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

Full story: Chicago Tribune

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Comments (Page 7,697)

Showing posts 153,921 - 153,940 of167,363
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174306
Oct 8, 2013
 
All the states at the time of adoption of the constitution recognized birthright citizenship. According to the states, a person was a natural born citizen of the state if born in the state. But birfoons fantasize that the founders decided to change the meaning of natural born citizen but forgot to tell anyone about it. And then after the constitution was ratified, everybody just forgot about it: people born in the US were regarded as natural born citizens by common people, legal scholars, and courts. And nobody, not even members of Congress, knew the real definition of "jurisdiction" because it was not revealed to humankind until a voice told Dufus Dale that only citizens in the US are under the jurisdiction of the United States.

And the birfoons wonder why no one takes them seriously.

“Kenyan-born Obama=Antichrist”

Since: Sep 09

Casper, WY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174307
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Two aliens do not produce an alien? Really? Look up allegiance, brainfart. You simply do not understand what "our" founding fathers intended. You are at sea! LMAO! Pout often? LMAO!
And according to the British Nationality Act of 1948 anyone born to a Brit anywhere in the world is automatically 100% a British Subject. Get saved! Obamareleaseyourrecords.com

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174308
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me, in your own words, how does that "rule" make any sense with regards to protecting the country. It doesn't, it opens the door nice and wide for a usurper. Hmmm?
It prevents a foreign noble or monarch from becoming eligible for the Presidency through naturalization, which is what the founders were particularly concerned about.

Incidentally, a person born in the US of alien parents, if elected president, would not be a usurper because he would be lawfully eligible as a natural born citizen per the jus soli rule. Door slammed shut.

Sorry.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>James Madison said it was the most certain criterion of allegiance. But Play Justice apparently does not like that answer since he chronically ignores it and whine that I didn't answer his pointless question. Why did they? Lewis Stanford addressed that question in Lynch v. Clarke. Go read for yourself the passage about the only standard that existed at the time. However, it doesn't really matter the reason because it is historical fact that birthright citizenship was the rule. Even in the case of Look Tin Sing, Justice Field lamented the inadequacy of the jus soli rule but was resigned to the reality that it was the law.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174309
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me, in your own words, how does that "rule" make any sense with regards to protecting the country. It doesn't, it opens the door nice and wide for a usurper. Hmmm?
BTW, the jus soli citizenship rule was not intended to "protect the country" from usurpers to the Presidency. It was the citizenship rule used by all of the states. It was the same rule used in England and at the time of drafting, France.(Jus sanguinis citizenship was not proposed in France until 1791.)

It is the eligibility clause that was designed to prevent a foreigner from becoming naturalized and thereby gaining the presidency. Persons born on the soil were never considered foreigners. That was the rule the founders had lived under all of their lives.
Joe OBiden

Jacksonville, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174312
Oct 9, 2013
 
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
When a new President is in office,
Obama will be known for what he
has accomplished.
Yea, and Clinton will be remembered as the president between two Bushs.
Obskeptic

Walled Lake, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174313
Oct 9, 2013
 
So the people of the USA through their government have established a National Park system, and what the government "gives" and provides the people, the government has the power to deny and take away from the people. Wonder how thats going to work with our healthcare once the government is the only game we have access to? We already know the answer to this by looking at the VA and Medicare/Medicaid. They, the government, have been reducing access and reimbursements to doctors for decades now, providing inadequate care for our veterans in mediocre facilities, all the while as we watch the programs head towards insolvency. What the government giveth, the government can restrict and taketh away. This is the model cradle to grave, dependency seeking democrats want for our free people. CONTROL!!!
Democracynow org

Oakdale, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174314
Oct 9, 2013
 
Joe OBiden wrote:
Democracynow org wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2... text>
If you Google "Generals who support Mitt Romney" you will probably get this;
500 ADMIRALS, GENERALS TO ENDORSE ROMNEY
Group posting full-page ad in Washington Times
Published: 11/04/2012
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/500-admirals-gener...
Now Google, "Generals who support Obama" and see what you get!
If General Patton were alive he'd slap your face!

