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

O is teh President of the Untied States of America!!

Posted By: () on 2009-06-17
In Reply to: exactly. - cj

Show some respect!


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

O is the President of the Untied States of America!!
Show some respect!
Someone whose loyalties lie with the United States of America
nm
Rise of the United Socialist States of America

If you can honestly approve of all this, I just don't know what else to say...


Click here: The Rise of the United Socialist States of America


 


"Untied" States of America and good "buy."

and we ARE talking about the President of the United States here...
he is not running for the senate. He is running for the top spot. Obviously the postings I made before about Marxist leanings were not so off the wall...if the Marxists are high-fiving him in open letters to newspapers. And not just any Marxist...son of the big Kahuna. Don't understand how someone can consider abstinence and sex education valid issues to attack a candidate's family for pete's sake and totally ignore this little revelation. How sweet it is to wear blinders, I suppose.
And I notice that he often states"WHEN I am president"
That's scary. He has something up his sleeve and it's not his arm.
this is slandering the President of the United States..sm
saying that the President is stupid WITHOUT having ANY proof of this.
Obama must be United States Citizen to be president!!!!

Until he proves to all the people of the United States that he was born a US citizen, how can anyone support him for president!  Are we all that desperate?


Look....any president of the United States is going to trust people to do their jobs...
he trusted FEMA to do their jobs. He trusted that Blanco and Nagin were listening to what the weather experts were telling them and what the corps of engineers were telling them...they asked for the evacuation to be mandatory a full 24 hours before Nagin made it mandatory. A very precious 24 hours. So it was impossible to get people out. Can we possibly lay the failure at the feet of all responsible?

And as i said...would have taken the post a lot more seriously had the poster not made the "baker" comment at the end. It lost all credibility at that point..but of course, I am sure that escaped you.

And what any of this has to do with John McCain, whose birthday it was, having a piece of cake...he was a senator at the time. So was Obama. I figure he had a meal that day, and maybe even some cake.

This is a nonissue. There are a bazillion reasons why Katrina was such a disaster. One, the corps of engineers had been telling local and state officials for years that the levees would not hold if there was a big storm. Good lord, the whole town is below sea level!! Which, incidentally, is not Bush's fault either.

But NONE of these things have ANYTHING to do with JOhn McCain. Nice try to link it to him...but no.
How about : Stop telling the President of the United States WHAT functions
to attend and which not?
I think O and his cabinet are doing a better job in this than you.
You know, if America is not ready for a woman president now, when will they be? sm
And an even more important question, "why wouldn't they be?"

Is it that most Americans, some women included, believe that the woman is less competent than a man to handle the presidency? I don't ascribe to that now, and never will, but you probably have a point there. I've already heard some of the silly reasons the neocons have given that she would not make a good president, one being that she would not be respected and I still beg the same question - why?
President Chavez offered to help America's
poor purchase oil at affordable prices while Bush's cronies are enjoying skyrocketing profits as a result of price gouging.  I've heard some poor people say that Chavez cares more about them than Bush does.  Who can possibly argue with that?
Bush is a president who cares about protecting America
not building a legacy, like Clinton.  It is a crying shame that those in the left circle of the Democratic party have become so embittered they actually put us all at risk. 
If customary deference to a sitting president by president elect
for the rest of us who understand such concepts as respect and traditional protocol, it would qualify as a darned good reason.
That's why most of the states are red. sm
The majority are just blind sheep and ignorant of facts. And that's why Fox News, the so-called conservative channel, is #1.  People are just so stoopid, especially those big dummies, the conservatives. That's why they keep getting elected.  It's just that the majority of Americans are too dumb to know any better. 
You are right, when someone states that
about "hating me since 1996" one does question. But there is information in there that can be factualized. For example, leaving a small town of 5000-6000 people 20 mil. in debt is something that can be verified (I have also read that elsewhere) and that does not seem very conservative to me.

Just because information comes from a blog (though this 1 did not), does not mean it has some facts in it. And no, I don't mean the blog of kos or the way right website of audacity of hope.
I bet she knows how many states we have though!!!
xx
Do you know what states?
I can guarantee mine isn't included. He's blasting all over the state how much money we are getting and what it's for, then turns around and states what HE's going to spend it on, which doesn't include anything that is in the stimulus plan.
which states
Can anyone tell me which states those are?
Dear Red States
Dear Red States...
 
We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're
 taking the other Blue States with us.  In case you aren't aware, that
 includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan,
 Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to
 the nation, and  especially to the people of the new country of New
 California.
 
 To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get
 stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken
 Lay.  We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and
 Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.   We get 85
  percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.
 
 We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay
 their fair share.  Since our  aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower
than  the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a
bunch  of single moms.
 
 Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and
 we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need
 people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently
 willing to send to their death for no purpose, and they don't care if you
 don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you
 success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to
 spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.
 
 With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of
the  country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and
lettuce,
 
 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality
 wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all
 cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur
 coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven
 Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
 
 With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88
 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92
 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90
 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually
 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University,
 Clemson and the University of Georgia.
 
