So what she did was not illegal, but what the idiots who were trying use her to discredit Obama is.


Great Justice. Keep praying folks, it sure seems to be working.....for Obama.

Well...it sounds like she was supposed to leave, but didn't. If exposing her was a GOP scheme it was a pretty pathetic one, she's probably getting more sympathy from the voting public than anything else.

Sounds like her lifestyle is much less than it was in Kenya, so I don't think she is trying to sponge off the gov.

I think she may be frightened to live in Kenya anymore.

cretinbob: So what she did was not illegal, but and what the idiots who were trying use her to discredit Obama is too.



FTFY

/ two wrongs != one right

cretinbob: So what she did was not illegal, but what the idiots who were trying use her to discredit Obama is.


Great Justice. Keep praying folks, it sure seems to be working.....for Obama.

I'm sure you were just as outraged with Joe Wurzelbacher's illegal records when he became a national story.

cretinbob: So what she did was not illegal, but what the idiots who were trying use her to discredit Obama is.

staying in this country illegally is... well it's illegal. And she has been donating to his campaign, another illegal act. So where has she acted lawfully again?

I also think that a law to protect privacy of illegal aliens is just ridiculous. Should we protect their right to bear arms too?

And don't forget the larger point that Obama in all his glory did nothing to raise his aunt out of poverty, save for run a campaign to use other people's money to do so.

inebriated brain:
And don't forget the larger point that Obama in all his glory did nothing to raise his aunt out of poverty, save for run a campaign to use other people's money to do so.

1 out of 10, and I'm being generous.

inebriated brain: staying in this country illegally is... well it's illegal. And she has been donating to his campaign, another illegal act. So where has she acted lawfully again?

It was a non-criminal violation.

I also think that a law to protect privacy of illegal aliens is just ridiculous. Should we protect their right to bear arms too?


You fail at America.

And don't forget the larger point that Obama in all his glory did nothing to raise his aunt out of poverty, save for run a campaign to use other people's money to do so.

Worse and worse. Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when you're this hyperbolic?

someone crawled around in joe the plumber's private records as well, so at least government databases are equally plundered by both parties for short term political gain.

ahhhh....equality at last!

inebriated brain: And don't forget the larger point that Obama in all his glory did nothing to raise his aunt out of poverty

Neither did Dick Cheney.... and he and Obama are related, too.

inebriated brain: I also think that a law to protect privacy of illegal aliens is just ridiculous. Should we protect their right to bear arms too?

Show me where the Founding Fathers said that Constitutional protections applied only to US citizens.

cretinbob: So what she did was not illegal

My understanding FTA is that in addition to her remaining in the country unlawfully, her contributions to his campaign were in violation of election law.

Of course, Obama's campaign is refunding them.

Weaver95: Show me where the Founding Fathers said that Constitutional protections applied only to US citizens.


Amendment 14
1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.

her request was denied in a court of law. Therefore she is not a citizen, and not protected from deprivation of life, liberty, or property.

okay show me where the Founding Fathers said that Constitutional protections apply to anyone regardless of citizenship status.

inebriated brain: her request was denied in a court of law. Therefore she is not a citizen, and not protected from deprivation of life, liberty, or property.

okay show me where the Founding Fathers said that Constitutional protections apply to anyone regardless of citizenship status.

How does that say that non citizens aren't protected by the Constitution?

inebriated brain: okay show me where the Founding Fathers said that Constitutional protections apply to anyone regardless of citizenship status.

First, the part you quoted doesn't exclude non-citizens.

Second, the SCOTUS declared over the summer that even prisoners in Gitmo are covered by the Constitution. Seems like a no-brainer that this woman would get that same protection.

The sky is blue!

Nuh-uh, the grass is green!

Dude, what the f*ck are you talking about?

ARE YOU DENYING THE GREENNESS OF THE GRASS?!?!?!???

Aarontology: How does that say that non citizens aren't protected by the Constitution?


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

seems rather exclusive to me. I guess it's up for interpretation. Plus sec 8 leaves naturalization laws to the congress, why not just say anyone inside the boarders is a citizen then?

inebriated brain: Weaver95: Show me where the Founding Fathers said that Constitutional protections applied only to US citizens.