ROTFL
Democracynow org

Oakdale, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174315
Oct 9, 2013
 
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Your nothing but a partisan hack my friend. Not an objective brain cell between your ears. My dog is smarter then you, but you are just as loyal to your master. I'll give you that!
The Katharine Gun Case
February 25, 2004 / http://tinyurl.com/p9w8kwa
Katharine Gun, a British former government employee, faced two years imprisonment in England for the "crime" of telling the truth. She was charged with leaking an embarrassing U.S. intelligence memo indicating that the U.S. had mounted a spying "surge" against U.N. delegations in early 2003 in an effort to win approval of the Iraq war resolution. The leaked memo was big news in parts of the world.
England has no First Amendment that might have protected Ms. Gun. It does have a repressive Official Secrets Act, under which she was being prosecuted by the Blair government. http://www.accuracy.org/1104-the-katharine-gu...

=====

When Truth Tried to Stop War
by Ray McGovern CIA Ret./ http://tinyurl.com/axzmlu6 / January 31, 2013
Ten years ago, Katharine Gun, then a 28-year-old British intelligence officer, saw an e-mailed memo from the U.S. National Security Agency George Bush and Tony Blair.(Photo: Mario Tama/EPA)(NSA) that confirmed for her in black and white the already widespread suspicion that the U.S. and U.K. were about to launch war against Iraq on false pretenses.
Doing what she could to head off what she considered, correctly, an illegal war of aggression, she printed a copy of the memo and arranged for a friend to give it to the London Observer.ďI have always ever followed my conscience,Ē she said, explaining what drove her to take such a large risk.
Those early months of 2003 were among the worst of times Ė and not just because the U.S. and U.K. leaders were perverting the post-World War II structure that those same nations designed to stop aggressive wars, but because the vast majority of U.S. and U.K. institutions including the major news organizations and the nationsí legislatures were failing miserably to provide any meaningful check or balance.
The common excuse from politicians, bureaucrats, editors and other opinion leaders was that there was no way the momentum toward war could be stopped, so why take on the career damage that would result from getting in the way. And if Ms. Gun were made of lesser stuff, she might have hidden behind a similar self-serving excuse or found solace in other comforting rationalizations, like the government must know what itís doing, or what do I, a Mandarin-to-English translator, know about Iraq.
But Katharine Gun could smell a rat, as well as the sulfur of war, and she would not put her career and comfort ahead of the slaughter and devastation that war inevitably brings to innocent people. In that, she distinguished herself, just as many others in positions of authority disgraced themselves.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/31-1...
Democracynow org

Oakdale, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174316
Oct 9, 2013
 
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Your nothing but a partisan hack my friend. Not an objective brain cell between your ears. My dog is smarter then you, but you are just as loyal to your master. I'll give you that!
EXCLUSIVE: International War Whistleblowers Tell Why They Exposed Their Governments / http://tinyurl.com/5hkw6z / September 9, 2004
In a Democracy Now! U.S. exclusive, two former intelligence officials from Britain and Denmark discuss why they blew the whistle on their governments in relation to the war in Iraq. Katharine Gun is a former British employee who leaked details of a secret U.S. spy operation on UN Security Council members in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Major Frank Grevil is a former military intelligence officer from Denmark who was fired for leaking classified reports that showed no weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq. He currently faces charges for breaching the countryís official information law
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/9/9/exclusiv...

====

Translator turns 'whistle-blower'
The daughter of a university lecturer, Katharine Gun was thrust into the limelight after being accused of leaking top secret information.
http://tinyurl.com/4d9sno / 26 February, 2004
The 29-year-old from the Regency Cotswold town of Cheltenham was a little-known translator working at the government's communications headquarters GCHQ.
But in March last year she was arrested, accused of breaching the Official Secrets Act by leaking an e-mail to the Observer newspaper from US spies asking British counterparts to tap the telephones of UN Security Council members.
In June 2003 she was sacked from her post.
She always admitted leaking the e-mail but argued she had "only ever followed her conscience" to prevent an "illegal war against Iraq".
The revelations contained in the leaked memo made her a cause celebre in the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3507533.stm

