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
158,681 - 158,700 of 174,518 Comments Last updated 46 min ago

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179642
Nov 16, 2013
 
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Rouge thinks that the oil companies that benefit from American interest in the gulf are going to help Americans save money!!!!
BAhhhahahaha.
You do know there are about 150 oil companies here in America, don't you? How many times has the Democrat controlled House of Congress tried to prove there was a conspiracy but could not find any?
If there was only two or three companies, that would be possible but not with a 150?!?
Get a brain!!!
You do know the average American farmer has a high profit MARGIN than the average oil company, don't you?
Do you know that the Federal, State and local governments make more profit off of oil than the oil companies do, don't you??? Probably not as you do not know the difference between profit and profit margin!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179643
Nov 16, 2013
 
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
LBJ didn't lose Vietnam. You can thank General Westmoreland with his outdated WWII tactics of search and destroy in a country where the enemy can dictate when and where to fight. His tactic of attrition was unsuited in a warfare that numbers didn't mean anything to the enemy where he was able to sustain losses 100 to 1 American.
Furthermore, by underreporting the actual strenght of the enemy forces to his superiors including the President as far back as 1965
so as to increase the size of the United States forces in Vietnman from 200,00 in 1965 to 540,000 in 1968.
In his own words, it was General Westmoreland's strategy "not to defeat the North Vietnamese army."
Ah, it was LBJ and and SecDef McNamara that were cherry picking the targets. You have no idea of what you talk about.
Tell us, when did we mine Haiphong Harbor? Was it 1962 or was it ... 1972?

Vietnam War
See also: Operation Rolling Thunder, Operation Linebacker , and Operation Linebacker II

Late in the Vietnam War, Haiphong was subjected to heavy bombing by US Navy and Air Force strike aircraft because it was North Vietnam's only major port. U.S. Admiral Thomas H. Moorer ordered the mining of Haiphong harbor on 8 May 1972, effectively sealing the port. Until it was lifted, the mining caused no casualty.[6] Despite being targeted, the physical structure of the city was mostly unaffected by the war as the US had a self-imposed prohibition zone for the city. After the war, the city recovered its role as a significant industrial center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiphong

Oh, please note they do not mention Nixon but do you really thing Adm. Moore made the decision all on his own? Or did the author of this article not want to give Nixon credit?!?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179644
Nov 16, 2013
 
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?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179645
Nov 16, 2013
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Question, who killed and maimed most of those Iraqis? Bush???
Next, Iraq's oil supply was added to the world supply. Case in point, what was the cost of gasoline in the U.S. when Bush left office?
$1.84 per gallon in Jan. 2009!
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2009/...
Now, what is the price TODAY?!? Now, shut the F-up!
You question : "Question, who killed and maimed most of those Iraqis? Bush???"

Answer : Yes

Yes, it was $1.84. What is it now and if you add inflation, what should it be and if the intervention in Iraq was meant to protect oil sources and keep the price low, what happened, Rogue?

And in a final fit of frustration, what with your lies, innumerable lies catching up with you, all that's left is : "Now, shut the F-up!" Poor, very poor.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179654
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179660
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

91 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Grey Ghost 1,079,232
Abby 7-24 15 min Sublime1 9
Amy 7-24 23 min boundary painter 16
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 25 min boundary painter 4,546
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 33 min andet1987 461
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 33 min Terry rigsby 48,872
Word (Dec '08) 46 min boundary painter 4,582
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 6 hr edogxxx 97,516
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••