remembering, of course, that the same challenge was made of McCain and he then did immediately provide proof of his citizenship by birth according to the laws of this land, complete with Birth Cert, without fear of identity theft, since he provided it to the officials, not as an image for the public on a website which could hardly be considered proof of anything and certainly not in any legal context.

There is no "law" governing compliance with the rules of running for and becoming president of the US. There are only Constitutional requirements. One of which is to be natural born, something you prove with a Birth Certificate; something which Obama so far has not yet done in any form that anyone has sworn to have seen or witnessed or which any court or government agency has attested to. But as I said before, there is no law governing any of this so therefore there is no agency compelled to investigate. That’s why the former Assistant Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania, a life-long Democrat and Democrat Committee Chairperson filed suit asking that Obama provide the proof of citizenship as required by the Constitution, something you would think that the Democrat National Committee would have done. Yet none of them has come forward and said that Obama has met this requirement. On the subject they all remain silent; curious, to be sure. It was in August that the formal request was made in court and so far the federal judge presiding over the case has yet to render judgment. Apparently the federal judge thinks it might be a bit more than “made up” and not exactly “frivolous”. Especially since Obama's lawyers have four times tied up the court trying to have it thrown out and four times have failed to produce any documents or witnesses to demonstrate that they had a valid case for dismissal. Now that really is a waste of the court's time and taxpayer dollars.

Essentially, according to the evidence provided by Obama to which there are any willing witnesses (which is none so far), any foreign national could come here and become president and yet the Governor of California was denied that privilege since he was not born here, though he is now a citizen through naturalization. And though Obama was a citizen of Indonesia, there is no record of him ever regaining his US citizenship which he renounced to become a citizen of Indonesia, according to Indonesian law. To go to school in Indonesia as he did, you must first renounce all other citizenships. So even if he were born in the U.S., he still would have to have repatriated in order to now be a US citizen. None of those documents can be found either.

I’m telln’ ya.. this is gonna be one heck of a movie one day. Something along the lines of National Treasure, the movie about the theft of the Constitution, that document which I heard Obama declare is "flawed" since it fails to provide the means to remove wealth from the people that earned it and through "redistribution", put it in the pockets of those that didn't. A revolutionary thinker, for sure, he is. But not original, since Karl Marx made the same proposition a long time ago in an experiment that also failed.

BTW, the copy of the Cert Of Live Birth which was first provided on the Obama official web site as "proof" has since been taken down once the Adobe Photoshop signature was disclosed in the hex code of the image. Great plot material for any writer to drool over.

He broke his promise because he saw that he was getting more from donationa and would not be limited by the fixed amount spending provision required when taking funds provided by the Presidential Election Fund.  You know that the whole point of this bipartisan structure was to put candidates on as much an equal financial footing as possible.  As for your point about saving the country money for other uses, that is nonsense as the money is in a separate account and cannot be used for other uses.  The American tax payer already contributed the money so that all candudates would have equal financial resources."The U.S. Treasury then makes the actual payments from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. This fund consists of dollars voluntarily checked off by taxpayers on their federal income tax returns. (In 1993, the taxpayer checkoff was increased from $1 to $3. Public Law 103-66).  You do a disservice when you repeat Obama's excuse about saving the country money as his motivation.  In fact, a reasonable case can be made that it cost many STATES a great deal of tax revenues as although it is now illegal to deduct donation from your Federat tax, many states still allow the deduction of political donations from the state taxes due.

Any reasonable person would realize that to believe that he "changed his mind" for the sake of the country's finances rather for his campaign's finacial gain is a stretch to say the least to put it as delicately as possible.  He agreed in writing to use the public fund and its rules.  When it became clear that he could raise more on his own, he did the politically expediate thing and tossed his commitment aside.  This simply makes him just like any other politician whose word means nothing unless it is to his own benefit, hardly a "new way for Washington and change we need".

One of the unfortunate things about a thread like this is that both sides will defend any and everything their chosen candidate does with one rationalization after another.  Had this situation been the other way around, I am sure that many would have blasted McCain for trying to buy the election with all his rich cronies and being unfair to the poor black candidate who did not have the finances to match their wealth and had to take public financing.  Rationalization is indeed a funny thing.  The bipartisan Presidential Election Fund was set up so that any candidate, rich or poor, would have a chance to be elected and limit as much as possible that he/she with the most money wins.  This by the way had overwheming liberal support.  Now you would have us believe that it is the patriotic thing to do to not participate in the program.   Just a matter of moral convenience I imagine.

And it's based on greed: The greed of the CEO's who buy the "care" for the workers, the lack of choice and monopoly of the Insurance co.'s, the greed of the stockholders in the Ins. Co. for their dividends to be higher on the backs of their brothers and their stupidity in not realizing "what goes around comes around". The faulty ethics of a situation where an MD makes a 'deal' to get more patients who he gets payed an 'incentive bonus' not to see...and their stupidity (fear based) in not realizing this drives reimbursement downward causing them to see more and more people to try and 'break even' causing people to feel they're cattle on a production line.

