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 7,937)

Showing posts 158,721 - 158,740 of174,463
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179682
Nov 16, 2013
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
OMG, a major new outlet referred to Obama as "biracial". How can that be when "everyone' says he is black. Why even Obama claims he is .... black.
White mayor, black wife: NYC shatters an image
Associated Press
By JESSE WASHINGTON 6 hours ago
Another milestone is passing in America's racial journey: The next mayor of New York City is a white man with a black wife.
Even in a nation with a biracial president,......
http://news.yahoo.com/white-mayor-black-wife-...
More racial obsessions. Scours the internet for sexual perversions and racial topics and guns and and...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179683
Nov 16, 2013
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
More Americans are now unemployed than were unemployed during the Great Depression!!!
Please prove it. Or are you going to tell me to pound sand?
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179684
Nov 16, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Vattel?
Howard stated his understanding of natural law as pertaining to citizenship, and it was not Vattel.
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
Vattel? Vattel's understanding of jurisdiction is at odds with Play Law. so is every other accepted definition of jurisdiction.
Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.
The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognisance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”
So Dale believes Howard's understanding of citizenship derives from Vattel, even though Howard plainly stated otherwise, and even Vattel's definition of jurisdiction is totally at odds with Play law.
LMAO!!! The only people that are "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)" are citizen.(see 14th amendment)

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179685
Nov 16, 2013
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
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?
<quoted text>
Where did I say that? No, it started before 2009. In fact it started right after we captured Iraq.
But Obama stopped fighting it and ordered our troops to remain in the camps so they would not get hurt.
Ya know, if policemen remain in the police stations, very few cops will get hurt. But by doing so they turn the streets over to the criminals and many more innocent people become crime victims.
Yes,that's what you said. And that post above, do you even know how full of "IT" you are?

The insurgency was full-blown. Americans AND Iraqis were killing each other by the ton whilst nothing was working. Wasn't it smarter to retire to barracks, wait for the withdrawal and let the different Moslem sects kill each other off, which, incidentally they were not doing when Saddam was in charge.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179686
Nov 16, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Tinker Bell!!! Jus sanguinis has been the law since 1868. Now we know why Gray made the following.
“Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”
"Tinker Bell!!! " ? Who else says that?
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179687
Nov 16, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Vattel?
Howard stated his understanding of natural law as pertaining to citizenship, and it was not Vattel.
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
Vattel? Vattel's understanding of jurisdiction is at odds with Play Law. so is every other accepted definition of jurisdiction.
Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.
The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognisance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”
So Dale believes Howard's understanding of citizenship derives from Vattel, even though Howard plainly stated otherwise, and even Vattel's definition of jurisdiction is totally at odds with Play law.
LMAO!!

212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Frank

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179688
Nov 16, 2013
 
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for NOT replying relevantly in place of Rogue.
You can agree that our country is much worst off now than before Obama was elected?
Frank

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179689
Nov 16, 2013
 
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
The short answer is that we do not impeach presidents anymore.
Difference between Obama and Cruz is that Cruz was not born here.
We can impeach a President, we just can't impeach a Democrat President when the Senate is controlled by Democrats. Cruz is one hundred times the better man than Obama. Why would any one vote for a dishonest,corrupt carpet-beggar, who refuses to tell the truth?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179690
Nov 16, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" simply means not subject to a foreign power at birth, this would mean the father must be a citizens of the US(Jus sanguinis).
Sorry, it would mean the father must not be a foreign diplomat who would not be "subject to their laws".

“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).(May 23, 1866)

Senator Howard clearly didn't believe in the Play Law definition of jurisdiction. Neither did Bingham, Trumbull, the Federal courts nor just about anyone else.
Sorry:
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
"EVERY COUNTRY" wherein Dufus Dale's misinformed Play Law reading of the US Constitution could not possibly apply.
Little child Dale is trying to import his play law into Howard's understanding of the law, which Howard, Bingham, and Trumbull all rejected. All three were on board with jus soli and stated clearly so.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Vattel?

Howard stated his understanding of natural law as pertaining to citizenship, and it was not Vattel.

“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).

Vattel? Vattel's understanding of jurisdiction is at odds with Play Law. so is every other accepted definition of jurisdiction.
Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.

