BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 243092 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#173930 Oct 4, 2013
Therealnews com wrote:
<quoted text>
I would not want you to change your Modus Operandi under any circumstances.
Enclosed is 100% proof the Republican party does not live by our Constitutional laws.
Most in Congress DO NOT BELIEVE in the US Constitution.
If they did, they would have impeached:
LBJ for lying about the Gulf of Tonkin.
Nixon for Watergate.
Reagan/Bush for Iran/Contra.
Bush/Cheney for WMD in Iraq.
Wake Up And Smell The Coffee.
Forthwith.
Since when does lying, out of court, an impeachable offence? I noticed you did not mention Bill Clinton and he was the only one impeached and it was for lying ..... in court!!!
See, you do not understand our Constitution. You read into it things you want and disregard the things that upset you!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#173931 Oct 4, 2013
Therealnews com wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush Republicans are antidemocratic with an attraction to authoritarianism.
Liberals are always trying to enfranchise citizens and Bush Republicans always try to block some citizens from voting.( BLACKS & Latinos )!
Liberals defend the Constitution and long standing institutions like Social Security and Medicare.
Bush Republicans want the USA to go back to the Gilded Age and privatize Social Security and undo “The New Deal”!
----------
Trent Lott, Ronald Reagan and Republican Racism
Dec. 14, 2002 / http://tinyurl.com/d9w75
Southern Strategy: The race question has haunted Reagan and the GOP for decades
The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it's with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican's selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,859...
There you go playing the race card. They just don't want to check the IDs of Blacks and Hispanics but all voters regardless of skin color whereas you know that blacks vote Democrat 90+% of the time so you want them to vote three or four times!
Every citizen has the right to vote by only once. It is you Democrats that are trying to stop our military from voting and if anyone deserves to have their vote counted it is the men and women who serve our country.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173932 Oct 4, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingham also said:
“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)”
His immediate next sentence will not be looked upon favorably by birfoons:“Who does not know, therefore, that all the natural born persons in the United States, men, women, and children, are citizens of the United States.”

Recall that birfoons refer to "citizen of the United States" as a third class of citizen. Not so according to Bingham (or any scholar or authority).

And here is the correct citation: Cong. Globe 40th Cong. 2nd Sess. 2212 (1868). The incorrect citation seems to have a life of its own on the web.

Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869) is incorrect.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173933 Oct 4, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when does lying, out of court, an impeachable offence? I noticed you did not mention Bill Clinton and he was the only one impeached and it was for lying ..... in court!!!
See, you do not understand our Constitution. You read into it things you want and disregard the things that upset you!
Birfoons do not understand the significance of context. Publicly lying about a major event such as the Gulf of Tonkin thereby deceiving the American people about an issue of great national concern could be considered an impeachable offense. Lying under oath about a matter that is not material, such as Bill's BJ is not.
Dale

United States

#173934 Oct 4, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer: Here is the citizenship part of the 14th Amendment.
"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. "
And since Bingham, one of the key writers of that section of the 14th Amendment, says that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, the term "jurisdiction" cannot exclude the US-born children of foreigners. Currently it excludes only the US-born children of foreign diplomats, who are the only people in the USA who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
“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)”
"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)
“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).
“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.]
"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 ...)
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 ...
LMAO!!! As you should know, the 14th amendment is the Civil Rights Act of 1866, just put in a place where it can't be overturned without an amendment

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173935 Oct 4, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Not so, aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution), if so they would be called citizens.(see 14th amendment)
The remainder of you post has been answered many times.
According to Senator Lyman Trumbull you're FOS.

“Then, when we came to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment it was suggested by some persons that there might still be a cavil upon this question as to whether all persons born in the United States were citizens, and it was thought advisable, for the purpose of putting that question once and forever at rest, to insert the words which are in the fourteenth amendment, declaring that all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction were citizens of the United States. In my opinion, that has not changed at all the fact that after the abolition of slavery, and after the authority of the States to deprive persons of liberty ceased, every person born in the United States was a citizen of the United States. I do not think there could have been any question that they were all citizens without the declaration in the civil rights act or without the declaration in the fourteenth amendment. Who believes any court would have held that a person born in the United States was not a citizen if slavery had never existed?” Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 42nd, 1st Sess, 575-576 (April 11, 1871).
Dale

United States

#173936 Oct 4, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Aliens inside the USA ARE subject to the jurisdiction, and so are their US-born children. The only people in the USA who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA are the families of foreign diplomats.
“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)”
LMAO!!! Aliens in the US are subject to treaties, but are never subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)!!! If aliens were "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", they would have all the rights as a citizen, thereof!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173937 Oct 4, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! As you should know, the 14th amendment is the Civil Rights Act of 1866, just put in a place where it can't be overturned without an amendment
According to Senator Lyman Trumbull, who drafted the Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 contains words "declaring that all persons born in the United States were citizens."

