Oh I just love it when the Libtards in the peanut gallery start to throw me peanutz as it means I successfully jerked their chain. Libtards are so funny when they get mad.( I wish I could post a 'happy face')<quoted text>
And how many miss leads did Obummer Boy miss on Ben Ghazi? Oh, I know, you think Ben Ghazi is a Hindu taxi driver in New York City!!!
Oh, you do know the suicide pilots of 9/11/2001 did not use bombs, don't you? And you do know that Bush has not been our president for almost five years now, don't you?
Full story: Chicago Tribune
Since: May 10
“Facts trump speculation”
Since: Dec 08
The fact is jus soli citizenship by birth is the rule that was and still is practiced in this country. Why? James Madison explained it quite succinctly: "place is the most certain criterion". Like it or not that was and still is the rule, even if Play Justices cannot understand why and throw tantrums.
“Thus when at an election, the inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country, it is received as conclusive that he is a citizen. No one inquires farther. No one asks whether his parents were citizens or were foreigners. It is enough that he was born here, whatever were the status of his parents.” Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 250 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).
If a child is born on US soil she or he is a Natural Born US Citizen at birth regardless of the citizenship of one or even two parents at the time (the only exception being the children of foreign diplomats."
Slimy Justice LRS would like gullible people to believe that the writers of the US Constitution really did not believe the Declaration of Independence, which said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal..." What Slimy Justice LRS is saying is that the US-born children of foreigners are NOT equal to the US born children of US citizens where eligibility to become president is concerned. Slimy Justice LRS believes that the writers of the Constitution, like George Washington, Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton were afraid of the US-born children of foreigners----like, say, your father or grandfather or great grandfather.
Well, do you think that your father, or grandfather or great grandfather was disloyal? MILLIONS of the US-born children of foreigners proved their loyalty in two world wars, and turned out to be just as loyal as the US-born children of US citizens. So, if we do not believe that the US-born children of foreigners are likely to be more disloyal than the US-born children of US citizens, why should we think that George Washington thought that they would be more disloyal than the US-born children of US citizens?
IF Washington or Franklin or Hamilton had ever said any such thing, we would have evidence that that was the way that they thought. But they never did. And we have the evidence of the American legal scholars at the time that they used the term Natural Born Citizen from the common law and that they held that the US-born children of foreigners are JUST as eligible to be president as the US-born children of US citizens.
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)(And Rawle was friends with Washington and Franklin and familiar with many of the other writers of the US Constitution.)
That is why senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan's attorney general, Edwin Meese, all say that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen and eligible to become president. That is what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett---which itself also never ruled that two citizen parents are required to become president).
“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)
Yet Slimy Justice LRS would like gullible people to think that the writers of the US Constitution did not believe "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
Sure, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment all persons born in the US were subject to the jurisdiction thereof and NBC, but you're forgetting the holding in Play Law vs Reality, wherein the 14th changed all that because it clearly only applies to
persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
He marched up to the counter and said, "Hi. You know, I just H A T E drawing welfare. I'd really rather have a job.. I don't like taking advantage of the system, getting something for nothing."
The social worker behind the counter said "Your timing is excellent. We Just got a job opening from a very wealthy old man who wants a chauffeur and bodyguard for his beautiful daughter. You'll have to drive around in his 2012 Mercedes-Benz CL, and he will supply all of your clothes. Because of The long hours, meals will be provided. You'll also be expected to escort the daughter on her overseas holiday trips. This is rather awkward to say but you will also have, as part of your job, the assignment to satisfy her sexual urges as the daughter is in her mid-20's and has a rather strong sex drive."
The guy, just plain wide-eyed, said, "You're bullshittin' me!"
The social worker said, "Yeah, well...
You started it." .....
Nuu, nuuu, nuuuu.....you and Path were "tight" long before I came along. Now, who was the tightest? We'll leave that between the two of you. LMAO!
