BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 196842 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.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179646 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oh, you win a war not by killing people but by demoralizing them. When the bad guys don't know at what time, from what direction or how they will be attacked, they get demoralized!!!
That is why one snipped can destroy several hundreds enemy. He knocks one off here, another there, he kills the leaders and then the privates panic.
The enemy does not know where you are so they do a reconnaissance-by-fire! By using phase-array radar and TacFire we know exactly where the fire came from within seconds, we assign an artillery unit to return fire from exactly where it came from and bad guys world blows up.
They still don't know where we are but they do know if they shoot, all hell will break loose.
Sounds great. Is that how you won in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179647 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And do you know why? Because doctors and lawyers buy MU-2s and Cessna Citations and their egos kill themselves. In any event, the accident rate for MU-2 is much higher that Citations are.
Safety Concerns
Concerns have been raised about safety; there have been 330 fatalities from MU-2 crashes.[10] As of October 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has begun a safety evaluation of the aircraft and decided that the aircraft has met its certification requirements - it is safe when operated by properly trained pilots who operate properly maintained aircraft. The FAA is in the process of mandating training specific to the MU-2 as it has in the past for other aircraft. When such mandated training was required outside of the U.S. the MU-2 accident record was vastly improved.
Because the MU-2 offers very high performance at a relatively low cost, some of its operators lack sufficient training and experience for such an advanced aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_MU-2
Oh, did you know about the Mitsubishi MU-2 before I brought it to your attention?
What the hell ! The above are your answers to my questions and comments, namely :

Jacques from Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't be so stupid. I always acknowledged your piloting skills but also always said that didn't mean you were savvy on aviation in general, any more than driving a car does not make me an automobile industry expert or tapping on this computer makes me a software of hardware expert.
Now, the Cessna is the highest-selling pvt jet aircraft. Did you know that? It also has a high accident record, as the "accident chart" of Airline World will tell you. Of course, that may be because there are so many of them. I don't know the per-capita rate of accidents compared to other pvt jet aircraft.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179648 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is small-minded peoples logic as we know both men and women screw around for a variety of reasons.
Why my baby brother just divorced his wife of ten years (20 year relationship) because he reconnected with an old lover.
By baby brother is an atheist, pot-smoking, flaming progressive. His ex-wife is pretty Liberal too but she is not an in-you-face- progressive like my brother is.
Oh, I went to their wedding Labor Day weekend 2002. His "best man" was a lesbian. We had three lesbian and one gay couple at the wedding. I had taken my 11 year old granddaughter and it was one of those "don't ask, don't tell" events. When she was about 15 I asked her about it and she said she had figured it out.
But Liberals average three times as many partners than Conservatives do. Yes, there are exceptions like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich but I said "average".
You wrote : "But Liberals average three times as many partners than Conservatives do" Prove it now, BSr. NOW. Or will you tell me to find it myself.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179649 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
We knew that when we developed Quick-Fix TacFire that sooner or later the Soviets would also develop it was that is where we came out with the MRLS (Multiple Rocket Launch System).
Once we knew were the bad guys were we could launch 72 precision aimed, multi-warhead rockets within thirty seconds and thirty seconds later we would be buggin' out to the next firing position where they would rearm. So if the bad guys had the same targeting capacity, we would not be were we were at when they returned fire.
Have you ever hear of "shell shocked"? You get shelled and a tenth of your unit is killed and then you wait for the next attack. Pretty soon the troops panic and break! That is how you defeat the enemy.
<quoted text>
How long did it take us to get from the Iraq border to Baghdad?
March 20, 2003 the war starts.
April 10, 2003 we take Baghdad just 20 days later!!!
Yes, and what happened from that day on until today? THAT's what he was asking, but you didn't get it. Again.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179650 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like Vietnam under LBJ, Obama will not let the military fight to WIN! In the end both sides will lose fewer people.
<quoted text>
Yes we did WIN the Military war in just three weeks. We lost the insurgency because of Obama!!!
Now, how many civilians have been killed in Obama's Drone Strikes?
Not too too good on dates, are you? The insurgency began in 2009?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179651 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
How come the Libtards will talk about all the people killed while Bush was president but will not talk about the number of innocent people who have been droned to death under Obama?!?
In fact there are a lot of subject on Obama that you will not reply to. Was da matta, CHICKEN?
I replied to that nonsense a couple of hours ago. You ignored it and you come right back with this platitude. I repeat, drones regrettably killed innocent civilians. When Bush was president, over 160,000 people were killed and 1 million maimed in Iraq.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#179652 Nov 16, 2013
Note to the thread. A business matter will take me out of the country for the next two weeks. Upon my return in December I will probably check back in for a good laugh. However, I will not waste time reviewing pages of comments made during my absence. Additionally - please note that any exchanges (real or imagined) that you may have during my absence will not be with me.

