Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

[politicalfootballfan]

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

Today, the United States Supreme Court scheduled the case - Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 (http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm) - for a conference of the nine Justices. The conference is a completely private affair and the public may not attend. If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled. The conference is scheduled for December 5, 2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College.

The case originally sought, pre-election, to have the names of Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero removed from New Jersey ballots, and for a stay of the “national election” pending Supreme Court review of whether those candidates were eligible under the Constitution as natural born Citizens, as is required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.

Leo Donofrio brought his case from a lower New Jersey court to the NJ Supreme Court - was denied - and then he filed an emergency stay application in the United States Supreme Court on Nov. 3, 2008, before the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter. Justice Souter denied the emergency stay application on Nov. 6.

Leo Donofrio renewed the application, as per Supreme Court Rule 22.4, to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by way of Express mail on Nov. 14. The application arrived at the Supreme Court on Nov. 17 and was submitted directly to Justice Thomas.

On Nov. 19, the case was docketed for full conference of all nine Justices and scheduled for December 5, 2008.

[blazespinnaker]

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

"Link to a story by a credible source"

[politicalfootballfan]

"Link to a story by a credible source"

The originally posted link
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

is plaintiff's (a NJ lawyer) website who brought original case to the NJ Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court against NJ Sec of State. All original court documents are posted on that site

Supreme Court docket link (from supremecourt.gov web site) was also provided in original post
US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 (http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm)


Mainstream media is not yet following this matter, hence, there are no other sources available other than the petitioner and the court.

[blazespinnaker]

The originally posted link
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

is plaintiff's (a NJ lawyer) website who brought original case to the NJ Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court against NJ Sec of State. All original court documents are posted on that site

Supreme Court docket link (from supremecourt.gov web site) was also provided in original post
US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 (http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm)


Mainstream media is not yet following this matter, hence, there are no other sources available other than the petitioner and the court.

Whups! Sorry.

[vinoveri]

interesting, but inconsequential.

anyone born on sovereign territory of the U.S. (whether it be in a state, possession, U.S. ship, or foreign embassy) is automatically a citizen of the U.S. at least as I understand it.

Obama being born in Hawaii leaves no question as to him being a naturally born citizen.

[hellstan]

interesting, but inconsequential.

anyone born on sovereign territory of the U.S. (whether it be in a state, possession, U.S. ship, or foreign embassy) is automatically a citizen of the U.S. at least as I understand it.

Obama being born in Hawaii leaves no question as to him being a naturally born citizen.

Yes, but there is one huge caveat, he's Black, and as racism doesn't exist in the US

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/292319-3/MaineNews/Racial_slurs_on_rise/
http://www.960werc.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=104707&article=4594508
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8046549
http://www.diversityinc.com/public/4795.cfm

etc.

surely no jerk can bother a supreme court with false pretense and petty proceedings.:D

[politicalfootballfan]

anyone born on sovereign territory of the U.S. (whether it be in a state, possession, U.S. ship, or foreign embassy) is automatically a citizen of the U.S. at least as I understand it.

Obama being born in Hawaii leaves no question as to him being a naturally born citizen.

You contradicted yourself here, one has to be a Natural Born Citizen to become President of the USA, per the US Constitution. There are many ways to become a citizen of the U.S., but only one way to become a Natural Born Citizen.

The case claims that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because his father was a subject of the British Monarchy at the time of Obama's birth, making Obama a British subject. Obama's place of birth is irrelevant in this case, per the petitioner's claims.

Yes, but there is one huge caveat, he's Black, and as racism doesn't exist in the US

The case filed by the petitioner is actually against the NJ Secretary of State for including 3 ineligible candidates on the ballot, including Obama, McCain and a minor 3rd Party candidate. All, per the petitioner claims, are NOT Natural Born Citizens of the USA.

[we_are_toast]

This story is being reported in left blogs also.

The Court needs to hear the case to laugh it out of court and finally put and end to all this right wing B.S. Clearly, as Bush has shown, the Right Wing simply does not believe in nor understand the principles of Democracy.

But... the speculation of what would happen if the Court did the unthinkable again, can lead to unthinkable consequences.

[politicalfootballfan]

This story is being reported in left blogs also.

The Court needs to hear the case to laugh it out of court and finally put and end to all this right wing B.S. Clearly, as Bush has shown, the Right Wing simply does not believe in nor understand the principles of Democracy.

But... the speculation of what would happen if the Court did the unthinkable again, can lead to unthinkable consequences.

While I don't want to appear naive here, it may not be a left-right issue, as the Supreme Court's ruling could simultaneously affect the standing of McCain as well as Obama, as the Petitioner claims that neither candidate meets the Constitutional test of Natural Born Citizen.