Those would be the same intelligence agencies that assured us that Sadaam Hussein had chemical weapons, and was trying to develop his nuclear program again, correct? Thats before we even bring up all the clarion calls by democrats in the senate and house during the Clinton regime that confirmed the same things, and was asking for UN resolution after UN resolution to authorize stricter sanctions on Iraq, at the same time they were claiming regime change in Iraq would be a positive objective. I appreciate your cut and paste expertise, but your one sided, partisan narrative makes you look like a total ass!
How much is the democrat party and the Oblamer administration paying you for your cut and paste, partisan bullshit narrative? Try being objective and you may actually get some respect. Until then, your the charlatan.
Tantrums? That's your dept. Twinkerbelle. Still waiting on your answer as to why the U.S. would deem the child of two aliens, an NBC. Are you so inexplicably dense that you cannot see the major flaw in that method? Ignorant bonehead.
The CIA proved Bush and Cheney lied about WMD in Iraq.
Stop trying to rewrite history.
Paul Pillar served for 30 years as an analyst at the CIA, finishing his career as the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia.
Question: At least the way the story is told by [journalist] Bob Woodward, is that even then the president is asking Rumsfeld to begin war plans.[Counterterrorism expert] Richard Clarke reports that [there is] lots of conversation about "Let's get ready." That's the fall [of 2001]. You're the Middle East guy for the Central Intelligence Agency, and you're not receiving any formal requests, any requests for information, any intelligence requests?...
I did not receive any requests from a policy-maker on Iraq until about a year into the war. Now, this is to be distinguished from our military, which was doing a lot of the planning work and making many, many requests, usually at other levels, but some of my colleagues in the National Intelligence Council were involved in supporting the military planning. But no, I did not.
A year into the war meaning when?
Meaning close to mid-2004.... Remember, things like the infamous National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] on weapons of mass destruction, which was published in the fall of 2002, that was not requested by the administration; that was requested by Congress.
Wait a minute. The Bush administration, the vice president, president, did not ever ask the Central Intelligence Agency for an intelligence assessment?
I want to be precise. From my seat on the National Intelligence Council,... not just the CIA but the entire intelligence community,... no, I did not receive any request on Iraq.... There were other requests being made, from DIA to CIA, particularly by the military as they faced their very awesome job of planning.
But not the vice president?
Not the president? Not the national security adviser?
The course had already been set.
A Spy Speaks Out
Former Top CIA Official Tyler Drumheller On "Faulty" Intelligence Claims /
http://tinyurl.com/rle4x / April 23, 2006
"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."
Tyler Drumheller CIA Ret.
(CBS) When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year veteran of the agency — has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out.
He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.
Ex-CIA Official Paul Pillar Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says
February 10, 2006 / http://tinyurl.com/azl6w
The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Paul R Pillar's critique is one of the most severe indictments of White House actions by a former Bush official since Richard C. Clarke, a former National Security Council staff member, went public with his criticism of the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its failure to deal with the terrorist threat beforehand.
It is also the first time that such a senior intelligence officer has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence.
1948 Smith-Mundt Act The 1948 Smith-Mundt Act prohibited the domestic dissemination of United States government propaganda. The reasoning behind Smith-Mundt was that Congress wanted to be certain that a United States government agency could not brainwash our own citizens as Hitler had done in Germany.
General Anthony Zinni, USMC,(Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004
I think the first mistake that was made was misjudging the success of containment. I heard the president say, not too long ago, I believe it was with the interview with Tim Russert that ... I'm not sure ... but at some point I heard him say that "containment did not work." That's not true.
So to say containment didn't work, I think is not only wrong from the experiences we had then, but the proof is in the pudding, in what kind of military our troops faced when we went in there.
The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support. The books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one month before the war, and Senator Lugar asked me: "General Zinni, do you feel the threat from Saddam Hussein is imminent?" I said: "No, not at all. It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of those."
Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC,(Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004 /
The sixth mistake, and maybe the biggest one, was propping up and trusting the exiles, the infamous "Gucci Guerillas" from London. We bought into their intelligence reports. To the credit of the CIA, they didn't buy into it, so I guess the Defense Department created its own boutique intelligence agency to vet them. And we ended up with a group that fed us bad information. That led us to believe that we would be welcomed with flowers in the streets; that led us to believe that this would be a cakewalk.
When I testified before Congress in 1998, after a grilling from Senator McCain and all those wonderful senators supported the Iraqi Liberation Act, and I told them that these guys are not credible and they are going to lead us into something they we will regret. At that time, they were pushing a plan that Central Command would supply air support and special forces, and we would put it into Iraq, and they would pied piper their way up to Baghdad and the whole place would fall apart. This plan was created by two senate staffers and a retired General. I happened to be the commander of central command, nobody bothered to ask me about how my troops would be used. And they were a little bit upset about me being upset about this.
These exiles did not have credibility inside the country or in the region. Not only did they not have credibility, it was clear that the information they were providing us many times was not correct and accurate. We believed in them. We also brought them in with us and deemed them into the governing council and the reception by Iraqis has been, to say the least, has not been great.
Bush and Cheney let over 3,000 Americans die on September 11, 2001 and lied about WMD in Iraq.
Look in the mirror before you accuse Obama for Benghazi.
Why Iraq Was a Mistake
By Lt. General GREGORY NEWBOLD, Retired
http://tinyurl.com/p4j93 Apr. 09, 2006
From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq--an unnecessary war.
Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable.
But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda.
I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.
General Eaton's Letter to President Bush on Veto
May 1, 2007 / http://tinyurl.com/mx9nm4o
Dear Mr. President,
Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.
Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.
America's Angriest General John Batiste
May 9, 2007 / http://tinyurl.com/maw5r26
Retired two-star Army Gen. John Batiste is lashing out at the Bush war in Iraq in ads targeting key Republicans up for re-election in 2008. His offensive may change the rules regarding civilian-military relations.
"Mr. President, you did not listen," he says. "You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our Army and Marine Corps."
The ad is scheduled to air from May 10 to 18, targeting Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), John Sununu (New Hampshire), John Warner (Virginia) and Norm Coleman (Minnesota), and 10 GOP House members, including Mary Bono, Phil English, Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh and Heather Wilson.
Although the question is not addressed to me, I will answer. The reason that the USA deems the child of two aliens (and one alien) to be a Natural Born Citizen is simple. It is:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal..."
That being the case, the US-born child of two (or one) foreigner is just as able to become president as the US-born child of US citizens. And, if the writers of the US Constitution had intended to make an exception to the principle that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...", they would have told us---and they didn't.
In addition, strict construction judicial interpretation requires that something be specifically stated in the US Constitution to be interpreted as what the US Constitution means, and it never specifically says that two citizen parents (or even one) is required in order to be eligible to become president. And, under Libertarian principles, it is not allowed to take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically enables that taking away, and the US Constitution never says that it is taking away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president.
So, under the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and Libertarian principles, and strict construction judicial interpretation, the US-born children of foreigners are just as able as the US-born children of US citizens to become president.
General Zinni They Screwed Up
http://tinyurl.com/yr2bq May 21, 2004
(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades.
From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.
But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll.
THE VIEW FROM CENTCOM....So what do former CENTCOM commanders think about the neocons and their war planning? Let's listen in:
http://tinyurl.com/2rh9c / May 21, 2004
General Joseph Hoar, 1991-1994: "Paul Wolfowitz is a very bright guy, but he doesn't know anything about war-fighting, and I suspect he knows less about counterinsurgency operations....I think that the neo-conservatives had their day, by selling to the President the need for invasion of Iraq. I think it's now time for a clean sweep—and it has been for some time, in my judgment—to get rid of these people."
General Anthony Zinni, 1997-2000: He believes the neocons, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy: "In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption."
General Tommy Franks, 2000-2003: Doug Feith is "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth."