Amendment 14
1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.

The Founding Fathers were still around in 1868?

Those guys are awesomer than I ever imagined.

inebriated brain:
Amendment 14
...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.


She is within our jurisdiction, yes?

Five seconds on google... ^{(^)}

bulldg4life: The sky is blue!

Nuh-uh, the grass is green!

Dude, what the f*ck are you talking about?

ARE YOU DENYING THE GREENNESS OF THE GRASS?!?!?!???

We can all agree that the sun is warm like a baked potato, right?

'Prince Obama of the Projects'

'You're movin' with your Aunt Zeituni in a Boston slum.'

inebriated brain: Aarontology: How does that say that non citizens aren't protected by the Constitution?


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

seems rather exclusive to me. I guess it's up for interpretation. Plus sec 8 leaves naturalization laws to the congress, why not just say anyone inside the boarders is a citizen then?

It's exclusive in that the 14th is saying what you can't do to citizens. It doesn't deal with non citizens at all. But it is up to interpretation on whether or not non citizens are protected by our laws.

RevMercutio: We can all agree that the sun is warm like a baked potato, right?

Shpadoinkle!

Lets get the FBI off the case of who lost Wall Street and make sure we get Aunt Zeituni back to Africa.

The whole things seems asinine, and I am a law-and-order Republican.

mr_a: Lets get the FBI off the case of who lost Wall Street and make sure we get Aunt Zeituni back to Africa.

The whole things seems asinine, and I am a law-and-order Republican.

Bingo. She's a harmless little old lady, I think the Republic will withstand her presence a while longer.

Ms.Maus: She is within our jurisdiction, yes?

I knew this was a trap when I got the challenge from Weaver95 in the first place. I tried. I failed.

All I said is I thought is was ridiculous to extend privacy rights to non citizens. I still think so. As far as far as the rights of non-citizens go:

Protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence ( from Bulldog4life )

How do you have a right to be a private alien? Why have immigration laws at all if all you need do is make it in, and just be lawful after that? By that it would seem we are all world citizens free to travel and stay wherever we want, and even once you have been told to leave, no one can know that. Huh? No one sees anything wrong with that? And again she donates to Obama illegally, but still has a right to privacy? WTF? how can one ask the status of anyone seeking a job, if it is a violation of privacy?

So that's the way it is. I disagree, wholeheartedly, but whatever.

inebriated brain: okay show me where the Founding Fathers said that Constitutional protections apply to anyone regardless of citizenship status.

Read the Bill of Rights. Nowhere does it mention 'citizen' or 'citizens'. They say 'people', 'persons'.

inebriated brain: All I said is I thought is was ridiculous to extend privacy rights to non citizens.


Lucky for you, we don't extend privacy rights to citizens either, so at least we're all equal as far as that sort of abuse goes.

inebriated brain: All I said is I thought is was ridiculous to extend privacy rights to non citizens. I still think so. As far as far as the rights of non-citizens go:

some rights are inalienable.

inebriated brain: So that's the way it is. I disagree, wholeheartedly, but whatever.

It's amazing to watch you rail against something that nobody else in this thread is saying.

inebriated brain: I also think that a law to protect privacy of illegal aliens is just ridiculous.

It's because of the Asylum-related nature of the request.
If we're going to send someone back to an allegedly evil dictatorship, we don't want the government over there to be able to know what they were called.

inebriated brain: okay show me where the Founding Fathers said that Constitutional protections apply to anyone regardless of citizenship status.

That's not where the constitution says the burden of proof lies.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

bulldg4life: It's amazing to watch you rail against something that nobody else in this thread is saying.

railing against privacy rights to Zituni, and trying to defend what I said. Commenting on the story and its implications. When I said that's the way it is, I was agreeing that I have little basis for my arguments. glad you find it amazing though :-)

/don't be hatin'

HAHAH!

After Joe's trashing that's a hoot!

For those that think this is similar to "Joe the Unlicensed Plumber Tax Deadbeat Attention-Whore", Obama's aunt didn't stick her nose into the shiat and then whine about the attention later on...she kept to herself and was exposed by GOP operatives in an attempt to sway the election with days to go.

