Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by po boy on August 29, 2008 at 14:42

-Barry_showed up for work 143 times.
Voting record: voted 130 times "present" out of 101 votes.
Traveled on Indonesian Passport as late as 1981.
Registered in school as Barry Soroboto as a resident alien of Indonesia in Cook county . One brother is exporter in China, other brother ,George, lives in a hut in Kenya on $1. a month.
No application in name Barak Obama on record with Bar Assoc.
Is currentlt being sued in Federal Court in Washington DC by members of Democratic Party for falsely claiming to be elligible to run for persident.
Has also gone by the name, Barry Dunham.
ONLY executive experience is with the Woods Foundation.
Is totally a media creation.
PRAY FOR AMERICA!

Permalink Reply by po boy on August 29, 2008 at 16:56

I mean voted "present" 130 out of 131 votes. Really "takes a stand"!
NEVER showed up for the Commitee on Afghanistan he is a member off.

Permalink Reply by mooncookie on September 14, 2008 at 16:46

WOW!

What is even more interesting is that John Mc Cain is now under a similar eligibility lawsuit: see below

9/12/08
Order Pending in California Eligibility Lawsuit Filed Against John McCain

Barack Obama is not the only presidential candidate to have his constitutional eligibility questioned.

By as soon as noon today, the Hon. William Alsup of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California should render a decision regarding the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Republican National Committee, the California Republican Party and Sen. John McCain on September 4, all connected with a lawsuit filed on August 11 by Markham Robinson, chairman of California's American Independent Party.

As far as I know, this is at the very least the third such lawsuit challenging McCain's eligibility for the presidency. According to the Washington Post, which questioned McCain's citizenship back in May 2008--about two months after McCain's citizenship was questioned by the New York Times--a U.S. State Department manual states holds that, because U.S. military installations across the globe cannot be deemed "part of the United States," any children "born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

Congress actually intervened back in May, with leaders including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and McCain rival Barack Obama uniting with GOP counterparts to eliminate any confusion with regard to the Arizona senator's citizenship by proclaiming him a "natural-born citizen" of the United States. This reaffirmed a measure brought forth by Congress in 1937 which bestowed the status of "naturalized U.S. citizen" upon children of military, government and railroad personnel born in U.S. territories abroad.

Markham Robinson, the party chairman who filed suit against McCain in California, told me over the telephone that his suit hinges on, among other things, the difference between being "naturalized" and being "natural-born," the latter being required for the presidency by Article 11, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

"The term 'natural-born citizen,' Jeff, is a term undefined by the constitution," said Robinson. "Being 'naturalized' means being as-if-natural, but understand that people are not natural-born when they are naturalized."

Robinson, who described McCain as a "Panamanian anchor baby," contests that the GOP nominee was actually born in Colon, a city in Panama which was not a part of the Panama Canal Zone, and not at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Coco Solo, where McCain's 96-year-old mother, Roberta, has vivid memories of the sounds of celebration in a nearby officer's club following her son's birth. According to the aforementioned Washington Post article, however, no record of McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone--then a U.S. territory--exists.

Regardless of the fuzziness of any details, Robinson's motivation is fairly clear.

"If John McCain gets elected, and it looks like he could," said Robinson, "we'll still be in the process of appeals and he could see his eligibility denied by the Supreme Court, resulting in Sarah Palin assuming the presidency or, if his eligibility is denied before the electoral college selection [on December 15], we could see a compromise candidate."

"And that candidate would be?" I asked.

"Alan Keyes."

Now, even aside from the underlying issue regarding McCain's citizenship, here's how I look at Robinson's challenge of John McCain: When New Hampshire resident Fred Hollander filed a similar suit against McCain in March of this year, the District Court dismissed the case on the grounds that, like many voters who take to the courts to challenge a certain candidate's spot on a ballot, he lacked standing to sue. Candidates and political parties as a whole, see, have an easier time proving that they have standing because a candidate or party--rather than an individual voter--can show injury from the presence of such a possibly ineligible candidate on a shared ballot, can show that the injury in question is directly related to that ineligible candidate, and can argue that adjudication of the issue could provide relief.

Therein lies the rub, not only for Markham Robinson but for Philip Berg as well. The Motion to Dismiss filed by the GOP lawyers in San Francisco was relatively light on citizenship answers but heavy on language challenging Robinson's standing. They maintained that McCain's candidacy hasn't caused him any injury and, with regard to possible relief, went as far as to propose that McCain's removal from the ballot in California would only negligibly improve Alan Keyes' chances in the state.

The question here in Philadelphia, therefore, is how Phil Berg plans to get around the standing issue. The District Court in New Hampshire, after all, left no question as to whether an individual citizen like Fred Hollander had standing to challenge McCain's eligibility -- what makes Berg's case any different?

