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
American Lady

Danville, KY

#88703 Jul 2, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
“Lewis would have to reach a decision; he would have to put it on record,” Klayman said.“By amending for declaratory relief, we’re pulling the rug right out from Obama and the Florida secretary of state.”
Klayman told WND Obama’s lawyers immediately went into a tailspin and filed to have the amendment for declaratory relief stricken, which the judge granted, arguing he wanted to wait to issue a formal decision in the case.
But Klayman said his team is willing to file a stand-alone complaint for declaratory relief with Lewis as soon as next week and “pull the rug out from under him, too.”
“This judge can’t get out from under his legal requirement,” Klayman said.“If he screws around, he’s violating law.”
In hundreds of cases filed challenging Obama’s eligibility, the full range of questions – from Obama’s birth records, charged by some as fraudulent, to the Constitution’s meaning of “natural born citizen”– have never been ruled upon, dismissed typically on questions of who has “standing” to bring the challenge.
Klayman, however, told WND,“It doesn’t matter how Lewis rules, the losing side will appeal, and this case is going up, maybe all the way to the Supreme Court.”
Still, he said,“I want Lewis to address the issue of eligibility and create a record, so we can take it up before the election. I’m still confident, hopeful that will happen.
Klayman reiterated the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett definition of “natural born citizen” as a person born in the country of two citizen parents.
“The point is this, your honor,” said Klayman.“The president is not like everybody else. If that was the case the framers would have said ‘citizens’[can be president.]”
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/unexpected-turn-in...

Showing 1 of 1790 comments

Sunshine49
The rest of the world knows Obama is a usurper. They're laughing at the stupidity of the "useful idiots" like you who are letting Obama get away with "fundamentally transforming" America. They see where we are headed even if YOU don't! People from Communist countries know EXACTLY where Obama is taking us. They saw it in their own countries before they escaped to the freedom of America. Now they're afraid that we won't be a free country much longer and they wonder where they can go when the last great hope for freedom on Earth is gone.
You claim that you're Americans, but you don't believe in anything America stands for. You want some kind of socialist democracy that would kill our Republic. You only believe in freedom for yourself to lord it over other people.You don't believe that people should be allowed to keep the money they earn and that the government has the "right" to take our money and give it to NON-Americans! You believe that everyone should be equal -- equally poor (except yourself, of course)! You believe in "social justice" over the Constitution, which to you means that you can tell the rest of us how to run our lives, what to think and how to feel!
You would have done good in the USSR's KGB, but YOU think you are the "good" guys in all this. But guess what? History will remember you as the traitors that took down America from with-in like Kruschev said you Communists would do one day.
IF, by some miracle, the small band of patriotic Americans that you call "birthers" can have this usurper removed from office BEFORE he totally "transforms" America -- all the better!
There is NO "win" with Obama because he has been "put" in office to destroy America. We will ALL lose, but you "useful idiots" still don't get it!
American Lady

Danville, KY

#88704 Jul 2, 2012
INGLIS v. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR'S SNUG HARBOUR
28 U.S. 99 (____)
>>>>> Supreme Court of United States.

The question then arises as to what was the operation of the treaty upon his son, the demandant, who was then an infant of tender years, and incapable of any election on his own part. It appears to me, that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents, at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be, that children generally acquire the national character of their parents (Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219); and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant
[ 28 U.S. 170 ]

would be deemed a British subject. The argument itself assumes that the demandant now acts officially in that character, and that ever since his arrival of age he has adhered to his British allegiance.

(Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219)

B. 1
ch. 19.
sec 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.

B. 1
ch. 19
sec. 219.
Vagrants.

Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently, those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man's country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement (§ 122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member, which comes to the same point; for, to settle for ever in a nation, is to become a member of it, at least as a perpetual inhabitant, if not with all the privileges of a citizen. We may, however, consider the country of a vagrant to be that of his child, while that vagrant is considered as not having absolutely renounced his natural or original settlement.

Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the United States
By United States. Supreme Court, Stephen Keyes Williams, Edwin Burritt Smith, Ernest Hitchcock, Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company

http://books.google.com/books...

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#88705 Jul 2, 2012
Hahahahahahahahaha!

And ANOTHER smackdown of Apuzzo.

"We will affirm the order of dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed on him for having filed a frivolous appeal."

Gonna start costing birfoons to file these LYING frivolous suits.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#88706 Jul 2, 2012
Link to the putz's smackdown:

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/094209p....
American Lady

Danville, KY

#88707 Jul 2, 2012
The Doctrine of the Three Percent.

The Three Percent are the folks the Founders counted on to save the Republic when everyone else abandoned it.

And we will.

