What Obama voted for in Congress. Do you agree?

[thomasjordan]

That website isn't worth the time it took to create.

The author lists "sources," but nothing to link back to them to verify their authenticity.

The author lists about a dozen "talk shows" he has been on.  I have never heard of a single one of the "hosts."  That is not to say they are not real, as you indicated you had heard this on a talk show, but they must serve very small local markets.

The website is poorly written, with misspelled words and poor grammar.  It certainly was not prepared by a lawyer or a scholar.

I am not a supporter of Senator Obama, but I do not believe a word on that website. 

If there were any "meat" to this story, Clinton or McCain or one of the conservative news outlets would have picked up on it.  Since that has not happened, I rate this as pure wishful thinking on the part of the author and his few friends.

[thomasjordan]

Let us examine the complaint:

"1. Is not a natural-born citizen; and/or

2. Lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia; and/or

3. Has dual loyalties because of his citizenship with Kenya and Indonesia."

Point one.  The author provides no evidence that Obama is not a natural-born citizen.  If he was born in the United States, or if either parent was a US citizen, then Obama is a natural-born citizen.

Point two.  No evidence has come to light that he was adopted in Indonesia.  Even if he were, that would not invalidate his natural-born US citizenship.

Point three.  So what?  John McCain would have carried Panamanian citizenship until his 18th birthday.  It is true that Obama would have carried Kenyan citizenship by reason of his father's citizenship.  We know he has only visited Kenya once from his passport records, and was not even aware that his half-brother is living in a hovel on $1 a month, as revealed on FoxNews within the past several days. 

As I have previously stated, I am not a supporter of Senator Obama, but these charges are bogus.

[Gwizz]

You could be right, but the way you responded almost makes you sound like an Obama supporter.  No offense intended.

I've heard that the Obama support team sent out people to disrupt Blogs negative to Obama.

But then we are too small for that to happen to us. 

It is still interesting and I can understand the lawyers reluctance to give too much information too early.

People have died for doing less against the wishes of high level elitists.

The lawyer stated it was Republicans that first investigated the charges. 

If true, the republicans could be sitting on the information to limit the time Clinton's would have to campaign.

The forensic reports that claim the birth certificate on Obama's web site is a hoax is also interesting and seems cautiously done.  I would be cautious.

I've known a number of lawyers that were poor in English skills and when in a hurry failed to even proof read.

The lawyer is a Clinton supporter which adds, suspicion.  But, he should be in a hurry if he is to help Clinton.

Or, he is really a Republican getting the paperwork done in an unbelievable way to stay low key

The life that Obama's mother seemed to lead with Muslim men adds some credence to the story.

It is possible that Obama didn't know about his half brother.  But then I don't really understand Muslims traditions.

I thought Obama said he was not proud of his half brother or something like that. 

I have no idea if this whole thing is true or coming from a Clinton supporter grabbing at straws.

It is just interesting to watch.

[thomasjordan]

You could be right, but the way you responded almost makes you sound like an Obama supporter.  No offense intended.  Not hardly.

I've heard that the Obama support team sent out people to disrupt Blogs negative to Obama.

But then we are too small for that to happen to us.  True, they have done that.

It is still interesting and I can understand the lawyers reluctance to give too much information too early.

People have died for doing less against the wishes of high level elitists.  That's been known to happen, even in this country.

The lawyer stated it was Republicans that first investigated the charges. 

If true, the republicans could be sitting on the information to limit the time Clinton's would have to campaign. I have heard nothing.  That doesn't mean it isn't true, but I doubt it.

The forensic reports that claim the birth certificate on Obama's web site is a hoax is also interesting and seems cautiously done.  I would be cautious.

I've known a number of lawyers that were poor in English skills and when in a hurry failed to even proof read.

The lawyer is a Clinton supporter which adds, suspicion.  But, he should be in a hurry if he is to help Clinton.

Or, he is really a Republican getting the paperwork done in an unbelievable way to stay low key

The life that Obama's mother seemed to lead with Muslim men adds some credence to the story.

It is possible that Obama didn't know about his half brother.  But then I don't really understand Muslims traditions.

I thought Obama said he was not proud of his half brother or something like that. 

I have no idea if this whole thing is true or coming from a Clinton supporter grabbing at straws.  I think it is a Clinton supporter grabbing at straws.

It is just interesting to watch.