The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognizance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”

So Dale believes Howard's understanding of citizenship derives from Vattel, even though Howard plainly stated otherwise, and even Vattel's definition of jurisdiction is totally at odds with Play law.
Frank

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179692
Nov 16, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Frank, the "Immigration department" never told any alien that their children born in the US would not be eligible to be President.(strike 1) 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.
Incidentally, the INS is not the Supreme Court (strike 2) 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. and Barack Obama's Obama's father never ran for President (strike 3, you're out). You admit the Barack Obama is the son of a Kenyan British Subject. 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.
<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. 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.
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179693
Nov 16, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, it would mean the father must not be a foreign diplomat who would not be "subject to their laws".
“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).(May 23, 1866)
Senator Howard clearly didn't believe in the Play Law definition of jurisdiction. Neither did Bingham, Trumbull, the Federal courts nor just about anyone else.
Sorry:
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
"EVERY COUNTRY" wherein Dufus Dale's misinformed Play Law reading of the US Constitution could not possibly apply.
Little child Dale is trying to import his play law into Howard's understanding of the law, which Howard, Bingham, and Trumbull all rejected. All three were on board with jus soli and stated clearly so.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! In the Civil Rights Act, it made it very plain in the first sentence (twice) that people born in the US and subject to other nations would not be citizens, thereof.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179694
Nov 16, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!
212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Vattel's section 212 was clearly not the "natural law" Howard was referring to.

“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).

Applying Vattel's very own definition of jurisdiction to Howard's quote above is inconsistent with Vattel's jus sanguinis rule. Using Vattel's definition of jurisdiction or the definition as understood by every country and as stated in Black's Law Dictionary puts the lie to Dufus Dale's Play Law theory.

In other words, Play Law breaks down.

On the other hand, when "owing allegiance" is understood in the context of natural allegiance from common law to one born on the soil (and with the notion of local allegiance that applied to aliens (such as parents) in a foreign country) Howard's statements are fully consistent with his stated understanding of the applicability of the jus soli rule under the Constitution.

But Dale would rather play children's games with his broken fantasies.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Vattel?
Howard stated his understanding of natural law as pertaining to citizenship, and it was not Vattel.
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
Vattel? Vattel's understanding of jurisdiction is at odds with Play Law. so is every other accepted definition of jurisdiction.
Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.
The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognisance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”
So Dale believes Howard's understanding of citizenship derives from Vattel, even though Howard plainly stated otherwise, and even Vattel's definition of jurisdiction is totally at odds with Play law.
p/QUOTE]
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179695
Nov 16, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, it would mean the father must not be a foreign diplomat who would not be "subject to their laws".
“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).(May 23, 1866)
Senator Howard clearly didn't believe in the Play Law definition of jurisdiction. Neither did Bingham, Trumbull, the Federal courts nor just about anyone else.
Sorry:
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
"EVERY COUNTRY" wherein Dufus Dale's misinformed Play Law reading of the US Constitution could not possibly apply.
Little child Dale is trying to import his play law into Howard's understanding of the law, which Howard, Bingham, and Trumbull all rejected. All three were on board with jus soli and stated clearly so.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! The US Constitution has jurisdiction over this Republic and being "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" simply means the Constitution, for it is the law of the land.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179696
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. 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.
Barack Obama's father was not eligible to be POTUS. So what?

The "immigration department" said? Since when did the "immigration department' determine who is eligible to be President?

Frank, did you forget your Aricept?

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179697
Nov 16, 2013
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
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?
<quoted text>
Where did I say that? No, it started before 2009. In fact it started right after we captured Iraq.
But Obama stopped fighting it and ordered our troops to remain in the camps so they would not get hurt.
Ya know, if policemen remain in the police stations, very few cops will get hurt. But by doing so they turn the streets over to the criminals and many more innocent people become crime victims.
Rouge realy we could never win in Vietnam The French was there from 1887 to 1954 they could not win. When the Japanese were they they could not win. Google Walter Cronkite & President Kennedy in a interview said Vietnamese must fight their own battles we can train them but they MUST DO THE FIGHTING. Also read NSAM 263 and the RECOMMENDATIONS
One part says A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time
If President Kenned had lived No Vietnam War.
Gen Douglas MacArthur said Never get involved in a land war in Asia. How right he was.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179698
Nov 16, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The only people that are "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)" are citizen.(see 14th amendment)
That is not stated in the 14th Amendment, was never stated by Howard, Bingham or Trummbull, or by the courts. It is also inconsistent with the definition of jurisdiction held by every independent nation of the world.