If "Joe the Unlicensed Plumber Tax Deadbeat Attention-Whore" wants to be angry, he should be angry at himself.

SubBass49: For those that think this is similar to "Joe the Unlicensed Plumber Tax Deadbeat Attention-Whore", Obama's aunt didn't stick her nose into the shiat and then whine about the attention later on...she kept to herself and was exposed by GOP operatives in an attempt to sway the election with days to go.

Bullshiat.

I could've sworn I saw her being interviewed by 15 different news stations the night after Obama mentioned her 25 times on national TV in front of tens of millions of people.

You, my friend, are trying to obfuscate the real issue with your liberal agenda.

So nobody has a problem with somebody stealing public dollars by being a fraud but exposing them is a heinous act?

bulldg4life: I could've sworn I saw her being interviewed by 15 different news stations the night after Obama mentioned her 25 times on national TV in front of tens of millions of people.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Take another look at what I wrote...check your reading comprehension...and get back to me when you figure out why you're a moron.

SubBass49: bulldg4life: I could've sworn I saw her being interviewed by 15 different news stations the night after Obama mentioned her 25 times on national TV in front of tens of millions of people.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Take another look at what I wrote...check your reading comprehension...and get back to me when you figure out why you're a moron.

You may want to have your sarcasm detector recalibrated.

If her immigration case was reviewed by a judge, wouldn't it be a part of the public record?

/just asking...

inebriated brain: Weaver95: Show me where the Founding Fathers said that Constitutional protections applied only to US citizens.


Amendment 14
1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.

her request was denied in a court of law. Therefore she is not a citizen, and not protected from deprivation of life, liberty, or property.

okay show me where the Founding Fathers said that Constitutional protections apply to anyone regardless of citizenship status.

You're wrong. The courts have ruled repeatedly in cases too numerous to dig up that the constitution applies to all persons within its jurisdiction. The word citizen never comes up.

/don't ask me to cite cases. It's just, like, common knowledge.

SubBass49: bulldg4life: I could've sworn I saw her being interviewed by 15 different news stations the night after Obama mentioned her 25 times on national TV in front of tens of millions of people.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Take another look at what I wrote...check your reading comprehension...and get back to me when you figure out why you're a moron.

Please recalibrate sarcasm meter & reread post.

caca

Christ!, that must have been a long swim.

/calibrate it, haters.

dmatt33: You're wrong. The courts have ruled repeatedly in cases too numerous to dig up that the constitution applies to all persons within its jurisdiction. The word citizen never comes up.

/don't ask me to cite cases. It's just, like, common knowledge.

The word citizen DOES come up once -- in conjunction with the right to vote.

According to both Constitution and courts, that is the only enumerated right that is granted to "citizens" and not "persons".

There should be quite a few conservative farkers in here expressing their dismay that personal, private information was divulged about his Aunt. They were all up in arms when Joe the plumber's tax information released.

In reality, there will be crickets.

This thread is full of idiots.

borg: cretinbob: So what she did was not illegal, but what the idiots who were trying use her to discredit Obama is.


Great Justice. Keep praying folks, it sure seems to be working.....for Obama.

I'm sure you were just as outraged with Joe Wurzelbacher's illegal records when he became a national story.

Except for the fact that you can look up Samuel J Wurzelbacher's so-called illegal records yourself by going to the Lucas County Ohio Auditor's web page. They're public records. A tax lien, a medical lien that appears to have been released, and records of two divorces that may or may not be related to domestic violence.

The media rage about Wurzelbacher is NOT that there were public records released, it's that his non-public child support records were reviewed with either questionable reasons, or not clearly defined reasons. Either of which may or may not be illegal. Investigation pending.

inebriated brain: I also think that a law to protect privacy of illegal aliens is just ridiculous.

See, you have this insane idea that the Constitution protects citizens. It doesn't. It protects PEOPLE. Her violations are common, and should be dealt with, but when people with power (IE the people with access to her records, who release them for political reasons) abuse it, we need to be vigilant. That's incredibly more damaging then an older lady of questionable legality.