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

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 ... Full Story

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#181033 Dec 3, 2013
dont snow me wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, queerbait, remember a little thing called 9/11? Was that expensive?
9/11 caused the financial meltdown?

Get a grip.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#181034 Dec 3, 2013
dont snow me wrote:
<quoted text>
Brilliant, yet amazingly stupid at the same time.
Ad hominem, the refuge of the retard who cannot articulate a rebuttal.
wojar wrote:
The drunken engineer is asleep at the switch, during a time interval t1 to t2, it's speed increases from 86 to 95 mph (Out of control). When a sober person takes over the controls, he manages to slow down the train from 95 to 87 mph over the same size time interval (t2 to t3). The distance traveled under the second engineer (during t2 to t3) is greater than that traveled by the train in the interval t1 to t2.
According to birfoon physics, that means the train was speeding up under the second engineer (Obama) and slowing down under the first (Bush). This is despite the fact that it was accelerating out of control under Dubya and decelerating under Obama.
This is because birfoons cannot understand what a derivitave is. Instantaneous velocity ( ds/dt is the first derivative. The rate of change of velocity dv/dt is the second derivative.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#181035 Dec 3, 2013
dont snow me wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, queerbait, remember a little thing called 9/11? Was that expensive?
Fantasy WMD in Iraq was a lot more expensive. Moron.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#181036 Dec 3, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Saddamn Hussein .... Just in case you do not know, shooting at planes is an act of WAR!!!
When Rouge opens his mouth it is an act of stupidity.

Shooting at planes is WMD?

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#181037 Dec 3, 2013
Quiet you numbskulls.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#181038 Dec 3, 2013
Slick Willie wrote:
<quoted text>
As if YOUR opinions matter? Silly little troll.
And Rouge the Retard does not seem to comprehend that the opinions of top legal scholars throughout the history of this country, the Supreme Court, the lower courts, the Electoral College and the Congress is not "YOUR opinions".

Pathetic.
Democracynow org

West Sayville, NY

#181039 Dec 3, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh wow, an Atheists agree with the Socialistic Catholic Church!!!! By the way, did Jesus say the rich should be taxed to give to the poor or did he want the Rich to HELP the poor? There is a very big difference but I am sure you are clueless to what that might be.
Ronald Reagan was Anti-Christian with all his policies that benefited mostly the wealthiest.

==========

Fast Food CEOs Rake in Taxpayer-Subsidized Pay
A new report reveals that fast food companies are pocketing massive taxpayer subsidies for CEO pay while working to keep low-level workers' wages so low that many must rely on public assistance./ December 2, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/lorlj9r
These CEO pay subsidies are the result of a loophole that allows firms to deduct unlimited amounts from their income taxes for the cost of stock options, certain stock grants, and other forms of so-called “performance pay” for top executives. Put simply: the more corporations pay their CEOs, the less they pay in federal taxes. And ordinary taxpayers wind up footing the bill.
During the past two years, the CEOs of the top six publicly held fast food chains pocketed more than $183 million in fully deductible "performance pay," lowering their companies’ IRS bills by an estimated $64 million.
http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/fast-food_ceos_...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#181040 Dec 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! He could have been born in the White House, since at the moment of birth he was a citizen of his father's country.
Yep, Obama was subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation and there is only one way for him to be a US citizen, that would be through naturalization.
Birth on US soil is sufficient, and Obama really was born in Hawaii (as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 all show).

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

Bingham is right, and you are wrong.

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

Hatch is right, and you are wrong.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

The Heritage Foundation is right, and you are wrong.

"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other.“Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297... )

The Wall Street Journal is right, and you are wrong.

"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

Graham is right, and you are wrong.

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...