Gwizz:

I think critically, and can usually argue either side of a situation.  I most definitely am not an Obama supporter, but I do not want to see him smeared by false claims of non-citizenship.  I do not believe that charge, if that website you provided is the only basis for the claim.

Rob

[Hawk]

This thread sparked my interest so I did a little Googleing and found some seemingly factual links.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977428212

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/is_barack_obama_a_us_citizen_y.html

I'm a little busy at the moment so I haven't had a chance to read every word at these links, or the subsequent links, but it would seem that the idea that Obama doesn't qualify to run for President is untrue.

Please understand, I am not an Obama supporter, but like Thomas, I don't much care for untruths being spread around, I don't care who it's about.

If we're going to talk about how sad it would be for Obama to be President, let's at least keep to the facts.  ;)

Nothing meant personal Gwizz.  ;D

[Gwizz]

Don't get me wrong.  I'm trying to look ahead.  With so much name calling on the net and no one really having the final facts, I just find it interesting to watch this whole thing play out.

With a Democratic court I believe Obama will be made a citizen even if he is not.  He may be a citizen.  I don't believe we know for sure yet.  I don't believe I should give a presidential candidate the benefit of the doubt.  The office is too important even for well intended charity.  Obama could allow the original birth certificate to be viewed.  So far he has refused. That alone is suspicious.

If Obama's birth certificate, the one on his web site,  is a forgery and some how the courts uphold the forensics conclusion that it came out of photo shop or some other computer program.

And, if the Radical Left radio station I was listening to, is correct that if Obama wins the election and then is removed by the courts, Pelosi could become the next President.  That would really be scary.

[Hawk]

Actually the pecking order is President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House.

So - if Obama does win, and for some reason can not complete his appointed task, the Vice-President would be the new President.

The Speaker of the House takes over of both the Pres. and V-Pres. can not complete their tasks.

[Gwizz]

They said the vote for the President is tied to the Vice President. If the new President was not qualified to hold office neither would be the vice president. Thus passing the Presidency to the Speaker of the House who was elected legally. 

That comment did surprised me.  I bet there would be a big debate if something like that did happen.

[Hawk]

They said the vote for the President is tied to the Vice President. If the new President was not qualified to hold office neither would be the vice president. Thus passing the Presidency to the Speaker of the House who was elected legally.

:O  That sucks!  :O

[thomasjordan]

Wrong.

"Amendment XII

(Ratified June 15, 1804)

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

It is convention, or tradition, that candidates run as pairs for President and Vice President.  The Constitution certainly does not require that.

Don't believe everything you hear on the radio or TV or read in the newpaper or the internet.  The odds are pretty it is at least slanted.  The internet makes it fairly easy to get to the truth.

Now, back to writing some more term papers.

[Gwizz]

I'm not sure where the quote ends.   Also, Lawyer legal-ease or old English are not alway easy to understand.

Question #1  If it is not required for these candidates to run as a pair,  (for President and Vice President together)  from what you posted it looks like it isn't.  Then, it might be possible for them to run separately and for us to get a Democratic Vice President and a Republican President or vice versa?  Has that ever happened?

Question #2  If a President and a vice President are running as a pair, as they normally do and they are elected, then, it is discovered that the President was not eligible to even run for president and is then removed by the court, what guarantee do we have that the Vice President would have received the same number of votes without his illegal partners support.  Vice Presidents are often a type of reverse lame duck who did not get nominated to run for the office of President.  It would seem there is a big hole in the law at this point.   

There seems to be some content law missing to fit the scenario given.  Since this scenario is all hypothetical at this point anyway, it really isn't important, until it is.

You are correct we can't trust anybody to know or even tell the truth.

The INTERNET seems to have the greatest potential for a good debate, the most lies and name calling. 

Having a good understanding of the law is important.  But then can we even trust the lawyers that wrote the laws. 

Good luck on your term papers. 

[thomasjordan]

1.  Yes, it happened several times in the early 1800s before the formal establishment of political parties and the paired running we have today.

2.  It wouldn't matter.  Constitutionally, the Electors vote separately for President and Vice President.  Just as George Bush received more electoral votes than John Kerry, Dick Cheney also received more electoral votes than John Edwards.

[Gwizz]

An interesting side note on the Democratic convention:

Fox News has a booth next to a very busy main hallway.

The convention organizers put a security booth with police and secret Service Men, in front of the Fox Booth.

Now, who was being protected, the news people or the politicians or both.