There will be no more free Wacos
and no more free Katrinas.
For we are the Three Percent.
We will not disarm.
You cannot convince us.
You cannot intimidate us.
You can try to kill us, if you think you can.
But remember, we’ll shoot back .
We are not going away.
We are not backing up another inch.
And there are THREE MILLION OF US.
Your move, Mr. Wannabe Tyrant.

Your move.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/
American Lady

Danville, KY

#88708 Jul 2, 2012
What is a "Three Percenter"?
During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.

Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders' Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.

The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any futher circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders' Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.

We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#88709 Jul 2, 2012
Ellen wrote:
Dear Ellen, The National Review is run by the Republican ESTABLISHMENT (Country Clubbers) and have a political agenda. As for the rest, they have no standing!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#88710 Jul 2, 2012
Ellen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I never have worked for Obama or for the Democrats or for any political party. But if I did, or you did work for the Republicans or the Conservatives, it would still not change the facts.
Most people believe in the facts, and the facts remain that only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961 and that the Kenyan government says it checked the claim that Obama was born there and that it is false.
And then you should have no problem telling us who these 21 people are, would you?
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#88711 Jul 2, 2012
American Lady wrote:
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Declaration of Independence 1776
It also says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

Yet birthers try to make people believe that the writers of the Constitution did not believe that. Birthers claim that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen excludes the US-born children of foreigners. In other words, they hold that the writers of the Constitution did not believe that the US-born children of foreigners were equal to the US born children of US citizens where eligibility for the presidency is concerned.

Well, if the writers of the Constitution had said in the Constitution or in any other article or letter that that was what they believed, it would of course be true. But they DIDN'T.
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#88712 Jul 2, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear Ellen, The National Review is run by the Republican ESTABLISHMENT (Country Clubbers) and have a political agenda. As for the rest, they have no standing!
These were merely a few examples, no one else--except for birthers of course---believes Sheriff Joe either. For example, the Conservative Secretary of State of Arizona just allowed Obama on the state ballot after hearing from Hawaii that the birth certificate is accurate. And in Georgia a State Administrative court heard the birther "experts"--and said that he did not believe them because they had no credibility. The ruling then went to the Secretary of State of Georgia, who accepted it. It was then appealed to an appeals court and then to the Supreme Court of Georgia, both of which turned down the appeals, meaning that they found nothing wrong with the ruling.

Ellen

Arlington, MA

#88713 Jul 2, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And then you should have no problem telling us who these 21 people are, would you?
Sorry, the names are not listed, only the numbers:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/06/authen...

However, there is a breakdown of the numbers. Of the 21, only seven were US citizens. That means that Obama's mother would have had only a one in seven chance of being one of those. Obama could be listed either as a citizen (if you believe that his mother was old enough to confer citizenship) or as an alien. But either way he would have had to have a US travel document--either a visa or being added to his mother's US passport---to get to the USA. That document would still be on file under applications for travel documents in Kenya in 1961, and no one has found any such thing.(And the McCain and Hillary campaigns surely tried to find it.)

The Kenyan government has said officially that Obama was not born in Kenya (and his Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya), and there is certainly no evidence that Obama's mother was there in 1961. In contrast, there is a birth certificate for Obama, confirmed by the officials, confirmed by Index Data, confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers (which at the time were sent to the papers only by the DOH) that shows that Obama was born in Hawaii.
rider

Ishpeming, MI

#88714 Jul 2, 2012
Ellen wrote:
Starting with this: "A Kenyan birth certificate presented by Lucas D. Smith, that has never been proven to be a fake or fraudulent birth certificate."
Well let's see. It uses USA date formats (month/day/year) and not the British formats used in Kenya (day/month/year). It misspells the names of some of the officials.
More importantly, Lucas D. Smith is a convicted felon, one of whose crimes was--wait for it--forgery. Of course, this convicted felon could be telling the truth. But it is highly unlikely. Why so?
Because Lucas D. Smith has refused to prove that Lucas D. Smith ever went to Kenya. His claim was that he got the birth certificate in Mombasa Kenya. For that to have been true, he would have had to have gone to Mombasa Kenya. All that he would have to do would be to show his passport with a Kenya stamp on it, and that would give some sign that Lucas D. Smith--the convicted felon--was in this case telling the truth. But Lucas D. Smith has refused to show his passport with a Kenya stamp on it. Do you suppose that if he really had a passport with a Kenya stamp on it he would do that???
Like the birther sites that made up the claim that Obama's Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (when she said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii), Luca D. Smith is telling a lie.
9/11 CONSPIRACY: BUSH-NAZI CRIME FAMILY HISTORY - YouTube
Dec 4, 2007 ... with this kind of family history, is it any surprise that fascism is creeping slowly
into America and our freedoms are being eroded daily?