Dufus Dale believes that only the US is not fully a sovereign nation and needs permission from foreign countries to exercise authority over all persons within its dominions.
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179699
Nov 16, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Vattel's section 212 was clearly not the "natural law" Howard was referring to.
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
Applying Vattel's very own definition of jurisdiction to Howard's quote above is inconsistent with Vattel's jus sanguinis rule. Using Vattel's definition of jurisdiction or the definition as understood by every country and as stated in Black's Law Dictionary puts the lie to Dufus Dale's Play Law theory.
In other words, Play Law breaks down.
On the other hand, when "owing allegiance" is understood in the context of natural allegiance from common law to one born on the soil (and with the notion of local allegiance that applied to aliens (such as parents) in a foreign country) Howard's statements are fully consistent with his stated understanding of the applicability of the jus soli rule under the Constitution.
But Dale would rather play children's games with his broken fantasies.
<quoted text>
p/QUOTE]
LMAO!!! The citizenship clause is about who will be citizens, is it not.
When one is born in the US of an alien father that child automatically receives the citizenship and allegiance of his father's country of origin.
The US hasn't the right to strip a foreign citizenship from anyone, unless requested by the holder.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179700
Nov 16, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Tinker Bell!!! Jus sanguinis has been the law since 1868. Now we know why Gray made the following.
“Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”
Not (jus sanguinis) according to Justice Gray (and the majority), who Dufus is quoting. The court held that persons born here are natural born citizens even if the parents are aliens. That was the reason why Ark was held to be a citizen: he was natural born and needed no naturalization.

According to Dufus Dale, jus sanguinis has been the law, but no one knew it. Not even Howard, Bingham, or Trumbull. Now what happened to all those presumptive citizens who lost their citizenship after the 14th was ratified? According to Play Law their children are also aliens, and so 99% of the public in the US are ALIENS!

Moron.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, Dale cannot understand a word Howard said. Howard was 100% in support of the jus soli rule and he stated so.
“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).(May 23, 1866)
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
So either Howard did not understand his own words or Dale is terribly confused and illiterate.
Frank

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179701
Nov 16, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Barack Obama's father was not eligible to be POTUS. So what?
The "immigration department" said? Since when did the "immigration department' determine who is eligible to be President?
Frank, did you forget your Aricept?
Barack Obama is a first generation Kenyan American. His father was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179702
Nov 16, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The citizenship clause is about who will be citizens, is it not.
When one is born in the US of an alien father that child automatically receives the citizenship and allegiance of his father's country of origin.
The US hasn't the right to strip a foreign citizenship from anyone, unless requested by the holder.
Sorry Dale, you quoted Howard who stated "natural law" applies, and asserting that Howard meant Vattel's natural law. However when Howard's very own explanation of natural law is combined with Vattel's definition of jurisdiction (wherein aliens are under the jurisdiction of their host country) the rule that emerges is JUS SOLI.

That means your PLAY LAW THEORY IS BROKEN, a house of cards that falls, implodes, under its own weight and due to its own inconsistency.

It means Dale is hoist by his own petard. It means Dale is yelling "Help I fell and I can't get up!" So he falls back on the discredited US can't strip bullshit again. The US is a sovereign nation and can decide who its citizens are without regard to what the UK or North Korea think. The UK and North Korea can call anyone they want a citizen and it has no effect on the Power of the US to declare who its citizens are, especially when they are in the US. The US is a sovereign nation and needs no special permission to act as a sovereign nation.

Grow up!
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Vattel's section 212 was clearly not the "natural law" Howard was referring to.
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).

Applying Vattel's very own definition of jurisdiction to Howard's quote above is inconsistent with Vattel's jus sanguinis rule. Using Vattel's definition of jurisdiction or the definition as understood by every country and as stated in Black's Law Dictionary puts the lie to Dufus Dale's Play Law theory.

In other words, Play Law breaks down.

On the other hand, when "owing allegiance" is understood in the context of natural allegiance from common law to one born on the soil (and with the notion of local allegiance that applied to aliens (such as parents) in a foreign country) Howard's statements are fully consistent with his stated understanding of the applicability of the jus soli rule under the Constitution.

But Dale would rather play children's games with his broken fantasies.
<quoted text>

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 158,721 - 158,740 of174,463
|
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.

74 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min lily boca raton fl 1,078,443
Abby 7-23 6 min Pippa 7
Our Cities Will Burn Because We Didn’t Protect ... 9 min Michael Snyder 1
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 11 min danetoo 67,874
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 19 min Notthatitmatters 3,826
Debate: Marijuana - Chicago, IL (Aug '10) 21 min Brian Shepard 296
Amy 7-23 25 min Pippa 7
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 23 at 10:02AM CDT

•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••