 We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
 
 Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was
 actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless
 we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that
 evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and
 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals
 then we lefties.
 
 By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed
they  grow in Mexico.
 
 
 Sincerely,

 Author Unknown in New California.


Probably will return to the states
As Lilly posted, the decision of termination will probably eventually  return to the states..Interesting times we are living in..
Aren't you the one who WANTS states

I don't mean for that to sound rude, just an honest question.  I seem to remember you saying you wanted more power to go to individual states, so do you agree with the states having control in this case?  I appreciate the information and will check it out.  I already know my state's income eligibility requirements and will post them below if anyone is curious.  I found them at mt.gov.


For Montana:

































2007 CHIP Income Chart
Effective July 1, 2007
*Annual Adjusted Gross Income (before taxes)


Household Size
(Children and Adults)

Household Income

Family of 2

$23,958

Family of 3

$30,048

Family of 4

$36,138

Family of 5

$42,228

Family of 6

$48,318

Family of 7

$54,408

Family of 8

$60,498

Some employment-related and child care deductions apply.
These guidelines are effective July 1, 2007.
Income guidelines may increase in 2008.
* If a child qualifies for Medicaid, health insurance will be provided by Medicaid.


At least he knows how many states are in the country..
he is running to be President of. Hee hee.
At least he knows how many states are in the country.....
he says he can lead. At least his #2 has not said publically that he is not fit for the job. At least his #2 is not badmouthing his campaign ads. At least he is not buds with domestic self-confessed communist terrorists. At least he did not study the Alinsky method of Marxist socialist organizing. At least he puts his country first, not his party. Sorry...no way,no how, nobama.
Why states' government is just as

Just to narrow their choices down to who they want instead of letting the people decide, as in a free democracy, even the states are changing their rules without the knowledge of its citizens..........


http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/editorials/URGENT_Party_Switching_Deadlines.html


 


not necessarily. I don't know about other states, but...
here in Michigan they want to allow voting online, not needing to actually be "absent" to get an absentee ballot, and no ID needed. And they were also tossing around early voting like Ohio did. If this is all allowed like the Dems want, then all the "dead dems" in Cook County will be moving to Michigan to vote, and then move back to Chicago.

What is scary about all these "proposals" is that you have the opportunity for out and out voter fraud the likes of which will make Cook County politics look like a Sunday school picnic. Especially if they decide to do this in all the states. JMO though.
Maybe denial is one of his 57 states.
nm
because she states if people
worked their butts off . . . I don't understand how two people working their butts off comes out to $24K. That would be 40 hours each at minimum wage to make that little. We have two kids. My husband works 56 hours a week and I have been averaging 30 hours, more if there was work available. Next week, I am taking on another job, so I will then be working 50+ hours a week and DH will still be working 56 hours a week. That is working your butt off.
Don't forget about the states. Why
do you think Rendel hosted the Governor's meeting in Phila. last week? They want some money too, but Rendel is just covering his tracks by calling this meeting because the state is almost bankrupt after giving every nickel away of the road repair money to 2 cities and just last week before the meeting, he gave another couple Million or Billion away for something else.
Really dumb, 57 states out of 58!!
xx
"there are 57 states in the us"
x
Do you think they knew the U.S. has only 50 states, too?nm

Obama/57 states

That is so false (and keep your nasty inflammatory racist comments to yourself)


Didn't he say he had been to 57 of 58 states...

xx


All the states can approve
homosexual marriage. It still doesn't make it a reality. Very few people will ever recognize it as reality. In fact, it's best just to ignore it completely and not validate the assylum.;-)
Not all states require 2...most will take a DL...
and we already know that most of the illegals in this country have a DL. Not every state requires that you prove citizenship to get a DL. Some states will take one of those picture ID's you can get anywhere and let you vote. Some states don't require any ID and most certainly don't ask for a SS card. If they did, that would nix it in a heartbeat. I came from PA and they don't require an SSN, just a DL, and only once when you register. After that, it is never checked again. Where I live now they do not require an SSN. Only a DL when you register.
I guess your not counting the states he won either
On the news today it showed popular vote from all the states that voted. He has over 300 more votes than her for the popular vote. She is saying she has the popular vote but she is not counting the states he won in. Funny math to me. Oh but I guess she should be nominated as one of her supporters said because she did win Puerto Rico today.
U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution...
U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution
Critic: 'This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme'




Posted: December 12, 2008
12:25 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily



A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."


"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.


"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.


The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.


Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.


The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention," the alert said. "If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution."


DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.


State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.


According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.


In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."


Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.


Read how today's America already has rejected the Constitution, and what you can do about it.


Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."


Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.


Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.


Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.


Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.


The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.


In the 2001 interview, Obama said:


If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.


And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.



 
















WND





OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution
Critic: 'This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme'





Posted: December 12, 2008
12:25 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily



A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."


"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.


"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.


The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.


Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.


(Story continues below)














 




 


"The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention," the alert said. "If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution."


DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.


State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.


According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.







The final vote from the 1787 Constitutional Convention


In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."


Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.


Read how today's America already has rejected the Constitution, and what you can do about it.


Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."


Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.


Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.


Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.


Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.


The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.


In the 2001 interview, Obama said:


If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.


And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.


The video is available here:




src=http://www.youtube.com/v/iivL4c_3pck&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"
width=425" height=344"
type=application/x-shockwave-flash>


DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies.


"Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget," the alert said. "But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution, one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights."


He noted that when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a new Constitution.


"We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny," the warning said. "Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic" provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society."


DeWeese then listed some of the states whose legislatures already have issued a call: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.


"You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true," the warning continued. "However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission."


The warning also suggested that the belief that a Constitution Convention could be directed in its purpose is misplaced.


"In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called, Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself," the warning said.


"We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes. However, following the delegates' first agreement that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states' approval from 100 percent to 75 percent. There is no reason to believe a contemporary Con Con wouldn't further 'modify' Article V restrictions to suit its purpose," the center warning said.


The website Principled Policy opined it is true that any new document would have to be submitted to a ratification process.


"However fighting a new Constitution would be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle which is guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It is not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution," the site said.


American Policy cited a statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger that said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."


"This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme," the policy center said. "The majority of U.S. voters just elected a dedicated leftist as president. … Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era; replaced by new 'collective' rights, awarded and enforced by government for the 'common good.'


"And state No. 34 is likely sitting silently in the wings, ready to act with lightning speed, sealing the fate of our once great nation before we can prevent it," the center said.


A Constitutional Convention would be, DeWeese told WND, "our worst nightmare in an age when you've got people who believe the Constitution is an antiquated document, we need to have everything from controls on guns … all of these U.N. treaties … and controls on how we raise our children."


"When you take the document that is in their way, put it on the table and say how would you like to change it," he said.


American Policy Center suggested several courses of action for people who are concerned, including the suggestion that Ohio lawmakers be contacted.


WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen.


The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.


The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.


The issue of Obama's own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.


"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'undecidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution's worst provision,'" Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."


 


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83364


Why go on and on in defense of the ඁ states"
remark?  My God!  and.. if it had been McCain making the same mistake, you probably would have been all over him. You want to insult me as if I pay no attention and do no research. I am 45 years old, take the presidency VERY seriously, and I do pay attention. So, "get smart" yourself and wake up! I do not believe that Obama has the experience or policies to lead and defend the United States of America. I do not care what color he is and I don't appreciate it when anyone, including himself, makes race an issue. We should not vote against or for someone because of color, yet it will happen. The way I feel about Obama has nothing to do with race, it has to do with "substance" as I said. You can feel the way you want. You certainly have not changed my mind. We all have a right to decide what WE feel is best.
His website states his ideas and how he
I was undecided until McCain picked Palin.  C'mon people - she was the mayor of a town with 9,000 people.  God forbid if something should happen to McCain - would you want her to step in.  It's Obama for me - I've always liked Joe Biden - he doesn't think he's above everyone else and even commutes to and from work like us "normal" folk.    
new study states political

leanings are partially genetic.  Those who startle easily are more likely to be republican.  Those who are on a more even keel and do not startle at small noises or movements are more likely to be democrats.  I would say this board supports those conclusions.


 


in the first web site you listed it states . .
Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.
Obama thinks there are 57 states...he can't even...
get it right in his OWN country. He tried 3 times and still did not get the right number. Gimme a break. You wouldn't have known how many NAFTA or CAFTA countries if it hadn't been in the article you're quoting. Gimme a breakkkk. lol.
Hope someone teaches O that there are 50 states,
not the 57 he mentioned on the campaign trail (oh yeah, there ARE 57 Islamic states)
Some believe O stated 57 states meaning
x
He obviously was referring to US states, territories, etc

He received votes from 57 "entities."  If someone wants to get picky, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania aren't states, either. 


From:  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080717171450AAf1dMj


57 caucuses and primaries in the states, commonwealth, territories, districts and citizens abroad. In order they are:

Iowa
New Hampshire
Michigan
Nevada
South Carolina
Florida
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah
Louisiana
Nebraska
U.S. Virgin Islands
Washington caucus
Maine
Democrats Abroad
District of Columbia
Maryland
Virginia
Hawaii
Wisconsin
Ohio
Rhode Island
Texas primary
Texas caucus
Vermont
Wyoming
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
Guam
Indiana
North Carolina
West Virginia
Kentucky
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Montana
South Dakota

Right. Some are called states, commonwealths,
etc., generically referred to as "states."  There's also Washington, DC, which is listed on the list of 57 I previously posted, which isn't a state, either.
He does not present the certificate that states the
nm
Qualifications for Prez of US states
one has to be 35 years old and a US citizen.  And, yes, when young people fight wars, even preemptive wars, they should most definitely be able to vote for whomever they think will have their best interests in mind. Thank GOD you do not run the gov't. 
FIFTY-SEVEN States, I believe she tried to type

nm


Exactly. News states that 9/11 families
take the terrorists in his district of Pennsylvania.