[hellstan]

You contradicted yourself here, one has to be a Natural Born Citizen to become President of the USA, per the US Constitution. There are many ways to become a citizen of the U.S., but only one way to become a Natural Born Citizen.

The case claims that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because his father was a subject of the British Monarchy at the time of Obama's birth, making Obama a British subject. Obama's place of birth is irrelevant in this case, per the petitioner's claims.



The case filed by the petitioner is actually against the NJ Secretary of State for including 3 ineligible candidates on the ballot, including Obama, McCain and a minor 3rd Party candidate. All, per the petitioner claims, are NOT Natural Born Citizens of the USA.

Window dressing. :mad:
Plain racism masqueraded in a "balanced" claim.
Lucifer is in the details.

[Tulpen]

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
A big waste of time and money for this obviously frivolous case.

[WDCRob]

Over/under on the length of the conference: 15 seconds

[hellstan]

A big waste of time and money for this obviously frivolous case.

I propose Mr. Donofrio shall be heavily fined for wasting people's and state money in a time when it's much needed elsewhere.
"They're rednecks, rednecks, they don't know their *** from a whole in the ground."
Lovely song… very up to date.

[politicalfootballfan]

Window dressing. :mad:
Plain racism masqueraded in a "balanced" claim.
Lucifer is in the details.

Fyi...it was SC Justice Thomas (an African American) who chose to Conference the case.


A big waste of time and money for this obviously frivolous case.

The SC Justices could have easily refused to Conference this case if they felt it was frivolous.


Fyi...more from the petitioner's website about the merits of his claim:

Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen "at birth", just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be President.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens". Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President;


The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as "natural born Citizens", so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between "natural born Citizens" and all other "Citizens". And that's why it's important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of "Citizen", not "natural born Citizen". The Framers were Citizens, but they weren't natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.

Since the the Framers didn't consider themselves to have been "natural born Citizens" due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.

I find this to be an interesting Constitutional issue that has never been litigated...... Natural Born Citizenship has not been previously challenged at the SC. To simply scoff at the matter is to dismiss the significance of Constitutional interpretation. Perhaps the SCJ's will dismiss the matter at the Conference, but the matter has merit and should be heard and decided appropriately, within the framework of our Constitutional government.

[hellstan]

Fyi...it was SC Justice Thomas (an African American) who chose to Conference the case.




The SC Justices could have easily refused to Conference this case if they felt it was frivolous.


Fyi...more from the petitioner's website about the merits of his claim:



I find this to be an interesting Constitutional issue that has never been litigated...... Natural Born Citizenship has not been previously challenged at the SC. To simply scoff at the matter is to dismiss the significance of Constitutional interpretation. Perhaps the SCJ's will dismiss the matter at the Conference, but the matter has merit and should be heard and decided appropriately, within the framework of our Constitutional government.

You really think that matter should be urgently decided now by the SC ?
You really think you ought to create a Constitutional brawl just now ?
You really think there is no agenda there ?
Either you're naive or punctilious.
Besides, create now a doubt over the legitimacy of your new president
would really be a mastermind's shot.
You people must have gone mad : the plane has two engines in flames, the pilot is doing bravely, but you discuss over the fine prints on his license. Have a nice crash everybody.

[BrianL]

I'm confused.

I thought people born in the US were automatically granted US citizenship. That is also suggested by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_Ame rica

I haven't verified the validity of the wikipedia info, but it matches what I've heard in the past.

[we_are_toast]

This is a demonstration of how the right wing thinks. Let's reinterpret the constitution so we can bastardize the democratic process and keep a hold on power. No wonder they torture people and hold them without trial.

If people born in the United States are not natural born citizens, who is?


14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[hellstan]

http://fightthesmears.com/img/factcheckorg_logo.gif “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

825

http://fightthesmears.com/behind_the_smears

[politicalfootballfan]

You really think that matter should be urgently decided now by the SC ?
You really think you ought to create a Constitutional brawl just now ?
You really think there is no agenda there ?
Either you're naive or punctilious.
Besides, create now a doubt over the legitimacy of your new president
would really be a mastermind's shot.
You people must have gone mad : the plane has two engines in flames, the pilot is doing bravely, but you discuss over the fine prints on his license. Have a nice crash everybody.

You really think that matter should be urgently decided now by the SC?
You really think you ought to create a Constitutional brawl just now?

Better to address the matter now than have it affect the legitimacy of President's next term.

You really think there is no agenda there ?

I don't have enough information to know yet, but most likely there is an agenda that we do not yet see.