======

The spy who wouldn't keep a secret
In the year since she leaked an explosive email about spying on UN diplomats, GCHQ translator Katharine Gun has been arrested, charged with breaking the Official Secrets Act and transformed into an international cause celebre. As the case against her was dropped yesterday, Oliver Burkeman and Richard Norton-Taylor met an unlikely rebel / 25 February 2004 / http://tinyurl.com/lxktnbx
Working for the intelligence agencies is rarely as glamorous as it sounds, and until last year - when everything changed for ever - Katharine Gun often found it quite mundane. On Friday January 31 2003, at the high-security GCHQ compound on the outskirts of Cheltenham, she was doing her job as usual, translating Mandarin Chinese into English, when an email from America came to her attention.
"I thought,'Good God, that's pretty outrageous'," she recalls. She printed out a copy, put it in her bag, took it home, and spent the weekend stewing about it. She didn't discuss it with anyone. On the Monday she was still just as angry - "indignation was fuelling me on," she remembers - and so she passed the email to a friend on the outside, whom she knew was in touch with journalists. But she heard nothing more, and almost forgot about it./ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/2...
Democracynow org

Oakdale, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174317
Oct 9, 2013
 
Diplomat's Suppressed Document Lays Bare the Lies behind Iraq War
December 15, 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ye8w94
The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
A devastating attack on Mr. Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr. Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr. Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Mr. Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".
He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

It shows Mr. Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbors or the UK or the US," he added.

Mr. Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr. Ross.

Mr. Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr. Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings.

Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1215-...
Democracynow org

Oakdale, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174318
Oct 9, 2013
 
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>The Heritage Foundation never proposed a bill with over 50 taxes and over 2700 pages full of restrictions and requirements. The Heritage Foundation didn't propose a bill that would require 200 million people that already had insurance to lose the insurance they already had. The Heritage Foundation didn't propose a bill that would take massive amounts of dollars and send it around the world. ObamaKare is simply a bill that allows the government to have more control of our lives,the Heritage Foundation did not propose any thing like that.
Romney PROVES Newt Gingrich is a closet RINO!

---------

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate / 10/20/2011 / http://tinyurl.com/7yztznx
ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: Thatís not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but Iím just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasnít true.

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. Thatís what Iím saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/20/h...

=====

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans
October 1, 1989 / http://tinyurl.com/8xb6rd9
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assu...

Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea
March 30th, 2010 / http://tinyurl.com/26xm72p
EDITOR'S NOTE: An analysis of this comment by President Barack Obama was published on April 1, 2010. After it appeared, the Heritage Foundation's communications office contacted us to argue that our rating of Mostly True was too generous to the president. We did some additional reporting to review our ruling. Our second round of reporting -- primarily talking to conservative policy experts outside of Heritage -- solidified our initial conclusions. Below is the updated version of our story, which retains the rating of Mostly True, published April 26, 2010.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...

=======

Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan
Feb 23, 2010 / http://tinyurl.com/amcg2tz
In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."
Titled the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993," it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/...
Democracynow org

Oakdale, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174319
Oct 9, 2013
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know ALL generals are political appointees, don't you? They were appointed by a president and approved by the Senate. Who appointed Gen. Zini? Would it have been ..... Bill Clinton by chance?
Very few generals are either loony-lefties or loony-righties but some are ... left of center!!!
Your rightwing idols like Limbaugh and Cheney got five deferments to avoid service for the Vietnam war.

Who Picked Powell?

Two Liberal who ran up the deficits 12 years of Reagan and Daddy Bush who never used the VETO.

ROTFL

-------

Colin Powell endorses Obama for second term
Oct 25, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/9melusp
(Reuters)- Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday endorsed Barack Obama in his bid for re-election, citing the Democratic president's efforts to wind down the war in Afghanistan and tackling terrorism.
"And so I think we ought to keep on the track that we are on," the Republican, who also backed Obama in 2008, told "CBS This Morning."
The move comes just days after Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney clashed over foreign policy in the third and last presidential debate ahead of the November 6 election.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/25/us-...
Democracynow org