- 151k -

“WestieLover”

Since: Apr 12

The city that I reside

#88715 Jul 2, 2012
Ellen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, the names are not listed, only the numbers:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/06/authen...
However, there is a breakdown of the numbers. Of the 21, only seven were US citizens. That means that Obama's mother would have had only a one in seven chance of being one of those. Obama could be listed either as a citizen (if you believe that his mother was old enough to confer citizenship) or as an alien. But either way he would have had to have a US travel document--either a visa or being added to his mother's US passport---to get to the USA. That document would still be on file under applications for travel documents in Kenya in 1961, and no one has found any such thing.(And the McCain and Hillary campaigns surely tried to find it.)
The Kenyan government has said officially that Obama was not born in Kenya (and his Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya), and there is certainly no evidence that Obama's mother was there in 1961. In contrast, there is a birth certificate for Obama, confirmed by the officials, confirmed by Index Data, confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers (which at the time were sent to the papers only by the DOH) that shows that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Obama was Not born of two American citizens, only one. So he does not meet the criteria for VP/President per the Constitution (plural...citizens). He would be eligible to run for a House seat or Senate seat provided he was a naturalized American. And there is the issue of an Indonesian adoption. According to the California Assembly records when he was attending Occidental College, Obama was enrolled as Barry Soetoro, a foreign student from Indonesia, who registered as such and obtained a grant from the CA Assembly as a foreign student from Indonesia.

“WestieLover”

Since: Apr 12

The city that I reside

#88719 Jul 2, 2012
Ellen wrote:
<quoted text>
It also says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
Yet birthers try to make people believe that the writers of the Constitution did not believe that. Birthers claim that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen excludes the US-born children of foreigners. In other words, they hold that the writers of the Constitution did not believe that the US-born children of foreigners were equal to the US born children of US citizens where eligibility for the presidency is concerned.
Well, if the writers of the Constitution had said in the Constitution or in any other article or letter that that was what they believed, it would of course be true. But they DIDN'T.
Liberal poppycock. The Framers spoke and wrote at great length on the matter. Based on their concept of eligibility, Obama's daughters would meet the criteria for VP/President, but not their father.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#88720 Jul 2, 2012
Cancer on the pResidency wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be devoid of common sense!
How many parents must one have to have been born of citizen parents?
The answer is clearly TWO!
This remains a FACT that your post did not change.
The court in Minor makes no mention of "one" having citizen parents.

The court said that "all children born in country of parents who were its citizens" became citizens. "All children born in a country" is a class of individuals, not one individual. Tacky has struggled with this simple concept for over three years. No wonder he couldn't graduate high school without special ed. When a characteristic is predicated of a class, it is proper to use the plural. Hence, "on parents' weekend, students went to the football game with their parents".(Of course, this doesn't mean that every student went to the football game with both parents.)

Similarly, when the boys brought their dates to the dance, it doesn't mean, "Two girls for every boy", the Beach Boys notwithstanding.

Learn English, puh-lease!
Ellen wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer: But it does not say that being born of citizen parents is required. It does not say that being born in the USA is required, and it certainly does not say that BOTH are required.
All that it says, duh, is that if you fulfill both of the criteria needed to be a Natural Born Citizen, then without question you are a Natural Born Citizen. But that does not mean that both are necessary, only that if you have both you fulfill all the possible criteria. One of the criteria may be sufficient, it does not say.
But it certainly does not say that both are required, and it certainly does not say that citizen parents are required.
And, the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which followed Minor vs. Happersett and hence would have overturned it, if this quotation were really a ruling (which it isn't) said quite clearly that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law, and that it includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#88721 Jul 2, 2012
Conservative girl wrote:
<quoted text>Obama was Not born of two American citizens, only one. So he does not meet the criteria for VP/President per the Constitution (plural...citizens). He would be eligible to run for a House seat or Senate seat provided he was a naturalized American. And there is the issue of an Indonesian adoption. According to the California Assembly records when he was attending Occidental College, Obama was enrolled as Barry Soetoro, a foreign student from Indonesia, who registered as such and obtained a grant from the CA Assembly as a foreign student from Indonesia.
Who says that two citizen parents, or even one citizen parent, is required?????

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.”— Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

“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.]

Oh, and Florida's decision was released today. That makes it five state courts and one federal court, all of which have ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was defined in the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case (and several of which said specifically that it was NOT defined in the Minor vs Happersett case) and that that meaning refers to the place of birth, not the parents of a US-born citizen.

