! LMAO!!!!!
All out of ammo with nothing but ad hominem insults.
What a loser. He can't put up and he can't shut up.
That is the epitome of L-O-S-E-R.
What's his concept of a rebuttal? "You blow chunks. Raggy!"
Pathetic.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174016 Oct 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Poor Twinkerbelle. All full of SHYT and no one to buy it! LMAO!!!!!
Says the fool: "Can you hear us coming?

Have you found the body without the belly button yet? What about the Ark?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174017 Oct 5, 2013
I am so sad when I hear of educational programs that work on teaching math to math challenged children. I don't care how much effort they put into getting children to understand the equal sign. It's a waste of time.

The simple fact is I and everyone I know in the sciences understood math like water running down the back of a duck.

We need to put our efforts into developing the talents of children who have talent rather than try to get blood out of a stone.

On the other hand, we need to identify children with talent and ability. Wherever it may be, inner city or burbs, and invest in their future, which is our future.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#174018 Oct 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
I am so sad when I hear of educational programs that work on teaching math to math challenged children. I don't care how much effort they put into getting children to understand the equal sign. It's a waste of time.
The simple fact is I and everyone I know in the sciences understood math like water running down the back of a duck.
We need to put our efforts into developing the talents of children who have talent rather than try to get blood out of a stone.
On the other hand, we need to identify children with talent and ability. Wherever it may be, inner city or burbs, and invest in their future, which is our future.
The primary recipient of all the tax dollars we are pouring into education is not the children. We are wasting billions of tax dollars that go to a variety of waste baskets like the National Education Association and the Department of Education. The Department of Education doesn't do one thing to help a child in Boise Idaho learn math.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#174019 Oct 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
I am so sad when I hear of educational programs that work on teaching math to math challenged children. I don't care how much effort they put into getting children to understand the equal sign. It's a waste of time.
The simple fact is I and everyone I know in the sciences understood math like water running down the back of a duck.
We need to put our efforts into developing the talents of children who have talent rather than try to get blood out of a stone.
On the other hand, we need to identify children with talent and ability. Wherever it may be, inner city or burbs, and invest in their future, which is our future.
Over fifty percent of the tax dollars that are intended to teach children go to administration and bureaucracies.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174020 Oct 5, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>The primary recipient of all the tax dollars we are pouring into education is not the children. We are wasting billions of tax dollars that go to a variety of waste baskets like the National Education Association and the Department of Education. The Department of Education doesn't do one thing to help a child in Boise Idaho learn math.
Frank, the NEA is not eligible to receive tax dollars.

Grow up.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#174021 Oct 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Frank, the NEA is not eligible to receive tax dollars.
Grow up.
Every dollar they get is from our tax dollars because the teachers are paid with tax dollars,as a matter of fact union dues are paid out of the teachers salary as a condition of employment and as a negotiated portion of their salary.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174022 Oct 5, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Over fifty percent of the tax dollars that are intended to teach children go to administration and bureaucracies.
Do you admit your horse shit about tax dollars going to the NEA is, ahem, horse shit?

Teachers are bureaucracies? School buildings and overhead are bureaucracies?

You're FOS Frank.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174023 Oct 5, 2013
Thank you Frank. UR the perfect foil.

And he has no clue what this means.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#174025 Oct 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Frank, the NEA is not eligible to receive tax dollars.
Grow up.
"Most NEA funding comes from dues paid by its members ($295 million in dues from a $341 million total budget in 2005).[32] Typically, local chapters negotiate a contract with automatic deduction of dues from members' paychecks. Part of the dues remain with the local affiliate (the district association), part will go to the state association, and part will move on to the national association."

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174026 Oct 5, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Every dollar they get is from our tax dollars because the teachers are paid with tax dollars,as a matter of fact union dues are paid out of the teachers salary as a condition of employment and as a negotiated portion of their salary.
Sorry loser, that's not how it works. A tax dollar is paid directly from taxes.

If you wanna include six degrees of separation then everybody is paid by tax dollars, fecking idiot.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Frank, the NEA is not eligible to receive tax dollars.
Grow up.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174027 Oct 5, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>"Most NEA funding comes from dues paid by its members ($295 million in dues from a $341 million total budget in 2005).[32] Typically, local chapters negotiate a contract with automatic deduction of dues from members' paychecks. Part of the dues remain with the local affiliate (the district association), part will go to the state association, and part will move on to the national association."
That's right Frank, the NEA is not paid by tax dollars.

Can you admit you're wrong?

Can you admit you're FOS.

Can you admit you're so senile you belong in a rest home?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Frank, the NEA is not eligible to receive tax dollars.
Grow up.

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) 2 min sonicfilter 1,224,576
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 hr TRD 69,827
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr jimi-yank 53,065
Word (Dec '08) 10 hr _Zoey_ 5,213
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 11 hr _Zoey_ 5,951
Song Title Game (Dec '11) 17 hr boundary painter 1,175
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 17 hr boundary painter 1,650
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]