Birfoons - please also know that each and every fail you experience during the next two weeks will still be a source if great amusement to me even though I do not comment here

Later!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179653 Nov 16, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Barack Obama's father was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day. Barack Obama's father was never an immigrant to the United states,you can't compare apples to oranges. The immigration department told immigrants that if they became citizens of the United States and had children,their children would be eligible to run for the office of POTUS. Barack Obama's father does not fall into that category.
Frank, the "Immigration department" never told any alien that their children born in the US would not be eligible to be President.(strike 1)

Incidentally, the INS is not the Supreme Court (strike 2) and Barack Obama's Obama's father never ran for President (strike 3, you're out).
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
According to binding precedent set forth in Ark (and reiterated in Elg - jus soli rule), a child of aliens born in the US is a natural born citizen. Your HS civics teacher was either misinformed, or you did not understand what she was saying.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179654 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Tinker Bell, there isn't a US law that can strip a foreign citizenship from anyone, unless requested by that individual.
As we all know at the moment of birth Obama acquired both citizenship and allegiance to his father's country.
Absolutely, US law recognizes who is a US citizen. Obama was born a US citizen according to US law. Britain can call him whatever the F they want. It has no bearing on his US citizen status, that is unless you believe the US is not an independent and sovereign nation.

US law has no bearing on who is a British citizen and British law has no bearing on who is a US citizen.

Similarly, the US constitution has no bearing on the jurisdiction of the crown over all persons in her territory. The US constitution also has no authority in Canada, where Ted Cruz was born a natural born citizen of Canada.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>There is no US law that grants foreign citizenship to anyone. Just a fact Dufus is clueless about.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179655 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! He was born in Canada, his father was Cuban, wouldn't that make him subject to a foreign power.
Ted was born a Canadian citizen subject to the Crown and under her jurisdiction. He was automatically naturalized pursuant to US statutory law, which has no force or effect in Canada.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179656 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Knob-polisher, the comma is, what it is, just a fact you can't change.
It is what it is, too bad Dale is illiterate.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, neither Bingham, Howard, nor Trumbull understood the comma, nor did the appellate courts and supreme court.
LOL.
The law shouldn't be read by people who are birthers, fools, who couldn't pass middle school English.
If birfoon Dale can read, he should notice I have used the comma in the same manner as did Sen. Howard. All three, birthers, fools, and (persons) who couldn't pass middle school English refer to the same object (people who possess all three characteristics).
In Howard's, statement,(born) foreigners,(born) aliens, and (persons) who belong to the families of ambassadors are predicated of the same object, i.e., persons excluded from birthright citizenship.
Grow up Dufus, you're out of your league.
<quoted text>

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179657 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! I see nothing wrong with jus soli, but there is a stipulation, you can't be subject to a foreign power.
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]
If born in the US and your parents were not foreign diplomats, then your parents owed (temporary) allegiance to the US while here. That is the law as it is understood and was understood at the time the 14th Amendment and at the time of adoption of the US Constitution.