“WestieLover”

Since: Apr 12

The city that I reside

#88722 Jul 2, 2012
Ellen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, the names are not listed, only the numbers:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/06/authen...
However, there is a breakdown of the numbers. Of the 21, only seven were US citizens. That means that Obama's mother would have had only a one in seven chance of being one of those. Obama could be listed either as a citizen (if you believe that his mother was old enough to confer citizenship) or as an alien. But either way he would have had to have a US travel document--either a visa or being added to his mother's US passport---to get to the USA. That document would still be on file under applications for travel documents in Kenya in 1961, and no one has found any such thing.(And the McCain and Hillary campaigns surely tried to find it.)
The Kenyan government has said officially that Obama was not born in Kenya (and his Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya), and there is certainly no evidence that Obama's mother was there in 1961. In contrast, there is a birth certificate for Obama, confirmed by the officials, confirmed by Index Data, confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers (which at the time were sent to the papers only by the DOH) that shows that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Ellen you are wrong. Stanley Dunham Obama Soetoro's passport records for this time period was removed from the State Department files in 2008 by an employee of John Brennan who at the time was a campaign advisor to Obama.
Anything embarrassing or problematic was removed from her file. That is why only the renewal is in place. Those files are kept for 100 years per the State Department. And in a letter of reply to a Freedom of Information suit by Mr. Strunk they indicated that the file was missing, and they had no explaination as to why.
This took place when the break-in of the State Department Passport files were accessed on McCain, Clinton, Obama in 2008. Do you not remember Rice's news conference??? This is not the first time that the Democrats have taken government files. I distinctly remember one advisor of Bill Clinton removing records and shredding them.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#88723 Jul 2, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
IF you can NOT find iT,
you do NOT need to be on this forum
with ADULTS talking about 0's INeligibility!
Original Article
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizenship heads to Supreme Court
Find what? Copy'n'paste spam?

BirfoonLady confirms that she cannot articulate a point as she doesn't know what a point is.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
So what's your point?
Do you have a point?
Do you know what a point is?
Would you know it if a point slapped you in the face?
The court made it quite clear that the question presented in Inglis was limited to circumstances "when a revolution occurs" and did not relate to "the broad doctrine of allegiance."
In other words, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH citizenship of persons born in ordinary times.
UR on the wrong page, BirfoonLady.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#88724 Jul 2, 2012
Natural-born citizen

Natural-born citizen is a term used in some countries to describe a certain kind of citizenship in terms of a requirement for eligibility to serve as head of state of a given country. It is mentioned in the United States Constitution as a requirement for the President and Vice President of the US.
==========
George Romney, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States in 1912. Romney was 32 years old when he arrived in Michigan.
==========
US case law
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically addressed the meaning of "natural born citizen," there are several Supreme Court decisions that help define citizenship:
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland. "We start from the premise that the

rights of citizenship of the "native-born" and of the "naturalized" person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.

The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that >>>> *only* <<<< the 'natural born' citizen is *eligible* to be President."

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/nat...
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#88725 Jul 2, 2012
Conservative girl wrote:
<quoted text>Obama was Not born of two American citizens, only one. So he does not meet the criteria for VP/President per the Constitution (plural...citizens). He would be eligible to run for a House seat or Senate seat provided he was a naturalized American. And there is the issue of an Indonesian adoption. According to the California Assembly records when he was attending Occidental College, Obama was enrolled as Barry Soetoro, a foreign student from Indonesia, who registered as such and obtained a grant from the CA Assembly as a foreign student from Indonesia.
Re Indonesian adoption. That was made up by birthers. There isn't a shred of evidence to support it. Yes he used Soertoro's name when he was in Indonesia. That made sense. But no, he never changed his name officially nor was he adopted. You know, if he had been adopted, Soetoro's blood children would have called him "brother"----wouldn' t they. Well, they never have.

Re the idea that Obama was registered as a foreign student. It is you who have made the claim that there is evidence to support this. I dare you to find it. There is none. In fact, the notion of Obama having been registered as a foreign student originally came from an April Fool's article posted on April 1, 2009. Other than this article and the repeating of it by birther sites, there is no evidence that Obama was registered as a foreign student or that his name was at the time Soetoro.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Republican newcomer Ernst says Congress ready t... 2 min Le Jimbo 84
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min shinningelectr0n 1,172,284
US believes it is number one - Russia 3 min Lukashenko is Dr ... 83
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min American Lady 304,268
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min The Dude 141,812
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min Le Duped 168,005
Romney version 3.0? 8 min barefoot2626 144
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 9 min cpeter1313 307,816
Netanyahu visit continues to stir emotion 38 min FYI 38
More from around the web