Besides, create now a doubt over the legitimacy of your new president
would really be a mastermind's shot.

As said above, this should rectify issues of doubt before the electors meet on Dec 15. By the way, the electors are bound to uphold the US Constitution, so the Supreme Court's decision should bind their actions.

You people must have gone mad

Quite frankly, i think those are mad who think that the new President, whether it be Obama or McCain will: (i) significantly alter the course that this nation is on, or (ii) represent the will of the people.

I'm confused.

I thought people born in the US were automatically granted US citizenship. That is also suggested by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_Ame rica

I haven't verified the validity of the wikipedia info, but it matches what I've heard in the past.

As I understand it US Citizenship is a different issue and not relevant to the requirements for becoming President. What is important here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen, which I understand is currently defined as an individual who is born on US soil to two parents, both having US Citizenship at the time of the child's birth. Hopefully, we will get clarification for the US Supreme Court after this matter is heard on the 5th.

[politicalfootballfan]

http://fightthesmears.com/img/factcheckorg_logo.gif “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”Per the petitioner, the relevant facts are found in the highlight portion of this statement. As Barak's father was NOT a US Citizen at the time of Barak's birth, it is claimed that Barak is not a Natural Born Citizen.

This is my understanding as explained by the lawyer filing the case. Obama's birth certificate is not relevant, per his claims.

I'm going to bow-out of this thread and wait to hear how the US SC rules on this matter. I was intrigued about this case when I first learned of it this week and thought that this is something the forum members at iTulip would want to be made aware of. We can all speculate about this matter until we are blue-in-the-face, but it is in the hands of the SC Justices now. I sincerely hope this doesn't end in another Constitutional crisis.

[DemonD]

What is important here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen, which I understand is currently defined as an individual who is born on US soil to two parents, both having US Citizenship at the time of the child's birth.

From Wiki:

The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." In addition George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If Washington disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill.

So what the US Supreme court is deciding on is a piece of legislation that is 218 years old!

There have been other legal decisions recently that make your "belief" patently false. The above Act basically ratifies that any child born of a US citizen or on US soil is a "natural born citizen." The constitution does not define your "belief," but the above mentioned Act does. Any consideration otherwise would be casting into doubt over two centuries of legal precedent, and, morally, I believe would be completely wrong (not just for Obama but for McCain and anyone else born of american parents but not on american soil, or any other permutation).

That you cannot see this as a direct ploy by a right-winged racist leads me to believe that you probably should be a bit more careful with what you read and believe.

[hellstan]

From Wiki:


So what the US Supreme court is deciding on is a piece of legislation that is 218 years old!

There have been other legal decisions recently that make your "belief" patently false. The above Act basically ratifies that any child born of a US citizen or on US soil is a "natural born citizen." The constitution does not define your "belief," but the above mentioned Act does. Any consideration otherwise would be casting into doubt over two centuries of legal precedent, and, morally, I believe would be completely wrong (not just for Obama but for McCain and anyone else born of american parents but not on american soil, or any other permutation).

That you cannot see this as a direct ploy by a right-winged racist leads me to believe that you probably should be a bit more careful with what you read and believe.

I would not say better.
The aim of those despicable plaintiffs is to sow doubts in public's mind - and they visibly succeeded, even in this forum.:mad:
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
Francois Marie Arouet (aka Voltaire)

[politicalfootballfan]

From Wiki:


So what the US Supreme court is deciding on is a piece of legislation that is 218 years old!

There have been other legal decisions recently that make your "belief" patently false. The above Act basically ratifies that any child born of a US citizen or on US soil is a "natural born citizen." The constitution does not define your "belief," but the above mentioned Act does. Any consideration otherwise would be casting into doubt over two centuries of legal precedent, and, morally, I believe would be completely wrong (not just for Obama but for McCain and anyone else born of american parents but not on american soil, or any other permutation).

That you cannot see this as a direct ploy by a right-winged racist leads me to believe that you probably should be a bit more careful with what you read and believe.

If you're going to attack a poster, at least quote relevant legislation:

The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." In addition George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If Washington disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill. You're quote is not applicable in this matter. Obama's dad was a British Citizen, not a US Citizen (at least this is one of the claims being made to the SC).

Children of non-US citizens are not Natural Born US Citizens, even if they are born on US Soil.

With respect to your mean spirited "you probably should be a bit more careful with what you read and believe" comment, perhaps you are projecting, especially given your inappropriate interpretation of above legislation.

P.S. You know, I really wanted to bow-out of this thread, but I'm not going to sit back and be demeaned, especially when those doing the demeaning are either disrespectful of the Constitution, irrespective of its age, or are unable to appropriate interpret and apply the relevant legal precedents.