But illiterate drop-out Dale knows better what Senator Trumbull wrote than the Senator himself?

“It was because of the idea which obtained before the adoption of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that slaves were property and not persons, that it was thought proper to embody in the civil rights bill the declaration that all persons born in the United States were citizens. I did not think at that time it was necessary. I recollect that I had a discussion on that very point with the then Senator from Maryland, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, as to the propriety of inserting in the civil rights act those words declaring that all persons born in the United States were citizens. We both agreed that after the abolition of slavery everybody born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States was a citizen of the United States; but we both thought that in consequence of the declaration which had been annunciated in the Dred Scott case, and also in order that there might be no cavil about it, it was better to declare it by law.” ASenator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 42nd, 1st Sess, 575-576 (April 11, 1871).
Dale

United States

#173938 Oct 4, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingham also said:
“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)”
LMAO!!!

congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
LMAO!!!

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[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]

(* supreme power or authority)

"All persons born in the US and not subject to any foreign power are citizens" (Civil Rights act of 1866)

Now what is a foreign power? It is a nation/country other than the US.

Obama was born a citizen of a foreign power, yes/no. After all, he has stated this, so this precludes him from being a US citizen, unless you want to call a divorce a naturalization process.

You can bitch, piss and moan, but
Dale

United States

#173939 Oct 4, 2013
wojar wrote:
And later in 1871 Senator Trumbull explained the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth Amendment: "every person born in the United States was a citizen of the United States." Senator Lyman Trumbull, cong. Globe 42nd, 1st Sess, 575-576 (April 11, 1871).
He had moments earlier read the ambassador's children exception from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, p. 274:
"The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent...."
Trumbull, Howard, and Bingham were all in agreement that the Fourteenth Amendment made persons born in the US natural born citizens without regard to parentage except for the long held rare exceptions.
LMAO!!! Stop spinning your wheels, you're just like the other socialist on this thread, losers.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#173940 Oct 4, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
His immediate next sentence will not be looked upon favorably by birfoons:“Who does not know, therefore, that all the natural born persons in the United States, men, women, and children, are citizens of the United States.”
Recall that birfoons refer to "citizen of the United States" as a third class of citizen. Not so according to Bingham (or any scholar or authority).
And here is the correct citation: Cong. Globe 40th Cong. 2nd Sess. 2212 (1868). The incorrect citation seems to have a life of its own on the web.
Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869) is incorrect.
Now, see if your little brain can figure out who he was speaking about in 1869. Doofus

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173941 Oct 4, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Children born in the US of aliens receive the citizenship of their fathers, making them ineligible to be citizens of the US.
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[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]
(* supreme power or authority)
"All persons born in the US and not subject to any foreign power are citizens" Civil Rights act of 1866
John Bingham did not consider children born in the US of alien parents to owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. He believed as did James Madison that place of birth is the surest criterion of allegiance. A child born on US soil owes complete and immediate allegiance to the United States by the tie of natural allegiance, which pertains to the natural born citizen, consistent with natural law as elaborated according to Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries.

Bingham stated that birth in the US is what makes one a natural born citizen. He said it before and after 1866.

Bingham's statements are inconsistent with Dufus Dales hare-brained redefinition of jurisdiction which turns sovereignty on its head.

“The constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words “natural-born citizen of the United States” occur in it, and the other provisions also occur in it that “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural-born citizens. John Bingham, Cong. Globe 37th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1639 (1862).