He argues that Obama's candidacy has defrauded the American voting public out of hundreds of millions of dollars. He argues that the Obama's eventual removal from office should his allegations of ineligibility eventually be proven correct and brought forth would lead to chaos and catastrophe within the Democratic Party and America as a whole. Is any of this enough to prove injury, to prove proximate cause, to show the feasibility of redress?

On the telephone this morning, Berg said that he has been questioned about the standing issue, that he is considering the best way to address it in the future, and will talk to me more about it later. On the Robinson case, though, he was quick to point out what he called a "very different situation."

"Note that he filed suit and they responded," Berg said, evidently an allusion to the motion filed by the Republican National Committee, the Republican Party of California and John McCain almost a week prior to the answer deadline. "I've filed suit, and they haven't responded."

I've made my position known over the past few weeks as the details surrounding Berg's lawsuit presented themselves. Though I have freely admitted that I am skeptical of Berg's allegations--much like I am skeptical of those raised by Markham Robinson--I have also maintained that I feel as though we, as Americans, are constitutionally obligated to vet our potential leaders to the best of our ability, regardless of their political ideology.

Even though I personally feel as though the controversy surrounding John McCain is more cut-and-dry than that surrounding Barack Obama, it will nonetheless be interesting to see how Judge Alsup comes down today on Robinson's standing and on the rest of the GOP's motion. Will the citizenship issue be addressed at all, or will it boil down to standing alone?

One person in particular should be watching as well -- Philip Berg.

POSTED BY JEFF SCHREIBER

As Emeril would say: Bam, Baby


Now we can agree that all of this absolutely ridiculous

Permalink Reply by buddy on August 29, 2008 at 16:30

When has a Dem ever lowered taxes. Ha Ha Ha!!!

Permalink Reply by P.G. on August 29, 2008 at 16:39

The most frightening thing about Obama is he will get to appoint supreme court justices.
Any one who values their second amendment right should keep that in mind.

Permalink Reply by mooncookie on September 14, 2008 at 16:30

I guess you never heard of the patriot act....

Permalink Reply by Gas Baron on September 5, 2008 at 9:26

The President can only appoint Justices when there is a vacancy. Since Justices fill their term until they decide to step down or Death. I do not see any of them going any where anytime soon.
Of course their average age is 68 so they are all young compared to McCain 72

Permalink Reply by mooncookie on September 14, 2008 at 16:29

Do you really think he is going to challenge the constitution?

Wake up. He is more original than the Bush Administration (I mean we already have the Patriot Act and some other fascist legislation limiting other important amendments)

I think he stated this cliche at one of the speeches I saw..."when guns are completely outlawed, then only the outlaws will have guns"...."I think it is important that the people be able to protect themselves and their property as well as hunt, but we don't need Ak-47's in the hands of streetgangs".

If anything, illegal gun trading and the "obviously not for hunting" guns will be the only sector that is threatened, not the 2nd Amendment.

If you're a lord of war or hardcore thug-lifer, I can understand your fear otherwise....don't be so silly...no one will ever be able to take away our guns!!!! They wouldn't make it past city council with that additude!

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on September 14, 2008 at 16:44

Have you ever heard of the Washington D.C. city council, they totally banned guns for over 20 plus years and thank god it was struck down, by the conservative judges appointed by republicans, all you can do is spout off liberal talking points that have no basis in fact. If I want guns that are for killing poeple and not for hunting that is my right, In fact the Second Amendment was written specifially for poeple to have guns not for hunting but in fact to shoot and kill their fellow man if need be. If you think listening to terrorists phone calls is a violation of the constitution thats ridiculous, I can use your own argument you just stated about guns, if your a terrorist I can understand your fear otherwise right? Its always the same ole double standard liberal BS!

Permalink Reply by Holedigger on August 29, 2008 at 17:05

The way it looks to me is...Mccain blew the sock monkey out of the water with his v.p. choice! Pretty much ruined ol Hillary and Bill's afternoon too. "Yes we can" my butt!

Permalink Reply by pal on August 29, 2008 at 18:23

Friends do not let friends vote democratic!!!

Permalink Reply by Concerned on August 30, 2008 at 3:22

KB's arguement that Louisiana already has nationalized O&G is lucid on the surface, but with a little more examination it leaves out one major requirement for nationalization - you would not recieve these bonuses or royalities if it was a truly nationalized system. You might be lucky to get a "have a nice day" out of the government/O&G as they siezed "the peoples' minerals" from you.

While I agree that forced pooling sucks, you are "force pooled" in many facets of your life every day. Take our discussion of presidential candidates for example. One side or the other will be forced pooled into having their country represented by someone they do not believe will reperesent their views and address their needs.

In a corollary to our discussions, I want to mention another item. If you are someone that complains about getting a "fair market price" for your mineral rights and then turn around and complain about how Big Oil is gouging us, you should stop and think about your position for a moment. I agree that $4/gal gas and $5/gal diesel is outrageous. But take a look at lease bonuses today and a year ago.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• …
• 14
• Next ›
• Page