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
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#184233 Jan 17, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>I care if OUR president is having problems. Do you really think the LSM would do a story about a Democrat president that did not show him in a good light? But they would do a story about a Republican, G.W., using a fraudulent document and claim it was true?
A PHOTOCOPY of a document with Air Force letterhead in Army format done by a word processor what was not rare at the time!!! And why did Dan Blather retire when he did?!?
Right. Because no one ever reported about Clinton's activities.

Rather was a fool and got what he deserved. Do you think no FauxCon reporter would run with a bogus report about Obama because they really really wanted it to be true? Only difference. Fox would give them a raise when the truth came out

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#184234 Jan 17, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Er, care to comment on your statement that Obama said he was a dual citizen?
<quoted text>
Ha ha. DALE SCENARIO :
Early morning. Alarm clock goes off, Dale wakes up.
Dale : "What can I make up today about Obama?"
Dale thinks, times slowly ebbs. Thinking for Dale is long, arduous task.
Dale : "I KNOW, I'll write in Topix, right now that Obama STATED he was a dual citizen. Fellow birthers will applaud me and when challenged as to whether Obama said it or not by that Canuck socialist liberal Marxist progressive, I'll duck and say he's irrelevant".
And so it came to pass that Dale, ex-Justice,(LRS -Dale tm reg'd) told his 2000th Topix hate-lie/fabrication..
Dale:(when confronted with case law citations disapproving his folderol NBC theories makes a pithy and profound rebuttal)
LMAO!!!!

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#184235 Jan 17, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! You really should brush-up on the Kenyan Constitutions before posting such crap!!!
TURD!!!
The applicable section of the Kenyan Constitution at the time of President Obama's birth in 1961:

Chapter VI
97. Dual citizenship
1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and ALSO A CITIZEN OF SOME COUNTRY OTHER THAN KENYA shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya. made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.

When Obama reached his 21st birthday, he was no longer a citizen of Kenya since Kenya's constitution prohibits dual citizenship in adulthood. Obama had therefore automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 21, in 1924.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184236 Jan 17, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oh, I hate whiny Liberals. In 1976 I had a night Medevac mission on Oahu, HI and had to land at the dairy farm on the north shore. The dairy farm was a "no fly" (avoid) area but there as a head-on car crash so at nine PM I came in hot and fast passing over a small neighbor at about 500 feet above the ground.
A few days later someone filed a lawsuit claiming that he and his wife were so scared they ran out of their house and she got a gash in her leg while trying to jump the fence. I was called to give a sworn statement for a "line of duty" investigation. Because I was in line of duty, they could not sue me as an individual and I have no idea if they continued to sue the Army.
Hey Libtards stay in your houses, if I crash into your house I might get hurt and I do not want to hurt myself!
So, these people, who had every right to be startled, are automatically "libtards" (Rogue tm reg'd) and "whiny Liberals". Repubs never complain about cowboy flyers, right? That's how you judge stuff and yet they're still renewing your pilot's and driver's licence. I'd stay away, far far away.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184237 Jan 17, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, if they bought their house after the airport was built, they have no case. If they did not want to live bear a noisy airport, they should have bought property, or rented, further out.
That is like going into a private club and complaining about cigaret smoke. If you don't live cig-smoke, go eat someplace else.
Oh, there is a truckstop with five miles of me which as a smoking "porch" added on to their restaurant so you can smoke while you eat. One side is a screened wall. You can really tell the die hard smokers when it is as cold as it was this morning!
Oh, I have never smoked anything but as long as they don't blow smoke in my face, I don't give a hoot.
Rarely do I agree with you, but this time, I do and disagree with loose. Yes, there are legitimate complaints, why not? But our airport here in Ottawa, for example, which has grown in leaps and bounds the last 25 years,(and I know, I was raised here) had nothing but empty fields and sand pits around it. Yet, in the last 20 years, the housing developments have mushroomed all around the airport (why the city grants building permits....) and, guess what, these "new" arrivals are already complaining, some of them suing. Poppycock.

Also, and this is important, the noise footprint, along with NAP (noise abatement procedures - dangerous, by the way) have cut noise levels by more than half in the last quarter century. I've often been around planes taking off. Not that much noise.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#184238 Jan 17, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The "citizenship clause" wasn't written under English common law, or haven't you noticed that, TURD.
Hey everybody DALE has found a new word to add to his vocabulary and that word is TURD!
We should be seeing more of this word being used extensively by DALE since like a kid with a new toy he can't get enough of it.

Examples of DALE using TURD as an answer.

Why did the chicken cross the road? TURD!!!

What is the difference between Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis? TURD!

