Wizard of Id by Parker and Hart for May 19, 2013

Your Majesty, today’s lesson should be “Never give a lecture on economics before lunch!”

The budget is like a cluster f*#k.

The Fink’s budget is a pie in the sky!

The pie is a lie.

so, that is how they make those hats.

I wonder if they remembered the 24 blackbirds :-)

… When the pie was opened the birds began to sing,Oh wasn’t that a dainty dish to set before the king?

~3.141596…[Pi]

A good example of low information voters at work

Hmmm…sounds like Congress!

Marie Antoinette never said, “Let them eat cake”.That was propaganda spread by the revolutionarys.

@Bruno ZeigertsI’m guessing you are quoting from " 2010: The Year We Make Contact."

It’s more literate than most real commentary on the budget.

Nah! That goes for both sides! The left AND the right!

Guard SGT says, “Natural Born require TWO US Citizen parents at the time of birth. This is per the US Supreme Court 1875 in the Minor Case.”

That is incorrect. In re Minor vs. Happersett, the court said that that the sole point at issue was whether the Constitution entitled women to vote despite state laws limiting this right to men only. I know birthers like to parrot this talking point, but it’s just not relevant. The court only considered Virginia Minor’s citizenship as an introductory point, and established that she was, indeed, a US citizen, before going on to consider whether as a female citizen, she had the right to vote. The court noted that she had been born in the US, and that both of her parents were US citizens, and concluded that by any possible definition, she was a citizen. The comment that her parents were both citizens did NOT, contrary to the birthers’ insistence, establish any requirement for this as a measure of citizenship.

There’s stacks of case law – most of it more recent than 1875 – stating plainly that any person born in the US is a natural-born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. President Obama was born in Hawaii. Plus, there never has been a requirement for both parents to be citizens. That’s just a canard that birthers pass around.

can you leave politics out of this???…..geez this is the comics!!!!!!!!!!

“But the where doesn’t matter. It is solely the Citizenship of his parents that matter.”

That is just incorrect. Anyone born in the US is a natural-born citizen. I can’t imagine where you are getting the idea that the citizenship of the parents overrules that. In fact, don’t conservatives complain loudly about “anchor babies”?

“We don’t know where Barry was born.”But wait – you just posted a URL for the amicus brief filed by Orly Taitz in the cases of multiple plaintiffs vs Barack Obama. That amicus brief states, “This brief assumes President Obama was born in the State of Hawaii”. Why did you recommend that brief if you don’t agree with it?

The Nineteenth Amendment overruled Minor vs Happersett.

That is not a court decision – it’s an amicus brief written by counsels for plaintiffs who were trying to claim that the President is not a natural-born citizen. Anyone can write an amicus brief, claiming anything. It’s not a court decision. Don’t you understand the difference?So, what was the actual decision of the Fulton County Superior Court? And what was the response of the SCOTUS to the writ of certiorari filed by the plaintiffs – that is, their request for the SCOTUS to review (and, no doubt they hoped, overturn) the Superior Court’s decision?In summary: an amicus brief is not a court decision. The SCOTUS decision was clear. YOU are the one who must “read and weep”. Or whine – you’re good at that.