All this has to stop: things have to be reevaluated! I have been protesting this for years yet my voice is "crying out in the wilderness" of 'let's make a deal' and 'greed is good'.

PLEASE! Someone...just one person...hear what I'm saying!

I hear you Doc and I KNOW this to be true as I have a top notch vascular surgeon who is a friend.  Everyone thinks the doctors are getting on the money in this nonsense and that is simply not the case.  He recently did a anuerism fix(vein replacement) that took 2 hours as the anuerism had embolized.  He got paid $1500 for the surgery as that is what the contract calls for whether it takes a 1/2 hour or 4 hours.  (Actually, if it takes too long he is supposed to remove the leg rather than spend the time trying to fix it as sad as that may sound). He forgets the money and does what he can to save the leg.

Anyway, he got paid $2500 for the same procedure ten years ago! Of course the hospital bill for the procedure was $76,000.00 in this case so it sure as hell isn't the surgeon ( and the most important guy) making the bucks here.

500!

Spread the Karma around!
I have taken it upon my self to spread the Karma around equally. All posters are equal. Of course  some posters are more equal and they received more Karma than the less equal posters. That's how they do it, in case you didn't know.

If I missed anyone, I'm sorry. Caustic venom of the liberal spitting worm got on my note pad and some names were lost.

Island Dog, I agree with you about the rockstar status of Obama. First of all I would like to say that I don't entirly like McCain, you see I am what you probably would describe as a conservitive independent. I believe we (the people) should work to get rid of the Democrats and Republicans no one political party should have the power they have. While this won't chande the outcome of the election this year we have four years to look for alternatives to this stagnation. Remember Obama and McCain= More of the same

“According to Federal Election Commission documents filed by the Obama campaign, Onyango (Obama's Auntie, in the US illegally from Kenya) has contributed $260 to Obama over a period of time. Under federal election law, only U.S. citizens or green-card holders are legally permitted to give money to campaigns. Onyango, who listed her employer as the Boston Housing Authority, gave in small increments to the Obama campaign. Her latest contribution was $5 on Sept. 19.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081101/ap_on_el_pr/obama_aunt

The issue of Obama's birth certificate was put to rest yesterday. Hawaii has officially stated that they have an original birth certificate and the Ohio and Pennsylvania lawsuits were dropped.

Or maybe old and white haired means "born during an economic period when things aren't as ruthlessly competitive as they are now, therefore was easier to climb the ladder to success."  My parents grew up in a time when a person could get a well-paying job without a high school diploma.  Now a person needs a bachelor's degree just to take an entry level position!  My parents both retired with a pension provided by their employer.  If I ever want to retire, I'm suppose to provide for my own "golden-age" (ROFLMAO) with a 401K (one of these days I might get lucky enough to find an employer that matches funds), IRA, etc.

Here's the thing.  Without my disguise, I could be labeled an old, white haired coot.  (I'll be 50 next month, but I dye my hair, and I'm fighting "cootism" with every fiber of my being.)  I don't believe that someone who came of age before the 70's has any kind of experience that would provide them with insight into what would consistitute as a mistake before it's made!  It was an extremely different world back then; the US wasn't a global empire, things weren't near as competitive, "families" weren't as transient.  If we thawed out a caveman, he'd be extremely old and experienced...would that make him fit to decide what's best for our future right now?

assume that I'm open minded and a possible fence sitter.....please list the things you believe make Obama "fit to decide what's best for my future right now" I'm interested in his qulaifications, not rhetoric but actual qualifications via experience.

http://obamasresume.org/

Experienced at what? Making a fire or grunting. Those that did 'come of age' before the 70's didn't stop learning after the 70's so they also experienced the 'global empire', the 'competion' has always been there and the 'familes' attitude has changed drastically in the past two generations.

Take for example one poster here referring to his grandmother as a "racist b*tch". My generation wouldn't think of calling any woman a b*tch - even Hillary.

Perhaps if the me-me-me generation would have a bit more respect for their fellow man and woman all of us could get along better.

I hear you... I am a proud Conservative in a ridiculously liberal university. I don't trust Obama to make intelligent decisions as his decision making has obviously been flawed in the past. (Wife who disrespects America, Pastor who hates America, and very good friend who wishes he had used more bombs in previous years.) Next thing you know, Osama Bin Laden, Hugo Chavez and company will be on Obama's staff. (Kidding, of course.)

I really don't think Obama is ready to run this country. I don't understand what everyone sees in him. Anyone want to clarify why they are voting for Obama?

Awesome good news.

Now I'm left wondering if, having had to relinquish his US citizenship to be allowed, legally, to go to school in Indonesia, a requirement at the time that he was there, does the US State Department now have a record of his repatriation.