Isn't it wonderful that DALE has discovered a new word to rebut any well constructed argument? Isn't it better than his hackneyed expression LMAO?

I am very pleased that DALE is maturing from a two year old to a three year old.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#184239 Jan 17, 2014
Jacques,
Senator Inhofe is one of the biggest idiots on Capital Hill.
I look forward with eager anticipation the findings of the NTSB into his hotdog son's plane crash.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184240 Jan 17, 2014
Oh, Rogue, BTW, how about those extreme heat , drought and forest fire situations in California and Australia? Why haven't you come forward with those?
I know they don't matter on a grander scale of global weather, but you seem to think so when it's a cold wave. So...
Learn to Read

Shelbyville, IN

#184241 Jan 17, 2014
loose cannon wrote:
Jacques,
Senator Inhofe is one of the biggest idiots on Capital Hill.
I look forward with eager anticipation the findings of the NTSB into his hotdog son's plane crash.
Oh good

Another moron taking their hate for the father and extending it to his family. Another worm

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184242 Jan 17, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Senior UK Defense Advisor: Obama Is Clueless About ‘What He Wants To Do In The World’
Sir Hew Strachan, an expert on the history of war, says that the president’s strategic failures in Afghanistan and Syria have crippled America’s position in the world.
President Obama is “chronically incapable” of military strategy and falls far short of his predecessor George W. Bush, according to one of Britain’s most senior military advisors.
Sir Hew Strachan, an advisor to the Chief of the Defense Staff, told The Daily Beast that the United States and Britain were guilty of total strategic failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama’s attempts to intervene on behalf of the Syrian rebels “has left them in a far worse position than they were before.”
The extraordinary critique by a leading advisor to the United States’ closest military ally comes days after Obama was undermined by the former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who questioned the President’s foreign policy decisions and claimed he was deeply suspicious of the military.
Strachan, a current member of the Chief of the Defense Staff’s Strategic Advisory Panel, cited the “crazy” handling of the Syrian crisis as the most egregious example of a fundamental collapse in military planning that began in the aftermath of 9/11.“If anything it’s gone backwards instead of forwards, Obama seems to be almost chronically incapable of doing this. Bush may have had totally fanciful political objectives in terms of trying to fight a global War on Terror, which was inherently astrategic, but at least he had a clear sense of what he wanted to do in the world. Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world,” he said.
“Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world.”
The dithering over intervention against President Bashar al-Assad has empowered the Syrian ruler, undermined America’s military reputation and destabilized the Middle East, said Strachan.“What he’s done in talking about Red Lines in relation to Syria has actually other issue is that in starting and stopping with Assad, he’s left those who might be his natural allies in Syria with nowhere to go. He’s increased the likelihood that if there is a change of regime in Syria that it will be an Islamic fundamentalist one.”
Britain’s shock parliamentary vote against military action in Syria also exposed Prime Minister David Cameron’s lack of a clear strategy.“It absolutely illustrated the failure to think through the strategic implications of his own actions,” said Strachan.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01...
Sir Hew Strachan, an overly educated man, must have pleased you no end on account of his criticism of Obama.

So, "President Obama is “chronically incapable” of military strategy and falls far short of his predecessor George W. Bush"? Really? Cute.Stracham fails to mention that it was GWB who invaded Afghanistan with the sole purpose of killing Bin Laden. He failed. He got the U.S. embroiled in a sure defeat in that country, after which he got the U.S. further embroiled in surer defeat in Iraq. Oh, BTW, the U.K eagerly joined the U.S. in both Afghanistan AND Iraq. It cost Blair his job. No comment from Stracham?. Oh, did you know it was that inept military leader,Obama, who finished Stracham's hero's GWB's mission by having Bin Laden killed, a mission dubbed by former Def sec Gates as the most courageous of presidential decisions?Later on Gates, except to say,was the man a trusted minister for Obama if what he writes about his doubts and disrespect is true?

As to Syria, Obama got the chemical gas out.His red line in the sand turned out pretty well, no? The rebels are Al Qaeda and Taliban. You think Hassad is bad? Just wait. The regime is cruel and despotic. Who would YOU choose? Libya was a good lesson, no? He learned. Can't you?

PS : sorry,Rogue, had to chop off a few words.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#184243 Jan 17, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Tell that to the framers of the "citizenship clause", dumb ass.
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does NOT say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. Nor does it say that a dual citizen at the time of birth cannot be president (and in fact both Woodrow Wilson and Dwight D. Eisenhower were dual citizens at their births). There is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

Under libertarian principles, neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not allow the taking away of the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not do so for US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things or allow the taking away. It does not SAY any such thing.

And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

Why? Why, when there isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Dale's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.