(They are right, and you are wrong.)
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#181041 Dec 3, 2013
Sorry, quoted Bingham twice and not Hatch:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

And, like Bingham, Hatch is right, and Dale is wrong.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#181042 Dec 3, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
9/11 caused the financial meltdown?
Get a grip.
Well, thanks to GWB, Cheney, Grove, Rice, Rumsfeld et al logic, it did as it got them into two unfunded and unnecessary wars which in turn did not help the financial bottom line.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#181043 Dec 3, 2013
Slick Willie wrote:
<quoted text>
As if YOUR opinions matter? Silly little troll.
His opinion does matter, but that's not important, because he's right. 6 years, and still beating a dead horse. Dead? More like skeletonized.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#181044 Dec 3, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah Tootsie, Iraq was a different issue all together. Saddamn Hussein had violated 27 U.N. mandates and had been shooting at our aircraft. Just in case you do not know, shooting at planes is an act of WAR!!!
And you probably thing the Korean War ended in 1953 too!!! Armistices do not end wars. World War ONE ended in 3 October 2010 and you have no idea why.
<quoted text>
And so, WWI ended Oct 22, 2010, Rogue? Whose interpretation is that? Yours? Can you show us something that says that because reparations were finally paid for in 2010, this is when WW1 ended?

The UN intervened in Korea, with the U.S. the main contributor of troops and equipment. This I don't know, so would be grateful for any lead you can give me on this, Rogue. Did the U.N. OR U.S. formally declare war on North Korea? I don't think so, but would be happy for your guidance on this.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181045 Dec 3, 2013
angel wrote:
<quoted text>Just curious....how does it feel to know that not one single person that matters agrees with you on this issue?
I mean the guy is a year into his second term.....OTHER TEABAGGERS are embarrassed by you and seek to distance themselves from 'birthers'..yet you still keep beating a dead horse.
It kind of sad.(in an utterly hilarious way.)
LMAO!!! When did your opinion ever matter?
Beat a dead horse (democrat party) long enough, it won't come back alive!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181046 Dec 3, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Birth on US soil is sufficient, and Obama really was born in Hawaii (as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 all show).
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
Bingham is right, and you are wrong.
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
Hatch is right, and you are wrong.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
The Heritage Foundation is right, and you are wrong.
"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other.“Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297... )
The Wall Street Journal is right, and you are wrong.
"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
Graham is right, and you are wrong.
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...
(They are right, and you are wrong.)
LMAO!!! Sorry, but English common law wasn't used in creating the "Citizenship Clause" of the 14th amendment.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181047 Dec 3, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
Sorry, quoted Bingham twice and not Hatch:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
And, like Bingham, Hatch is right, and Dale is wrong.
LMAO!!! With the ratification of the 14th Amendment this nation went under jus sanguinis

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#181048 Dec 3, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And in your sick mind FDR did not ignore Pearl Harbor??? Ever hear of the Battle of Taranto which happened 13 months BEFORE the Pearl Harbor attack???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tarant...
Oh, where was Bin Laden killed? It was not in Afghanistan, was it? Pakistan violated the Laws of Neutrality and we had every right to enter their country to get Bin Laden.
And you never explained WHO killed and maimed all those Iraqis, have you?!? But you do imply the U.S. did it ALL!!!
Why do you supply ammunition against your own very self? It's so Catch 22.

Yes, I was waiting for that one, for you to put the first foot into your gaping mouth. Yes, Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. Which begs the question, why'd Bush invade Afghanistan? DOH !

As to FDR, I've mentioned here in my posts, at least 5 times, but you don't read, do you?, that although it's mere speculation on my part, that FDR probably knew about Pearl Harbor. Just because he's a democrat does not mean he's not capable of doing this? LBJ was a democrat, but I have no difficulty stating that the faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident - and at what cost.