[hellstan]

If the result had been reversed, McCain being today President-elect,
do you think, in conscience, and would you dare to state it here,
that those despicable manœuvers would go on like that ?
Give us a break. :rolleyes::D

[WDCRob]

I'm really torn on this one.

Having a conservative party that's completely loopy and believes only the things it hears in its own insulated echo chamber is good fun, and now that their era has ended will help insure that they are relegated to the deep wilderness for a long time.

On the other hand, democracy is well served by having a strong opposition and I'm sick of seeing outright lunacy treated with respect. (And the fact that Clarence Thomas takes up your cause after another justice has rejected it shouldn't exactly reassure you about its merits).

[politicalfootballfan]

I would not say better.
The aim of those despicable plaintiffs is to sow doubts in public's mind - and they visibly succeeded, even in this forum.:mad:
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
Francois Marie Arouet (aka Voltaire)

If the result had been reversed, McCain being today President-elect,
do you think, in conscience, and would you dare to state it here,
that those despicable manœuvers would go on like that ?
Give us a break. :rolleyes::D

You obviously have absolutely no real political or legal experience. Both sides are as ruthless as each other, and any comment to the contrary is extraordinarily naive and false.

In any event, this case is against McCain as well, with similar claims. If the SC rules in the plaintiff's favor, both candidates will be found to be ineligible.

But let's stick to the Constitution and the legal merits of this case, rather than devolving into some childish political rants attempting to disguise itself as adult discussion.

[DemonD]

My apologies. The correct legislation is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (with the origins of course going back to 1790).

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=da248c219560fda2f17211a6e6dfb 763

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;


What this person is doing is using a legal technicality by saying a "natural born citizen" is not a "citizen at birth." Morally and ethically I find this reprehensible, and all judges to this point have found that this argument holds no merit. The fact is there is no where in any legal statute or constitution that defines the term "natural born citizen." Because his argument has already been thrown out, the legal precedent has been set that "natural born citizen" = "citizen at birth." Because Thomas has brought it to the table, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to maintain this precedent.

Let's review, then:

What is important here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen, which I understand is currently defined as an individual who is born on US soil to two parents, both having US Citizenship at the time of the child's birth.

You have no legal basis to "understand" this definition as such, because there is no law, and has never been a law that has ever defined "natural born citizen" in such a manner.

[hellstan]

You obviously have absolutely no real political or legal experience. Both sides are as ruthless as each other, and any comment to the contrary is extraordinarily naive and false.

In any event, this case is against McCain as well, with similar claims. If the SC rules in the plaintiff's favor, both candidates will be found to be ineligible.

But let's stick to the Constitution and the legal merits of this case, rather than devolving into some childish political rants attempting to disguise itself as adult discussion.

Dear Clarence,
Prattler's haughtiness of the jurists, as we say here.
Disguising futile pretense under legal rags, and drawing flimsy authority from such a fraud.
I have no political experience indeed, but have been instrumental in the career of at least two prominent European politicians.
Since Drumont, Gobineau and Daudet, extreme-right always have founded its ideology in Blut und Boden discourse, even in its "modern" avatars, and you don't fail to do so - even using the Constitution when convenient.
Clarence, as you're "naive" enough (meaning perverse) to hope the SC will give room to those childish judicial reveries, I'll leave you the so-called merits of this case - and the football - and Lenin. :D

[WDCRob]

There was never any other outcome possible despite what you might have heard if you get your 'news' from right wing nutjobs:

08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.

[babbittd]

There was never any other outcome possible despite what you might have heard if you get your 'news' from right wing nutjobs:

08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.

From the WaPo:

Right-wing blogs were outraged when Justice David H. Souter denied Donofrio's petition for an injunction, and left-wing blogs smelled trouble when Justice Clarence Thomas referred the matter to the full court for consideration.

In fact, both were routine procedures, as the court's action today shows. There were no recorded dissents to the decision dismissing the case.

The left-right paradigm is not representative of political reality.

Follow the money - not the surface ideologies.

[we_are_toast]

http://www.freep.com/article/20081208/NEWS15/81208033/1215

If you can't get the most conservative, crazy, court in a hundred years to even hear the case, it says a lot about just how silly it was.

[WDCRob]

Actually Justice Thomas taking up the case for conference after another Justice had already rejected it is not common at all.

And while it's true that no ideology's filter is 'the one...'

The Washington Post just insists on equivalence without regard for who is right and who is wrong. If the right wingers are upset for no reason it must be shown that the left wingers are upset without cause as well.

