Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
more evidence that the birthers will quickly break into two adversarial factions, pro-orly and anti-orly.
Dividing your forces usually doesn't turn out well. This is especially true if they're firing at each other. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch. Wish that they would just leave the rest of us out of it. At least it has given the President a few laughs.
"... noting that plaintiff’s arguments were clearly erroneous, irrelevant, or mere restatements of arguments previously presented to and considered by the court."
pretty succinct description of orly's entire legal career.
I gave you the option of going with the 14th Amendment's 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' clause which at the time of its ratification, according to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was purposely meant to intend such:
Who cares what options you give me? I will stick with the one that the Supreme Court gives me. There is only one:
Quote:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
this is far from being the first time that orly's site has been infected by malware. what evidence do we have that it was done as a direct political attack and not just orly's inability to properly protect her own site?
Orly's web site gets infected from the links that she puts on it, not from anybody specifically targeting her.
Well, that and she shares her site on a public server, and runs outdated unpatched software that runs the site (prone to hacks and open doors that hackers can use to install viruses in her directories)
That's what happens when you alienate, and then sue your former webmaster.
this is far from being the first time that orly's site has been infected by malware. what evidence do we have that it was done as a direct political attack and not just orly's inability to properly protect her own site?
I blame her web master, Chito Papa. He can't even back up the website without Orly screaming that she was hacked.
Ironically, he "testified" in Georgia today as an "IT Expert." Yet he can't even protect a web blog from constant viruses.
Why is that dirty? I've received this warning after clicking on Titz's website many times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.