Oakdale, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174320
Oct 9, 2013
 
Joe OBiden wrote:
Democracynow org wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2... text>
If you Google "Generals who support Mitt Romney" you will probably get this;
500 ADMIRALS, GENERALS TO ENDORSE ROMNEY
Group posting full-page ad in Washington Times
Published: 11/04/2012
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/500-admirals-gener...
Now Google, "Generals who support Obama" and see what you get!
Military Donations Favoring Obama
August 15, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/n5gpura
WASHINGTON - U.S. Soldiers have donated more presidential campaign money to Democrat Barack Obama than to Republican John McCain, a reversal of previous White House campaigns in which military donations tended to favor Republicans, a nonpartisan group reported Aug. 14.
Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said.
The results also are striking because they favored Obama, who has never served in the military. McCain meanwhile, is a decorated war veteran who spent nearly five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. The Arizona senator graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and had a 22-year career as a naval aviator.
Obama has opposed the war in Iraq and says he would withdraw combat troops within 16 months. McCain has been a steadfast supporter of the war, saying he would withdraw the troops only when conditions on the ground warrant it.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20080814/NEW...
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174321
Oct 9, 2013
 
Democracynow org wrote:
<quoted text>
Military Donations Favoring Obama
August 15, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/n5gpura
WASHINGTON - U.S. Soldiers have donated more presidential campaign money to Democrat Barack Obama than to Republican John McCain, a reversal of previous White House campaigns in which military donations tended to favor Republicans, a nonpartisan group reported Aug. 14.
Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said.
The results also are striking because they favored Obama, who has never served in the military. McCain meanwhile, is a decorated war veteran who spent nearly five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. The Arizona senator graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and had a 22-year career as a naval aviator.
Obama has opposed the war in Iraq and says he would withdraw combat troops within 16 months. McCain has been a steadfast supporter of the war, saying he would withdraw the troops only when conditions on the ground warrant it.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20080814/NEW...
But Ron Paul surpassed John McCain in military donations.
Democracynow org

Oakdale, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174322
Oct 9, 2013
 
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
But Ron Paul surpassed John McCain in military donations.
Exactly right!

Paul proved our military rank and file wanted out of these wars.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174323
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Yeah, that was before Barack Obama showered Libya with cruise missiles at over a million dollars a pop.
John McCain is a criminal too.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174325
Oct 9, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
All the states at the time of adoption of the constitution recognized birthright citizenship. According to the states, a person was a natural born citizen of the state if born in the state. But birfoons fantasize that the founders decided to change the meaning of natural born citizen but forgot to tell anyone about it. And then after the constitution was ratified, everybody just forgot about it: people born in the US were regarded as natural born citizens by common people, legal scholars, and courts. And nobody, not even members of Congress, knew the real definition of "jurisdiction" because it was not revealed to humankind until a voice told Dufus Dale that only citizens in the US are under the jurisdiction of the United States.
And the birfoons wonder why no one takes them seriously.
States? LMAO! Time to move the goal post, huh? LMAO! No one was talking about the states, lil dip. Just more of your BS. bonehead
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174326
Oct 9, 2013
 
Too much SPAM! Ahem.....idiot from NY!! Posts just like Smellen, hmmm.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174327
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>And according to the British Nationality Act of 1948 anyone born to a Brit anywhere in the world is automatically 100% a British Subject. Get saved! Obamareleaseyourrecords.com
Dual citizenship at birth, or for that matter dual citizenship when president (for example, James Madison, who had been made a full voting citizen of France by the French National Assembly during the French Revolution), has absolutely no effect on Natural Born Citizen status. EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats, is a Natural Born US Citizen.

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...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174328
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!!! By the operation of the 14th amendment it only creates NBCs and naturalized citizens. People that are subject to a foreign power doesn't receive ipso facto citizenship, they must be naturalized. Why! Because they are subjects of and subject to the jurisdiction of another country and as wojar stated, the US only recognizes one allegiance, unless naturalized.
Only people born outside of the USA have to be nationalized. Children born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) are Natural Born US Citizens at birth.

The USA recognizes only one allegiance, that is true. When a child is born in the USA and not a child of foreign diplomats, the USA recognizes ONLY that child's allegiance to the USA.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 153,921 - 153,940 of167,363
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

118 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Abby 4-14 3 min j_m_w 49
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 4 min former res 64,925
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min KermitGosnell 1,033,375
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 8 min j_m_w 95,990
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 11 min CDC 46,985
Men charged with selling sewer covers, grates f... (Aug '12) 14 min Huh 4
Abby 4-16 14 min Mister Tonka 25
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••