General Binford Peay III, CENTCOM commander from 1994-1997, seems to have maintained a studious silence about the conduct of the war, perhaps understandable since he's now the chairman of the board of a defense contractor that, among other things, provides ammunition for the Army's Stryker brigades.
Still, that's a pretty remarkable record, isn't it? Three of the past four CENTCOM commanders, the guys who probably understand the military requirements of a war in the Middle East better than any other humans on the planet, think the people who planned this war are completely incompetent. Quite an accomplishment.
INTERVIEW: GENERAL JOSEPH P. HOAR
http://tinyurl.com/yqyep May 21, 2004
`The Neo-Cons Have Had Their Day;
Now It's Time for a Clean Sweep'
Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (USMC-ret.), a four-star general, was Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command (1991-94), commanding the U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf after the 1991 war. He also served in the Vietnam War, as a battalion and brigade advisor with the Vietnamese Marines. He was interviewed by Jeffrey Steinberg on May 6, 2004.
Romper knows better than the Founding Fathers. Especially that dunce Madison - what a bonehead that guy was.
Thank goodness they stuck in that provision subjecting the application of all portions of the Constitution to Play Law review and approval - just think where we'd be if we didn't allow Romper and Dufus ultimate veto power
Calling Marine Major Ritter
Like it or not, Marine Major Scott Ritter had it right all along.
By Colonel David Hackworth / http://tinyurl.com/zu8o7 / 02/10/2004
Ritter, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998, took us all on – virtually alone, against incredible odds – stating, "Iraq is not a threat to the U.S." and begging the American people to take charge and not "sit back and allow your government to go to war against Iraq ...[without all] the facts on the table to back this war up."
As per his reputation on training fields and battlefields, this granite-jawed former Marine stood his ground and never flinched. He reminds me of another two-fisted, tell-it-like-it-is Marine, Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, the recipient of two Medals of Honor, who was almost drummed out of the Marine Corps twice: Once in the 1930s for calling Benito Mussolini a "fascist," and once again a few years later when he rattled the military-industrial complex by daring to declare that "War is a racket."
Ritter, too, took serious punishment from his critics – and instead of doing proper due diligence or asking hard questions, the media quickly piled on. It was not Fox's finest hour when that network gleefully painted him as a 21st-century Benedict Arnold – not that he had many primetime advocates anywhere else. Even CNN's usually evenhanded Paula Zahn said to Ritter six months before America unleashed its miscalculated military solution on Iraq, "People out there are accusing you of drinking Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp...
Understanding the Roots of Terrorism: Iraq as a Case Study.
No WMD’s In Iraq: by Marine Major Scott Ritter
November 13, 2002 / Audio
Doug Feith Cooked The Books For Bush Audio
CIA Learned in '02 That Bin Laden Had No Iraq Ties, Report Says
http://tinyurl.com/jkmzo / September 15, 2006
The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Although President Bush and other senior administration officials were at that time regularly linking Hussein to al-Qaeda, the CIA's highly sensitive intelligence supporting the contrary view was apparently not passed on to the White House or senior Bush policymakers.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and two GOP colleagues on the committee disclosed this information for the first time in the panel's report on Iraq released last week. They wrote in the "additional views" section of the report that the Cabinet-level Iraqi official "said that Iraq has no past, current, or anticipated future contact with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda" and that the official "added that bin Laden was in fact a longtime enemy of Iraq."
LMAO!!! Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, this made him ineligible for citizenship, he wasn't "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", since he is an alien.
"Rules of other Nations", let's see what Wang Kim Ark v. US had to say in paragraph 34 about that.
"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."
53 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now
|Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08)||16 min||Nuculur option||1,082,291|
|Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08)||20 min||Patriot AKA Bozo||45,840|
|Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09)||1 hr||OnlyPatchWork||68,051|
|Last word + 2 (Mar '12)||2 hr||Hatti_Hollerand||473|
|Amy 7-28||3 hr||Sublime1||16|
|Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08)||4 hr||Eric||68,396|
|Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10)||4 hr||Terry rigsby||48,944|
|Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09)||9 hr||Mister Tonka||97,562|