WHO killed all those Iraqis? The U.S. killed quite a few. But, Iraqis mainly killed each other, brought on by the U.S. invasion. There was much killing by Saddam before the invasion, yes, but peanuts compared to the killings after the U.S. occupation began, why, they make Saddam look like an altar boy. And look at today, with most U.S.troops out. Tell us how the situation has approved since deposing Saddam. Do tell us. BTW, there were no Catholic or Jewish persecutions under Saddam. How're they doing today? BTW, Hezbollah, Iranians, Al Qaeda, Taliban were not present in Iraq during Saddam's reign. They sure are now. Iraq fortress against your Iranian buddies is no more, Rogue. Oh, you forgot to ask who killed those 4,500 G.I.s and who maimed those 32,000 G.I.s. Were those G.I.s in Iraq on R and R? Who sent them in harm's way?

Quit being a loser apologist. Afghanistan and Iraq were unjustified, totally unjustified. Mistakes. Costly mistakes.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#181049 Dec 3, 2013
Put those dancing shoes on, Rogue, and start the soft shoe. The DJIA is down for a 2nd straight day, or is that the 3rd straight day? Below 16,000. Keep praying, your wish of another recession may just come true. THAT'll show Obama, that BLACK msn unlawfully occupying the WHITE House.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#181050 Dec 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Sorry, but English common law wasn't used in creating the "Citizenship Clause" of the 14th amendment.
Wrong.

Justice Thompson in his majority opinion in Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbour, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), stated: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and IN THOSE OF OUR OWN COUNTRY, that ALL PERSONS born within the colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of Great Britain, were NATURAL BORN BRITISH SUBJECTS" Id at 120 (emphasis added)

Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion the Dred Scott case noted:[W]e find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth. Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)(Curtis, J, dissenting)

Likewise, Justice Story in Levy v. McCartee 31 U.S. 102 (1832), observed the Jus Soli Doctrine as enunciated by Lord Chief Justice Coke: "[I]f an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenæ, subjects born, because they are born within the realm. Id at 113. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99, 164(1830)(Story, J., concurring )(" Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are SUBJECTS BY BIRTH.")

Furthermore, Justice Taft writing for the court in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927)observed:

"The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the JUS SOLI," Id at 660 (emphasis added)

At common law and under the early judicial determinations in the United States it was established that birth in a country conferred citizenship.. In re Reid, 6 F. Supp. 800, 802 (D. Or. 1934)

Finally, the court Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964)
observed: "Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant."

Finally,“United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)

Now you need to explain as to why the courts for the past 180 years has gotten it wrong about the source of our citizenship laws based on Jus Soli principle in English common law.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#181051 Dec 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! With the ratification of the 14th Amendment this nation went under jus sanguinis
Wrong.

Case Law:

“[W]e find that the Constitution has recognized the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth. Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393, 581 (1857)(Curtis, J, dissenting)

"United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Nationality may also be acquired by naturalization and lost by expatriation." Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)

“Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant”. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S 163, 170 (1964)

“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)

"The United States, for example, bestows citizenship to persons born within the United States or its territories (jus soli) and to those born abroad to a citizen parent (jus sanguinis). The combination of these overlapping citizenship rules "must inevitably lead to cases of dual nationality as to children of foreign parents." Wauchope v. US Dept. of State, 756 F. Supp. 1277, 1283 (N.D. Ca 1991)(internal citation omitted), affirmed, 985 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993)

“Many countries confer citizenship based on bloodline (jus sanguinis) rather than, as the United States does, on place of birth (jus soli). US v. Flores-Villar, 536 F. 3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)
Grand Birther

Painesville, OH

#181052 Dec 3, 2013
RUT ROH, BIRFOONS!

It looks like Republicans are trotting out their favourite faux scandals now that the ACA website is running more smoothly.

Benghazi and IRS already falling out Republicans feeble brains this week.

L O L

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min RealDave 1,126,700
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 32 min Mandela 70,098
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr KiMare 50,621
Steve Wilkos : talk show host ? or simple mi... (Feb '08) 2 hr shell 365
Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband (Jun '08) 6 hr Just Saying 54,525
Perfect for Halloween 6 hr Harem 1
Obama Gives Trillions for Wall Street, Not a Di... 7 hr Godly 18
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

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 ]