Balance >>>>>>> Truth

[babbittd]

Actually Justice Thomas taking up the case for conference after another Justice had already rejected it is not common at all.

Is that so? I stand corrected. Still think the left/right is mostly phony as are most of the aspects of the campaign rhetoric....If anyone cares to discuss, I could go on and on for days, but here are two points:

Obama's "STUNNING" move towards the center with regards to the rhetoric that was used during the campaign (eat the rich and the oil companies).

Biden and Clinton telling us over and over that Obama was ill-prepared, that his foreign policy ideas are junk and than eagerly jumping at the chance for high level posts under him.

[WDCRob]

Sounds like what you don't like is 'politics' Babbit :)

[babbittd]

Sounds like what you don't like is 'politics' Babbit :)

You're right, the whole thing makes me sick.

[tombat1913]

This is a demonstration of how the right wing thinks. Let's reinterpret the constitution so we can bastardize the democratic process and keep a hold on power. No wonder they torture people and hold them without trial.

Would you quit this left wing right wing crap? If you don't pull your head out of the sand and realize that these two parties are two hands on the same body that really governs us then you'll never really grasp what's actually going on here.

If you really think the left and right are that different look at the people tortured by the CIA during the blue administrations. Go to the DOD website and look at how many american soldiers died during the last 10 administrations. Clinton's numbers top Bush's by far and your buddy Jimmy Carter heads the list. WAKE UP! It's two management teams bidding for the CEO job of tyranny incorporated. The only thing protecting us from the bastards is us defending our rights. You people point your finger at the righties who think the constitution is somehow irrevlevant during terror threats, but the constitution is somehow racist when you win an election.

You people must have gone mad : the plane has two engines in flames, the pilot is doing bravely, but you discuss over the fine prints on his license. Have a nice crash everybody.
The Obama crowd are the ones who've gone mad, you think this guy is going to fly the plane and save us from the evil republicans? You think this guy represents change? You tool around this forum so I have to assume you know something about economics, if you know even a little bit you should be fully aware that the promises that guy made to the American people during his campaign are F-ing impossible! Which means he's full of s#!+ like the rest of them. A bunch of Clinton cabinet sloppy seconds, and CFR/Trilateral Comission/Bilderberg cronies is not change. A young senator who upholds his oath of office and follows the constitution 20% of the time when he even bothers to vote at all is not change.

[WDCRob]

You're right, the whole thing makes me sick.

Beats shooting each other in the street.

[ggirod]

This discussion is from Salon (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/)

Dec. 5, 2008 | Barack Obama can't be president: He wasn't really born in Hawaii, and the certification of live birth (http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate) his campaign released is a forgery. He was born in Kenya. Or maybe Indonesia. Or, wait, maybe he was born in Hawaii -- but that doesn't matter, since he was also a British citizen at birth because of his father, and you can't be a "natural-born citizen" in that case. (But then, maybe his "father" wasn't really his father; maybe his real dad was an obscure communist poet. Or Malcolm X. (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/10/31/obama_malcolm/))
You might think these rumors would have died off after Obama produced proof in June that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii to an American citizen, his mother, Ann, or after Hawaii state officials confirmed in October that he was born there. You might think the rumors would have died off after he was elected by a comfortable margin. Instead, they've intensified. There have been paid advertisements (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-ad-03-dec03,0,3124041.story) in the Chicago Tribune questioning the president-elect's birth certificate and eligibility, and one group is raising money (http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82523) to run a similar ad on television. The right-wing Web site WorldNetDaily has been reporting on the issue almost nonstop. Numerous plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in various states. And Friday, the Supreme Court's nine justices will decide whether they want to hear one of those suits, which also contends that John McCain, born in the former Panama Canal Zone, does not meet the Constitution's requirements to hold the presidency.
And, my favorite quote from the article is

But according to several experts in conspiracy theories, and in the psychology of people who believe in conspiracy theories, there's little chance those people who think Obama is barred from the presidency will ever be convinced otherwise. "There's no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody's mind," says Michael Shermer, who is the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a columnist for Scientific American, and who holds an undergraduate and a master's degree in psychology. "The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it ... Once you're committed, especially behaviorally committed or financially committed, the more impossible it becomes to change your mind."Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. People who believe in a conspiracy theory "develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence," Chip Berlet, a senior analyst with Political Research Associates who studies such theories, says. "As soon as you criticize a conspiracy theory, you become part of the conspiracy."
There is more in the article, but it all has to be read to be appreciated. I hope maybe this can put the topic to rest.

Signed,

Part Of The Conspiracy