Political Punch

If Hillary does become the Secretary of State, it going to be a big mess. Also, it going to cause some personality conflict problem between three of them, Obama, Hillary, and Bill Clinton. Obama doesn't have foreign policy so as Bill Clinton did he became President in 1993. This is going to be the Democrats' problem.

--It matters not what happened in the past, I submit, because all that happened has happened and no individual/court has challenged any previous Presidential candidate. The Constitution as amended is the Law of the United States of America. I submit any candidate can be challenged for eligibility...see United States Constitution--Amendment 10. The Supreme Court Of The United States(SCOTUS) has, in my opinion, two options; 1) Send it back to lower court based on the 10th Amendment, or, 2) Immediately schedule and hear case based on Constitutional crisis if allowed to go beyond the Electoral College. Should the SCOTUS decide BOH is not "natural born" the SCOTUS should advise the college. Either way the next President of the United Sates will be Barach Hussein Obama or Joe Biden as directed by the 20th Amendment. I am conservative but believe in the laws of this land as our founding fathers so wisely put into words. The actual "Certification" of Live birth must be the determining factor if BOH is to be named President...If not this country will be in a crisis and not because of any riot. The Constitution of this country is the Law of the Land.

respectfully

US Supreme court cases against Obama and Alan Keyes lawsuit

MikeMo1947, I'll let you have the final say -- as you stated, we're not going to convince the other, and you may be right and I wrong. At least maybe we've given others something to think about and piqued their curiosity enough to research on their own. I just hope there is a final, definitive answer one way or another.

Thank you for the compliment. I feel name-calling is useless, just demonstrates that one has a weak position or weak intellect. I'd much rather have a reasonable discussion with someone who differs from my opinions, like you -- it sharpens the mind and could provide compelling evidence against my opinions. Thanks for the discussion!

CalifGirlInMaine - I have already research all the areas you have referred to and have been following this since it was first brought up. About the birth certificate, you said "I only know those who have tried to get it have been unsuccessful." How do you know they have been unsuccessful? Sometimes silence means that they don't want to admit that their opponent is correct or that they took the time to investigate and found they had wasted resources tracking down a rumor that was not true. The only way you could know that no one was successful is if they all reported to you. Campaigns and government agencies are not required to report their findings if they found nothing suspicious?

What kind of power did Obama have over the Hawaii dept of records during the past year that prevented them from reporting a problem with his birth certificate? Don't they have any responsibility to report a problem if there is a legal issue? What would happen to their jobs and reputation if they and the Hawaii sec. of state have been hiding this information?

I gave my common sense opinion about Calero being allowed on the ballot. Did you prove me wrong when you said that it is the responsibility of the state's sec. of state? I don't think so. Who is on the ballad is decided state by state. So how many sec. of states challenged it and how many did not because it was a waste of time and money? Since these sec. of states report to their governors, why didn't they tell them to take the time and money to challenge Calero. Who has responsibility and common practice in dealing with these responsibilities are not always the same.

You quote a justice in 1866 about what common law says about natural born citizen. I don't know if this judge was overruled or not, but I know a lot of things have changed about what common law he was referring to and it's importants to current laws. Many of our laws came out of common law, but most have been revised or further explained by our court system. Some rulings of justices of 1866 (civil war era)have changed since then, especially when it comes to words that have no precise definition was written for words like "natural born". Court cases consistently come up about the true meaning of many statements in our Bill of Rights, such as right to bear arms, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.

The problem as I see it, is that you take isolated pieces of information that fits your theory and make them more important than they really are and ignore everything else. There is virtually no chance that Obama can preventing anyone from finding out about whether he is qualified to be president or not for this long a period when there was at least a 50-50 chance that he was going to be president.

Finally, I want to give you a wholehearted compliment.You are one of the few people on these blogs that uses facts and logic in stating your view. Too many people resort to name calling. My perception on this issue could be wrong just as yours may be wrong. So thanks for the discussion. I will let you have the last say if you like. I think we are both firm in our positions and probably won't convince each other and that is fine among Americans. You may have the final word on this topic if you like. I think it is time for me to move on to other things in life.

MikeMo1947, I don't claim to understand the Constitution etc. more than the judges, but I do know how to read, research, and understand what I read. The cases that were thrown out were asking for access to the birth certificate, not dealing with Obama's overall qualifications. The case that is scheduled for conference on 12/5 by SCOTUS deals with the question of qualification and eligibility; Justice Thomas, at least, believes the case has enough merit to take it to conference, a level which many cases do not reach.

Citizenship and owing allegiance go hand in hand; if not, then wouldn't even a native-born or natural-born citizen have to make an oath of allegiance upon becoming an adult? We don't, however -- because as native/natural-born citizens, we automatically owe our allegiance to the nation of citizenship. This is accepted common law, as stated by Justice Noah Haynes Swayne in 1866, among others:
"All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born Subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this country…since as before the Revolution."
Whether or not Obama ever took an oath of allegiance to Kenya, he was a citizen of Kenya by virtue of his father's citizenship, and therefore subject to their jurisdiction until it expired.

As for why so many keep harping on the birth certificate, I couldn't say. You'd have to ask them. There are questions of whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, compounded by his grandmother's statement that she was present at his birth in Kenya, and the Kenyan Ambassador's statement that his birthplace in Kenya is well-known. If Obama was born in Hawaii, why doesn't he just release the BC, as John McCain did when his citizenship was questioned? Not releasing it, and his other records, makes it look like he has something to hide, whether he does or not.

I know that the Federal courts could get the BC if they requested it -- but as you stated, the cases asking for it have been thrown out, so far. As for the Clintons, McCains, and so forth, maybe they could get to the BC, and maybe they haven't tried, I don't know. I only know those who have tried to get it have been unsuccessful.

I don't buy your argument about Calero being allowed on the ballot because they didn't think he could win, and therefore the NJ Secy of State saved time and money by not vetting him. Check the Alan Keyes case in Calif. It cites 2 instances when the CA Secy of State did not certify 3rd party presidential candidates because they did not qualify. One was Eldridge Cleaver in 1968, who did not meet the age requirement (only 34 yrs old). The other was Larry Holmes, the Peace and Freedom candidate in 1984, who also did not meet the age requirement. The state Secy's of State have the responsibility of certifying candidates' eligibility; if they do not, they are not complying with the duties of their office, and could be liable to legal action.

If you think these statements have no merit, do your own research and find contradiction from reliable authorities. The latter does not include FactCheck, Snopes, Wikipedia, and such.

CalifGirlInMaine - You made assumptions that are not true. You said "Obama himself admitted that he was a British subject/Kenyan citizen at birth, by virtue of his father's status, and his Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 18." Then you said "A "natural-born" citizen is one who is a citizen by birth AND owes allegiance to ONLY ONE nation, and has NEVER owed allegiance to another nation." There is a major legal difference in what those two statments say. Admitting that you have citizenship by virtue of your father is not the same as owing allegiance to another country. He never gave his allegiance to another country. Most countries give you until 18 to decide who you make your allegiance to. He was a natural born citizen from the start and gave his allegiance to any country other than the United States. If your interpretation of those phrases is correct, then it does not matter if Obama delivers his birth certificate or not. So way do they keep bringing up his birth certificate?

What is your background that you understand the Consitution and the legal meaning of words more than all the judges that have thrown out the lawsuit about Obama's citizenship?

If you think Obama and the Hawaiian dept of records are so powerful that the Clintons, McCains, the President of the U.S., and Federal courts could not find the truth, then you are pretty naive. Even the White House has leaks, but you think Hawaii dept or records has perfect security that prevents all these people from knowing the truth.

Your comment about Roger Calero can be easily explained by common sense, something government doesn't always use. No one bothered to challenge him because no one really thought he had a chance. So they ignore it and they saved time and money in challenging him. The decision actually saved the taxpayer some money. Something else that government does always do.

MikeMo1947: "Facts about Obama and whether he is qualified to be President: First, there is no evidence that indicates that he was not born in Hawaii. Our legal system is designed to prevent citizens from being accused of something that there is no evidence."

If you were referring to my post, please read it again. I stated that REGARDLESS of where he was born, he is not a natural born citizen because at birth he had dual citizenship. This is not speculation, Obama himself admitted that he was a British subject/Kenyan citizen at birth, by virtue of his father's status, and his Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 18. A "natural-born" citizen is one who is a citizen by birth AND owes allegiance to ONLY ONE nation, and has NEVER owed allegiance to another nation. Obama does not fulfill this requirement, as evidenced BY HIS OWN WORDS. No speculation, no accusations, just simple fact.

If Obama is qualified to be President under the Constitution, I would accept his election as lawful and the will of the people. I have not been happy with the "will of the people" many times in the past, but the elections were lawful and I accepted them. However, the fact that Obama is not qualified, makes him a usurper and I cannot accept that. I cannot accept that the Constitution is ignored, as it is the foundation of our country. Whether or not Obama's election is the "will of the people" is beside the issue. He is NOT qualified, never was, and never will be under the Constitution. If the people don't like that, then the Constitution needs to be amended. However, it cannot be amended retroactively, and Obama's inclusion on the ballot was illegal.

The problem is, there is no one agency or organization charged with vetting the Presidential candidates. The DNC should have ensured he was qualified; the Secretaries of State of the various states should have certified his eligibility; the Electors of the Electoral College should; but it doesn't happen. For example, Roger Calero was included on the New Jersey ballot as the presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party. Mr. Calero was born in Nicaraugua, his parents were Nicaraguan citizens, and he holds a green card as a permanent legal resident. He is not even a naturalized citizen, yet he got onto the ballot! If something this egregious can happen, then someone like Obama can easily slip under the radar.

The head of Hawaii's Dept. of Health has not stated that Obama was born in Hawaii, only that they have a birth certificate on file. Hawaii allowed the registration of foreign births in the early 60's, so the fact that they have Obama's BC means nothing. By law, I am sure they are prohibited from revealing its contents, anyway, and any employee who "leaked" the BC would be fired. I don't believe there's any way an opponent or investigator could access the record on their own, short of breaking and entering, I suppose.

As far as Obama having the least power of all the candidates, how do you figure that?

and isn't it interesting that the masses of people who say "chicago style"
politics, really don't know what that means. just a talking point that they picked up from tv.

and any way, how does chicago style politics translate to washington dc.

if bush gave us texas style politics
i believe we can stand some other state or city style politics.

James - I agree that Obama lied just like all other politicans. However, I have only heard Obama opponents call him the messiah and the antichrist.

Obama lied, he is not the Messiah.He is just a Chicago style polititian.
And he is not even the Anty Christ.

Challenge to the contention that Obama lied and therefore is not trustworthy. Name people who have been elected president that did not lie during the campaign and/or did not break campaign promises. Secondly, whining by the losers happens everytime we have a presidental election. I am tired of the whining whether it is republicans, democrats or independents. Our nation's founders set up election of our officials this way. If you don't like it then start critizing Washington, Adams, Jefferson and all the others. If you are a true American, you would accept the election outcome and support a smooth transfer of power during these dangerous times. It is time to quit whining about Bush and Obama and pull together to get out of the current crisis that face our nation and the world.

Note to James:

Perhaps you should check out an urban legend website such as Snopes before you post. Try entering some keywords such as 'Obama' 'Birth certificate.'

Facts about Obama and whether he is qualified to be President: First, there is no evidence that indicates that he was not born in Hawaii. Our legal system is designed to prevent citizens from being accused of something that there is no evidence. That is why every court this has been taken to, has dismissed it. Second, do you really think that the Hawaii dept of records is able to out smart our intelligence groups and all the special investigators hired by Obama’s opponents. If Hawaii does not have legitimate records of his birth, some opponent would have leaked it before the election? Third, who has the least political power during the campaign, Obama, Clintons, McCain, President Bush or our Federal Courts? Obama had the least connections and power. He had no way to prevent the other four groups from finding out the truth. Finally, if you know he cannot legally be president, then you must have evidence that you have been hiding because no one has been able to show any evidence that birth in Hawaii might not be true. Speculation and evidence are not the same thing.

cali in maine,

what i know for sure, is obama is not geo. bush, and that is a good change for us.
bush and co. lied, and lied, and lied,

and we as a country are still here.

i think we can take obama.

i cannot blame the people who say obama is not trustworthy, especially since many of them voted for bush.
i would be afraid to trust myself with voting if i had supported bush also.

after bush, why would bush supporters have a reason to trust politicians again?

for those that do not trust obama. for things such as rick or fred wrote,
because he has a tick in his eye or any other reason, just take a sit back and wait attitude. and see what the young man can do.

we all laid down for bush and co. and let them roll all over us.

like it or not obama now has his chance to get us out of this ditch bush has dug us in or mire us further down.

i will be hopeful and say obama compared to bush.

obama will take the lead and help us get out of the ditch.

sugar, what I wrote is not my opinion, has nothing to do with my state of mind or location. I am simply reporting fact.

As for why Obama would run for an office he is not qualified for -- only he knows that, we can only speculate. He has lied and distorted the truth and obfuscated many times, he is not trustworthy. ("Not trustworthy" is my opinion; the lies etc. are fact, comparing his words with reality.) You may dispute this, but consider only the latest: Obama and his campaign people claimed that half of their financing was raised by donations from people who donated less than $200. In reality, only about a quarter of his financing came from these small donors, about the same as Bush.

CalifGirlInMaine,

There you go again! Don't you know that the Constitution doesn't mean anything when it would prevent Democrats from doing whatever they want?

I think it is clear that Obama is not a "Natural Born Citizen". He refuses to hand over his birth certificate, he refuses to release his college records, he refuses to release his full health care record, he refuses to answer how he was able to travel to Pakistan when the US government had banned travel at the time, and he refuses to address any questions on when he stopped doing drugs (he has admitted using drugs in his "youth"). Kinda makes picking a National Security team a little bit more important when you have to be concerned that any one of them could discover things about the commander in chief that he simply does not want to be found.

Sugar,

It's not going to matter who sit's in the seat. They are supporting a financial system that is geared to make you and I poor and them rich.

The federal reserve must end! It is a group of private banks designed to scoop up your money and make you poor.
Obama has proven he's part of the same system your arch enemy George Bush supported. He has choosen the president of the federal reserve as treasury secretary. He is paying back the wealthy that bought his power. Obama and Bush are twins!!!

Sugar, your "what if" scenarios can't happen because Obama won the election. But since he won the election we, the American people, have a right to question whether he is up to the job. I would imagine Putin is laughing himself silly at the thought of Obama developing a nervous tick when he hasn't even been tested yet. Is he going to pee his pants if Putin tries to put nukes in Venezuela or Cuba? If nothing else, Obama should be smart enough to seek medical help so he doesn't portray weakness to those who are waiting to jump on any chance to stick it to America. America does not need a president who has a nervous tick that telegraphs his own self doubt.

You also have to wonder if what we are seeing with Obama's nerves is something that runs in his family. Both his mother and father died relatively young, in fact, neither were much older than Mr. Obama is now when they passed. His father died at 46 in a car crash that may well have involved alcohol (he was known to be an alcoholic). His mother died at 53 from cancer, which puts Mr. Obama’s smoking in perspective. Self destructive behavior and cancer are both more prevalent in people who fail to respond to stress in an effective manner.

Mr. Obama’s outwardly controlled manner combined with an uncontrollable facial tick to me indicates he struggles with stress and is compensating. I hope I am wrong but I have seen friends in my own life that go through this same balancing act. In the end it usually ends badly when the stress becomes too high.

cali in maine,

get back to the sun,
you must be having cabin fever up there.

so it should be seen that obama would not run for office if he were not qualified. so he must be qualified.

so according to you obama nor mccain should be president. what about palin?
should alaska count? if hawaii does not.
in your estimation, who should be president?

if we all could concentrate on trying to do some good, and get this country off it' knees, rather than lending our brain power to this conspiracy, gotcha kind of stuff. wow, in four years we as a nation could be back on top again.
(if that is where we belong, and it seem our friends is the rest of the world want us there)
lets try and get on with doing the good,
it is time to let goodness reign in this country again,instead of the hate,and bad from the last eight years.

let goodness reign again in america.