“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. Who does not know, therefore, that all the natural born persons in the United States, men, women, and children, are citizens of the United States.” Rep. Bingham Cong. Globe 40th Cong. 2nd Sess. 2212 (1868).
Dale

United States

#173942 Oct 4, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
According to Senator Lyman Trumbull, who drafted the Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 contains words "declaring that all persons born in the United States were citizens."
But illiterate drop-out Dale knows better what Senator Trumbull wrote than the Senator himself?
“It was because of the idea which obtained before the adoption of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that slaves were property and not persons, that it was thought proper to embody in the civil rights bill the declaration that all persons born in the United States were citizens. I did not think at that time it was necessary. I recollect that I had a discussion on that very point with the then Senator from Maryland, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, as to the propriety of inserting in the civil rights act those words declaring that all persons born in the United States were citizens. We both agreed that after the abolition of slavery everybody born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States was a citizen of the United States; but we both thought that in consequence of the declaration which had been annunciated in the Dred Scott case, and also in order that there might be no cavil about it, it was better to declare it by law.” ASenator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 42nd, 1st Sess, 575-576 (April 11, 1871).
LMAO!!! Looks like when it went to press that wasn't the intent!!!
Yes, all persons were citizen, if they weren't subjects of a foreign power and to be a subject of a foreign power meant you couldn't be subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution), unless you were naturalized. Only citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173943 Oct 4, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
His immediate next sentence will not be looked upon favorably by birfoons:“Who does not know, therefore, that all the natural born persons in the United States, men, women, and children, are citizens of the United States.”
Recall that birfoons refer to "citizen of the United States" as a third class of citizen. Not so according to Bingham (or any scholar or authority).
And here is the correct citation: Cong. Globe 40th Cong. 2nd Sess. 2212 (1868). The incorrect citation seems to have a life of its own on the web.
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, see if your little brain can figure out who he was speaking about in 1869. Doofus
When he referred to "all natural born citizens" as "citizens of the United States" he was referring to "every person born within the limits of the Republic" (with the exception of children of foreign ambassadors and foreign ministers) as he plainly stated in the preceding sentence.

Duh!

Dale

United States

#173944 Oct 4, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, see if your little brain can figure out who he was speaking about in 1869. Doofus
Yes, in 1868 the law was in place to deny citizenship to children born here of aliens/foreign powers.
Every court case since 1898 dealing with citizenship has been in violation of the Constitution.
Looks like the congress has a monumental task in their future and of course we know how that will turnout, just as it has in the past 115 years. "Kick the can down the road!"

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173945 Oct 4, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Looks like when it went to press that wasn't the intent!!!
Yes, all persons were citizen, if they weren't subjects of a foreign power and to be a subject of a foreign power meant you couldn't be subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution), unless you were naturalized. Only citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
Senator Trumbull drafted the Act and explained in detail exactly the intent. The intent of the Act was similarly understood, and plainly stated as such by Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Jacob Howard. Their intent was conveyed to the US courts via the rules of statutory construction and consistent with their stated intent, the courts interpreted the language in precisely the same manner.

Sorry Dufus Dale, the meaning of the Act was according to the intent of Congress and they did not believe in the Play Law definition of jurisdiction. It is the height of lunacy to construe Congressional intent according to a fantasy definition of jurisdiction at odds with the prevailing accepted definition (which was the same then as it is now.)

BTW, has Dale ever written a formal definition of jurisdiction according to his disjointed fantasies? Of course not. it would crash and burn.

Regarding Dale's burning question:
Has Dale ever figured out that an alien is not necessarily a citizen of any country? The state of alienage is applied to anyone who is not a citizen of a country while residing in that country.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
According to Senator Lyman Trumbull, who drafted the Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 contains words "declaring that all persons born in the United States were citizens."
But illiterate drop-out Dale knows better what Senator Trumbull wrote than the Senator himself?
“It was because of the idea which obtained before the adoption of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that slaves were property and not persons, that it was thought proper to embody in the civil rights bill the declaration that all persons born in the United States were citizens. I did not think at that time it was necessary. I recollect that I had a discussion on that very point with the then Senator from Maryland, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, as to the propriety of inserting in the civil rights act those words declaring that all persons born in the United States were citizens. We both agreed that after the abolition of slavery everybody born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States was a citizen of the United States; but we both thought that in consequence of the declaration which had been annunciated in the Dred Scott case, and also in order that there might be no cavil about it, it was better to declare it by law.” Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 42nd, 1st Sess, 575-576 (April 11, 1871).
Dale