However, the constitution was not understood under Play Law - ever. Too bad Skippy.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179658 Nov 16, 2013
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
No... there is not.
United States[edit]
Main article: Birthright citizenship in the United States
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Its wording was initially interpreted to exclude many Native Americans because they were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and, thus, were not American citizens. However, Congress later extended citizenship to all aboriginal peoples in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.[34]
In the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" restriction applied to two additional categories: children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The Court also rejected the government's attempt to limit Section 1 of the 14th Amendment by arguing that it was intended solely to allow former slaves and their descendants to become citizens.
The Court thus held that the petitioner, a child of subjects of the Emperor of China whose parents were lawfully living in the United States where he was born, was a U.S. citizen by birth.
Notwithstanding the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, his citizenship status could not be revoked even if his parents were not American citizens at the time of his birth and all three made several trips to China afterwards.[35]
==========
One more time....
"The U.S. Supreme Court held that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" restriction applied to two additional categories: children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory."
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" explained.
Doesn't say shit about who's parents are born where.
There is no additional "requirement".
NOBODY cares what Howard thought. His thoughts were considered and over ruled. His motives were racist, not to protect the U.S.
Actually, Howard was right behind jus soli. Howard understood aliens in this country to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US and owing (temporary or local) allegiance to the US, not to any foreign power. The concept of local allegiance can be traced back to Lord Coke in (I think) Calvin's case.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179659 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! You can post all you want, but you can't change the intent of the framers that wrote the Citizenship Clause.
And neither can Dale, even though he doesn't understand a word they said.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179660 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Prior to Apr. 9, 1866 the citizens of the states made up the citizen of the US, the 14th just changed that around.
Who was talking about naturalization?
Unwittingly, Dale was.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179661 Nov 16, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
Note to the thread. A business matter will take me out of the country for the next two weeks. Upon my return in December I will probably check back in for a good laugh. However, I will not waste time reviewing pages of comments made during my absence. Additionally - please note that any exchanges (real or imagined) that you may have during my absence will not be with me.
Birfoons - please also know that each and every fail you experience during the next two weeks will still be a source if great amusement to me even though I do not comment here
Later!
Travelling is my elixir, so I'm always curious as to where people are travelling to. May I be so indiscreet as to ask?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179662 Nov 16, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ted was born a Canadian citizen subject to the Crown and under her jurisdiction. He was automatically naturalized pursuant to US statutory law, which has no force or effect in Canada.
It's quite all right, wojar, please keep him. Our gain, your loss.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179663 Nov 16, 2013
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, there wasn't a garden. But modern poverty is at least as old as money.
A large majority of what Jesus talked about was caring for the poor. Statistically, it was all he talked about. Compare time spent on ANY other subject and over 350 verses of "word of god" are devoted to teaching people how to care for the poor. But hey, ignore all that. There is a deeper message. Like how you get your own ass immortal.
LOL.. THAT is what is important. You are an idiot and it is a shame there isn't a hell for you to go to.
I knew you didn't know that. You have never read it.
I love it when Dale puts words into peoples mouths because he has clearly lost another argument.
""I love it when you libs think you can do something that Jesus and mankind hasn't been able to accomplish for thousands of years. Who do you think you are, God!!!""
Where did all of that shit come from Dale?
God has nothing to do with poverty. Hell, he has nothing to do with anything at all Dale. And the sooner people start taking responsibility... the better.
LMAO!!! Well, have you and your ilk cured poverty? It will be here until the end of time, makes no difference how much your heart bleeds.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179664 Nov 16, 2013
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
Art II Sect I clause 5
THEY MEET the 'criteria of:
or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
http://constitutionus.com/
That's right, BirfoonLady. There was no non-citizen parent bar.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179665 Nov 16, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
And neither can Dale, even though he doesn't understand a word they said.
Tinker Bell!!! Didn't you know that Mr. Howard changed jus soli to jus sanguinis for citizenship.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law (Law of Nations, by Vattel) and national law (Civil Rights Act) a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Offered and accepted in its entirety and ratified in 1868.

By doing this he neutralized the questions of the Indians, gypsies, Chinese and all persons here temporarily.

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 1,274,412
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr litesong 54,487
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 hr Doug77 6,395
abby8-27-15 4 hr Sublime1 14
ask amy 8-27 5 hr PEllen 7
The Amazing Cashew 6 hr OH Im NUTS 1
Get an online store. Earn $$$$ (Jun '13) 6 hr Shaiilesh 2
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 11 hr RACE 100,626
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages