Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Hmmm......(sm)

Posted By: Just the big bad on 2009-01-09
In Reply to: How much does it cost to throw a party? - sm


Team Bush plans to party on






Jan 3, 2005 | Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times paid a recent visit to the Washington headquarters of President Bush's inaugural committee, where 450 paid staff members have been busy planning concerts, balls and other events for the three-day swearing-in extravaganza.


The Bush camp has been taking some heat for the estimated $40 million it will raise and spend on the big party; such criticism seemed especially apt before the White House upped its initial paltry sum of $15 million for tsunami relief to $35 million, and then again later to a more worthy $350 million. (Though there are still plenty of ways to measure even the latter as modest at best.) Others had already taken note of what the $40 million could buy for some of the woefully underfunded U.S. troops in Iraq.


Nonetheless, Bush's legion of party planners were ready to defend their cause. Gordon C. James, a deputy director of inaugural events, pointed out that a presidential inaugural has never been canceled, even during world wars. He double-checked the history books to make sure: "The celebrations went on," he told Bumiller, "that's the lesson we learned."


Technically speaking, James is correct, though according to this recent AP piece, at the height of World War II in 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt "opted for a low-key inauguration to mark the start of his fourth term, with a simple swearing-in ceremony, a brief speech from the South Portico of the White House to a small crowd and a modest luncheon."


Meanwhile, another "senior inaugural official," who according to Bumiller "asked not to be identified," called the unflattering comparisons regarding the $40 million a "political shot." The official added that "people are not going to demand the cancellation of the Rose Bowl parade or the Oscars."


http://dir.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/01/03/party_on/index.html




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Hmmm
Is funny, doing transcription, since 1982, but in the last 15 years, feel like one of those slaves you speak about...all work, no pay...???
Hmmm. sm
Lots of creepy things went on back then.  Someone from this board e-mailed me several times threatening me.  Yes, they sure did.  What does it accomplish writing a post like this. I know the former owner. She is a good person and an honest one.  It's cowardly to write this when you know she can't respond.  It's funny, I tried to post this originally and it said I was using a word not allowed here and that word was her name.  If you want to post in a forum that is going to be this regimented, more power to you.
Hmmm.

The Democrats have suddenly developed a keen sense of morality. John Edwards has been banned from making a speech at the democratic convention for having an affair and lying about it.


In his place Bill Clinton will be speaking.


What am I missing????


Hmmm
TALENTED - -   Oh, my where this conversation has led.
hmmm
Can I get back to you on that Katie?
Hmmm...sm

And Rep. Broun really thinks congress, the senate, the supreme court and any other government branches I forgot would let this happen? People would not protest?  Does he (and you, OP) really believe America has become that weak? Never underestimate Americans, my friends.


HMMM...

GR said, "I would wager a bet that if we were back in the 50s and 60s people wouldn't be hiding behind the smoke screen of birth certificates, Ayers, abortion, gay marriage, etc."


You are right, back then they would not have elected Obama. 


Hmmm......(sm)

Clinton won't be acting on her own accord.  She'll be acting on behalf of the Obama administration.  So, while she might not like the approach Obama has, she'll just have to suck it up and go with it.  I think it would be in HER best interest to go with Obama on this one instead of going renegade, especially if she is still considering running for president in the future.  If she does go renegade, the democratic party will eat her alive, especially considering Obama's popularity, something I'm sure she's well aware of.


I personally liked the pick of Clinton for SOS.  Actually there really weren't that many differences between her and Obama on most issues.  The differences they did have were just emphasized because they were running against each other.  That's what candidates do -- point out differences between themselves and thier opponents.


Hmmm......(sm)

Clinton won't be acting on her own accord.  She'll be acting on behalf of the Obama administration.  So, while she might not like the approach Obama has, she'll just have to suck it up and go with it.  I think it would be in HER best interest to go with Obama on this one instead of going renegade, especially if she is still considering running for president in the future.  If she does go renegade, the democratic party will eat her alive, especially considering Obama's popularity, something I'm sure she's well aware of.


I personally liked the pick of Clinton for SOS.  Actually there really weren't that many differences between her and Obama on most issues.  The differences they did have were just emphasized because they were running against each other.  That's what candidates do -- point out differences between themselves and thier opponents.


Hmmm......(sm)

Rember all that talk before the inauguration about how many people would be there?  Remember all the people on this board who said it would be a crime fest?  Check this out:



Inaugural Weekend Crime Levels Low, So Far




We already had a sense that the crime stats were much lower than usual this weekend, and the Examiner reported today that the long, four-day weekend -- at least up until to this point -- has been quite successful in terms of crime prevention. The U.S. Park Police say they have not made any Inauguration-related arrests as of this morning, and MPD spokesperson Traci Hughes told the paper that for the D.C. police, "it's pretty quiet." Obviously, a full evaluation of the weekend can't be accurately completed without factoring in today's activities and tonight's parties to come, but signs so far point to the significant police preparations panning out (even if they're the officers aren't good with directions).


http://dcist.com/2009/01/inaugural_crime_levels_low_so_far_k.php


How about this?


"Zero. There have been no inaugural-related arrest[s] reported by any of our law enforcement partners today," the Secret Service said, as of 5 p.m. ET.  [That was on Jan 20]


http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Inauguration/story?id=6683899&page=1


Hmmm......(sm)

I wonder....does your church have nonprofit status?  Tax exempt?  And yet sooo involved in politics.   Exactly how legal was that?


Thanks for the concern, but as I've said numerous times, the fate of the general public does not need to be regulated by an institution that only represents the beliefs of christians. 


Hmmm......(sm)
"equality shouldnt be just about race or religion but about everyone having the right to the same things in life".... unless you're gay, not christian or an immigrant no doubt.
hmmm....

Since when has there ever been an intelligent conversation on here?  This is a place where a bunch of women sit at home with nothing to do.  These women aren't out in the real world on a daily basis.  Seriously?  Hoping for intelligent conversation?  Ok, I got popcorn, I'll wait!


Hmmm...
Maybe a more appropriate name would be the Whackpublican Party! That would cover all of their bases from airport bathrooms, to male prostitutes, to back rooms in the Capitol Building. It makes perfect sense!

ROFLMAO!
Hmmm......(sm)

Probably just like I'm tired of hearing about the petty complaints about Obama....


Spending:  Bush did plenty of spending with no protest whatsoever from pub Senators.  Now they are all having a fit about spending all the sudden.  Keep in mind that we had a deficit during all this spending.  What's the difference in Bush spending and Obama spending?  Bush spending included a rubber stamped check for 2 wars, one of which was unnecessary, and he didn't even count the cost of those wars in the budget.  This is all money lost -- as in we don't see any results other than deaths from this.  Obama spending is more of an investment....infrastructure, new energy sources..etc..etc..  We will see a return from this.  Funny how pubs were more than happy to give up money for a unjust war, but when it comes to something like providing unemployment to US citizens they are all up in arms.


Pork:  I think there is good pork and bad pork.  Why do you think we have representatives from each state in Washington if not to ensure help to their respective states?  Granted, a lot of the pork that is on the news is ridiculous, and no I'm not happy about some of the pork that Obama has signed. 


Crooks:  We all know there are crooked politicians on both sides.  I haven't given Blago a free ride.  That should tell you something.  However, I don't happen to believe that Obama is in the "crooked" category. 


Could Obama be doing a better job?  Maybe.  Do I agree with everything he does?  No.  But, do I think he's doing a good job overall?  Yes, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. 


It's not like he has the easiest job in the world.  And yes, he is having to "fix" a lot of messes from the Bush admin as well as from the Clinton admin, which only makes his job harder.  So, given the circumstances, I think he's doing an excellent job.


Hmmm, since Cheney is
perhaps Fitzgerald could use electrodes on Scooter (a grown man with that name should be a crime in itself..LOL), Rove and Cheney himself and see how he likes information extracted in this manner.
Above was in reply to Hmmm (nm)
z
So which is it, tax breaks under 250, under 200, or under 150, hmmm???

 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJvkRFKGgGw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAEE1_IUycs


 


 


Hmmm...it lost, get over it. One day
it will pass, but until then this is what the people of the state of California want. Be a big girl and stop whining already. You can't always have your way, sometimes it takes a while; be patient until then.
Maybe that is why 911happened? hmmm
Maybe Clinton should have had a secret assassination team to take out Osama! Just maybe?
Hmmm...that is interesting.

I've never heard this point of view before.  Marriage has been the accepted word even with non-christians and atheists but the reason for a lot of people not wanting same sex marriage is because of their religious beliefs.  Hmm....I will have to think about your point of view.  I don't particularly like the idea of all "marriages" becoming civil unions but it would at least leave the actual title of marriage alone though.  Hmm.  That might be another way to compromise.  Civil unions can be between any two people no matter what gender and the definition for marriage can be left between a man and woman through our religious beliefs.  I'm sure that will still offend some people but I really do feel that a compromise in this situation wouldn't hurt.  But that is just me.


Hmmm....why are you so caught up in what's on
--
Hmmm - very interesting!

Hmmm....I thought it was just my friends
and classmates looking older and wondering why....
Um, ahh, ummmm, ohhhh, well, hmmm
I think I know why he doesn't want to do the town hall meetings. 
Hmmm. Question and thought

What happens to all the donations O gets from his campaign? Won't that be considered income? You know darn well he's going to have a lot left over.


This thought just entered my mind. I'm really curious about this.


 


 


Hmmm...Kool-Aid or lemons?

We will continue drinking Kool-Aid, and you can continue sucking on lemons.  Who do you think will be happier?  By the way, sucking lemons makes you a sourpuss!



Hmmm, doubly interesting that the one
that came out a month or so ago did not get leaked.
Godless nation....hmmm...(sm)

Now that would be an improvement.  This country was not founded on christianity or any other relgion.  I agree that Obama was downplaying religion, but I also believe that that is exactly what he needed to do.  Bush turned this whole mess into a big "us against them" mentality...."us" meaning christians.  I believe Obama had to negate this idea by downplaying religion, thus deflating the whole notion that we are in a religious war (which is exactly what Bush wanted and subsequently turned it into.)


What I find really interesting is the idea that you insinuate that we MUST be identified as a nation by a specific religion.  Since we are talking about this in the context of politics, exactly why is it you feel we MUST be seen by the world as a "god-fearing" nation?  What would be the benefits of that?


Hmmm...Michelle Malkin...(sm)

You may as well have posted something from Limbone.  What a joke. 


Oh, btw, what's your solution to the healthcare problem?


Remember what Biden said? Hmmm.....
Everyone wants to keep Biden hushed up but the truth is, Obama didn't choose this man. Biden said shoulder to shoulder with him that Obama did NOT have the experience to be a president. So whoever thinks Obama chose Biden as VP should think again. O's puppet masters told him who he would choose and that's the way it went. Biden knows all too well that Obama hasn't a clue how to handle countries like N. Korea OR China; that is why the TRUE powers that be put in Biden in the first place.... he at least does have some foreign affairs experience. He may open his mouth and put his foot in it, at least where it tells the facts about Obama, but he is telling the truth with hsi blunder! He knows Obama is a joke and he knew exactly what he was saying when he said Obama would be tested within 6 months of being in office. You think Obama put Hillary in that position 'cause he thought it was a good decision? Paleeez! The REAL powers that be orchestrated that appointment as well. Obama is a puppet.... they knew it when they put him in there and that's why he is there. He pulled in the black vote and latino vote promising a bunch of hogwash and they fell for it. He speaks eloquently enough.... goes a long way to sway people to coming around to your way of thinking.

Biden isn't as dumb as he acts. Those faux paus are VERY TELLING indeed!! Biden knows exactly what is coming down the pike!
Hmmm...innocent until proven guilty....
you certainly don't think that about George Bush and Dick Cheney, do you? I don't see you asking fellow liberals not to make judgments until they are proven guilty by a jury of their peers...? LOL. Ahem. Think the hippocracy is showing there a little bit. I certainly don't think Kam is considering them innocent until proven guilty, nor are any of the rest of you by your posts. I believe she considers them guilty and impeachment a formality. So please stop with the noble innocent until proven guilty and that is the best system. You don't believe it across the board, so don't speechify. It rings hollow.

And what makes you think I have always voted a Republican ticket? I can tell you right now, I have not, especially in congressional races where I think the most difference is made.

There is nothing to say that Ron Paul would not be a great President. I threw his name out there because he is so radically different than any other Republican running and any Democrat running. Would not surprise me if he lost the Repub nomination and ran as an Independent, which would give disgusted folks such as myself and Kam a real alternative. But Kam is not disgusted with politics. She hates George Bush and she would not vote for a Republican no matter WHAT he or she said, she said as much. And that is what is wrong with politics today, as you have stated so many times and accused me of not wanting change because I said I would never vote for a Democrat. I said I would not vote for a pro abortion Democrat if I have an alternate choice, you are right. But, there are pro life Democrats and I have voted for some for congressional seats. And would continue to do so if I felt they were the most qualified person on the ticket. That is the reason I threw his name out. The only thing that goes against him being able to make any meaningful change is that Congress would hamstring him. If we really want change, we need an independent prez AND an independent congress. That won't happen this election cycle. That kind of change will take years. It could start with this one, and I think that is exactly what Pelosi is trying to avoid by not letting an impeachment go forward right now...too much might come out.

I am not victimized. If anyone is victimized it is poor Kam with that virulent hatred for George Bush. It sounds like it consumes every waking moment. Good grief. I go on about my daily life just like anyone else does, and in the grand scheme of things, WHOever is elected President has his/her work cut out for him/her, we all know that. If it is a Democrat, all I know for absolutely sure is my taxes are going to go up and social programs won't be reined in, they will just get money thrown at them, and if that doesn't fix them, we will get more programs. It has happened every time. And if there is anything in this country that needs to be fixed, that's it. That is another priority for me, and yes, my congresspeople could attest to that from the sheaves of paper they have received from me.

If it is a Republican, what happens depends upon which one it is. If it is Guiliani, I don't see much difference in he and most Democrats and I would have to weigh him against whatever Dem gets the nomination. If it is Romney, I think the man can balance the budget and get runaway spending under control, because say what you want about the man, he is a financial genius and the government is the biggest business there is, and frankly it needs to be run like one. So, if he is the nominee, most likely he will get my vote, because I think it is HIGH time that someone starts to run the government like a business and gets runaway spending under control, starting with social programs. That is so broken it screams to be fixed.

If nominee is Thompson, he will get my vote. For many reasons, the most important of which is putting power back in the states that the feds have stolen over the years. States have demonstrated time and time again they administer their affairs much better than when the Feds get into it. And states may be able to put enough pressure on their reps that Congress might actually do something about that, even if there is a Dem majority. One can only hope. Ron Paul believes that too, and I am in agreement with him on that. We certainly don't need as much centralized power in DC as we have right now. I will vote for the man (or woman) I feel most qualified and most closely follows my vision for the country, just like I would hope everyone else does.

Kam is disgusted, but it is more about her healthy hatred for the MAN George Bush, and the MAN Cheney which has nothing to do with politics and one need only read her posts about them to see that. Which is all well and good, and that is her right and I would argue for her right to say so. Her crusade is to punish George Bush and I don't really think that is going to cure what is wrong with politics in this country. If she thinks Obama is the answer, then I would think her time and energy would be better spent trying to get him the nomination and the election rather than crusading to punish someone on his way out anyway. But that is just me.

Yes, a lot of things about politics and about the way this country is going is disheartening. I do the best I can with my vote and working for whatever candidate I choose to support. Since I am not a rich person I sure can't throw much money at campaigns, but I do what I can.

As to the law is the law and innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers...fine. Does that mean if Bush is impeached and not convicted all would be forgiven on the basis of the law is the law? All of you who are calling for his head would go quietly away because he was judged innocent by his "peers?" ROFL. I don't THINK so.


I would agree with you that we the people of America need to change the way politics are played. But before THAT can happen, the minds of Americans have to change. And the way to do that is stop the bitterly partisan way of thinking (ANY party) and if these political boards, and all the political boards and blogs and sites on the internet are ANY indication, that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Does not mean I am not a happy person, does not mean I am going to slink into a closet and into a depression if Clinton or Obama become President or Paul or WHOEVER becomes President. Life will go on, the chips will fall, and we shall see what happens. Same thing if Guiliani or Romney or Thompson or whoever is elected. It is what it is. Noble ideas and good intentions are wonderful things. But if our Congress cannot drop partisanship long enough to do what is best for the country (if they even know what that is anymore, or care), then it doesn't matter who is President. And I don't know how we can really expect them to if we as rank and file Americans are unwilling to...what goes around comes around, and around, and around, and around....until someone gets off the merry-go-round and pulls the plug. Someone a lot more important, sadly, than kam, than me, or you, piglet. And for the right reasons. And therein lies the rub.

Remember that song, I Need A Hero? Well...America needs one right about now. :)

Hmmm....I am waiting to see who McCain chooses as VP...
because, all politics aside...he is not looking good (McCain). I mean, besides the fact that he is an older person, he just looks unhealthy to me. Does anyone know what happens if after he officially gets the nomination and names a VP...if for health reasons or something he could not continue...does the VP move to the top spot to run for Prez and name another VP? God forbid anything happens to him...don't wish that on ANYONE, but just curious.
Hmmm....I pose your question back to you....
are you on drugs?? lol.
So if this is true, then just produce your BC to the courts, hmmm...




Is Barack Obama a U.S. citizen?"

Of course he is, dummy..

"But how do you know?"

Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website. Not to mention, the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . Also, factcheck.org (a non-partisan and highly credible political fact checking website) investigated it heavily and validated, beyond doubt, that the birth certificate he posted was real. Did I mention that if there were an actual conspiracy surrounding this...it would have to be 47 years in the making? That's right, read it and weep: his birth announcement was posted in a Hawaii newspaper way back in 1961! But if you're really not sure, just remember there have been court cases challenging his citizenship, and every one of them was laughed off the docket.

"That's all pretty compelling. But I got this email that said...."

The email you got is just a crazy, internet-born rumor. It's nothing but a desperate attempt to discredit him. Trust me.

"Yeah, I'm sure you're right...."


Sound familiar? I've personally had a similar conversation several times, but mine ends differently.


"Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website."

Really? Well humor me, because I think this is important enough for us to get our facts straight. So let's explore that. Hawaii doesn't issue "birth certificates". The state offers "Certificates of Live Birth" and "Certifications of Live Birth." What Barack Obama has posted on his website is a "Certification of Live Birth." So let's talk about the difference between the two documents. As you probably know, the document we commonly refer to as a "birth certificate" (more formally called a Certificate of Live Birth) is packed with detail. Detail like the hospital you were born in, the doctor who delivered you along with his/her signature, etc. It looks like a tax form with all the boxes and everything. The Certification of Live Birth is really just a snapshot of that. So which one is more credible? Which one does the state of Hawaii give the "last word" to? Based on information that existed long before this issue came up, let's take a look at one example of what the state of Hawaii has to say on it:

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." ( http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl ).

So if the state of Hawaii itself doesn't accept "Certifications of Live Birth" as a last leg of verification, it's safe to say there's a pretty solid distinction we too can make when comparing a Certificate to a Certification. What Barack Obama posted, was a Certification. What people want to see, is the Certificate. When you say he "posted his birth certificate" on his website, the truth (painful as it may be to hear) is that he posted a much different document that if accurately described, would be a "birth certification" - which is far less credible and far easier to alter.

"That's pretty lean. It's not really a big deal to me because I know it's just a rumor. But still, if you're going to insist there's a question here, I have to tell you....the state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . They have the 'Certificate' you're talking about, and they proved it was authentic. Are you saying they're in on this crazy conspiracy?"

I'm not saying they're involved in a conspiracy, or even that one exists. But I'm not sure you can honestly say you actually read that statement. Here, take a look:

Director of Health for the State of Hawaii , Chiyome Fukino: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i."

Now you tell me, where in that statement does it say anything about where he was born? Public officials are very careful when they release these statements. They carve their words out precisely and check and double check to make sure what they release is accurate and viable. I have to be honest, it wasn't until this statement came out that I became more concerned by the citizenship question. If you actually read it, it's plain to see that as it relates to his birth, the statement really only "proves" 3 things: 1) Barack Obama was born, 2) proof of that birth exists on paper, and 3) their office is in receipt of that paper. An official statement with a lot of affirmatives about requirements and procedures means nothing if they can't find the words, "originating from Hawaii " or "was born in Honolulu " or "as documented in the Certification he has already released". Now maybe it was an accident that Dr. Fukino was able to authenticate virtually every scrap of it's existence - except the part everyone is asking about. However, pressed on this, there has been ample opportunity for her to revise or expand her statement, and she still to this day has not done so.

"Wait a minute, Hank. Didn't factcheck.org already investigate this whole thing. You're just grasping at straws. What do you know, that they don't?!"

I guess the first thing I'd tell you is that, on this particular subject, factcheck has already missed a lot of "facts", and even created a few of their own. You know that statement we just read from Hawaii 's Director of Health? Well this is what factcheck had to say about it: "Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu " ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ). Did you see that in the statement? I didn't. If this site's only claim is to report facts in a non-partisan manner, how much credibility can we really give them when they start making up their own, very partisan and very inaccurate facts? They also failed to make the distinction between the Certificate and the Certification. And to be fair, factcheck.org is a product of the Annenberg Foundation. You may remember, Barack Obama worked for Annenberg as a spoke in their umbrella. If you look at the actual facts, this is a slight conflict of interest on factcheck.org's part - which might help to explain their not having met their own obligation of getting the facts right. An accident on their part? Maybe. But they too have had plenty of time to correct it, but chose instead to close the book on this one...fabricated facts and all.

"Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack's parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There's a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud."

Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you're bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn't have to be a "conspiracy" for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.

"Hmm. Okay. Well newsflash Hank. This has already been challenged in court and the judges dismissed it as frivolous and ridiculous."

Actually, this has been heard in a handful of courts. The judges by-in-large dismissed the cases, you're right. But the majorative reason was not merit, but rather standing. "Standing", as an act of dismissal in the courts, is a technicality. The judges said that individual citizens did not have standing to ask that the Constitution be upheld. This raises a pretty clear question: If "We The People" don't have standing to ask that the contract we hold with our government be upheld (ie the Constitution), who does? There are several other cases still pending; at least 12 confirmed. One of those is actually active on the Supreme Court's docket, as we speak. Another has been brought in California by 2008 candidate for the Presidency, Alan Keyes...and several of California 's electors (members of the electoral college who will officially vote our President in on December 15, 2008).

I don't think too many grounded people could say, "I know the answer." For instance, I am not saying Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. I'm not saying he was born in Kenya . I'm not saying he renounced his U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and attended school there (a right reserved only to Indonesian citizens - in a country that didn't recognize any dual citizenship.) I'm not saying that due to his father's citizenship at a time when Kenya was still part of the British empire , Barack, as a son, was automatically and exclusively afforded British citizenship. I'm not saying the video footage of his Kenyan grandmother claiming to have been in the delivery room, in Kenya , when he was born, is necessarily "evidence." I'm also not saying he was born in Hawaii . What I'm saying is, none of us have these answers. I'm saying, there is an outstanding question here - that only Barack Obama can answer. And rather than answer it, having promised a new sense of transparency throughout his campaign, his course of action has been to spend time, money and the resources of at least 3 separate law firms....fighting to keep any and all documentation off the discovery table and out of the courtroom. It is a well known legal fact that if you have documentation/evidence that will help you - you are quick to produce it. If that documentation will hurt you, however, you fight to keep it out of court. Let's be fair. He was quick and happy to give documentation he claimed validated and authenticated his citizenship to a website - but is fighting to keep that same documentation out of the courts. If that document really does authenticate and validate everything, why not just hand it over? Why fight?

"Alright Hank. Well MY question is, if there was any validity to this, why isn't the media covering it?"

I have no idea.


As an Independent and initial Barack Obama supporter, I can safely say that contrary to what many think, asking these questions is not an attempt by Republicans to win a technicality-laden seat in the White House. Republicans lost. They were due the loss. Most know that. The seat will ultimately go to a Democrat. But if there is truth to Barack Obama not being able to formally prove his a) natural born, and/or b) properly maintained citizenship statuses - we as Americans must not gloss past it. If there is truth to it, this will represent the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and our most coveted process of democracy. If there is truth to it, this will demonstrate a wanton and relentless pursuit for power which left President-Elect Obama trapsing all over our Constitution - in pursuit of a position that ironically and foremost swears him to uphold and protect that same document.

There is much unanswered here. I know it is very embarassing for the Democratic party to have allowed what might be such an incredibly elementary oversight to occur - but nothing good that Barack Obama might do in the next 4-8 years, will be able to repair the damage done by setting a precedent that affords anyone in our Country the room and right to trample the contract "We The People" hold with our government, let alone a person who is asking to be our next President.

"Everyone will riot if they kick him out." We can't be intimidated by that. The people of our country elected a black man for the Presidency. Nothing can change that. If it turns out his entire campaign and effort were based on fraud, that reality is still 100% independent of the color-blind lenses our nation took to the polls. So if we bow down to the potential for race riots - recognizing that we did in fact (perhaps ignorantly relating to his eligibility) initially vote for him, we are only fostering a new evolution of racism that is nurtured by intimidation and complicit with failing to incite accountability over a man, people and process - simply based on color.

Very few people know any of this is even occurring. Those who do are greatly divided. Some are sure Barack Obama has acted fraudulently, some are sure he hasn't. Neither group can be sure of anything though, until Barack Obama himself answers the question for us. We all show our "birth certificates" (Certificates of Live Birth) several times over the course of our lives. Why should someone running for the Presidency be an exeption to that expectation, or even a more fiercely vetted recipient of it? More questionably, how can we as a government, media and nation - allow someone running for the Presidency to be an exception to that expectation?

The behavior, mostly (to my personal dismay) for his part, has only fueled speculation. Why factcheck.org? Why not a governing body like the Federal Election Commission, Board of Elections or even the DNC? When a governing body did finally inject itself in to this matter, why were they only able to do so vaguely...leaving the real question entirely untouched and unanswered? Why spend more than $800K fighting this in court, at a time when our nation is in economic crisis and that money could be better spent in far more charitable ways; when it could ultimately and universally be resolved for the small $12.00 fee required by Hawaii for a copy of the actual Certificate of Live Birth? In the spirit of transparency, why refuse to release this basic document for inspection? In the spirit of unity, why leave so many Americans alienated and debating the matter - when all most of them want is affirmation so that people on both sides of the debate can move to more healthy and productive lines of communication?

It was opinionated that he had left this door open prior to the election, so that those who opposed him would be led down a blind and pointless alley. The general election is over though. And still, he offers nothing to end the speculation.

By the time I am done with the conversation I outlined above, those I am speaking with inevitably return to what I have typically found to be their first and last refutation....

"He must have been properly vetted. Right....?"

I don't know. And without support for that contention coming directly from the Federal Election Commission, the Board of Elections or (ideally) Barack Obama himself, neither does anyone else.

"This is ridiculous" doesn't count as a refutation. Simply, answer the question with the simple documentation that is being asked of you in double digit numbers of court rooms across the country, including the Supreme Court. It may go away. It may be dismissed again based on standing. But President-Elect Obama's refusal to quell what have become very real questions about this, will only serve to leave many good Americans who hope to vigorously support their President...with far too much doubt to be able to do so. Production of a Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price to pay for unity.



oh hmmm i dunno maybe cause you called me racist?
i have nothing to "lighten up" about

I find humor in so many things, but NOT that
And your hobby would be....hmmm... kissing O's boots?
nm
Hmmm, didn't a lot of the torture start
after 9-11 which I recall being a horrible terrorist attack? At that time, maybe torture was the right thing to do to find Obama, sorry, I mean Osama.
Hmmm.....Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann....
removed from anchor duties for election coverage and relegated to commentator only.  Talk about backlash.
Methinks they have been talking to Sarah and Todd...hmmm...

Hmmm..... Obama supporters suddenly quiet
nm
Just stop the conspiracy by showing your BC, why hire three law firms...HMMM


Just stop the conspiracy by showing your long form BC...HMMM


Hmmm...Gives new meaning to "He's an empty suit", doesn't it?
x
Just stop the conspiracy by showing your long form BC, why hire three law firms...HMMM