United States

#173946 Oct 4, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>John Bingham did not consider children born in the US of alien parents to owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. He believed as did James Madison that place of birth is the surest criterion of allegiance. A child born on US soil owes complete and immediate allegiance to the United States by the tie of natural allegiance, which pertains to the natural born citizen, consistent with natural law as elaborated according to Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries.
Bingham stated that birth in the US is what makes one a natural born citizen. He said it before and after 1866.
Bingham's statements are inconsistent with Dufus Dales hare-brained redefinition of jurisdiction which turns sovereignty on its head.
“The constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words “natural-born citizen of the United States” occur in it, and the other provisions also occur in it that “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural-born citizens. John Bingham, Cong. Globe 37th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1639 (1862).
“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. Who does not know, therefore, that all the natural born persons in the United States, men, women, and children, are citizens of the United States.” Rep. Bingham Cong. Globe 40th Cong. 2nd Sess. 2212 (1868).
LMAO!!! It doesn't matter. When a child is born in the US of an alien father, it automatically receives its citizenship from its father, we practice the same when a child is born outside the limits of the US, makes no difference the condition of the mother.
Dale

United States

#173947 Oct 4, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Senator Trumbull drafted the Act and explained in detail exactly the intent. The intent of the Act was similarly understood, and plainly stated as such by Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Jacob Howard. Their intent was conveyed to the US courts via the rules of statutory construction and consistent with their stated intent, the courts interpreted the language in precisely the same manner.
Sorry Dufus Dale, the meaning of the Act was according to the intent of Congress and they did not believe in the Play Law definition of jurisdiction. It is the height of lunacy to construe Congressional intent according to a fantasy definition of jurisdiction at odds with the prevailing accepted definition (which was the same then as it is now.)
BTW, has Dale ever written a formal definition of jurisdiction according to his disjointed fantasies? Of course not. it would crash and burn.
Regarding Dale's burning question:
Has Dale ever figured out that an alien is not necessarily a citizen of any country? The state of alienage is applied to anyone who is not a citizen of a country while residing in that country.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! It is very evident you haven't any idea what controls these United States, without this control you are left with 50 separate nations.
Dale

United States

#173948 Oct 4, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Senator Trumbull drafted the Act and explained in detail exactly the intent. The intent of the Act was similarly understood, and plainly stated as such by Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Jacob Howard. Their intent was conveyed to the US courts via the rules of statutory construction and consistent with their stated intent, the courts interpreted the language in precisely the same manner.
Sorry Dufus Dale, the meaning of the Act was according to the intent of Congress and they did not believe in the Play Law definition of jurisdiction. It is the height of lunacy to construe Congressional intent according to a fantasy definition of jurisdiction at odds with the prevailing accepted definition (which was the same then as it is now.)
BTW, has Dale ever written a formal definition of jurisdiction according to his disjointed fantasies? Of course not. it would crash and burn.
Regarding Dale's burning question:
Has Dale ever figured out that an alien is not necessarily a citizen of any country? The state of alienage is applied to anyone who is not a citizen of a country while residing in that country.
<quoted text>
The only people I have known without a country was the black man in the US and to this day, they still don't know. They call themselves African/American, there isn't any such country called Africa or America.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173949 Oct 4, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, in 1868 the law was in place to deny citizenship to children born here of aliens/foreign powers.
Every court case since 1898 dealing with citizenship has been in violation of the Constitution.
Looks like the congress has a monumental task in their future and of course we know how that will turnout, just as it has in the past 115 years. "Kick the can down the road!"
The law was in place to deny citizenship to children born here of aliens? And nobody knew it? Not the framers, not the Congress. Not the President. Not the people at large? All the children of alien German immigrants in Pennsylvania retained their US citizenship. There is not one case of a single person born of an alien parent in the US who lost US citizenship on account having an alien parent (other than Indians born on a reservation). The only persons who the government attempted to excluded were Chinese (Look Tin Sing and Wong Kim Ark in particular) and they were found to be natural born citizens.

Looks like Dufus Dale is still living in his dream world.

Nobody but nobody before or after the 14th Amendment has ever believed in Dale's fanciful disjointed and contradictory application of the word, jurisdiction. Yet he believes his fantasy should be applied as the Congressional intent of the Amendment. Positively psychotic.

So if the framers of the 14th and the Congress were so enlightened as the brilliant-in-his-own-mind Dale they would have understood what jurisdiction really meant so that's what we should apply now?

That's so pathetic it's not funny. It's sad. So delusional.

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Countdown clock ticking for Trump, Republicans 15 hr Lawrence Wolf 44
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 16 hr NAME 64,308
News Scientists accidentally admit rapid global warm... Mon Fugooo 2
News Drug companies sue to block California drug pri... Dec 9 Solarman 1
Election Who are you voting for in the California Govern... (Oct '14) Dec 9 REM 24
nanci pelosi bringing God's judgment on california Dec 8 upsidedown 3
News Man rescues rabbit from California wildfires, i... Dec 7 Solarman 1
More from around the web