And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.

Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time? Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington, who was not afraid of much, or Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton, or the others, was afraid of US-born children of foreigners, such as your ancestors?

IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners, they WOULD HAVE SAID SO, but they never said so, so why assume that they were? Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Only slimy Dale. Why SLIMY Dale? Why?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184244 Jan 17, 2014
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
The applicable section of the Kenyan Constitution at the time of President Obama's birth in 1961:
Chapter VI
97. Dual citizenship
1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and ALSO A CITIZEN OF SOME COUNTRY OTHER THAN KENYA shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya. made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.
When Obama reached his 21st birthday, he was no longer a citizen of Kenya since Kenya's constitution prohibits dual citizenship in adulthood. Obama had therefore automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 21, in 1924.
Your post is irrelevant.
Elk v. Wilkins (1884)
"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the(((( time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other)))). Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184245 Jan 17, 2014
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey everybody DALE has found a new word to add to his vocabulary and that word is TURD!
We should be seeing more of this word being used extensively by DALE since like a kid with a new toy he can't get enough of it.
Examples of DALE using TURD as an answer.
Why did the chicken cross the road? TURD!!!
What is the difference between Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis? TURD!
Isn't it wonderful that DALE has discovered a new word to rebut any well constructed argument? Isn't it better than his hackneyed expression LMAO?
I am very pleased that DALE is maturing from a two year old to a three year old.
LMAO!!! Post when you have something relevant.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184246 Jan 17, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that was in reference to untaxed American Indians! "Untaxed" American Indians are not counted on our census as per our Constitution.
From Wiki: The population of a state originally included (for congressional apportionment purposes) all "free persons", three-fifths of "other persons" (i.e., slaves) and excluded untaxed Native Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_t...
Just showing that citizenship begins at birth, not 20 years down the road.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184247 Jan 17, 2014
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does NOT say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. Nor does it say that a dual citizen at the time of birth cannot be president (and in fact both Woodrow Wilson and Dwight D. Eisenhower were dual citizens at their births). There is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.
Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.
Under libertarian principles, neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not allow the taking away of the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not do so for US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things or allow the taking away. It does not SAY any such thing.
And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?
Why? Why, when there isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Dale's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles?
The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.
There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.
And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.
Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time? Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington, who was not afraid of much, or Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton, or the others, was afraid of US-born children of foreigners, such as your ancestors?
IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners, they WOULD HAVE SAID SO, but they never said so, so why assume that they were? Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Only slimy Dale. Why SLIMY Dale? Why?
Explain why a naturalized citizen can't run for POTUS, then you will under stand what a Natural Born Citizen is.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#184248 Jan 17, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Explain why a naturalized citizen can't run for POTUS, then you will under stand what a Natural Born Citizen is.
The irony is that Dufus Dale doesn't understand what a natural born citizen is and he doesn't have a clue the definition of jurisdiction. He conflates citizenship and jurisdiction, cannot understand that foreign countries cannot determine who is a US citizen, doesn't have a clue that his fantasy violates the principle of of sovereignty ....

Pathetic. He will never understand what is a natural born citizen. He will never understand that he will never have any authority or respect or a clue in matters of law. He will never understand that he is a grandiose delusional schizophrenic either.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#184249 Jan 17, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Just showing that citizenship begins at birth, not 20 years down the road.
Obama's US Natural Born Citizenship began at the moment of his birth in Honolulu.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#184250 Jan 17, 2014
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison

Yup, born here means no foreign allegiance, "it is what applies in the United States."
Frank

Spokane, WA

#184251 Jan 17, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Obama's US Natural Born Citizenship began at the moment of his birth in Honolulu.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution :
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” National Born Citizenship is a birthright given to a child by his father,it can not be affected by any one in Congress and there is no law of the United States under which nationality acquired by the act of his father can be removed or changed. Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan British Subject and was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#184252 Jan 17, 2014
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution :
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” National Born Citizenship is a birthright given to a child by his father,it can not be affected by any one in Congress and there is no law of the United States under which nationality acquired by the act of his father can be removed or changed. Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan British Subject and was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day.
Sorry Frank, there is nothing in the Constitution stating that birthright citizenship derives from parentage.

"[B]ut in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison

Frank, do you have a clue what "it is what applies in the United States" means?

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) 8 min Incognito4Ever 1,110,199
Amy 9-16 13 min ralph 56
Amy 9-17-14 13 min Stina2 17
Amy 9-14-14 15 min Stina2 8
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 16 min Yumpin Yimminy 68,479
Amy 9-18 20 min Stina2 13
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 38 min mahz 49,829
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 6 hr edogxxx 98,227
•••
•••

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 ]
•••